Over spring-break (for me, last week) I read OSC’s Saints. I’d started it before, but I didn’t finish. This was a while ago and I think I wasn’t ready for it. This time, I read it avidly, all the way through, and it’s raised some questions for me. Currently I’m my own specific brand of agnostic; but I’m starting to look now and I want to get a few questions answered. I’ve forgotten a lot of the ones I’d come up with, so probably I’ll have a few more later.
Many religions are based purely on faith, saying that if there was definitive proof of God there would be no faith. I’m curious why faith is necessary, why God can’t show Himself so that all will know the true path?
I also have a specific LDS question about marriage. Saints talked about celestial marriages in which husband and wife would be together not only in life but also after death. When polygamy was renounced by The Church, does this principle still hold? If so, can people re-marry if their spouse dies? Also, while I’m on marriage, how does LDS handle divorce?
I’m curious what happens after death in Mormonism. Basically all I know is that souls still have free will and wait for the Second Coming. Does this mean that they can not go to Heaven until the Second Coming? Any other specific details would be nice too.
As a general religious question, how does the soul and the brain interact? Is the brain a physical manifestation of the soul or does the should use the brain or control it or something else? Also, how does it relate to an accident that will injure your brain, and how does it to relate to when you die and your brain no longer functions?
One final LDS question, I understand that before we come to Earth, we exist as intelligences (is that the right word?) some where else. We then have the choice of coming to Earth or not. What to we gain by making this choice, and if we don’t choose it, what to we lose?
I know that this is a lot of questions, and I hope to one gets offended by them. I really am looking into this seriously, to trying to convince anyone but myself. Thank-you all
Hobbes Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Given my recent conversion, I will soon have the answers for you... Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Can I come to the baptismal?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hobbes, these are very good questions. I think whether or not this is an appropriate place to answer depends on how well we keep our heads in your thread. I can't even start answering all of them (am at work), but I could do one or two.
quote:Saints talked about celestial marriages in which husband and wife would be together not only in life but also after death. When polygamy was renounced by The Church, does this principle still hold?
Yes. Polygamy is not currently practiced, but all the sealings were valid, and will be so after (if everyone lives up to what they promised, of course.)
quote: If so, can people re-marry if their spouse dies?
Yes. My father is sealed to both my mother, who died, and my stepmother.
This is hard for me. I have consoled myself with (1) "Heck, it's heaven. I'm sure the Lord will work it all out", and (in angrier moments) (2) "There's no way my dad is making it to the celestial kingdom anyway, so it doesn't matter." *grin* Between the two, it's okay.
quote:Also, while I’m on marriage, how does LDS handle divorce?
Civil divorces are obtained civilly in the normal manner. A temple divorce is a huge deal taking a few years to accomplish, and is not done lightly. It requires approval by the First Presidency. It is a very big deal.
The divorce rate in the church is about U.S. average. The divorce rate for couples sealed in the temple is signifigantly lower, I think. The divorce rate for part-member families is higher, I think. But I am not sure of the statistics.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*casually bumps DB into the water* Hey! He's in! Someone catch!
Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
:: looks around th baptisml font. :::
hey this isnt a hot tub.
:: watchs as DB falls in ::
well david snce were both here.
;O)
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think a funny joke to play on the person who was baptizing you would be to thrash wildly right as he put you down, then just go real limp and float around.
Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
s agood thing i wasn't drinking aything wheni read the above post.
LOL
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote: Civil divorces are obtained civilly in the normal manner. A temple divorce is a huge deal taking a few years to accomplish, and is not done lightly. It requires approval by the First Presidency. It is a very big deal.
Actually, although it is a very big deal, it doesn't take all that long. I got my letter from the First Presidency less than a month after I applied for my temple divorce. A temple divorce does require serious grounds (abuse, abandonment etc) however, not simply "it didn't work...we grew apart" kind of stuff.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Standard Disclaimer: All of my responses are, of course, from my own understand and perspective and may not be representative of all LDS people.
quote:When polygamy was renounced by The Church, does this principle [eternal marriage] still hold? If so, can people re-marry if their spouse dies? Also, while I’m on marriage, how does LDS handle divorce?
katharina answered the first and third questions in there. When I was married to slacker (in an LDS temple), we were not just married ('till death do you part), but we were sealed. Sealing refers to forming lasting famlial bonds, which (dependant on our own faithfulness) can extend past death and into the eternities. When a couple is sealed, children born to them (after the sealing has taken place) are considered to have been born "sealed" to their parents - in that the entire family (not just the marriage) can exist as a unit for eternity. Couples that are sealed after having children usually have those children sealed to them to solidify that eternal famlial relationship.
People who have previously sealed to someone can remarry (either after a divorse or death of their spouse). My aunt remarried after her first husband (who she was sealed to) died. I know of many men who have remarried after their wife died.
Divorce is considered to be serious thing (whether civil or religious) - not something to be taken lightly. That being said, divorce is not a sin. No LDS person should ever be looked down upon for being divorced (notice the italics, what should happen isn't always what actually happens ).
quote:I’m curious what happens after death in Mormonism. Basically all I know is that souls still have free will and wait for the Second Coming. Does this mean that they can not go to Heaven until the Second Coming? Any other specific details would be nice too.
Since there aren't the classical definitions of heaven and hell in LDS theology it's difficult to answer. As I understand it, after the millenium (thousand-year period of peace and righteousness ushered in by Christ's second coming) the final judgement will take place. Prior to the final judgement, people will be waiting in either spirit prison or paradise until they are resurrected. After the final judgement, people will be assigned to one of 4 places - Celestial Kingdom, Telestial Kingdom, or Terrestrial Kingdom (all of which could be considered heavens), or Outer Darkness. I think there was a description given of these 4 different places in one of the other threads, but let me know if you'd like me to elaborate. So, I guess the answer depends on what you mean by "heaven".
quote:As a general religious question, how does the soul and the brain interact? Is the brain a physical manifestation of the soul or does the should use the brain or control it or something else? Also, how does it relate to an accident that will injure your brain, and how does it to relate to when you die and your brain no longer functions?
To an LDS person, "soul" refers to the united body and spirit. The way I think of it (the spirit/body relationship) is that the spirit is the animating force to the physical body. It is what controls it and makes it alive. As long as you are alive, the spirit is present.
quote:One final LDS question, I understand that before we come to Earth, we exist as intelligences (is that the right word?) some where else. We then have the choice of coming to Earth or not. What to we gain by making this choice, and if we don’t choose it, what to we lose?
We all existed as distinct, pre-existant intelligences (I don't quite myself understand how or why or where). Then, at some point in time, God gave us all spirit bodies - we were born his spirit children. As his spirit children, he presented us his plan for us to progress. We had the choice whether to agree to this plan and come to earth to be tested. Those who agreed to God's plan are all the people who ever were and ever will be born on earth. Those who did not agree to God's plan are those who chose to follow Satan (who was named Lucifer, one of our spirit brothers). When he was expelled from God's presence (for disobedience) those who followed him were expelled with him. They will never receive a physical body and have the opportunity for progression the rest of us have. So, in choosing to come to earth we get a body to keep (irrespective of what we choose to do once we get it, we will all be resurrected) and have the opportunity to progress further to become like God (dependant on our choices and actions).
Whew! I hope that all made sense, or if not, that it didn't muddle things further.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Actually, although it is a very big deal, it doesn't take all that long. I got my letter from the First Presidency less than a month after I applied for my temple divorce. A temple divorce does require serious grounds (abuse, abandonment etc) however, not simply "it didn't work...we grew apart" kind of stuff.
Really? It took my stepmom almost two years. *puzzled* Maybe she didn't get around to it for a while.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
This is because, as has been discussed ad nauseum on this board actually, we are here to learn how to live by faith. If faith wasn't needed than we wouldn't have need of this world. And the reason we need to learn how to live by faith is to learn how to act for ourselves on our own terms. In other words, we are here to grow up. However, we believe that the witness of the Holy Ghost is the ultimate proof that no amount of evidence can trump.
Polygamy has never been renounced by the Church. The Practice has been discontinued and sometimes both members and the Church act as if it has been renounced, but the revelation authorizing it has never been rejected. In fact, that same revelation about polygamy is used as authorizing Temple marriages of any kind. And, as was already said, men can still marry more than one wife in the Temple so long as there is no living wives. From what I know there are very few of these forms of marriages happening. The government might be able to legislate this life, but they can't the afterlife.
more later . . .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:From what I know there are very few of these forms of marriages happening.
You mean very few men with second sealings? There are probably a great many more than you realize, I think.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Let me clarify a little bit. Jettboy said that "polygamy has not been renounced" ... and he's right in the sense that the Church hasn't said, "We never should have done it." It was commanded by the Lord at the time, and though many individuals have come up with persuasive reasons why the commandment might have been given, it really just comes down to the fact that God told Joseph Smith to start the practice, and then allowed Wilford Woodruff (was it Woodruff, or am I misremembering?) to discontinue it.
But there is a very strongly-worded passage in the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon that explicitly states that unless God commands you to participate in polygamy, you should treat it as an abomination and avoid it at all costs. So since God no longer commands Mormons to take multiple wives, it is our responsibility to stand against it wherever it crops up.
On the subject of the choice that we made as intelligences, it boils down to this: We could go to Earth and become something better, more powerful, more trusted, and more joyous than intelligences, or we could just stay intelligences. It's like the choice between staying in a playpen your whole life or growing up and getting a job.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Nevermind. Geoff answered it and I'll just go with his answer.
[ April 01, 2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
First we die and go to one of two places:
Spirit Prison (Hell). Here people pay the price for any sins they have not repented of while living. Also, they are taught the gospel if they have not already rejected it before death.
Spirit Paradise (Heaven). This is where the righteous are able to rest from the troubles of the living. For those who are members of the LDS Church it is a place of even more work, mostly teaching the gospel to those who hadn't heard it while alive.
Then, the world will end its assignment as a "proving ground" for God's Children:
There will be a final, general judgement. All people will be resurected and judged as to what eternity they deserve.
Some will go to the Terestial Kingdom where the most wicked of people will live who still deserve resurection.
Some will go to the Telestial Kingdom where those who were good, but did not reach perfection will go.
Finally, there is the Celestial Kingdom where all will go who were perfected in Christ and lived lives worthy of being called God's Children once again. They have the opportunity to become like God, including all the implications behind that statement.
There is a forth place called Outer Darkness, but only a handful of mortals will go there. It is the place of the Fallen Angels and Satan where no glory exists. Of all the places, this one is closest to what is understood as the "traditional" Hell.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Some will go to the Terestial Kingdom where the most wicked of people will live who still deserve resurection.
Some will go to the Telestial Kingdom where those who were good, but did not reach perfection will go.
Except those are reversed.
The Telestial kingdom is the lowest of the three, with the glory of the stars. It's like the this earth. We are now living in a telestial world.
The Terrestrial kingdom is the middle, and its glory compared to the Telestial is like the glory of the moon compared to the sun. That's what the Earth will be after the second coming - paradisical glory. It's what the earth was like before the Fall - before the apple and the fig leaves bit.
quote:There is a forth place called Outer Darkness, but only a handful of mortals will go there. It is the place of the Fallen Angels and Satan where no glory exists. Of all the places, this one is closest to what is understood as the "traditional" Hell.
This is for those who KNEW, beyond faith, and denied Christ anyway. There are not many mortals who fit into this category.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Kath, I never could get those names in the correct order. Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I’m curious why faith is necessary, why God can’t show Himself so that all will know the true path?
If God showed himself, then we wouldn't be able to choose against him would we? We would simply know that he exists. God wants us to choose him, not him give us no other choice. It's all part of free will.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
It is not really known how the Body and Spirit interact, but together they are considered Soul. Therefore, it is probable that they influence each other. How one influences the other depends on our choices.
One thing we do believe is that the body controls the spirit. Whatever happens to it will effect the Spirit. However, we are usually free to control our bodies unless there is some kind of interference. Thus, we can learn how to make our bodies conform to our spirits.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
More answers from Geoff! (I know you're excited.)
I think that faith is necessary because humans have all kinds of different motivations in life, and while many of us have a strong tendency toward learning and self-improvement (which would help us to benefit from a surer knowledge of God), we also have tendencies toward self-absorption, weakness to temptation, fear of consequences, etc.
While more definitive knowledge could help us in one sense, it would also hurt us. If God were clearly present, some of us would start acting out of fear of punishment, and would never learn the actual moral purposes behind ethical behavior. Those of us who are weak to temptation would suddenly be ten times as accountable for our missteps and bad behavior, and would quickly build up too much guilt to function. Lazy, selfish people would legitimately expect more benefits and blessings from God, and would lose their motivation to learn to help themselves and others.
By staying in the background and not stepping forward, God leaves us to ourselves to learn and grow without his interference. It's like He has sent us to our first day of school, deliberately staying home to let us find our own way through the new challenges and adventures of life. He could hold our hand, but then we wouldn't learn as much as quickly.
Posted by flyby (Member # 3630) on :
Jettboy, you never heard that Sea Turtle thing? Sea (Ce) Celestial, Tur (Ter) Terrestrial, Tle (Tel) Telestial. It just goes from top to bottom. that's the way I always remember the order.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
quote:One final LDS question, I understand that before we come to Earth, we exist as intelligences (is that the right word?) some where else. We then have the choice of coming to Earth or not. What do we gain by making this choice, and if we don’t choose it, what do we lose?
First, we existed as "intelligence," whatever that means. Then, we became Spirits and Children of our Heavenly Father. After that we were sent to Earth.
What we gain is the chance to have an eternal body of glory. For whatever reason not fully explained a spirit that has a body is a far better condition than a spirit on its own. Also, we are give the chance to progress and learn in ways that we couldn't in the pre-earth life.
What we lose if we don't is any chance to become better than we were. Also, we lose our first inheretance and are sent to Outer Darkness as not coming Earth is a rejection of God who made this life possible.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Jettboy, you never heard that Sea Turtle thing?... It just goes from top to bottom
Yes...it's turtles all the way down.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I actually have a question. Are the intelligences infinite and/or self-aware?
[ April 01, 2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Yes. Everything is considered having an intelligence of some kind. And, it is that fact that makes defining it so hard. One might even be able to speculate that Intelligence is the building blocks of the spiritual world as adams are the building blocks of the physical world.
[ April 01, 2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Jettboy ]
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Jettboy, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say we believe that the body controls the spirit. The overwhelming impression that I've gotten is that the spirit controls the body, and is affected by the moral ramifications of the choices it makes in controlling that body.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Geoff, I know I have read that somewhere by Joseph Smith. Maybe I'll look that up sometime to be sure.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Yes, intelligences are treated as being infinite and self-aware. They are actually the core of our belief in free will. The fact that there is a part of us that was created neither by God nor by random chance ... a part which has existed with its current identity for eternity ... gives our independent choices much more meaning than if our entire being was determined by some outside force.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:As a general religious question, how does the soul and the brain interact? Is the brain a physical manifestation of the soul or does the should use the brain or control it or something else? Also, how does it relate to an accident that will injure your brain, and how does it to relate to when you die and your brain no longer functions?
I'll field this one. Basically the body and the spirit are both physical entities. That is one of the large distinctions between Mormon theology and other christiian denominations as regards spirits.
Now, while spirits are made up of matter it is matter of a different type then what the body is made of. As an analogy- it is like newtonian physics vs. quantum mechanics. Whatever spirit is made up of does not necessarily have the same physical constraints as classical matter.
At any rate, in my own view spirit interacts with body (time for another analogy) much like one might save important data on both the hard drive and the network drive. The brain acts like the hard drive where information is stored locally. The same information is stored in the spirit via some type of physical interaction. Hence, if the brain is damaged the information it contained is not lost. The normal daily operations of the body operate in the same way- much is handled solely from data stored on the hard drive, but the network contains data beyond what the hard drive contains and it sends in commands from time to time.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Do realize, Jettboy, that there is a serious difference between saying "Mormons believe THIS" and saying "Joseph Smith once said THIS" Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Yes, Geoff, I agree. But, I really thought this was a general belief. Didn't know there was that much of a question.
Perhaps my "we believe" statement comes from a general inference from how positive the idea of having a body over just a spirit is. It is something I will have to study more.
[ April 01, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Jettboy ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:If God showed himself, then we wouldn't be able to choose against him would we? We would simply know that he exists. God wants us to choose him, not him give us no other choice. It's all part of free will.
This argument makes sense to me, so I think that I need to change my question a bit (got to come up with something to challenge you! ). I can see Faith in this way as necessary, but is Faith in the teachings of Mormonism (or any other religion for that matter) necessary? If we have Faith in God but aren't sure about some of the other beliefs what does that mean exactly? (What do religions say about that choice?)
I remembered another question I had. I've seen a few references to repenting sins, but how exactly does the LDS faith handle this? I know that Catholics have confessional, is there anything similar in Mormonism or do you just have to truly repent your actions without doing anything about (besides the obvious changing of your ways type of thing)?
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:At any rate, in my own view spirit interacts with body (time for another analogy) much like one might save important data on both the hard drive and the network drive. The brain acts like the hard drive where information is stored locally. The same information is stored in the spirit via some type of physical interaction. Hence, if the brain is damaged the information it contained is not lost. The normal daily operations of the body operate in the same way- much is handled solely from data stored on the hard drive, but the network contains data beyond what the hard drive contains and it sends in commands from time to time.
When I talked of the brain being injured, I meant that type of injuries that could lead to personallity changes. These things could lead a perfectly upstanding citizen to no longer act civil and polite (there have been such cases, I forgot the name but modern physcology was developed in a large part due to such a case). What are the ramifications of this change?
My theory that I came up with over break is that assuming that there are spirts (not that I do, but if you take that as a basis for the concluesion) then perhaps the brain serves like the CPU to a program (had to slip a computer anology in there ). The program (spirt) will tell the CPU what to do, and use it's feed-back and number crunching abilities to make future choices (OK, so a program doesn't exactly make choices but you get the point).
Sorry about the spirt soul thing, I couldn't decide which one to use; of course I choose the wrong one.
Hobbes Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Faith is the first Principle in Mormon belief. It is the Power of action. Without it there is nothing that we do that can have any positive effects. Of course, faith in Christ is considered the proper faith for our religious actions as without that there is no meaning behind our choices. Although we believe that we will be judged for our actions (good or evil) or what others call "works," it is only by faith that works can become operational.
To a lesser degree we believe that no one can do anything without faith or no one would try to do anything. It is considered a stronger form of hope or nearly the same thing.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: If God showed himself, then we wouldn't be able to choose against him would we?
quote: This is for those who KNEW, beyond faith, and denied Christ anyway.
How do you reconcile these two statements? If there is free will, then God should be able to show himself and we could still deny it. Otherwise, the whole 4th level would be kinda pointless wouldn't it? Except for the angels who started the revolt in the first place.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well my theory for that (I'm being careful to call them theories by the way) is that we may have Faith in God, but how can we know exactly what He expects of us without a little help? That's where the prophets come in, God will tell some select people what His plans are and what we should do to help him achieve it. When I first read that 4th level (and the explanation of course) I assumed that meant people to whom God spoke for this purpose and who refused His voice. Them and of course those who refused him straight off, but I can't take credit for that because someone just told me.
Hobbes Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
"If there is free will, then God should be able to show himself and we could still deny it"
True, but the difference is between direct and indirect violation of His will. A direct violation has far more consiquences than an inderect one based on a possibility. We would be going against Him rather than just His plan.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Huh? Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
To tell you the truth that is how I reacted to your question. I guess my answer didn't exactly touch on your question, sorry. Not sure what you are trying to ask.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Lets put these two sentences together and see if that explains things:
If God showed himself, then we wouldn't be able to choose against Him, because we would know He existed. Therefore, those who KNEW, beyond faith (for God would be in front of our faces), and denied Christ anyway would go to Outer Darkness.
It wouldn't be a choice built on mistakes that can be forgiven, it would be a choice built on open rebellion.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, but we have free will. How can God withhold information and still consider it free will? Either it is or it isn't.
Is he hedging his bets? It sounds like a parent who leaves for the weekend and tells the kids they'll be watching, but then don't because they really don't want to punish the kids.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Its more like telling the Children it is time to leave the house and go live on their own. The parents won't be following their children around for the rest of their lives. And if they did, when would they ever grow up? In that situation the choices they make wouldn't be about themselves, but about their parents.
The parents will probably write every now and again. They will probably be there when the kid gets into trouble. Ultimately, however, the children are learning to act more like independant adults. Hopefully, for the better.
[ April 01, 2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Jettboy ]
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
I guess, in the end my understanding of free will is not your understanding of free will. What you call free will is what I would call compulsion by shear volume of knowledge. That kind of free will is still available, but the choice would either be complete salvation or utter destruction. Considering how much God loves us, maybe He is hedging his bets for our own eternal safety.
By the way, LDS theology posits that that kind of a choice between absolute knowledge for the salvation of everyone was what Satan offered. Christ offered the choice of the Atonement so that the full force of our sins wouldn't be on our own heads.
[ April 01, 2003, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Jettboy ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Not really. The children know the parents exist. It's not theoretical.
Let's use a better analogy. Let's say I've heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another that if I eat my vegetables every night for 10 years, I'll be rewarded with the best dessert of my life. However, no one has ever seen the dessert and don't know exactly where it might come from.
Now see, if someone were to stick their head out and say, "Hey, I'm the one with the dessert. This is what it looks like, and if you eat not only your vegetables every night, but also the fruit, meat and potatoes, then after 25 years, I'll let you have the dessert. Sorry the message got kinda screwed up over the years...you know what happens when people start playing telephone." That I might believe. But this whole "coy" thing is more than slightly annoying.
It's also not free will if I don't have the facts. But, let's play this game. Jettboy, it has been widely reported to you by different people that I'm 23, 25, 30, 33, 36, 38, and 41. I have 1, 2, or 3 children, and I live in KS, OH, CA, or MO.
Now, exactly how old am I, how many kids do I have and where do I live? And, if you choose wrong....
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Ahh...I almost wrote a couple of times that it sounded like God was hedging his bets, but I kept erasing it.
It seems childish. Either there is a right way, or there isn't. If there isn't, then why believe in any particular religion. If there is, why isn't there more specific directions?
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
First, I would ask you directly. Frankly, I feel like I have asked God directly and feel that God has answered me directly. So, for me at least, I feel you question and position is moot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Frankly, I feel like I have asked God directly and feel that God has answered me directly."
This is ultimately the part of this conversation that always winds up making me feel very sad and pathetic, indeed.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, me too, Tom.
Posted by Hegemon (Member # 370) on :
LDS beliefs, as interpreted by Hegemon (**gloats over having registered before the nonproselyting clause was added to the registration agreement**):
Intelligence==something out there that is related to free will somehow. We don't know much about it beyond the fact that it has always existed and will always exist. OSC presents some interesting sci-fi speculation in Xenocide/COTM with respect to the aiua concept, but about all that is officially canonized as LDS belief can be found in D&C 93.
God creates a spirit body/child out of the intelligence, which then dwells in His presence for awhile. But, as D&C 93 says, you can't maximize your happiness without a physical body, so we (those of us who are accountable here on earth [long discussion about other possibilites omitted]) were given the opportunity to be born on earth, receive a physical body, and be tested [long discussion of purpose of testing and relation with omniscience of God omitted].
The spirit (including the intelligence at its core) is usually considered the master of the body, in the sense that the driver of an auto is controlling the car. Certain rare physical circumstances might leave a spirit less in control of its body, just as certain rare mechanical breakdowns (or deliberate sabotage) can leave a car out of control, with the driver stuck along for the ride. In between states are also possible, like those doctored cars that SADD uses to show what drunk driving is like. Thus, we generally don't have enough information to judge whether or not another person's pychiatric disorders might be rendering him less than fully accountable for his perceived actions--one reason it's critically important not to judge others' state of salvation.
One oft-quoted prophetic statement (the source of which I don't recall offhand) talks about how much easier it is to repent and overcome sins in this life than in the spirit world. This may be the source of what Jettboy is thinking. [?] In essence, we believe that just as you can learn a lot about driving by studying instruction manuals, by visualizing, etc, eventually the best way to learn is to practice. So if you pick up (or have innately) any driving "sins" such as forgetting to indicate before changing lanes, or not checking blind spots, or whatever, it's much easier to "repent" and overcome them while you're still able to drive, instead of when you're in the hospital recuperating from your smash-up. That's one reason why, despite our emphasis on work for the dead, we'd still prefer that as many people as possible accept the gospel in this life.
quote:I've seen a few references to repenting sins, but how exactly does the LDS faith handle this? I know that Catholics have confessional, is there anything similar in Mormonism or do you just have to truly repent your actions without doing anything about (besides the obvious changing of your ways type of thing)?
The Bible Dictionary, a noncanonical reference work used by the Church, is a good place to start to answer this question. Basically, my understanding of repentance breaks down into two componants--the hebrew concept of ceasing to do the sinful action, and the greek concept of changing one's attitude toward God. Various formulas are used by different LDS teachers to try to break down the steps of the process, including things such as Recognize (the sin), Remorse, Restitution, Renounce (not do again), etc [it seems like there were five R's. Oh well]. True repentance is possible through faith in Christ--the Atonement not only can make up for the wrong we have done (which it is impossible for us to make up for), but can change us into better people. LDS believe that once a person seeks to truly repent, he needs to solemnize that decision by formally entering into a covenent with God to follow Him through the ordinance of baptism (which also cleanses a person of all the sins he committed previously, assuming his motives are pure). Baptism needs to be done by the proper priesthood authority to ensure its validity. Following baptism and the receipt of the Holy Ghost, it is essential to periodically renew this covenant through partaking of the Sacrament (LDS Sacrament== other denominations' communion or Lord's supper).
In terms of confession, etc, we believe that it is generally necessary only to confess one's sins to the Lord and, if applicable, to the person(s) wronged by your actions (as well as sincerely attempting to make restitution, if possible). Certain serious transgressions may require confession to the proper priesthood authority (usually the bishop of the local ward), but these tend to be fairly heavy stuff (such as violation of covenants of chastity, abuse of family members, some criminal acts, or abuse of stewardship within the Church), but many members may never experience this (and those that do are required to do so so the priesthood leader, as the authorized representative of the Lord, can help the person with the repentance process, and, where applicable, extend forgiveness on behalf of the Church (not the Lord)).
quote: is Faith in the teachings of Mormonism (or any other religion for that matter) necessary? If we have Faith in God but aren't sure about some of the other beliefs what does that mean exactly?
The LDS answer is that the LDS doctrine is the best available description of the way the universe [multiverse? WSOGMM?] actually works, and thus, understanding this doctrine (or understanding absolute truth, which the doctrine gives us occasional glimpses of) is essential to progress. Basically, if you believe that the saving ordinances (beginning with baptism) are, as God has said, absolutely crucial for maximizaton of happiness, that God's commandments are the fastest (and only) route to any kind of real happiness anyway, and that the faster we embark on the path the sooner we'll get there, then it becomes quickly self-evident (in the LDS view) that the doctrine is as equally important as a generalized desire to do right and follow God. Of course, in a nonLDS view where God has not revealed absolute truth in any form or absolute truth is not essential to salvation, then specific doctrines and organizations may not matter as much.
As far as being uncertain about other beliefs, in one sense, I don't there's a serious Latter-day Saint out there who's studied the gospel who doesn't have some question or concern about some facet of everything, in his understanding. On the other hand, some concerns are far more important than others. One professor I had spoke of a metaphorical "shelf" on which she keeps questions that she doesn't have the answer to--once in a great while, she may be able to take a question off the shelf, more often she finds a new one to add to her collection, but usually she manages to be quite happy without worrying too much about it, and eventually, in the next life, she'll find all the answers she needs and wants. Obviously, if a question critically calls into question the whole structure, one would need to resolve it. However, plenty of questions can be mildly vexing without being relevent to the big picture.
And, in LDS belief, until we are taught something sufficiently, we can't be held accountable for it, whereas undertaking covenants without being prepared to keep them is a serious sin. So one needn't feel bad about how long the questioning process takes--as long as one is sincerely seeking answers. Brigham Young, the second President of the Church, took two years to decide to be baptised.
***
Free will is sometimes revealed in the absence of knowledge. For instance, if a proctor is standing right over my shoulder the entire time I'm taking a test, we probably won't find out how likely I am to cheat if I think I can get away with it. And I'm also not likely to develop much ability to resist the temptation to cheat if I've never put in a position of trust.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
you know, tom, i used to get big lightning flash revelations from god all the time. but there have been times that i got *nothing.* now i know that it seems like such a cop out to say that there must have been something wrong on MY end, but in all honesty there always has been. but i haven't always figured it out so easily. uhm, at this point i would have to go into a big lecture on the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost, and the differences and ramifications there of, and i just don't feel adequate enough to do so. but let's just say that since i have grown up it has taken serious softening of my heart and honestly within myself to regain my spiritual footing - and i am not even all the way back.
this is all person experience, not judgment on other individuals. of course.
and i don't really know the point of this post now, but i will push the button anyway.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I've found that God has never answered my questions, either. Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I am right with Tom, porce, and mack.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Man, even Danzig ignores me. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well I have three more questions now. Two that I forgot to ask and one as a clarification.
The first is about the Priesthood (does that need to be capitalized?) Why do only men have the Priesthood?
Clarification question: it was mentioned that you are happiest when your spirit is with a body. After the Second Coming, do you get your original body back in mint condition or how does that work?
Third: is there anyway to get The Book of Mormon without having missionaries come to your house? At Salt Lake they said that if you wanted a copy they’d send over local missionaries with it. I suppose it is kind of selfish to expect to get something for nothing….but I want to!
[EDIT: recently I've been catching my "their" "there" mistakes. Sigh.]
Hobbes
[ April 01, 2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ohh an another unimportant question that just occured to me (I bet your all thrilled ). If I'm understanding correctly, God and the Intelligences (that we are) have existed for ever. Does this mean since the begining of time, or literally for an inifinite span of time? If the first, is their any explenation for the begining of time? If the second, what occured in all that time, and why did God start his plan up after that amount of time?
Hobbes Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*gives Kayla a wedgie*
Do not.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm not sure why I’m asking more question before my other ones have gotten answered, but….I am.
Did God create the universe as we know it or did it exist before/at the same time He did? If He didn’t, did he create any aspect of it? If He did, did he create any other Earth like planets (that can hold intelligences)? (Note: the above questions are significantly less important than others, but I guess I’m just curious).
How does Mormonism interpret the Bible? Loose translation (metaphors allowed for example) or strict technicality (or some where in between)? Is it the same as The Book of Mormon? How is modern science dealt with? For that question I mean specific examples mainly, evolution, stem-cell research, that type of thing.
I really know nothing about the Hierarchy except the one statement in my previous question about women not having the priest-hood. What are all the steps (up to the top), what does each position entail, and do women have other roles (official ones) within the Church?
[EDIT: Sigh, when am I going to rember to use the preview post button? Aloud is not allowed. ]
Hobbes
[ April 02, 2003, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
"Why do only men have the Priesthood?"
Lots of people have guesses, but the only real answer is, that's the way it was set up, and God hasn't told us to change it.
"After the Second Coming, do you get your original body back in mint condition or how does that work?"
I've read impassioned treatises about how you get the EXACT SAME body back, made of the EXACT SAME molecules, but I don't really see the point, especially if cannibals get resurrected And we'd all have SUCH long hair ...
"is there anyway to get The Book of Mormon without having missionaries come to your house?"
Ask a Mormon friend, I guess. Or suck it up and tell the missionaries all you want is the book
"God and the Intelligences (that we are) have existed for ever. Does this mean since the begining of time, or literally for an inifinite span of time? If the first, is their any explenation for the begining of time? If the second, what occured in all that time, and why did God start his plan up after that amount of time?"
Mormons tend to believe that there is no beginning to time, from God's perspective. (Though you could call the creation of our universe a sort of "beginning of time", both we and God have existed outside such events.) The idea is that the creation of worlds and the propagation of moral intelligence through eternal progression has been going on forever, and is essentially the nature and purpose of existence. Anything on a larger scale than that is well outside our perspective.
"Did God create the universe as we know it or did it exist before/at the same time He did?"
The scriptures seem to indicate that God created everything we can see, including other stars.
"If He did, did he create any other Earth like planets (that can hold intelligences)?"
Definitely YES, the scriptures state that explicitly. He has other children in other places that are just as much His children as we are ... though our actual information about them ends there.
"How does Mormonism interpret the Bible? Loose translation (metaphors allowed for example) or strict technicality (or some where in between)?"
Different Mormons read it different ways, and I've seen both extremes. Neither is mandated by our doctrine, so long as we recognize it as the word of God, while also recognizing that it isn't perfect.
"Is it the same as The Book of Mormon?"
The Book of Mormon is considered to be in better shape, textually, but all scripture is limited by the perspectives of its mortal writers.
"How is modern science dealt with? For that question I mean specific examples mainly, evolution, stem-cell research, that type of thing."
Mormons are encouraged to gain knowledge from all sources, not just the scriptures. Mormons run the gamut from Bible-thumping creationists to committed skeptics. Most of us fall somewhere between the extremes.
"What are all the steps (up to the top), what does each position entail,"
The Prophet leads the Church, with input from his two Counselors. Together, they are called the First Presidency.
"Below" the First Presidency are the Twelve Apostles. In the event that the Prophet is indisposed or deceased, the Apostles lead the Church collectively. When the First Presidency is dissolved by the death of a prophet, his Counselors rejoin the other Apostles and continue to help lead the Church. Apostles and Prophets serve for life.
There are other General Authorities of the Church, called Seventies. Some serve for life, while others serve for only a few years at a time. They have a variety of responsibilities over various activities and regions of the church.
Area Authorities hold temporary callings, and lead specific regions (usually including several states or countries).
Stakes (similar to dioceses) are led by a Stake President, two counselors, and a High Council of twelve, modeled after the general leadership of the Church.
Each Stake includes several Wards, led by Bishops, also with two counselors (collectively called a Bishopric). Normally, the only authority a member of the church deals with directly is their Bishopric and the various smaller quorums and auxiliaries within the ward.
There is also a Presiding Bishopric who handles temporal and financial issues for the entire Church.
Got all that? There will be a quiz.
"do women have other roles (official ones) within the Church?"
Every ward has a branch of the Relief Society, which is the oldest women's organization in America run by and for women. The General Presidency of the Relief Society commands much respect, and speaks alongside the Prophet and Apostles at General Conferences of the Church. The organizations for children and young women are also head by women.
Keep 'em coming! Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
it is important to note that the priesthood is neither complete nor whole without women. women share in the power of the priesthood when they are sealed to a man, and a man's priesthood does not reach it's fullness until he enters into the "new and everlasting covenant," which is marriage.
some brethren joke that women don't need the priesthood to keep them in line, heh, who knows it could be partially true.
hobbes, you may actually WANT a couple missionaries to deliver you that book of mormon since you have so many questions. they could try to answer almost all of them for you, and guide you to sources for others. consider it.
edit: whodathunk i could mispell priesthood that many times. yowza.
[ April 02, 2003, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I picked up a book of mormon at a library sale. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Third: is there anyway to get The Book of Mormon without having missionaries come to your house?
There is a way that you can kinda cheat. Click on this link and you have all of the LDS canon at your fingertips.
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
geoffrey,
quote: Definitely YES, the scriptures state that explicitly. He has other children in other places that are just as much His children as we are ... though our actual information about them ends there.
Can you tell me where this is in scripture? Are you referring BOM or the Bible?
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
quote:do women have other roles (official ones) within the Church?
Ours is a lay ministry. Women serve as presidents and counselors over the primary (children's organization) and the Relief Society (women's organization). They also teach Sunday School classes, primary and Relief Society classes and speak in Sacrament meeting (our main worship meeting). They also say prayers in any of these meetings. Because the ward is a small unit of the church these same responsibilities would carry into the church as a whole. Hope that made some sense Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:"Frankly, I feel like I have asked God directly and feel that God has answered me directly."
This is ultimately the part of this conversation that always winds up making me feel very sad and pathetic, indeed.
My major question took a year, if that helps at all. A year of anger, crying, and pleading. A whole year! And I was a missionary almost the whole time!
Seriously, why on earth did it take a whole year? I have no idea. But I am completely sure of my answer. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I have another one! For a sin to be comitted does an action have to take place, or is desire enough? I know Jesus said that you shouldn't hate or commit crimes in your head, but is doing so a sin if you don't carry though?
If it is, does that mean that the desire for someone of the same sex a sin? I don't want to start a whole discussion on homosexuality, so I'll explictly say: LDS thoughts only; not necessarily right or wrong I just want to know the position of the Church. Thank-you.
Hobbes Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
homosexuality is "punished" (i really dont know what other word to use ) only if entertained. having homosexual intercourse or entering a homosexual relationship is not the only means of entertaining those tendencies, but of course there are degrees to sins and transgressions. so while looking up homosexual pornography is also considered sinful, it is not as heavy as the latter. there are homosexual members of the church that live by the commandments. and to quote my mother, "what, you don't think there are going to be gay people in heaven?"
there is a lot of teaching in the church that deals with the power of thoughts, and how we should strive to keep even our thoughts clean, since actions start from thoughts, etc.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
"For a sin to be comitted does an action have to take place, or is desire enough? I know Jesus said that you shouldn't hate or commit crimes in your head, but is doing so a sin if you don't carry though?"
There's a fine line, in my opinion. We do believe that sinful intentions are harmful -- for instance, if you plot to murder someone and they escape before you get your chance. It's not like you're any less a murderer for having been foiled.
And if you constantly entertain fantasies about sin, and long to commit sin, but are only held back by fear of consequences, then you're still pretty much a sinner.
However, simply having the idea of a sin occur to you is usually unconscious, and if you reject it, then you're probably not going to be in trouble.
"If it is, does that mean that the desire for someone of the same sex a sin?"
Simply having the desire? That's an unintentional thing that I would classify as a temptation, not as a sin. The LDS Church only holds someone directly accountable for what they do about temptations, not which temptations happen to afflict them.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
"You can't stop the birds from flying around your head, but you can sure stop them from building a nest in your hair."
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
What if they spoo on your shoulders?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Then you probably sinned and deserve it?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*cough*jettboy*cough*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
oooooo... I don't like that, Papa Moose. Posted by Paxterous (Member # 4460) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I’m curious why faith is necessary, why God can’t show Himself so that all will know the true path? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God showed himself, then we wouldn't be able to choose against him would we? We would simply know that he exists. God wants us to choose him, not him give us no other choice. It's all part of free will.
This might have been addressed already, But I dont have time to read all the posts. If God showed himself to everyone, there would also be alot more people with the qualifcations to go to outer darkness.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Uh, Paxterous, those two reasons sort of contradict each other.
Posted by Hegemon (Member # 370) on :
When I was in the MTC a few years ago working in the referral center, people who called in asking for a BOM and refused the missionary visit had it mailed to them. I'd recommend that method if you prefer not to deal with talking to missionaries directly (though, unless they've changed the system, they will probably call you a couple more times offering you other free products).
Scriptures on the plurality of worlds include Moses 1:29,33, & 35 and D&C 76:24.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I got a very (read VERY) generous offer from one of the members here to send my the book (free of charge even)! I can’t say thanks enough to them! (I’m not revealing who since they haven’t told anyone else and probably don’t want to get flooded with requests for free books ).
[ April 02, 2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I know the LDS church runs ads around here (on the TV Guide channel) that they will send anyone a free copy of the Bible. Does anyone know if the offer includes the Book of Mormon?
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
No, what happens is, the missionaries come to deliver the Bible, then try to give you a Book of Mormon, too Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
That is why I fear them. They are so cute and sweet. But I would be so embarrassed to invite them in. Y'all really ought to sell some of those somewhere.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Just click on the link that says you want no contact.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
You could always stay at a hotel in Utah. I think that's about the only place I've ever even seen a Book of Mormon.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I see them in used bookstores all the time.
I always wonder:
Who sells them [I mean if you got it for free from the missionaries that seems kind of gauche]
Who buys them
And why used bookstore owners would pay for a used Book of Mormon [although I imagine they don't pay much for them]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well I have a few more. The first is one from Slash's thread (I asked it, I'm not just repeating his question ). If missionary work continues after the Second Coming, does that mean that spirts can change their level at that time?
Does God exist in this universe or outside of it? I saw that we can become Gods; does this occur only after The Second Coming? Was God always God or was he once just like us? If he was just like us and God as well, what distingushed Him from us? If he was like us before being God, what happened?
People have talked about this being a stage in our devolpment and that our body is what helps make us happy; are there any other stages that have the use of a body? Are there any other stages besides before birth and after death (besides the one we're in of course)?
Hobbes Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
"does that mean that spirts can change their level at that time?"
The official final cutoff is the day of judgment, which takes place at the end of the Millenium (or one thousand years after the Second Coming). So yes, people can "change level" after the Second Coming.
Can they do it after judgement day? I've heard impassioned arguments on both sides of that one. I don't believe we have an official dogma on the matter, beyond acknowledging that the scriptures do not seem to indicate so.
"Does God exist in this universe or outside of it?"
Again, I've heard impassioned arguments on both sides. This one is beyond what we currently understand.
"I saw that we can become Gods; does this occur only after The Second Coming?"
After. Jesus being a notable exception
"Was God always God or was he once just like us?"
He was once like us, though we know no details beyond that.
"If he was like us before being God, what happened?"
One would surmise that He learned from mortality, became perfect, and was resurrected and exalted. But that's just my automatic supposition. The scriptures are mute on the subject.
"are there any other stages that have the use of a body?"
After death all people are resurrected -- ie, they get their bodies back. We believe that God has a physical form similar to ours, though better in a lot of ways When a human being becomes a god, having a perfect physical form is part of that process.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Wow, I feel like I have my own personal FAQ!
The question about missionaries arose from Amka’s statement that believers continue to spread the Gospel after death. Would this continue after the Judgment?
How exactly does one commune with God? By this I mean both the mechanics of the question and the response one gets.
In the Proxy thread it was mentioned that Baptism is more than symbolic, so I’m curious, does it do anything besides cleansing sin and representing acceptance of the Mormon faith (as if those weren’t enough )?
Why will the Second Coming appear? As in, what would trigger it? Also, what happens to people currently alive, and do more people begin life during the Millennium?
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
One more question (it's a biggie): What is required of each Latter Day Saint in their daily lives?
Hobbes Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
To stand as a witness of God, at all times, in all things, and in all places.
heh. okay, so THAT in itself entails a lot, but that is something that is said quite often.
[ April 03, 2003, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Of course that's probably more important than most of the other stuff, I ment things like blessing your food before you eat.
Hobbes Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Why will the Second Coming appear? As in, what would trigger it? Also, what happens to people currently alive, and do more people begin life during the Millennium?
I think that general Mormon belief is that the second coming will not be triggered by anything- it is already on a set timeline and will happen as scheduled- just like the first time Christ came.
quote:One more question (it's a biggie): What is required of each Latter Day Saint in their daily lives?
One of my favorite scriptures on this is Micah 6:8 "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"
How this gets translated into every day activities is of course a very individual process. However, here are a few of the things that the church encourages its members to do: Keep the ten commandments (an obvious place to start), read your scriptures every day both individually and as a family, have a family night once a week (what this entails varies widely), pray often, play basketball at least once a week (OK, so maybe this doesn't apply to everyone), look for opportunities to talk about the gospel with your friends and neighbors (kinda like we are doing now), serve in a calling in the church (what one does varies widely from things like directing the music or teaching a class of 4 year old kids to being the bishop of a ward), help out with service projects when you can (everyone who moves into or out of a ward gets a half-dozen people to help if they so desire), look around your community and do service when you can...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:read your scriptures every day both individually and as a family, have a family night once a week
What if your family isn't Mormon, nor would like to hear anything about Mormons?
Hobbes Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:What if your family isn't Mormon, nor would like to hear anything about Mormons?
Then you get to skip that part.
However, there are a number of things that single folks do together whether they have family in the church or not- for example at most colleges there are groups of students who get together weekly for "family night" to do all sorts of fun things. Then there are wards composed entirely of single Mormons . (In fact there was a very funny movie which came out recently called singles ward, you probably have to be Mormon to understand any of the Jokes though, but I just figured I'd mention it).
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well, I know I haven't given people that much time, but I wanted to put forward all of the questions I asked that haven't been answered, just to make sure they don't get lost.
quote:The question about missionaries arose from Amka’s statement that believers continue to spread the Gospel after death. Would this continue after the Judgment?
How exactly does one commune with God? By this I mean both the mechanics of the question and the response one gets.
In the Proxy thread it was mentioned that Baptism is more than symbolic, so I’m curious, does it do anything besides
Also, it's been answered, but I wanted a more techincal explenation (since I've already got the spirtual one ) of what Mormons do everyday (to be Mormon, not what jobs they have ).
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:more techincal explenation (since I've already got the spirtual one ) of what Mormons do everyday (to be Mormon, not what jobs they have ).
A more technical explanation? Huh? Well, church is on Sunday, that lasts for three hours. Jacare covered the prayers and scriptures and family night bit.
I'm not sure what you're looking for exactly. For most of the Mormons you know, they check Hatrack every day. That kind of thing?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That's kind of what I meant, what exactly goes on at Church? The only explenation I've heard is from Lost Boys. Also, I've heard things about under-garments...? I don't know, that type of thing. Or maybe you told me everything and I just can't believe that is it.
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I only read Lost Boys once, and that was late at night. I threw it down the stairs and was too scared to move it until the next day, where I had race to the back of the house to hide it, so I can't remember exactly what it said. It sounded very accurate though.
And Hobbes dear, I'm not discussing my underwear with you. Someone else will have to field that question.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Hobbes- OK, as to exactly what happens in church:
There are 3 meetings. The first is generally sacrament meeting. The meeting starts with a prayer, then a hymn is sung. Any ward business is announced (ie upcoming potluck dinners, service projects etc). Then comes the youth speaker (some poor kid generally from 12-18 years old who stammers through a five minute talk). Then an adult speaker (there are many possibilities who this could be)then a hymn, the blessing and taking of sacrament (bread and water meant to remind us of the body and blood of Christ), another adult speaker, many a musical presentation thrown in then a hymn and a prayer.
The speakers are usually just members of the congregation whom the bishop or one of his counselors calls a week in advance and asks them to prepare a talk on a given subject.
On the first sunday of the month sacrament meeting consists almost entirely of testimony meeting in which anyone who wants to goes to the pulpit and tells about their experiences with the gospel.
On to the second meeting: Sunday school.
Classes split up based on age (for kids from 0-18) for adults classes are split into Gospel principles for newer members and gospel doctrine for older members. A teacher assigned by the bishopric gives a lesson each week generally based on one of the LDS canon (a different book is studied each year on a rotating four year schedule so the Book of Mormon gets studied every four years as does the old testament etc).
For the third hour the men go to priesthood meeting and the women to relief society while the kids under 12 go to primary (ie singing and activities). Again a lesson is given but this time generally based on the teachings of the modern prophets.
Other meetings: Once a week young men and young women each have activities which include things like going camping or learning to cook or playing basketball. Once a month the relief society holds meetings where they do chick stuff like make decorations or quilts or food or whatever else they decide they want to do. Generally once each month (varies by ward) there is a ward activity of some sort such as a picnic or dinner or what-have-you.
Once each month every member of the ward gets a visit from their hometeacher (priesthood holders assigned to look out for several families). Hometeaching visits generally consist of a short message and an offer to help with whatever the person needs. Sometimes these visits lead to service projects like rewiring a house or collecting food for a needy family.
The relief society sisters also visit each member of the relief society each month.
Once every six months the church has general conference in which the leadership of the church (apostles, prophet, seventy etc) address the entire church. The proceedings are broadcast via satellite, TV, radio and the internet. The next general conference will start this saturday in the morning. If you really are curious about Mormonism there is no better way to learn what it is all about than by watching a few sessions of conference. I highly suggest you have a look- it is broadcast from the church website at www.lds.org
Conference sessions start at 10am and 2pm on saturday and sunday and last 2 hrs
I think that pretty much covers it...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ohh come on! Why not?
Hobbes Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Oh yeah- those conference times I mentioned are Mountain time
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Thanks Jacare! Is this what is required to happen, or what generally happens? What are the first two speechs (youth and adult) about?
(Note: The above post was meant for Katharina, not you. )
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'll certainly look into watching this, but I have avague feeling telling me I've already comitted to something else on Saturday, I just can't rember what. Hopefully not, it does sound like a great way to learn.
Also, I didn't mean to offend anyone with the under-garments question, I've heard of this through about third-rate sem-gossip and wanted to know about it. If you don't feel like answering it I'm less then offended.
Hobbes Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Hobbes-
the speakers in sacrament are merely folks from the congregation assigned to speak on a given topic. Imagine what would happen if someone gave all Hatrackers an assignment to talk on Faith, for example, and that will give you an idea of the range that these talks might take. You probably already knew that Mormons don't have paid preachers.
As to the undergarment thing- for some reason many folks (anti mormons) make a big deal out of it. Essentially it is like this: Mormons who have gone to the temple make certain covenants with God. In order to provide a physical reminder of these covenants there are certain symbolic markings in the undergarments that Mormons wear (only after they have gone through the temple do Mormons do this).
It is the same basic idea as CTR rings that many Mormons wear- CTR stands for "choose the right". Primary kids of a certain age are given rings with the letters CTR to provide a physical reminder of their commitment to choose the right.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, that sounds reasonable. Just out of curiosity, are these reminders required by the Church, or just a good way to be closer to your Faith? Ohh, and one thing that's always been bugging me: should I capitalize "the" in the Second Coming?
Hobbes Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that general conference talks are archived, so if you wanted to watch a portion of any of the last several conferences right now you could do so Here: http://www.lds.org/conference/display/0,5234,23-1,00.html
If you choose to listen to one I suggest you start with any of the following speakers: Gordon Hinckley, Thomas Monson, Jeffrey Holland, Dallin Oaks, Henry Eyring
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
CTR rings are optional, church garments are mandatory for all who go through the temple
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Once a month the relief society holds meetings where they do chick stuff like make decorations or quilts or food or whatever else they decide they want to do.
There are just so many things wrong with that sentence, I don't even know where to begin!
[all smilies were added by yours truly and do not reflect the position of the original poster.]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Just so everyone remembers, in one of my previous posts I put out what hadn't been answered, look back on that because some of it still hasn't. Thank-you.
<--*Is less impatient than he sounds*
Hobbes
[ April 03, 2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
elder maxwell also gives really great talks.
and not all youth speakers stammer! heh. in fact my little brother was quite the politician when it was his turn for talking in sacrament meeting.
all of the conference sessions are important, hobbes, but i think i am safe in saying the most widely viewed session is the first sunday session. so if you can catch any of them, i would catch that one.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
it's okay, kayla, sometimes the relief society gets together to do chick stuff like learn how to change flat tires, arm wrestle, and play touch-football. HA.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Porce, I was really teasing this time. Promise. There haven't been any good opportunities to make fun of anyone today.
Poor Jacare. I really am enjoying this thread, and others about LDS recently. I've appreciated everyone who has patiently answered questions and put up with snarky comments. I really didn't mean to offend. I was just teasing. Honest! Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
I just want to say how pleased I am with this thread. I have pretty much stayed out of these LDS threads lately because I was scared to post, and other people were answering questions much better than I ever could. I am very impressed by the fact that this thread is simply someone wanting to get more information and not "lets attack the Mormons" like it could be.
Anyway, to answer one of your questions that has been missed:
quote: The question about missionaries arose from Amka’s statement that believers continue to spread the Gospel after death. Would this continue after the Judgment?
As far as my understanding goes, there would not be a reason for missionary work to continue after the final Judgement because everyone will have had the chance to accept or reject the gospel. But, we really don't have a full understanding of what life after this will be like, so I could be wrong.
Oh, and just a side note, in all the wards I have ever been in the sacrament is passed before any of the speakers. Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
and as geoff noted earlier, (i may be mistaken, though) we do not know if there is eternal progression after the Judgement, and though there is speculation there is no doctrine stating there is, so we can only assume it's too much for us to handle right/would get in the way of the plan/people stay where they're put after the Big One.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* Hobbes, I'm not offended. Natural reticence was fighting with desire to answer your question, and reticence won. *points* What jacare said.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:The meeting starts with a prayer, then a hymn is sung. Any ward business is announced (ie upcoming potluck dinners, service projects etc). Then comes the youth speaker (some poor kid generally from 12-18 years old who stammers through a five minute talk). Then an adult speaker (there are many possibilities who this could be)then a hymn, the blessing and taking of sacrament (bread and water meant to remind us of the body and blood of Christ), another adult speaker, many a musical presentation thrown in then a hymn and a prayer.
Wait. Hold the boat here. The blessing and passing of the sacrament comes after two talks?
I have a vague memory of once attending a ward that did that, but from my experience the sacrament comes after the announcements and then all the speakers and musical numbers take place.
Not that there's anything wrong with either format, I'm just always interested in hearing about variations in the services. It'd be interesting to see a map of all the congregations in the US with color codings for how they hold their services.
Kayla: I found your comment pretty funny. Sadly, the truth is that, at least in the congregations I've been in, a lot of the relief society activities do cater to a very narrow range of interests. My wife would probably go more often if they had workshops on car maintanence or using power tools, etc. She has no interest in tole painting.
Of course, I'd probably be more likely to get involved in scouting if the activities focused less on sports and camping and more on cultural activities. Is there an art history merit badge?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Good katharina, I was afraid that in my ignorance I'd said something stupid and offensive (wouldn't be the first time). Anyways, glad to hear you weren't.
I know hansenj, I was reticent to start this thread for that very reason. Often threads like this get started and are immediately (or after a while) turned into arguments over who is right instead of what people think. I'm quite happy with the results so far.
So besides some of the questions that are still in the lineup (it's baseball season again! ) what, exactly, is the sacrament (how is it done) and what does it symbolize?
One more time (though probably not the last), big huge thanks to everyone whose took the time to answer my questions, you guys are great! ((((everyone))))
Hobbes Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
In the sacrament, bread and water are blessed and passed to the congregation. If you want to read the text of the prayers, go here and here. The sacrament is a renewal of baptismal covenants. We remember Christ, we take His name upon us, and we promise to follow His commandments, so that we may have His spirit. The sacrament symbolizes Christ's sacrifice for us and gives us an opportunity to be washed clean from our sins.
Edited to point out that we now use water instead of wine, so there's just that one change in the prayer.
[ April 03, 2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well after looking at that site I have another question. Right after the part you highlighted Jon Boy, it says:
quote:O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this awine• to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.
I thought Mormons didn't have alcohol. I guess that's not really a question but maybe you can answer it anyways.
Hobbes Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
*points to note on above post*
The revelation forbidding alcohol hadn't come yet. It's in section 89, while the sacrament prayer is found in section 20. So the prayer has been amended.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ahh OK. Actually, not having alcohol is one of things I like most about the Mormon religion.
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It works with the sacrament prayer becuase of section 27 in the Doctrine and Covenenants.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:quote:
Once a month the relief society holds meetings where they do chick stuff like make decorations or quilts or food or whatever else they decide they want to do.
There are just so many things wrong with that sentence, I don't even know where to begin!
[all smilies were added by yours truly and do not reflect the position of the original poster.]
Heh, I guess it is still a difficult thing to tell when I am joking and when I am not. My explanations were a bit clinical so I tried to interject a bit of kinda sarcastic humor that is nonetheless kinda true. See, the thing is this relief society get together I mentioned is planned by the Relief society sisters so they really do choose to do whatever they want. For example, in our ward there have recently been symposia about Islam given by some local islamic ladies trying to promote understanding of their religion as well as a number of similar things in the same vein. However, the fact is that many of the sisters like to do scrapbooking, decorations etc and so that is often what is done. My wife really loves that kind of thing.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well, now that this thread has fallen to the second page I feel justified in bunping it up with some unanswered questions.
quote:How exactly does one commune with God? By this I mean both the mechanics of the question and the response one gets.
In the Proxy thread it was mentioned that Baptism is more than symbolic, so I’m curious, does it do anything besides
I'll probably come up with some new questions later, but for now I'll just bump these up.
Hobbes Posted by Obi Jon Boy Kenobi (Member # 5000) on :
I'm not entirely sure what your first question is about (are you just asking about prayer?), but I'll try to answer.
Prayer is very simple. It's just a talk with God. We believe that he's a real, physical being, and that he's listening. He is our father, and he loves us. Talk to him. Tell him how you feel, and ask him questions. Moroni 10:4-5 discusses prayer in a simple, concise manner. But if that's not quite what you were looking for, let me know.
Baptism is the physical display of the covenant you are entering into. You take Christ's name upon you and receive a remission of your sins. It is a spiritual rebirth, and it is the gate to the path that leads to heaven.
Posted by Hegemon (Member # 370) on :
Again the Bible Dictionary has a good summay. One relevant quote:
quote:Baptism in water has several purposes. It is for the remission of sins, for membership in the Church, and for entrance into the celestial kingdom; it is also the doorway to personal sanctification when followed by the reception of the Holy Ghost.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Mostly I was curious about batm because it was stated that it is more than symbolic, yet proxy batisms seem (to me) to be very symbolic. This is a contradiction I'd like to deal with, is a proxy batism not symbolic? If so, then why is it not symbolic when another body is being used?
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Jon Boy, basically my question was if it was necessary to do something before talking to God, like bowing your head or something. I don't really know.
Hobbes Posted by Obi Jon Boy Kenobi (Member # 5000) on :
Typically, when praying, you kneel, bow your head, and fold your hands or arms. It's just a sign of respect and reverence.
[ April 04, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Obi Jon Boy Kenobi ]
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:This is a contradiction I'd like to deal with, is a proxy batism not symbolic? If so, then why is it not symbolic when another body is being used?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "contradiction". Baptism has the same symbolic meanings applied to the person for whom the baptism is being performed - entering into a covenant with God, being able to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. For the physical person who is acting as the proxy, it serves as a reminder of their own baptism and the covenants made at that time. The sacrament (mentioned earlier in conjuction with church meetings) also serves as a reminder of the baptismal covenants and life long dedication we should have to Christ.
quote:my question was if it was necessary to do something before talking to God, like bowing your head or something
Usually, when praying it is considered respectful to close your eyes, bow your head, and cross your arms (or clasp your hands). This is what you normally do when there is any sort of public prayer taking place. As far as personal prayer goes, often people will kneel, in addition to the other physical manifestations of reverence and respect for God. But, that doesn't mean that, in order to pray, you must do those things. There have been many times when I've prayed silently in my head while driving in the car, shopping, or at work. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Okay, that's what I figured, I just wanted to know if it was required, or just repectful (OK, maybe not "just", but I think you get it ).
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I thought it was a contradiction because someone mentioned that a proxy batism must be preformed since baptism is more than symbolic and requires a body. It just seems to me that if someone is doing it for you, that is symbolic. If that makes any sense.
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmmm.... I was the one who said that, and I don't think I was wrong.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote: I thought it was a contradiction because someone mentioned that a proxy baptism must be preformed since baptism is more than symbolic and requires a body. It just seems to me that if someone is doing it for you, that is symbolic. If that makes any sense.
I kind of understand. Baptism is both a ritual (physical) act and also a symbolic act - it requires both aspects to be a valid baptism. Since it is a physical action it requires a physical body. As a symbolic act, it carries deeper meaning than "hey, this guy just dunked me under water".
Being baptised for someone else is a symbolic act, in that it is your body (not their's) that is being baptised. It is the presence of a body that is important, not whose body it is, as strange as that may sound. But we believe that God accepts (and evens commands) such a practice.
I'm not sure if I'm helping any....
[ April 04, 2003, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm getting the idea at least.
I have a question about missions. As far as I can tell they aren't required by the Church, but are highly suggested for men. Is it the same for women (and was I correct about the first statment)? Also, I've read a little about OSC's mission (mostly from introductions and such) but I really don't know what a full blowen mission is like. (Not a question again but still answerable ).
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Now I realize that I'm getting into the less spirtual/belief side of Mormonism, so I might pause on my question asking and go back over what I know before I start asking questions again. I'll certainly be interested to read whatever anyone posts though! Also, if anyone wants to add their own little (or big, whatever ) comment, I'd like to hear what you have to say.
Note: I don't think understanding the more down to Earth everyday part isn't important, it's just much much less important, and not really why I started this thread.
Hobbes Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
It is a commandment to go on a mission for men. Obviously, not all men obey that commandment. It is not a commandment for women nor is it really even expected of them. It is an opportunity, should they happen to not be married. Men are 19 when they can go, women are 21.
I was married at 20, so I didn't go on a mission, and can't comment on daily life other than you get up early, study the scriptures and pray, then go out to do the work, whatever that may be, and you should be home by 9:00 pm. You have one "prep" day where you can do stuff like laundry and have a bit of recreation, like playing volleyball with the church youth.
[ April 04, 2003, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i knew it was highly encouraged for young men to go on missions, but i was not aware that it was a commandment. i am not saying you are wrong, i just hadn't heard that. for example, i had a boy in my ward that was married in the temple at the age of 18, obviously having not gone on a mission. if going on a mission was a commandment, would he have been able to get married in the temple?
honestly curious here.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:As far as I can tell they aren't required by the Church, but are highly suggested for men. Is it the same for women (and was I correct about the first statment)?
I'm not sure whether I'd classify it as a commandment or not, all I've ever really heard is that "all worthy young males should serve a mission". In my mind it is an expectation, perhaps bordering on commandment. For women it is "encouraged", although that encouragement may or may not be made manifest in actuality. I decided when I was a teenager (15) that I wanted to serve a mission, so for me, it was a life goal (like getting a degree). I just always geared myself towards doing it. My family was very supportive (although some extended family members seemed baffled by it). Most of the other church members that I came into contact with were also, but they always seemed to think that I should get married instead. I saw no reason why I should get married instead of going on a mission. I had set marriage as a goal to be attained after a mission. It was a little funny to me that my non-LDS friends thought that my serving a mission was a great thing, while many church members seemed to think it was a "well, if you don't have a husband, then I guess so...." kind of thing.
A mission is a difficult thing. It forces you (at least if you have the right attitude about it) to focus on other people instead of yourself. You are instantly shoved outside of your comfort zone (going strange places, maybe speaking a strange language, spending all your time with a strange person, doing strange things, etc.).
As for the mission experience: You usually spend time first in a Missionary Training Center (the U.S. one is in Provo, UT). You spend about 3 weeks there if you are going somewhere where you already know the language, and about 2 months if you are learning a new language. You take intensive language and gospel study courses. You usually study, live, etc. with people who are going to the same place that you are. You basically learn and sleep and eat. Then, you are sent to the area where you will serve (the area that you received your call to, which is assigned, not chosen by yourself). Once there, you spend your time in community service and church service.
I went to Bulgaria. My time was spent running/helping to run the local church units, helping the local church members (spiritually and physically), teaching English classes, and looking for and teaching people who were interested in learning more about the Church. One day a week was our P-day (Preparation Day) where we had about half a day to do our laundry, correspond with our families and friends, do general shopping, see sights, and goof off. Each missionary is assigned a "companion" with whom they are expected to be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Your companion changes from time to time, as missionaries are moved around within the area and mission (geographical areas). You also may move around several times. My mission covered the entire country and there were a total of about 100 missionaries in about 13 different cities. I lived in one city for 8 months (and had 3 different companions), the second city for 5 months (and had 5 different companions) - one month of which I was travelling back and for to another city every few days, and the third city for 3 months (with 2 different companions). The time passed pretty quickly (men serve for a total of 2 years, women for 18 months). It was a fabulous experience that has forever shaped my personality and my life. At that time, it was hands-down the best thing I'd done in my life. It was very hard work, but very rewarding and wonderful.
[ April 04, 2003, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I’ve been listening to the conference through the net (thanks for the link Jacare); I caught the end of Saturday and the whole thing today. I can’t say that I have a whole lot more questions now, I’m still digesting; but I do have a few more questions that just kind of came out of the ether.
I know I said I’d keep away from the less spiritual questions, but I have one that I wanted to know. The first is: how is money handled for the missions?
The spiritual question I have is really kind of a big one, in fact, I can’t believe I haven’t asked it yet, makes me feel ignorant (like that’s not a surprise ). Anyways, are The Son, The Father and The Holy Ghost all separate? What role does each one play in The Faith? Anything else you want to add about that would be good too.
By the way, I've received the afore-mentioned Book of Mormon and am slowly making my way through it.
Hobbes Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
You know, when I see the missionaires out around here, I always smile.
I suppose 'cause I think of my good LDS friends. Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
young men and women are expected to work their hardest to earn money to pay for their missions. their families are also encouraged to help within their means. if an individual is still unable to pay the way, the church helps. this money comes from tithing.
in the lds faith, God the father, the son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three seperate beings. Heavenly Father and Jesus are made of flesh and bone, while the Holy Ghost in a personage of spirit. i'll let someone else get more into detail.
there is one more session of conference, and they archive all the general sessions, so you can always check out ones you missed.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Lot of topics there, which one would you like to talk about?
Also, a little more clear on the missionaries and how they are funded. It used to be that missionaries paid their own expenses. But it was a bit unfair. A missionary called to a mission in South America, for instance, could expect to pay only about 50 dollars a month, while a missionary in Japan could expect to pay about 800 dollars a month. A few years ago they changed this so each missionary pays into the church missionary fund a set amount of I think around 400 dollars. This is then distributed accordingly. You don't have to have (or be) a missionary to donate to the missionary fund, and as mentioned before, if it is beyond your reach, others will help you. Often, members of a ward will donate to the missionary fund to take care of the missionary.
Sorry, I can't resist the temptation, but we have a cool program that just started. It is called the Perpetual Education Fund. Basically, this is to put those who otherwise could not afford it through school or some kind of training by which they can increase their self reliance. They then pay back the cost, and it is used for someone else. This pretty much for people in less developed countries. Anyone can donate into the PEF. It started about two years ago, and we are starting to see the results now. A program that started even before that was the micro business loan. No, its not like small businesses here, but they are things like buying someone a sewing machine so she can sew to make a living, or one family got the equipment to bake bread. As they can, they then repay it (no interest), but now they are able to sustain themselves AND they improve the economy where they are.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well, I wanted some more elaboration on what porcelain girl has been talking about mostly.
Hobbes Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I'll elaborate- We believe that God and Christ both have resurrected bodies just like the one that anyone who obtains the highest degree of heaven will receive. You can probably see the implication this has as compared to the rest of the Christian world- for example, it means that God actually inhabits a certain place rather than being everywhere at the same time. It also means that when God created Adam in his own image he did so literally- ie God is anthropomorphic.
We believe that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in the same sense that Christ desired his apostles to be one with him (John 17:21)that is one in purpose, desire, faith etc.
The Holy Ghost differs from God and Christ in that he does not have a body- he is a spirit person.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
<--*Likes it*
One question from that, if God and Jesus are like us, how does the Holy Ghost relate? Where did the Holy Ghost come from?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No idea. Lord not seen fit to reveal it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Katharina's right. We don't actually know where the Holy Ghost came from or anything like that. What we do know is that he is a being who doesn't have a body. He could be a spirit who volunteered to not receive a body yet so that he could help us all. But the important thing is that he is an actual person and not some mysterious force. (Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, that's right, Jon Boy.
That exact question (Who IS the Holy Ghost?) was used as an example in the Ensign (church magazine) once as a question for which we don't have the answer.
*completely nonflippant answer following* You can ask the Lord, though. There are many scriptures about learning the mysteries of God, and it involves repenting, studying, acting on principles already known, and asking in faith. The Lord might tell you, but he's the only one who knows at this point. Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Question: Are "Mormons" the only religion that sees the physical world (or at least physicality) as a good thing? I know that Christians in general believe that there is going to be a resurrection, but at best it is seen as a nuetral condition. Ironically, although many may speak positively of the resurrection of the body, they often consider God having a body as blasphemous.
Now I know that the Romans and especially the Greeks thought very highly of the human body. However, they still saw it as tremendously superior to the Spirit. The idea of the Christian Resurrection was seen, both in and out of the New Testament, as silly and proposterous.
[ April 08, 2003, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Jettboy ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Jettboy, classical Christianity also sees the physical world as a good thing. One of the reasons the Gnostics and Marcionites were considered heretics is that they denied the goodness of the material world. They had a strict “spirit good/body bad" dualism.
Unfortunately, it’s a heresy that keeps popping up. It does so often enough that many people believe that the early church, (and by extension the modern church) supported this belief, when in fact it is still considered a heresy by most denominations. Physical world = created by God = good.
[ April 08, 2003, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
oh man i really want to read an excerpt about the importance of our bodies from Miracle of Forgiveness by spencer w. kimball! i'll look it up either tonite and tomorrow morning and post it. stay tuned.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well, this isn't a question, this is a request for help. I want to ask, but it takes some building up to. I just want some help preparing to do it. Why is it scary? Well, it's scary to me because which ever answer I get implies a lot. If I get the answer that the Mormon Faith is true, then that means a lot of changes, a lot of new beliefs, and a lot of wading through consequences with other people (especiialy my family). If I don't get any answer then it means that it is a good chance that there is no special thing about humans, or anything else. I can probably live with that, but it would still be scary. Anyways, this is a totally selfish cry for encourgment.
[EDIT: because I'm impatient, I'm posting this on it's own thread ]
Hobbes
[ April 10, 2003, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*hug* Hobbes, you totally rock.
quote: I want to ask, but it takes some building up to.
You mean ask the Lord? It isn't scary - this is a big thing for him too. I can see how it would take building up, though.
Hobbes, I don't know what kind of experience you'll have, but I can tell you what mine was like.
Mine came while reading the Book of Mormon, not during the prayer directly. It also wasn't all at once, but it was as much a change in me as anything. When I read, and when I prayed, and when I took that leap of faith, I felt... enclapsed. I felt the empty corners of me fill up, and it felt right. Also, I noticed the difference in me. When I read the Book of Mormon and prayed, I was a better person. I didn't fight with my brother. I had hope. And I felt (feel) completely loved. It gave me strength.
My biggest single moment didn't come from the Book of Mormon, though. Growing up in the church, it was just one of the things I didn't question as much. But I can remember vividly the General Conference I gained a testimony of the living prophet. On Saturday afternoons, we sustain the First Presidency. Someone reads the names, and asks for a sustaining vote. Watching over satellite, you do it then, too. I had been struggling with some questions, and I had been seriously wondering about many things, and I felt this was a choice time. I needed to decide, and I was scared to death. When whoever it was read the names, I was watching in my living room, and I thought, "This is it. This is where I take a stand, because I can't fake this. I have to do it for real, and I need to decide." I didn't think of OSC's quote, but the it was the same principle. Time to take a leap. I raised my hand, and I knew what it meant.
It changed everything for me. From then on, I was committed. And not committed in that trapped way you feel when you are in something you aren't sure about, but committed in the whole-hearted, I want this, it's worth everything, and the rewards are incredible way that I want to feel when I'm getting married.
Hobbes, my faith is hands-down the most important, and the only constant thing in my life. I love it. It's true. I've felt it, and I believe it. And yeah, it's worth everything. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If I get the answer that the Mormon Faith is true, then that means a lot of changes, a lot of new beliefs, and a lot of wading through consequences with other people (especiialy my family).
It would. It would take a lot of committment from you, and it might cause quite interesting ripples in your family. You're strong, though. You'll be fine.
quote:If I don't get any answer then it means that it is a good chance that there is no special thing about humans, or anything else. I can probably live with that, but it would still be scary.
Ah, I've felt this. When I had my huge year-long question, I was completely torn because both of my options were dreadful. I simply coudln't believe either of them, and it was hard. Part of my answer to the question came with a calm assurance that there was a third option. That, somehow, there was a bigger answer. I didn't know what it was, but I knew, I felt it, I knew that there WERE answers that I didn't understand. It was great.
I don't know if that was terribly helpful, but I do understand.
Hobbes, I'll be praying for you. I don't know how or when the Lord will answer you, but I promise, I swear, I know he will.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
((((((katharina))))))
Thank-you.
Hobbes Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Man, I wish I was as good with words as Katherine is.
*points to what was said and nods*
Very nicely said.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well, since you proxy said it: ((((T_Smith))))
Hobbes Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Wow Hobbes. I totally admire anyone who can search for the answers to eternal questions and be willing to risk all to do the right thing. Keep going. You're almost there. And even though I don't know you that well, I'm praying for you.
Matt. 10: 35
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Pat
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Maybe I just need hugs, but ((((Pat)))). Thank-you too. I don't think I've ever been prayed for before, and now two people are!
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I want to give a special thanks to a few people:
Geoff for being a virtual encyclopedia of knowledge and being willing to share.
Everyone else who answered questions on this thread.
Kat, for just being open and freindly.
Pat for his last, really encouraging remark.
KCard for sending me stuff and for a really good response to something I wrote.
And Khavanon for our really good talk on AIM.
Thank-you all.
I'm feeling much better about it. I'm not sure when I'll ask, but I feel much more prepared, maybe tonight, maybe not, but soon. You guys made it possible. Thank-you.
Hobbes Posted by JohnHansen (Member # 41) on :
Hobbes,
Contrary to appearances on occasion I really am a nice guy and I would love to answer any questions you have. I'm happy to hear you are considering trying out Moroni's promise. I know God will answer your heart-felt and sincere prayers. Feel free to email me anytime you have a doubt or a question (JohnBinder@aol.com).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I can probably live with that, but it would still be scary."
Speaking as someone who tried the Question and got no answer -- from a LOT of religions, over years -- it IS kind of scary. But you eventually discover that there's a big difference between not hearing from God and not thinking that there's anything "special" about other humans -- and there's a kind of beauty in that, too.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well I’ve come back with a few more biggies. By far the most important one is about Jesus Christ. This question could really be addressed to all Christians, but….I think only Mormons are reading.
I understand that Christ died for our sins, but why was it necessary that he died for our sins to be atoned?
Do all things contain spirits or just humans (i.e. Ender books and Alvin books universes)?
I had some more, but as usual, I didn’t write them down and forgot them. So I guess I’ll leave you with these two now. Thanks.
Hobbes Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
No unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. We would not be worthy of living with God if we were stained with sin. Somehow, those sins had to be erased. Christ was the only one who could've made it back to heaven without an atonement, because He was the only one worthy. Sins were committed, and law of justice demanded that a price be paid. So He acted as a mediator, paying the price for our sins and giving us the opportunity to come back to heaven. He took the sins and sufferings of the world upon Himself, and then He died so that He could conquer death, too. From what I understand, His death wasn't part of atoning for our sins—it was part of preparing the way for the Resurrection (including our own).
As I undertand it, all living things have spirits. But they're not all the same. My cats don't have the same kind of spirit that I have. They're just cats. I'm a child of God. I'm not sure if non-living things have spirits, though I seem to remember hearing about things like "the spirit of the earth." I'm not sure.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
The LDS concept of God is slightly different from the common Christian one. Well, and as I say it even some Mormon folks might disagree with me, but here goes.
God is not omnipotent. Not in the paradoxical sense. The laws of justice are naturally causal, universal and God must live by them.
Jesus is completely innocent, sinless. By this virtue, he himself could live with God on his own power. He could dwell on the same level of existance.
We are not. Justice decrees that there must be some kind of restitution or a balancing out. We simply would not be recognized as able to obtain the level of existance required to be with God.
So Jesus paid for it, he suffered, he brought things to a balance. It was not so much God that recognized the price as being paid, but the natural laws of the universe. Jesus had to suffer every pain that went with sin, including spiritual death, which is defined as seperation from God. Remember when he cried, "Oh God, why has thou forsaken me?" That was his seperation from God, God had to leave for a space to complete the Atonement. But by those very same laws, Jesus is still innocent and can himself dwell with God.
And as Jon Boy said, his death was the precursor for the Ressurection which paved the way for our own ressurection.
I think everything has a spirit. Even inanimate objects. OSC's auia explanation comes pretty close to my idea of the matter. (No pun here, move along, move along)
[ April 21, 2003, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I agree with Amka, and add: because according to Joseph Smith spirit *is* matter, but matter more refined (and thus not discernible to us who are stuck in physical, time-bound existence).
And spirit is also intelligence and light and truth so I think it's safe to say that *all* physical matter has its spiritual counterpart, but that those 'spirits' vary in intelligence and organization.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, one clarification then. If the spirits that are part of other things aren't like us, how are they different?
Two more (different for once ) questions.
Basically I came up with analogy for my understanding of what happens to get us to this life (in a body and whatnot). Since my understanding is obviously flawed (as I really don’t know that much ) I hoped you guys could help show me where.
Of course my analogy is with computer games.
We start off just normal, knowing what’s going on and whatnot, but not really doing anything. Then God comes along and gives us our spirit bodies: the joystick and other necessary interfaces. Then we get our bodies, hook up that interface to the computer and start playing. How’s that?
My other question is to clarify something I read (in The Book of Mormon) about what happens after death. The way I understand it now is that when we die we either go to Paradise or to an outer place (I don’t think it’s outer darkness?) and wait for the Second Coming. Then comes the three Heavens.
Hobbes Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I'm not quite sure exactly what the difference is between human spirits and other spirits, but I know that human spirits are the spiritual offspring of God, while other (animal/plant/etc.) spirits are not.
I think your computer game analogy works.
You are correct about people going to either paradise or prison after death to await the Second Coming, resurrection, final judgement, and the three heavens (or outer darkness - where those who reject Christ and God when they know better will go - to be with Satan and his other non-corporeal followers).
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I have a specific scenario here, mostly just to clarify some things. If someone lives a good life (worthy of entering the Celestial Kingdom) but rejects Mormonism, what happens?
Also, lately I’ve been avoiding caffeine, but the only two IRL Mormon people I know (only on is a friends btw ) say that caffeine is fine. Where do you guys stand on this?
Hobbes Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:If someone lives a good life (worthy of entering the Celestial Kingdom) but rejects Mormonism, what happens?
I don't know. I don't really think that it's something I need to be concerned about. I am too concerned about doing what I need to do to worry about other people. God will be the one who judges us. He is the one who knows all of our intentions, motivations, and actions. His judgements will be perfectly fair. I am certain that we will agree with Him.
quote:Also, lately I’ve been avoiding caffeine, but the only two IRL Mormon people I know (only on is a friends btw [Wink] ) say that caffeine is fine. Where do you guys stand on this?
Some people think that caffeine should be avoided, like coffee, or tobacco, or drugs. It is my opinion that we should avoid addictions and dependencies (like those often associated with drugs or tobacco). If someone is dependant on caffeine, I think it is not a good thing. For myself, I avoid caffeine because I need it as medication to help me when I have headaches. If I get a headache and don't have my medicine (which contains caffeine) handy, I can drink a caffeinated drink to help tide me over until I can get to my medicine. If I constantly consumed them, I would not get the same benefit out of my medication or the caffeinated things.
Edit: I think, when it comes down to it, each person needs to decide what is right for themself, as it pertains to grey areas (like caffeine, the kinds of things to do or not do on Sunday, etc.). I don't think anyone else has a right to prescribe for whether someone else should or shouldn't drink caffeinated things - that is something each person needs to decide for themselves.
[ April 21, 2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
About the whole caffeine thing. Section 89 says "hot drinks are not for the body or belly." Given in 1833, I think it was several years prior to the soda fountain. Anyway, hot drinks are widely interpreted as coffee and tea. I was raised believing it was anything with coffee beans or tea leaves, so I have to watch some of those sobe drinks that have green tea in them. As of yet, we have not been given the word that sodas are against the word of wisdom. But church members are welcome to interpret the scriptures to the best of their abilities, and some have decided not to drink caffinated drinks.
I'm just weird in that I don't like soda. The CO2 hurts my nose when I burp. I don't suppose you wanted to know that.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
What is the Curch's position on birth control?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is there an official position? I don't think there is one.
Hmm... the General Authorities do counsel to not let worldly concerns interfere with your family. In other words, don't wait until you have a house, two cars, and a boat before starting your family. But the number, regularity, and existence of children is left up to the parents.
[ April 22, 2003, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There has been much debate about that-- and lots of conflict.
The most recent position is the one that katharina has posted above.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I didn't know that, Scott. This position is the one that I've heard since I started paying attention to the issue, but that's only in the last couple of years.
What was the debate?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The debate was whether or not it was a sin to use contraception.
I should ammend that this was a debate among MEMBERS (keep your dirty puns to yourself, Bob), and not among the leaders. The leaders of the Church have released several documents on the subject, which I will try to post later.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This is the jist of the Church's official stance-- I found this comment in the article here:
quote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly encourages married couples to have children. It is against birth control. In a letter from the First Presidency to bishops and stake presidents, dated April 14, 1969, the Church’s philosophy is expressed: “We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.
“Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by.”
[ April 22, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
That's the gist of the Church's former official stance, from 1971. The Church handbook now says something to the effect that while the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force, individual couples need to counsel with the Lord about having their kids... (I don't have a copy of the Handbook of Instructions, but I remember studying this issue in an ethics class at BYU). I think this revised counsel came because some people kept on having kids even when the mother was physically and emotionally endangered by it.
You still get some people who think birth control is evil based on 1971-type statements. But we believe in ongoing revelation--what a living prophet says is more important than what past prophets have said. So while it's important to have children, I think the new counsel says that it's also important to take individual circumstances like health and sanity into consideration.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's nice. I had a comp whose mother, at one point, had seven children ages seven and younger (there was one set of twins). Can you imagine? I asked her how her mother kept her sanity with all that, and my comp said, "Well.... not so well, actually."
Oh dear.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
The LDS church leaders are against birth control as a way to curtail children, but my understanding that they are not against birth control as a way to appropriately plan your family. That couples shouldn't space their children so close together that it becomes a health issue for the mother, and that the decision to have each child should be approached practically and prayerfully. In other words, don't just leave it all up to chance, but also don't use birth control selfishly.
As a sociological phenomenon, I think it's clear that a larger percentage Mormons are having smaller families. Of course, that generally still way above the national average i.e. families that might have had eight or nine are having five or six and families that might have had five are having three.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Oooops. Yeah, what Emily said. And I have read that section and that's what it does say.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I'll try to throw out some canonical answers mixed with my own opinions:
quote: Do all things contain spirits or just humans (i.e. Ender books and Alvin books universes)?
D&C 88 says this: All kingdoms have a law given;
37 And there are many kingdoms•; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.
38 And unto every kingdom is given a law•; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
What that says to me is that God has plans which pertain to pretty much everything. Each separate "kingdom" (and I have no idea what separates one kingdom from another) is governed by a set of laws tailored to the level of understanding, knowledge and freedom that a given entity might have.
It is my opinion that the different kingdoms are probably separated by the level of intelligence (ie capability, potential) that the spirits which act in those kingdoms have.
Hobbes asked what separates one type of spirit from another- I know the clear answer to that. It comes from the Book of Abraham:
quote:..as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.
19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.
So what distinguishes one spirit from another is the level of intelligence.
Now again my opinion: the major difference between spirits is clearly their level of intelligence. When the spirits are separated into different kingdoms governed by different laws it is because some spirits have greater potential than others and hence are given a greater chance to develop that potential through greater freedom. God is the most developed (ie progressed the most) of spirits and so he has the most freedom. Man has much freedom and through wise decisions may achieve the same level as God has. ANimals of one type or another have less freedom and hence less opportunity for growth but also less opportunity for failure. To use an analogy it is like the stock market- stocks with high gain potential also have high loss potential (high risk) stocks with less chance of gain also have less associated risk. This applies to those who are near the boundaries of the dividing lines. (this next part is complete guessing and not doctrinally supported at all)- if we assume that humans and say, dolphins are in different kingdoms, yet we can compare for example the dumbest of humans and the smartest of dolphins and see that their IQ (or other measure of intelligence) are about equal. SO why are they separated? I am guessing that it relates to what I said- one has accepted greater risk in the potential for greater growth while the other has accepted the safer path with limited growth.
quote:I understand that Christ died for our sins, but why was it necessary that he died for our sins to be atoned?
the best answer is in 2 Nephi 9:
quote:6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.
7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.
It works like this: in order for man to learn and grow he had to be subject to choices between good and evil. As man is not perfect he sometimes chooses to do evil. As god is perfect he cannot choose evil nor allow evil in his presence. In order to progress man must return to the presence of god. In order to get past the barrier erected by sin between man and god there must be a mediator- someone who can take away the effect of sin, someone who can sanctify and purify man so that man can be subject to evil choices, learn to choose the good and then be cleansed of the evil and so return to the presence of God.
That is the purpose of the atonement- to allow repentance, to allow man to sin without having to forever remain an outcast due to the demands of justice.
quote:What is the Curch's position on birth control?
I have heard many different stances on this. The only one that I know of which is doctrinal (ie accepted church canon) is the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply".
My own personal stance- it is foolish to have children one can't care for properly (and how one defines "care for properly" will obviously differ from person to person).
In practice the only ones who generally say anything about such things are a few nosy people (yes, there are nosy people even in the church;)) who ask "You've been married nine months, why don't you have any children yet?"
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I have a question: According to the LDS Church doctrine, where do non-LDS Christians go after death? Do they go Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial? (sp?)
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Nick- it depends on a number of factors; did they decide to accept the gospel after they died? Were they good people while they were alive?
In LDS doctrine just belonging to the church doesn't get you much of anything- it is all about what type of person you choose to be.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
My mom heard this from a speaker when she was in college, I'm pretty sure. She's quoted it to my sisters plenty of times, so I thought I'd share:
The decision to use birth control should be prayerfully considered by a woman and her husband. Not a woman, her husband, and their bishop.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, two more questions.
1. Basically I just want a description of the devil. How he's different from other forms people describe as the devil, and what he's doing. Now I basically know that he had a pretty slothful plan ( ) and is trying to get people to not follow God's plan.
2. My Dad (for some reason that I don't know about) decided to mention that he heard that Joseph Smith would build planks just underwater and then pretend to walk on water. I just want to get this out of the way basically, is there any truth to this story?
Hobbes Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:1. Basically I just want a description of the devil. How he's different from other forms people describe as the devil, and what he's doing. Now I basically know that he had a pretty slothful plan, and is trying to get people to not follow God's plan.
Well, naturally, he doesn't have horns, hooves, and a tail He's depicted in Mormon sources sometimes as a crafty old villain, and sometimes as an angry, petulant disinherited son.
His plan involved more than just slothfulness for the participants. The whole idea was for him to control everything and everyone throughout history, then reap the entire reward on judgment day. Instead, God went with His original plan (which Christ endorsed), which was to let even the weakest individual have the freedom and power to make their own choices and earn their own reward.
The devil wouldn't play ball if he couldn't make the rules. So he was denied a body and a chance at exaltation, and was instead cast to earth as a spirit, whose only real power was to manipulate others. Those who were too weak or frightened to go with God's plan, and who preferred the comfort of giving up their free will to Satan, were cast down with him.
quote:2. My Dad (for some reason that I don't know about) decided to mention that he heard that Joseph Smith would build planks just underwater and then pretend to walk on water. I just want to get this out of the way basically, is there any truth to this story?
I've read a lot of anti-Mormon literature, and that's one I've never heard. But given that there are no Mormon legends about Joseph Smith ever even attempting to walk on water, I'd have to say it's a pretty moot accusation Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, I'll buy that.
So is the devil *exactly* like the unmaker is described in the Alvin Maker series?
Hobbes Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
No, not exactly He has no ambitions to dissolve the entire material world into nothingness. He also doesn't blow things up like the devil in End of Days. His only purpose is to swindle people out of the exaltation he was denied.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I know (from 13 pages of experience ) that you can baptizied after death, but can you get sealed in marriage or family after death? Anything else like that?
Hobbes Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
There isn't a saving ordinance on earth that cannot also be performed for the dead. That includes baptism, confirmation, the endowment, and sealing.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
What exactly is an angel?
Has OSC ever written a book that didn't have huge sections of text based on Mormon beliefs besides Lost Boys? <grin>
[EDIT: I don't know why, but for some reason my roll eyes smilie didn't work. It seems to have been typed right. ]
Hobbes
[ April 26, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Well, given that OSC is an orthodox Mormon, a lot of the speculation that interests him is that which fits well with the world he believes in. He could sit around and speculate from a Catholic perspective, but he wouldn't feel nearly as enlightened afterwards, since he wouldn't buy any of it anyway
In Mormon theology, an angel is defined very broadly as a "messenger from the Lord". An angel could be an unborn human spirit, a departed human spirit, a resurrected being, or merely an image in a dream. They share only two things in common. First, they all have the same job — bearing messages and aid to us from the Lord. Second, they are all our brothers and sisters — all angels we might meet here will, at some point in their existence, participate in the mortal experience on earth.
Because the definition is so broad, Mormons will occasionally even refer to selfless mortals who help others as literal "angels", though this isn't as common a use of the term.
Also, those who do well in the afterlife, but fall short of full exaltation are sometimes referred to as "ministering angels", but the full significance of their position is not known, and thus far, according to the timeline, none of them exist yet, so they aren't exactly in a position to tell us any more than that Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
How about orginal sin?
(Note: the joke about OSC is because it seems that a lot of his books have a good deal of Mormon philisophy in them except the one book where the charecters are Mormon. )
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Another question about the devil. It sounds like he can't send visitations or the like. So that all prophets are either fakes or inspired by God, not the devil. Is the true? Can the devil do much besides try to (unconsciously) convince you to not follow God's plan?
Hobbes Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Satan and his angels can very much show themselves as angels of light and do things that might be considered from God. They are, after all, spirits like anyone else. He minipulates by distorting the truth. The differences they do have is that they will never be able to come to this earth and gain either experience or a body.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
As for original sin:
quote:We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
What Adam did brought mortality and sin into the world. However, Christ's Atonement wiped away the sins of Adam through his repentance just like everyone else. Eventually, the Atonement will take care of the mortality portion of Adam and Eves' mistakes. Yet, it was their mistakes that made our ability to progress possible, so Mormons don't look down on either of them for what they did. They did it out of a realization of the need for the fall to happen than out of any kind of malice toward God.
It does bring up one of the great paradoxes of Mormonism. Because the fall had to happen, did they actually sin? Notice that Joseph Smith, as quoted above, doesn't use the word "Sin," but replaces it with "transgression" meaning a breaking of a law (not particularly a law of God).
These Chapters in the Pearl of Great Price should explain some things:
I've found that this book will answer most of the major questions you'd have about LDS beliefs. (It's even cheaper through ldscatalog.com , but they don't allow for direct links). 's a good read!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
In the second Nephi, it is mentioned that there are other books from other groups that have broken off of Isreal. Have there been any discoveries of such books?
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, a lot of people of asked (almost all of them are IRL, but I figure some of you might be wondering too ) why I got interested in Mormonism. At the beginning of this thread, and in a few others I’ve hinted at it, but I guess I just want to kind of complete it.
For the past few years I have been a devoted agnostic. When I say devoted agnostic I mean I doubted everything. I doubted the existence of God and the non-existence of God. I doubted a lot of things besides God too, I decided that nothing could be known and so I wouldn’t belief anything. However, a few months ago I realized that (as I have said in a previous thread) this belief requires in-action. I must belief in something to get anything done (a little more complex, but I’ve explained this before so I’ll gloss over it).
So it seemed to me that there were 6 possible options. There was remaining an agnostic, atheism, Christian (but not Mormon), Buddhism, Islam, and Mormon.
Agnosticism has the problem that it wasn’t working or why would I be looking in the first place?
Atheism I frankly could never belief in (going of the technical definition of saying God “can not exist”. If you think this isn’t right, fine but that’s not the point, this is how I saw it). To me it seems that belief (or lack there-of) could be one of three things: complete leap of faith (nothing convincing you), God telling you (or at least hinting) that He existed, or leap of faith that he didn’t. I simply didn’t see any proof that God didn’t exist so it seems that a leap of faith is required, I just could never make a leap in that direction (because: what’s the point?).
Buddhism Christianity (excluding Mormonism) and Islam both have the same problem for me. They may be true, but there would be no way to know. I just can’t make a leap of faith without proof of some sort, so I decided that if one of these were the true faiths, something would have to happen before I could pursue them.
Mormonism has two things that I really like: one is the fact that your leap of faith doesn’t have to be without evidence, God will tell you that it is true. The second is that I have found (so far ) all the beliefs to be logical, straight-forward, and follow a lot of what I have already believed.
So this is why I’m asking all these questions, just in case you wanted to know. Thank-you all for answering them! I’m sure I still have plenty of questions left, but the way it looks to me is that it all depends on what answer I get.
Hobbes Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:In the second Nephi, it is mentioned that there are other books from other groups that have broken off of Isreal. Have there been any discoveries of such books?
There is at least one other major book known as "the Bible"
Seriously though, I don't know of any other books which have been discovered which were written by the house of Israel.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
We're still really hoping to find the Book of Zenos. We do have an excerpt, but the source of the excerpt is the Book of Mormon, so take that for what you will.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
I would say there has been some great psuedopographia discoveries over the last 60 years. True, none of them are considered divinely inspired in any way. However, they have opened a lot of new understandings into ancient Jewish and Christian life and theology. And this has brought a better understanding of Bible theology.
Other than that, there hasn't been any dramatic discoveries of new divinely inspired Scripture. Personally, I don't think that will happen until the millenium because we don't even use what we have to the best of their abilities.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:How about orginal sin?
The sin of having orgies? Quite grievous.
Oh, wait ... [comprehends typo] ... No, Mormons don't believe in original sin. It was an idea imposed upon the Bible centuries ago to explain why all people needed to become Christians or have their heads cut off
In truth, the Atonement isn't necessary because we are all stained with some all-encompassing original sin. The Atonement is necessary because this world is a proving ground for sinners. We wouldn't be here unless we were immature, imperfect, and had a tendency to act innappropriately, out of self-interest. God gave us Jesus Christ because He knew us before we were born, and He knew none of us could do this alone.
quote:Another question about the devil. It sounds like he can't send visitations or the like. So that all prophets are either fakes or inspired by God, not the devil. Is the true? Can the devil do much besides try to (unconsciously) convince you to not follow God's plan?
Anything that God can do to communicate with you and influence your mind, Satan can do also. This includes visions, apparitions, voices, etc. I get the impression that Satan has a harder time of it, but all the stories are there. However, there are two main limitations to keep in mind:
First, neither God nor Satan can force your hand. Sometimes, Satan will appeal to your most basic fears and insecurities, making it seem as though sin is your only way out. But in truth, the choice is always entirely yours, based on your own conscience. God will not and Satan cannot make you do something against your will.
Which leads us right into our second limitation. You can always tell the difference between Satan and God because Satan will be telling you to do something wrong. And regardless of what might appeal to you on the surface, deep with in you is the uncanny ability to know good from evil.
The reason neither God nor Satan uses extreme methods most of the time is similar — neither wants to prove his own existence. God because He created this world to give us independence and room to grow, and violating his own purpose for the creating the world would be pretty silly. Satan because his goal is to make you truly believe his lies. And the best way to do that is to convince you that his ideas are actually yours. People have a disturbing tendency to believe everything they themselves say.
quote:In the second Nephi, it is mentioned that there are other books from other groups that have broken off of Isreal. Have there been any discoveries of such books?
As others have said, no, this hasn't happen. It has been prophesied (as you read in second Nephi) that such books will be opened in the future, so that all of scattered Israel may learn from one another and achieve a more complete understanding of the Lord. But I guess we're not there yet
Got any more questions? I have to say, I'm having a great time in here, mostly because your attitude is so sincere and perceptive, and your questions are so darn GOOD. If you lived in the Seattle area, I'd want to get you into our Sunday School class to liven things up!
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Oh, on the issues of prophets — are they real, fake, or inspired by the devil — the answer always is, God backs up His own prophets. If someone's teachings are real truth from God, then they will not only sound cool. They will also resonate within your soul as the Spirit leads you to love all truth. False prophets may persuade, but only true prophets can inspire.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hobbes, I’m not trying to criticize your search or your attraction to Mormonism. But I do have to point out, re your most recent post, that the idea that God will give you assurance of the truth is pretty common in non-LDS Christianity as well. It’s sometimes called a witness of the Spirit, sometimes the doctrine of assurance, sometimes something else entirely, but it’s present in almost every “flavor” of Christianity I know of. Some just emphasize it more than others. In Methodism (UMC and other forms) it’s sometimes referred to as an “Aldersgate experience,” after the place where John Wesley was when he had his most famous experience of it. You’ll also hear jokes about “strangely warmed hearts.” Formally though, we call it the doctrine of assurance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You can always tell the difference between Satan and God because Satan will be telling you to do something wrong."
Geoff, how do you reconcile that attitude with the story of Abraham and Isaac?
[ April 27, 2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Not to speak for him, but I think the answer to that is:
quote:They will also resonate within your soul as the Spirit leads you to love all truth.
You will both know and feel that what you are taught is right.
By the way dkw, most of the Christians I know have scoffed at the LDS idea of what even we call "strangely warmed hearts." If it does exist within Orthodox Christianity it isn't a very respected way of coming to religious conclusions. This is especially the case with evangilicals who take the Bible as proof of itself.
[ April 27, 2003, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Jettboy ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You will both know and feel that what you are taught is right."
But I find that very, very scary. Abraham felt that sacrificing his child was RIGHT?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Let me stumble around here, Tom.
Abraham didn't have faith.
Abraham knew. I don't recall a story about any temptations from Satan that Abraham dealt with, but I'm pretty positive he did. That is the nature of beginning a relationship with God. Satan hates it and tries to stop it. Abraham had to already have rejected those temptations before he became the kind of man that God revealed himself to, and once Abraham KNEW, there could be no counterfeit revelation by Satan.
[ April 27, 2003, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Perhaps I can explore it in more detail later, but for the few minutes I have now ...
Tom, you find it "very, very scary" that one of the oldest recorded stories from an extremely early period in my faith's history says that God asked one man to sacrifice his son, then took it back, and such a thing has NEVER HAPPENED SINCE? What, precisely, is scary about that? Do you see a lot of Mormon men sacrificing their sons because they think God told them to? I don't think a Mormon has ever told that story to me without following up with, "Man, I would have failed THAT test."
Realize that in Abraham's day, human sacrifice was abhorrent, but far from unknown. It was not considered an outlandish demand for a god to ask his follower to sacrifice another human being. The fact that in this story, the Lord made the request, then TOOK IT BACK, using the experience primarily as an allegory to foreshadow his own sacrificed Son, and not actually spilling a drop of Isaac's blood, says a lot about the relative civility of the progenitor of the Judeo-Christian faith.
You're looking at this with too-modern eyes. Nowadays, even killing the goat that replaced Isaac would be seen as barbaric and ungodly. We have to read the scriptures with an understanding of the writers' cultural environment.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Actually, I think I got a bit sidetracked. Amka was more on-topic I'll come back later and discuss this more if you'd like ... I just have to get some work done before tomorrow morning.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Jettboy, if that’s true then the non-LDS Christians you’ve talked to don’t know their own history and/or theology very well. The 17th-19th century evangelical movement was based on religious experience and “heart religion.” Great Awakening, anyone?
I suspect that the evangelicals you’re referring to are trying too hard to convince someone (you? themselves?) that their religion is rational, and thus they avoid, downplay, or discount the experiential part. But really, what do you think they mean when they say they’ve been “born again”? That is an experience, not an intellectual exercise.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:But I find that very, very scary.
Of course, that's very scary. That's why any conversion based on that type of witness also has to be firmly embedded in the context of scriptural texts, coherant doctrine, and a community of faith.
You yourself admit that there's is much in Mormonism that is compelling and makes sense. From personal experience, and from what I've seen others go through, the strongest feelings of the spirit have to do with if Christ is truly our savior, if Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and if the Book of Mormon is true.
The only folks I know getting strange urgings, are schismatics who go off and set up their own church (one that often involved polygamy) or start preaching weird doctrine, etc.
I realize that part of what you find scary is the potential that Mormon leaders (since they claim to lead through inspiration) will start making extreme cult-like demands, but has that really been the case? They advise things that a reasonable person could disagree with, but nobody's drinking spike kool-aid or selling all their possessions and moving in to a house in West Hollywood where everyone wears the same style of nike high-tops.
The spiritual witness is important because it build trust and a solid foundation for faith, but it's operation doesn't seem to me to be as erratic and capricious as you seem to think it is.
Which leads me to:
quote:Abraham felt that sacrificing his child was RIGHT?
We've discussed this before, and I don't know that I have an answer that would satisfy you. In a way, I think the Book of Mormon example of Nephi killing Laban is even more troubling because 1) it involved an actual death 2) it doesn't quite have the same symbolic power that the Abraham and Isaac story does
--BUT--
Let me frame it this way: If God truly was going to send down his only begotten son to earth and sacrifice him for the salvation of mankind, if this event were going to truly happen, and it was going to be the key event of human history (the life and the death), and if that sacrifice is not just a death, not just a god dying, but also involves suffering for the sins and pains of all humanity past, present and future, if it is meant to be a true atonement, meant to bridge the gap between God and his children, then it makes sense to me that God would want to set up a story with great symbolic power to show, to give a glimpse of the vast and eternal importance of the sacrifice of his son, a story that generations afterwards would have access too and would puzzle over, and perhaps be troubled by, but that would at its core, touch deeply (even disturbingly) at the wrenching experience of needing to sacrifice your child.
I know several Mormon men (it especially seems to be men, for some reason) who are at least somewhat troubled by the Old Testament. They think that God should be completely consistent with his own commandments. That the supreme moral code should be paramount and God should be totally consistent. And some of them think that part of the problem may be that our textual sources for God's dealing with humanity are filtered through the men and women who have written them.
I understand this attitude. And I agree with it to a certain extent. At the same time, I wonder if God sometimes has to make exceptions in order to make a necessary point or derail a potentially devestating track of history (e.g. the Nephi and Laban story----it's better for one man to perish than for an entire people to dwindle into unbelief).
The bottom line is: so far I'm happiest and learn the most when I'm an active participant not just in the Mormon faith, but in communicating with God and studying scripture. And when I actual do listen to the whispers of his spirit, the gentle promptings of the Holy Ghost, and act on them, I feel good. And when I don't, things aren't as good. And lest anyone mistake what I mean about promptings, I'm not talking about God telling me to paint my wall almond brown or smite the unrightous, it mainly has to do with reaching out to and serving others----and, of course, I fight it and don't always obey because I'm a naturally reticent, withdrawn person.
But that's just my experience. I'll let you know if God starts telling me to do something that's way out there. ----
Geoff: your explanations in this thread are really well-written. Seriously. I'm impressed by the way you frame and express Mormon doctrine.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Hmmmm. I'm way to slow and long-winded. I agree with Geoff----Amka's explanation is the most correct way to answer that objection. Thanks, Amka.
dkw: I hear you. Mormons are way too ignorant about that period and don't give it enough credit. After all, the atmosphere, doctrines, practices, and modes of worship and conversion of the Great Awakening led to the climate that allowed a Joseph Smith to do what he did. Now we can argue about whether or not the Great Awakening prepared the way for a restoration of Christ's true church, or led to a dangerous (or mildly interesting---depending on which evangelical were talking about) false religion, but prepare the way it did.
Also: I suspect you're right about the de-emphasization of the experiental on the part of some evangelicals. In other words, the evangelicals that Mormons (esp. Mormon missionaries) are going to encounter are those that are the most interested in confronting Mormons. Since they are confronting Mormons, they are going to emphasize the Bible and not get into the experential stuff because they know that Mormons themselves heavily emphasize experiences with the spirit. In fact, the evangelical training materials that I've seen make a point of not letting Mormons bear testimony and making sure that any Christian who might be interested in Mormonism understand that the feelings (and the devil through feelings) can deceive and the the only truth that can be found is through rigorous study of the Old and New Testament.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
One more thing: I should add, and dkw would know more about this, there was a lot of debate in the 17th - 19th centuries among ministers and relgious writers about how the experiental nature of being 'born again' should manifest itself and what it should lead to. At one point there was a group that claimed that they could tell if a man had been truly born again or not just by looking at him. Needless to say, this caused some trouble when they accused certain prominent ministers of not being truly born again.
Also: I find it interesting that the debates that took place are the same that take place today among Mormons and other Christians-----how much should (or could) a person of faith lean on intellectual understanding and reason (and science)?
Some folks seem to think that Darwin precipitated this 'crisis' among religionists. Nope---it was the Enlightenment. Darwin just helped it to be re-framed and renewed.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Edit: Geoff makes pretty much the same point above, but I though that I'd expand upon it. His post isn't the one I'm thinking about below: ----
Okay, one more post and then I'll shut the heck up.
Say you're God and your children aren't doing so well, but you've got this guy who you trust and who trusts you. And say this guy lives in a social climate where child sacrifice is a thing people do because they've taken your plan to sacrifice your only begotten son and twisted it into something very sick and wrong.
So let's say you want to get the point across to his guy that while child sacrifice is very, very wrong, it does contain a true principle and not only that but because this guy knows you so well and you trust him completely, there's also a chance to set up a great symbolic story. What do you do?
I can't remember if someone else has made this point on Hatrack before [it was either here or on Nauvoo or at church], and if so, I apologize for duplicating it.
But....
The story of Abraham and Isaac deals a serious blow to the practice of child sacrifice. It says that the only true sacrifice is that of Christ, the son of God. It says that God will provide the sacrifice (the ram). Not only that but in order to prove his point, God lets Abraham and Isaac experience the full horror of the thing, but then intervenes divinely (the hand of the angel stops the knife). The story works on dual levels:
1-- It condemns child sacrifice as a horrible practice.
2-- It illustrates how much God loves the world that he sends his only begotten son to be sacrificed for the sake of all mankind.
[ April 27, 2003, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
This is a fascinating thread.
I just thought you all would like to know that it is part of the reason that I went to church today for the first time in, oh, a very long time. Years. I've been thinking about it for some time, since before I started coming here to Hatrack. And certainly, what you all have said here is by far not the only reason why I up and did it today. But it was a consideration.
I didn't quit going to church because I was off doing bad things or anything, and I didn't just quit one day. I just sort of drifted away, for a lot of reasons. It got to where I was leaving church angry or frustrated every time I went. I think a lot of it had to do with being a single woman in the church. I got really tired of people asking me when I was going to get married. I know the emphasis the church puts on marriage and family, but besides the fact that no one was asking to marry me, I didn't see anyone I was interested in marrying. There were also occasional hints that as long as I talked about things like reading books and being interested in academic things, I probably wouldn't find anyone who would want to marry me. I found that very discouraging.
But my experience going to a Christian (but non-LDS) university made me see that I need to be in a faith community. That experience also showed me that, contrary to what some in the church believe, I had not quit going to church because I lost my testimony, or that I had lost my testimony because I quit going to church. It may have gotten hidden to an extent from me because I had gotten resentful about things people were saying to me and expecting of me, but it was still there. That became obvious when I found myself explaining things about the church when people in classes brought up their misconceptions. All this made me reexamine my attitudes and after a long period of reflection, I came to the conclusion that my attitude should not have been to walk away, but to quit worrying so much about what other people think I should do. Took me long enough. Still, it took quite a long time for me to get up the, what, the courage maybe, to go back.
Goodness, this is getting a lot longer than I intended for it to. Anyway, I did go to church today, and it was good. It felt, as a matter of fact, as if I had never been away. All in all, I'm glad I went and I feel positive about continuing on the path.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
((((missattitude))))
I'm glad other are benefiting from this!
My current question isn't a religious question, it's about Saints. Basically, how much of that book was fact? I have some more, but I'm kind of back-logging them.
Last night I went over to a friend’s house (kind of, long story ) with two missionaries and one unsuspecting guy who I think is trying to go out with this girl. <grin> Anyways, we didn’t do any of the formal discussions, but just talked about the whole concept in general. I, personally, had a great time. Tomorrow afternoon I’m going back (since this family is gracious enough to have me over again ) and we’ll do one of the discussions (maybe two, I don’t know).
I still haven’t told my parents about anything. I’m very worried about it since they both seem to have little respect for the Mormon religion. I’m not going to let this influence my thinking (because if it’s true, it’s true) but it is kind of a big weight. Mostly I’m worried about my Grandpa, who is: THE MAN in every sense of the word. He’s just plain the coolest guy, and I don’t want anything to come between us, though I think he’d probably accept my choice the best of any of my family. Well now I’m just ranting and complaining which no one probably wants to hear so I’ll shut up now.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Zal, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of God deliberately setting two people up for suffering to create a good moral, especially when (as you point out) child sacrifice was still occasionally committed elsewhere and could easily have been adapted to the point.
I think I'm too selfish to be happy with the thought that my tribulations are meant to provide compelling reading for future generations.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Littlemissattitude- I'm glad that this thread helped you out! One of the greatest problems I've seen in being a member of the church is reconciling the existence of a divine organization with the often boneheaded or unthinking actions of some of its members. While the same basic problem exists in any organization, I think that is particularly noticeable in the church where everyone should (and probably does) know better but still does or says stupid things from time to time.
Hobbes- I don't know how much of Saints is really real. I know that pretty much all of it could be compiled from different experiences of early members of the church.
One of the biggest hang-ups for both non-members and members of the LDS church is explaining the polygamy thing. I actually look at it in a different way than most. I see it basically as merely a cultural difference much as Scots wear kilts or Brazilians always offer you the food they are eating. The problem is for those used to a monogamous society to begin a polygamous society without emphasizing the potential negatives of both arrangements.
At any rate, every Christian denomination that I know of believes that at least at some point God didn't frown on polygamy since the early patriarchs were all polygamous.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Hobbes, The Kirkhams from Saints are fictional. Howerever, Dinah seems to be drawn from Elizah R Snow and possibly Zinah (I'm not sure the last name).
However, Eliza was born in new england.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Tom: I can understand that. I don't think that I'd be very comfortable being one of God's object lessons either.
But then again, I could be entirely wrong about the whole thing. God could have set the whole thing up for other more primary reasons and the story was completely secondary.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Tom,
There are some who say that any amount of suffering is too much, and should be stopped at once and at all costs.
I disagree with this attitude. Every bit of suffering I've had in my life has gained me valuable experience that I've grown by. By actively fearing and avoiding the pain and sorrow that is part of a responsible life, our lives become shallow indeed.
A life tied up in a relationship with God, with all those responsibilities is probably going to much more difficult than those of us not so blessedly encumbered. These people accept that they may suffer on behalf of other people.
What do you say of a mangod who was completely innocent, always caring, always serving, and perfectly righteous who suffered for things he never did on behalf of other people?
That said, I don't think Abraham came out of the experience without any personal benefit either.
[ April 28, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Basically all I know about in terms of Church serrvices is Seminary (and of course the service on Sunday). Is there anything else? Also, from Lost Boys I know about coming around to people's houses, but I forgot what it was called.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What do you say of a mangod who was completely innocent, always caring, always serving, and perfectly righteous who suffered for things he never did on behalf of other people?"
That he chose to offer himself up that way. I don't mean to quibble on this single point, but I don't think anybody asked Isaac if he minded.
Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
Tom, I don't know this, but it is my belief that Isaac was a willing participant. I estimate his age at the time of the sacrifice to be about 30. They are alone, as father and son, and Abraham is over 100.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
There are Home Teachers, which is a pair of men who come to visit the entire family to deliver a short message but more importantly, to see how the family is doing. There are Visiting Teachers who are women that do the same thing but only for the women in the family. Every active adult member is typically part of a visiting or home teaching companionship.
We have Sunday Services, as you know, which include Primary for children 3-12; Priesthood for men ages 12 and up, with age group classes: 12 & 13, 14 & 15, 16 - 18 or so, 18 or so to around middle age, middle age on up; Young Women's, and Relief Society for women 18 and older. Then there is Sunday School with appropriate groups. Then there is Sacrament Meeting.
In the middle of the week, the Youth (ages 12-18) have activities. Sometimes they are just fun, sometimes they involve service, sometimes other growth oriented activities.
On fridays there are Young Adults dances for ages 14-18 and Singles dances ages 18 - 31. These occur about once a month in a stake, but in an area where there is more than one stake the dances are scheduled on different fridays of the month so you can often go to one every friday.
There is Seminary, but in college there is also Institute. Both of these have the occasionally activity, either fun or service oriented.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Someone (non-Mormon) just mentioned something to me about planets, and ruling over a planet? He didn't really know what he was talking about, do you guys know what he means?
Tom, I don't mind your asking questions in this thread....but can we not debate if the viewpoints make sense? I don't have a problem with it normally, but this thread is kind of meant for finding out what the beliefs are, not if they're true.
Hobbes Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
Hobbes, the idea is that God is our Father. We are to grow up to be like Him. That means that we are to be involved in the creation of many worlds and that we are to have jurisdiction over them as our He has created this world and as He has jurisdiction over this world. Clearly we have a lot to learn in the process of growing up.
Bebe
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Someone (non-Mormon) just mentioned something to me about planets, and ruling over a planet?
There's gotta be a F.A.R.M.S. book somewhere with all these FAQs in it.
We believe in God as not only the Creator of this world, but of worlds without number. We also believe one day we can become like God and do what He does. Like a child growing up to become like his parents, in a vast, eternal sense. Owning our own property, raising our own family.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK guys, tahnks. That's basically what I thought but he seemed bent on this whole owning a planet. Anyways, I have another question.
I've got the idea that we grow and continue in to develope until we become like God (hopefully ). Obviously, this requires some sort of ending to our time in one of the three Heavens (or four if your one of those handful of people ). So, what is that time? Or am I totally off on this?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* I don't know, exactly, but I love that you asked that question. I like Alma 40:8 "...and time is only measured unto men."
I don't know exactly what that means - if there is an end, then that is a measure of time, right? Also, since God is the alpha and the omega, and has been since before time, then what does that mean?
We don't know exactly. In answer to the question of how long do we stay in the celestial kingdom, I don't think it's like college where you can graduate or a physical place you have to leave. When (if) you do go on to become like Heavenly Father, you don't leave the celestial kingdom, you do the work there.
In other words, God is currently still in the celestial kingdom, even though he has dealings with us who are not.
</Gospel according to Katie>
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, as I understand it, to be as happay as possible, you need a body. So God has a body because He's as high up in happieness as He can get (i.e. perfect ). So where does his body reside?
Hobbes Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Abraham chapter 3 (in the Pearl of Great Price) mentions briefly where God resides (in this chapter God is teaching Moses about order and organization of planets, star, suns, etc.). Specifically, in verse 9, it says, "...Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God". Basically all we really know is that He lives near a planet known as Kolob. I assume that He lives on a physical, perfected planet somewhere in the universe.
[ April 29, 2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*rubs forehead*
I don't have coordinates, but try Abraham chapter 3 in the Pearl of Great Price.
Abraham is given one of those great sweeping visions that Moses, Nephi, Pete (I think), and the brother of Jared got. The Lord shows him the universe and points out a star, Kolob.
quote:1 AND I, Abraham, had the aUrim• and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees;
2 And I saw the astars•, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;
3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is aKolob•, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its atimes• and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a bday• unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand cyears• according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s dtime, according to the reckoning of Kolob.
Besides this, I don't know if its mentioned anywhere else.
There is an absolutely beautiful hymn in the hymnbook, which I love, that mentions Kolob. I can't find the lyrics anywhere right now, but if you have access to a hymnbook and piano, it is beautiful, and I love the words.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Along the same lines, if marriage is required to attain perfection, how about God?
Hobbes Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
Married.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
We assume that God is married, since marriage is required of us to reach exaltation. It's hard to have a father without also having a mother. As far as I remember, our Mother in Heaven is not mentioned anywhere in scripture. I do know that some modern leaders have mentioned her (as do a couple of hymns in the hymnbook), although not in any detail.
[ April 29, 2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Some people get squicky about this hymn because it does mention things that aren't actually mentioned in the scriptures anywhere - like a heavenly mother - but it's in the hymnbook, and that's vetted.
Plus, I love it.
[ April 29, 2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Thanks a lot guys!
What is the Church's stance on dreams (for everyday people, not Joseph Smith ))?
Hobbes Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
[gospel according to me, I'm not sure about the "Church's stance"]
Dreams can be a means of personal revelation. Every person is entitled to being guided in their own lives (and those for which they are responsible - like parents and their children). I have known people who have questions answered or receive guidance through their dreams. I, myself, have had dreams that have later come true (but those are, by far, the minority of my dreams, since I dream frequently). I'm not sure what else you're really asking about them.
[ April 29, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think there is a stance on dreams. You mean sleeping ones?
I've never heard anything in particular. A few opinions, but I can't remember whose they were, so I won't repeat them.
Added: jinx, ludosti. *grin*
[ April 29, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yah I mean sleeping ones, not those ones of grandeur.
I'd still like to hear what a few other people think of this dreams subject, but I'll move on to a new question.
Is there no possibility of preogression if you do not enter the Celestial Kingdom?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In the scriptures, no. Not so much.
Judgement Day is basically the final sorting out, and we know there will be work in the celestial kingdom and those who don't make it become ministering angles, but if you think we know only little about after this life, we know almost nothing after this afterlife.
However, I have a vague memory of hearing something encouraging in a General Conference setting, so I may be missing something. Does anyone else remember?
Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
I have heard multiple opinions on this. Most people seem to believe that there is progression. One apostle (Talmage) actually stated it as his opinion that there can still be some progression from one kingdom to another.
I don't think that that is standard doctrine. What seems more generally accepted is that while there may not be a possibility of progressing from one kingdom to another there is still a possibility of progressing within a given kingdom. One metaphore that I have heard used is that in one kindom you progress like a car drives while in another kingdom you progress like a plane flies. Both are progress, but the car will never catch up with the plane.
I wonder if the issue might be an issue of choice as much as an issue of eternal dictates:
What determines which kingdom you end up in? Thanks to the atonement, you do. You end up in the kingdom whose laws you are willing to abide. If you have chosen not to abide by celestial laws in the past, what says that you will ever choose to abide by those laws?
Bebe
Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
Hobbes, the doctrine is fascinating, beautiful and large. We are meant to learn it all.
After a point, most of the things that you will learn if you continue to study will come to you through personal revelation. You will be under scriptural injunction not to share many of them. (See Alma 12 for a more complete explanation.) I have been interested to read your posts. You are intelligent and rely on your intellect and yet you have also shown that you have seen some of the limits of intellect. It is in the nature of the gospel that you can never come to truly understand it without plunging in and living it. Before we came here to earth we were fully equiped to learn using our intellect. What we lacked was the chance to come and learn by faith and through experience. Don't let your intelligence or your hesitations stop you from learning with your whole self. Faith is a muscle that is strengthened into knowledge in the flexing. Get buff.
Love,
Bebe
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Ok, my own little question. What does it take to grow in faith?
I ask this for two reasons: I think that those who read about "strengthening your faith" would like to know what this exactly means, and it is a concept that I only vaguely understand even after years of learning.
Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
Faith is truly like a muscle: the only way that I know of to see it strengthened is to exercise it. Do you have faith in God? Try obeying a commandment that seems particularly difficult. In doing so you apply the faith that you have and find that God is there to bear you up. You come to trust him more fully. Your faith is strengthened.
Unfortunately the reverse process also applies: if you have faith that you refuse to exercise in works your faith atrophes.
Alma 32 has a great discussion on the subject.
Bebe
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Whoah! I can't believe I stayed away long enough to let the whole Kolob issue go by without comment from me!
This is my personal understanding, and is not official doctrine by any means. But I think the Kolob section of the Book of Abraham is one of the most misunderstood passages in Mormon scripture. If you read the entire chapter, it seems obvious (to me, at least, with my own imperfect mind) that it is an extended analogy designed to explain to Abraham the nature of infinity and the position of God in relation to Man. The existence of some real place called "Kolob" is as moot as the existence of a real "Prodigal Son", a real "Good Samaritan", or real people burying talents in the ground. Honestly, I don't think we know where God physically is, and I don't think we're going to know until we understand a lot more about the universe in general.
I, for one, am always skeptical about astronomical information written down by a man who belonged to a primitive society that did not know the Earth was round But don't take my opinion on this matter any more seriously than you want to. I'm not the prophet, so I've got no business thinking that my own ideas need to hold water for anyone else.
But if it gives you some more context and perspective, then cool. I'd love to give you more details on my opinion, if you're interested, but this is probably not the place Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Wow, I never thought this would go to 250 posts!
Right now I don't want to add another question (as I'm about to leave), but hope that some of these questions (*cough*dreams*cough*) have some more people answer them, since a lot of it is opinion I'd like to hear more of them
quote:It is in the nature of the gospel that you can never come to truly understand it without plunging in and living it.
But to live it, I must first believe it, and a few things have to happen before that occurs. Though I am trying to follow the basic rules (I hate to call them that, but it's the best word I can come up with) as best I can, I can't "live the gospel" right now.
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hobbes, you are doing fine. I'm not even sure that particular passage was directed particularly at you, and certainly wasn't meant in any way as a judgment.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I think that dreams take on various meanings. Sometimes they are manifestations of our fears and concerns, a way our psyche works things out. Sometimes I believe they are revelations or inspiration from God. Sometimes they are just repetitions of what went on that day or what movie we watched just before we went to sleep But I do think that very often we can learn a lot about ourselves by remembering and pondering our dreams. But this is just my unprofessional opinion
Geoff- That is a very interesting perspective on Kolob. I had never thought about that before.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
What ceremonies must be preformed in the temple?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Baptism by proxy for the dead, confirmation and bestowing the gift of the Holy Ghost by proxy for the dead, ordination to the Melchezidek priesthood by proxy for the dead, endowments for the living and the dead, and sealings for the living and the dead.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Wow, now I feel ignorant again!
What is a "confirmation", and how do you "bestow" the gift of the Holy Ghost?
What's the difference between the priesthood and the Melchezidek priesthood?
What is an "endowment"?
And finnally, how do you know to do a sealing for the dead?
(""s used for clarity, re-reasing this it looks like I'm making fun of this or something....I'm not! ).
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I'm sorry. I thought as I was writing that I might be using too much lingo. I've lost the sense of what vocabulary to use.
quote:What is a "confirmation", and how do you "bestow" the gift of the Holy Ghost?
This takes place after you have been baptized. Melchizedek priesthood holders lay their hands on your hand and confirm you a member of the church and give the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then, the Holy Ghost can be a constant companion.
quote:What's the difference between the priesthood and the Melchezidek priesthood?
There is the lower and the higher priesthoods. The Aaronic priesthood, given first to Aaron, the brother of Moses, is the priesthood through most of the Old Testament. It is under the direction of the higher priesthood, the Melchizedek. The Aaronic priesthood is concerned mostly with temporal welfare. They can also baptize and bless the sacrament.
For instance, the office of Bishop is in the Aaronic priesthood.
The Melchizidek priesthood is called after Melchezidek to whom Abraham paid tithes. It is the higher priesthood, and it necessary for about everything else.
"Priesthood" covers both, and "Melchizidek priesthood" covers only the higher priesthood.
quote:What is an "endowment"?
From the guide to the scriptures:
In a general sense, a gift of power from God. Worthy members of the Church can receive a gift of power through ordinances in the temple that gives them the instruction and covenants of the Holy Priesthood that they need in order to attain exaltation. The endowment includes instruction about the plan of salvation.
quote:And finally, how do you know to do a sealing for the dead?
Those who were married in life are sealed by proxy after death.
For instance, while all the other work has been done for my grandparents (my mother's parents) who were not members, they have not been sealed because they divorced in this life.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, some clarification (thanks a lot by the way, I know this is probably taking up a lot of your time an I appreciate it! ).
So what is the difference between a non-member feeling the Holy Ghost tell them things (i.e. The Book of Mormon is true) and what happens after you've been endowed?
As I understand it, as soon as a man is baptized, he becomes Priest. I’m assuming here that this is the lower Priesthood. What does someone do to become part of the higher Priesthood?
quote: Worthy members of the Church can receive a gift of power through ordinances in the temple that gives them the instruction and covenants of the Holy Priesthood that they need in order to attain exaltation. The endowment includes instruction about the plan of salvation.
So when does someone get an endowment? What types of “gifts of power” are given exactly? Are these instructions similar to personal revelations or are they told by the people performing the endowment?
So sealing for the dead is done only for already married couple who didn’t have a chance to get the sealing done in life (presumably lack of time or not being members)?
Which raises another question for me, can you break a seal between yourself and your spouse/child/parent? Is there any other types sealing done?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a pleasure, Hobbes.
quote:So what is the difference between a non-member feeling the Holy Ghost tell them things (i.e. The Book of Mormon is true) and what happens after you've been endowed?
To clarify terms, since endowed refers to something else, I'm going to use confirmed.
We most certainly can (and need!) to feel the Holy Ghost before we are confirmed. What happens when we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost is that we can feel the Holy Ghost with us all of the time, as long as we stay worthy. It is a priesthood ordinance, just like Baptism is.
Like at the Pentacost, and in 2 Nephi 31.
quote:As I understand it, as soon as a man is baptized, he becomes Priest. I’m assuming here that this is the lower Priesthood. What does someone do to become part of the higher Priesthood?
To recieve the priesthood, a man must be ordained to it. Usually, a man is ordained to the Aaronic priesthood shortly after he is baptized. There is no set time until a man is ordained to the Melchizedik priesthood, but it is usually (as far as I've seen) six months to a year after being baptized, if he's over about 18.
Most young men are ordained to the Melchizedik priesthood in the year before their mission, after they turn 18. A man must be ordained to the Melchizidek before going to the temple for his endowment.
quote:So sealing for the dead is done only for already married couple who didn’t have a chance to get the sealing done in life (presumably lack of time or not being members)?
That's right.
quote:Which raises another question for me, can you break a seal between yourself and your spouse/child/parent? Is there any other types sealing done?
There are such things as temple divorces, and that must go through the First Presidency. I don't think there's a way (or desire, hopefully!) to break the seals between parents and children.
How exactly it all works out gets a little complicated, and I know of innumerable situations where divorce, death, family loyalties, and adoption snarl everything up. In those cases (which includes my own immediate family), you go with what seems best and trust the Lord will straighten everything out.
I know I missed one, but I'm so sleepy (and still at work for an all-nighter!) that I'm saving it for morning. I hope that's all right.
[ April 30, 2003, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Answering any of these is a gift! Thanks so much!
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It really is a pleasure. And I didn't mean to quell any more questions. I'm just saving the ones that I want to really, really think about for morning.
This is actually a nice break from working. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I was just getting ready for bed when I thought of something. Since in most of my previous cases where I haven't written my ideas down I forget them, I'm posting this now!
Basically it’s something I came up with in response to my question about time in the after-life. Maybe you can tell me if it contradicts a whole bunch of stuff or even makes any sense at all.
I was thinking about how you could “end” your experience in the after-life (end being the wrong word but I’m just going to hope that you follow me here ) and still live forever in one of the Heavens. I came up with two possible theories, one of which is stupid because all it is, is my knowledge of one phrase and I have really no idea what that phrase means. “Complex time” is this phrase, and since I have no understanding of it at all really, I figured maybe if I learned more I’d have an actual theory. Well since that was very recently I haven’t learned more, but I’ve developed my other theory a bit.
I like to call it (these past two days ) the instantaneous theory, for the (all too obvious) reason that everything happens instantaneously. I had a problem with this when I realized that God lived in this universe (with this time), but I’ve come up with kind of a new theory that say the exact same thing (as if I’ve told you what that theory said ).
If God knows all, and all that is to be, then he has perfect memory of both past, future, and present. So each instant in our lives is preserved perfectly in God’s mind. Eternity. Of course this isn’t quite good enough because we still progress, to us, each moment last a discrete period of time and we move on. That’s probably a crippling blow, but I thought of two more things. One is that we can live in our time and still progress, but the perfection and eternity of God’s knowledge of each moment is not ruined by the progress of our temporal bodies, that moment itself still exists forever. Also, God’s mind might be a reality unto itself, since it is perfect and all containing, it could be looked at as it’s own system of what is real and true, in which case the universe exists in one instant in God’s all knowing mind. What do you think?
As one sound-off question, someone mentioned (IRL) that all things temporal start off in the spiritual world, including ideas. Is this true in the dogma sense of the word, or just their own belief (not that this makes it un-true, but you get what I’m saying)?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:As one sound-off question, someone mentioned (IRL) that all things temporal start off in the spiritual world, including ideas. Is this true in the dogma sense of the word, or just their own belief (not that this makes it un-true, but you get what I’m saying)?
In Genesis and in the book of Moses, there are two accounts of the creation. Yes, everything is created spiritually before it is created temporally.
As for ideas, I hadn't heard in exactly those terms, but Abraham tells us "Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was, and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones."
The intelligences were there even before we were. There even before we were created spiritually.
I don't know any specific references for ideas, but *grin* I'd be floored if an idea appeared on the earth that the Lord had never thought of.
quote:If God knows all, and all that is to be, then he has perfect memory of both past, future, and present. So each instant in our lives is preserved perfectly in God’s mind. Eternity. Of course this isn’t quite good enough because we still progress, to us, each moment last a discrete period of time and we move on. That’s probably a crippling blow, but I thought of two more things. One is that we can live in our time and still progress, but the perfection and eternity of God’s knowledge of each moment is not ruined by the progress of our temporal bodies, that moment itself still exists forever. Also, God’s mind might be a reality unto itself, since it is perfect and all containing, it could be looked at as it’s own system of what is real and true, in which case the universe exists in one instant in God’s all knowing mind. What do you think?
It could be. We don't know, though. There isn't anything revealed about this, but you can pray and ask the Lord what he thinks and if it is true. He's promised he will reveal the mysteries of God, and I would say this definitely qualifies. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Holy cow, kat. Are you still wearing a missionary tag, or what? Let someone else get a word in edgewise. . .
::thinks kat has done a remarkable job answering all these questions::
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* Check out the time stamp on those posts. If I were still wearing the badge, I'd be so busted...
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:As one sound-off question, someone mentioned (IRL) that all things temporal start off in the spiritual world, including ideas. Is this true in the dogma sense of the word, or just their own belief (not that this makes it un-true, but you get what I’m saying)?
There is a tendency for a slight bit of confusion based on the various ways the words "spirit" and "spiritual" are used. There is a "standard" definition in LDS theology, but the word is not always used in accordance with the standard definition. Here are a couple of examples:
An LDS church member might say something like "The other night I had a really spiritual experience." The meaning is obvious- this person had a touching theological experience- which most likely did not involve the appearance of any spirits.
Someone may make a statement like this: "Some angels are spiritual beings- they have not yet resurrected so they have only bodies of spirit." Again, the meaning here is pretty obvious but quite different from the previous example.
Finally, what your friend was likely referring to was this scripture:
quote:Moses 3:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;
Now then, I suppose there are different interpretations as to what the "everything" God created spiritually before it existed physically was. It seems to me that it is referring to creation of actual spirit bodies of all living things (similar to my second example above). However, this may not be the case. Sometimes it seems that God refers to something as a "spiritual creation" when it exists only as an idea or a concept. For example, if one reads Abraham chapter four very closely the creation is spoken of in future tense. It has wording like "And the Gods watched until they were obeyed" or "And the Gods saw they would obey" which suggests both a process of time and, to me as an engineer, it sounds like the Gods ran simulations of how they would put things together until they saw that their creations would get it right. At the end of chapter four is this very curious verse:
quote:31 And the Gods said: We will do everything that we have said, and organize them; and behold, they shall be very obedient. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and they numbered the sixth time.
This suggests to me that the creation discussed in all of the preceeding verses consisted of basically planning sessions, and once they saw that everything would work out as they desired they said "This is the way we'll do it". To me that suggests that sometimes "spiritual creation" may refer to conceptualizing something. It could be me just reading too much into the scriptures as well, though.
At any rate, there is more, and what's better is that it ties directly into Hobbes comment about God and time.
quote:D&C 29: 31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal—
32 First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work —
33 Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.
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.
What does this mean exactly? I don't know for sure, but there are a few things I can glean. "all things" (whatever that means) that we men know about existed first spiritually and then temporally- for humans we may understand that we existed as spirits before we were born and then received a temporal creation ie limited by time (which would seem to suggest that we were not limited by time before we came to earth). Thenit appears that we change our point of view- looking from where we stand now as temporal creatures our next step is "spiritual"- ie we will once again be unlimited by time at the end of God's work (the end of a subset of his work obviously, as he goes on to say that his work is endless). This is what I think verses 31 and 32 mean. Then in verse 34 we learn that no law is given which applies solely to us as temporal creatures, but that God gives his laws based on objective truths which apply independent of temporal state.
The big question, however, still remains- is the reason that God (and us at certain points in our development) is a spiritual rather than temporal because He is outside of time, so to speak, or is it simply because he is immortal and so time does not touch him?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No, the big question is whether or not you got your home teaching done, Mr. Smiley Alligator. . .
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Back up a second. Several of the verses that Jacare posted mention Gods (plural). My limited, although growing, knowledge of LDS says that you believe that we all have the capability to become like God (is that right?). Do these verses mean that there was more than one God involved in creation?
If I missed something in all the other posts, I apologize. Just point me in the right direction.
[ April 30, 2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: zgator ]
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
This might completly derail this thread so before you knowledgable people answer tell me if I should just start a new thread.
I just started reading Treasure Box and I was wondering if the explination of ghosts and the afterlife in the book is a part of LDS or if it was created because it worked with the plot?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Dragon- not part of LDS theology
Zan- There are at least two acceptable LDS doctrinal explanations about why those scriptures I posted say "gods". Take your pick:
1) It is used to refer to father, son and holy ghost
2) many of god's children participated in the creation of the earth together with god. These scriptures refer to them as gods meaning potential gods in the same way Psalms 82:1& 6 does ("GOD astandeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."..."6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Scott- yes. Yes I did.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Another explanation of the "gods" thing — it was written by Abraham over three thousand years ago The extent of the truth of monotheism may not have been as clear in those days.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Off Topic Plug: I love home teachers. My roommate and I have had the same way for over a year now. He rotates partners like I've never seen, but he is incredibly consistent and very kind. He's kind of a punk in the rest of his life, I think, but he is a very good home teacher.
*raises a water bottle* Cheers to the faithful home teachers!
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Another bit about the use of the plural word "gods" - one thing that has always struck me is that the name of god (in Hebrew) is Elohim. The ending "im" is a plural ending. So, in my mind, when we speak about God (Elohim) we could be speaking of the Godhead (like Jacare said - meaning Father, Son and Holy Ghost) or possibly (my own personal opinion here) Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Alma Chapter 13 is one of my favorite scriptures for so many reasons. One of the most interesting reasons is that you get an idea of the way God acts toward time. If you read, notice how things are both reflected as having had happened, and as if it will happen -- adomishing people to make it happen.
quote:3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.
5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared . . .
In other words, according to this, God chose who He did in the pre-earth life to lead the people because he already knew who was going to be worthy. Yet, as the chapter goes on there is still a call to repentance as if people's future can be changed. I think this is because God can prophecy the future, but is still living in the present to actualize what He sees.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
This got me thinking:
quote:Justification = being declared righteous and thus able to stand before the throne of God without bursting into flame or equivalent calamity. Sanctification = the process of becoming sanctified, i.e.: holy, without sin, (maybe even unable to sin).
According to Catholic (not just Roman Catholic) teaching, during one’s life grace received through the church, in the sacraments and through good works, works on one’s soul, bringing it ever closer to sanctification. At some point, having become fully sanctified, one is then also justified, and able to stand in God’s presence (which means one can handle heaven). Most people can’t complete it before they die, thus the need for purgatory, to give souls the time they need to finish.
Martin Luther (and others, but ML got most of the credit) reversed it, saying that it is God’s pleasure to declare sinners justified even though they are not yet sanctified. Which means that sinners, though still sinners, can stand in God’s presence (i.e.: get to heaven.) Gratitude for this amazing mercy then inspires the person so justified to perform good works, etc., and sanctification proceeds apace. But justification (and thus salvation) is not dependent on the process, since it’s been unilaterally declared a done deal by God.
Where do Mormons stand on this issue? From my understanding LDS kind of stand in the middle and consider that neither is exclusive from the other as they happen simaltaniously. Justification happens because Christ allows for Sanctification. Just wondering what others think.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Jettboy, my understanding of the LDS view is that the relationship between justification and sanctification is closer to the Catholic view – that one’s “salvation status” is dependent on the level of sanctity one reaches during one’s life. Am I misinterpreting?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
From my understanding it's not that they need to do a certain number of good works, just that they choose God's plan. I guess. Actually dkw's explenation is probably better.
Hobbes Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
I am not sure exactly how justification and sanctification works to the LDS, and that is why I asked. It seems they are, as I have said, simaltaneous.
It goes like this. Our actions are meaningless -- they don't get us anywhere (they are not justified) on their own. No matter how good we are we cannot save ourselves through our works. The thing that makes works justified is when Christ's atonement through faith intercedes and sanctifies the actions. And the only way for the atonement to sanctify our actions is if we act in good faith. Thus, according to LDS theology, a work without faith is meaningless, but faith without works is equally without meaning.
So, if you ask a Mormon if works save us the answer will be -- yes. If someone asks a Mormon if Grace saves us the answer will be -- yes. Unless someone has anything else to add or change as far as I know this is how faith/works happens in LDS salvation theology.
Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
Well if you knew the answer then why ask the question?
You hit it pretty much on the head. Christ Atonement made up for us being human. After all we can do, which still leaves us short of perfection, Christ steps in and makes up the rest. But, we have to be actively engaged in doing all that we know to be correct, or repent really quick. You know incase a bus is coming with your name on it.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
I asked the question because I am still not sure if I am representing it correctly. After all, how many times have you heard a justification, sanctification discussion in an LDS theological discussion?
Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
There was a story taught to me that sums up almost exactly what you stated.
"A man need to cross the river so he hired an old sailor to row him across. About half way across the River the man notice that the sailor had two inscriptions written on each oar. One said 'Faith' the other 'Works'. Intrigued the man asked what they meant.
The Sailor replied "When I pull on only one the boat just spins but when I pul on both at the same time I move straight ahead. If I rely simply on faith or on works I will go no where. The only way to progress is through the use of both."
I have heard many LDS peopletry to explain our belief in faith-works, but few have been able to put as complete and succinctly as you did. Like I said earlier you hit the nail on the head.
[ April 30, 2003, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Head Ditch Digger ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
It seems to me that LDS theology presupposes one or several wives for God. Am I on the right track here? Is this addressed anywhere in your scriptures?
I find the idea of Mama God strangely cool.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
It's not addressed in scripture. It's addressed in a hymn written by Eliza R. Snow -- "O My Father." The hymn suggests that there is a mother in heaven.
The CW is that Joseph Smith approved of the hymn. It is still included in the LDS hymnbook and seems to be a favorite hymn of many Mormons.
Generally, when the subject comes up church leaders have referenced the hymn and suggested that it's only logical that if there's a Heavenly Father there also be a Heavenly Mother. But beyond the fact of her existence, there is no canonical doctrine on her. And speculation on this topic is strongly discouraged.
Some have taken this stance to be evidence of gender-bias. Many Mormons believe that it reinforces her sacredness---that we're much too profane and disrespectful to have more knowledge of her.
I wonder if part of it is to discourage the human tendency to set up rivalries and divide into camps.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
That clenches it: LDS wins as the coolest religion I am not a part of. Contest is closed.
Heh.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
It wouldn't be just the hymn. I would suggest that the idea of a Temple Marriage and the eternal relationship of couples presupposes it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The justification-sanctification question is not a faith-works question, although they usually get lumped together. The justification-sanctification one is more one of order or timing.
Whether the process of sanctification happens by faith or by works or by a combination of the two, does it have to be complete before one is justified? In other words, is justification (being counted righteous by God) the goal of sanctification or its prerequisite?
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
As I have said, neither as far as I understand. The second you have been justified (counted righteous by God) you have also been sanctified (become Holy). The second you are sanctified you have also been justified.
[ April 30, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Jettboy ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Okay. I would still see that as comparable to the catholic stance, that one cannot be justified without also being sanctified. The protestant argument is that it’s possible to be justified without/before being sanctified.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:It seems to me that LDS theology presupposes one or several wives for God. Am I on the right track here? Is this addressed anywhere in your scriptures?
This isn't addressed anywhere in our scriptures, and I don't know if any prophets have said anything about it. But it certainly seems possible that God has more than one wife.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
I am changing my post, because, frankly it didn't make much sense to me. I have also read a few scriptures on the subject and find that sometimes it sounds like one way and at others it sounds like another -- and then there are those that sound like both. I still contend they are both happening at the same time. Part of the problem is that I can't see it as anything else but a "faith/Works" discussion.
[ April 30, 2003, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Jettboy ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:I would suggest that the idea of a Temple Marriage and the eternal relationship of couples presupposes it.
Yes.
When I was at work I remembered that the Gospel Principles book, which forms the text of the Sunday school class that new and recent converts attend and is given to newly baptized members, addresses this is rather specific terms. In fact, I remember being a little surprised with how open and matter of fact it is about things that growing up I thought of as *deep* doctrine.
Anyway, I now have a copy in my hands:
The second chapter, titled "Our Heavenly Family," says "Because we are the spiritual children of our heavenly parents, we have inherited the potential to develop their divine qualities. If we choose to do so, we can become perfect, just as they are."
The phrase 'heavenly parents' is used quite often throughout the first chapters of the book.
One more quote, this from the first chapter: "All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him -- a god."
[tangent]Mormon missionaries have sometimes been accused of hoodwinking potential converts and not telling them the 'heretical truth' until they're sucked in, but the discussions that missionaries use (or used throughout the 80s and 90s, I understand that they are in the process of being revised) employ much of this same language. [/tangent]
----
Also from the book, the third verse to the hymn I mentioned above:
I had learned to call thee Father, Thru thy Spirit from on high, But until the key of knowledge Was restored I knew not why/ In the heav'ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal Tells me I've a mother there.
And the fourth verse:
When I leave this frail existence, When I lay this mortal by, Father, Mother, may I meet you In your royal courts on high?/ Then at length, when I've completed All you sent me forth to do, With your mutual appobation Let me come and dwell with you.
--- It really is a lovely hymn. And Eliza R. Snow is a wonderful poet and writer. Sure, I'm biased, but early Mormonism produced some great writers and pieces of discourse and literature.
[tangent2]I think that something from Joseph Smith (maybe the King Follett Discourse, or Doctrine and Covenants 121) or Eliza R. Snow should be included in the Norton Anthology of American Literature. I mean if Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is included...[/tangent2]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I'm not sure this completely clarifies things but:
quote:This action of acceptance on our part opens the door for the process of justification (remission, or pardoning, of sins) and sanctification (cleansing from sin) to work in us—something we may refer to as being born again."
From an article in the June 2001 Ensign.
quote:Justification directly opens the way to sanctification by establishing a 'right' relationship of mortals with God. Thus, God, without denying justice, can bless them with the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost (Mosiah 5:1-2; 3 Ne. 27:20). Justification starts the believer on the path toward righteousness.
From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2 (Unverified---I pulled the quote and source from the Internet).
I know that some evangelical Christians make a big deal about Mormons and their 'misunderstanding' of justification and sanctification. But the things I've read fall back in to the same good works vs. grace type of discourse.
dkw's explanation that it's more a matter of timing clarifies some things for me.
There's a couple of good references to the twin concepts in LDS scripture, but I don't have time to post them at the moment.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I've been through one of the discussions already and I still am not sure what it was about. Not that I didn't learn anything, but I wasn't clear on the specific topic (which I kind of actually like ). Is there some site with the topics of the six discussions, or can someone tell me? Or should I not know?
Hobbes Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Going from memory here ...
Discussion 1: Intro to Mormonism ... beliefs about God, Christ, prophets, and scripture.
Discussion 2: The Plan of Salvation, focusing on the role of Jesus Christ.
Discussion 3: The purpose and history of the Church. Why a Restoration was necessary.
Discussion 4: Eternal Progression. Esoteric beliefs about the purpose of life and the grander scheme of things. Moral laws such as chastity and the Word of Wisdom. The temple and eternal marriage.
Discussion 5: Sacrifices made by members, particularly tithing and fasting. Why it's hard to be a Mormon.
Discussion 6: The mission of the Church. A wrap-up discussion that puts the purpose of Mormonism in a simple framework.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Thanks a lot Geoff! What are you doing up though? You should go to bed!
I've developed a plan to on how to go about all this (sorry, I'm only revealing it in private until I know what the outcome is, but if you want to hear, it, e-mail me and I'll tell you ). Part of that plan is waiting a decent while after deciding on the truth of the Church (this is if I go down the path where I discover if it is true of course ) before getting baptizied. I'm not talking years or anything, but what do you think of waiting?
Hobbes Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Given the length of my engagement, I'll never criticize anyone for waiting Just realize what you'll be in for — if joining the Church is the right choice for you, you can bet that there will be forces in this world determined to see that you fail. It may end up being one of the hardest times in your life. But if you know that from the outset, then caution certainly has its advantages. A choice made cautiously is easily stood by.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yah, I can agree with that. On a realted topic, do you have to have your parent's permission to get baptizied if your under 18? (Just as a note for those who are curious, I'm turning 18 this up and coming June 2nd).
Hobbes Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
You're that young? I assumed you were older than I was! And yes, the Church will not baptize a minor behind his or her parents' backs.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Wow you make it sound sneaky! Yes, I'm 17, why did you think I was older? Not that this is important but.... .
Hobbes Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's all the smiley-faces, Hobbes. . . people expect teens on Hatrack to be more morose.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<<<<<Hobbes>>>>> Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
lol Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
When I was 14, I learned to assume that articulate people I met online were all older than me. It's hard to actually take the next [shudder] eleven years into account ...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:In other words, is justification (being counted righteous by God) the goal of sanctification or its prerequisite?
I hesitate to post this, but it seemed relavent. I once had a quite entertaining discussion with a belligerent Protestant concerning these scriptures:
Hebrews 10:10:
quote:By the which we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Four verses later....
Hebrews 10:14:
quote:For by one offering [Christ] hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.
Nice, Paul. No wonder there's been two thousand years of confusion!
[ May 01, 2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And the confusion would be...? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. Jesus Christ's offering (the necessary act of justification) sanctified everyone.
2. Jesus Christ's offering perfected only those that were already sanctified.
-------
The word justification is not included, so there is wiggle room for interpretation.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ah, that would be the problem. We're using the word "justification" differently. (Isn't translation fun!)
(moving my edit to a later post, so as not to cause confusion)
[ May 01, 2003, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* Yes.
Man, I love Hatrack.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:Justification = being declared righteous and thus able to stand before the throne of God without bursting into flame or equivalent calamity. Sanctification = the process of becoming sanctified, i.e.: holy, without sin, (maybe even unable to sin).
If this is the case, then Paul referring to sanctification (an on-going process) as one event would be confusing. Are we sanctified solely by virtue of the fact that Christ offered the opportunity (vs. 10) or did Christ offer perfection to those already sanctified (vs. 14)?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The definitions I gave referred to the way the two words were used in theological debate at the time of the reformation, and the way they are used today to distinguish between two ways of veiwing salvation and perfection. I don't think we can assume that the word translated in Hebrews as "sanctification" is necessarily being used the same way. (But, then, I haven't done a word study on the Greek text, so maybe it is.)
I take vs 14 to be an explanation of what “sanctified” means, not a second process. So there isn’t a contradiction (to me). In other words, the writer isn't being contradictory, he's being repetitive.
[ May 01, 2003, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
(((((((AK)))))))
If it isn't too personal, I'd like to hear some of the ways you feel the Holy Ghost. It probably is, so, I don't really expect anyone to respond but I'll just throw this one out there.
If Christ doesn’t judge us until The Second Coming, how do we get divided into the two states of being before that?
Hobbes Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Its a division of our hearts more than a division of space. When we die our actions either endear our "spiritual psychology" toward God or toward Satan -- depending on what direction we were traveling here in mortality. That is why missionary work is possible until the Judgement Day when a physical/spacial split occures.
[ May 01, 2003, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Jettboy ]
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
As for the Holy Ghost, sometimes its just an "oh yea" moment where something that didn't make sense suddenly does. Other times is like the feeling you get when you watch a "heart warming" movie or book, only much more powerful. It becomes very hard to not smile. Finally, there are times when I have a nagging feeling that I should do something that is specific.
However, I admit that I am more intellectual than emotional. Its hard for me to feel the Holy Ghost. But, the Lord seems to have made up for that because many time my answers have come from mental realizations.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
A clarification on the after-life question. So there are two distinct possibilities, and if your on the border line you can waffle back and forth (if you keep getting better and worse)?
Also, I’d like to hear more about the Holy Ghost from others, but what I said above still applies.
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hobbes, do you want just LDS stories? I’ve felt a little odd every time I’ve posted on this thread, since it’s stated purpose is to learn about the LDS religion. I don’t want to come across like I’m trying to derail your search or something.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well I'm interested in hearing any stories at all. I did start this thread off with a bunch of general religious questions (not just LDS), and I have focued on LDS lately. This is because I'm getting to the point where I'll make a choice on believeing in Mormonism or not, but I am still interested in what others have to say. A lot of my questions can only be answered by Mormons (since they're specific to the Mormon doctrine) but if you want to jump in and say something, don't feel odd! I love hearing from everyone about these answers.
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Well, I asked the question specifically because you asked for Holy Spirit stories, but after trying to type a few I’ve decided it’s a moot point. They’re too personal, and too weird, to try to communicate by posting. There isn’t a person at Hatrack I wouldn’t be happy to tell these stories to if we could sit down face to face, but there’s just too many ways to misinterpret them to post them on a public forum. Sorry.
I will say, in general, that for me the experience tends to be something that builds over a period of time. I’ll have this nagging feeling that something’s going on, or I’ll start to notice tons of really weird co-incidences, or just feel like my attention is focusing on odd things. This will build and build and eventually break and I’ll come to some major realization and then think, “Ohhhh, so that’s what all that was about.” Usually. A few times it’s been more sudden, and once it was literally like being grabbed by the shoulders and shaken. That was very, very strange, but it definitely got my attention.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
For me feeling the influence of the Holy Ghost has come in many different ways. There have been instances where going about my normal course, like driving home one night after dropping my dh off to play basketball, I've had very strong feelings of danger/warning to not go home, not take that route, not *do* something. I believe these to be warnings. One night I came home after dropping my sister in law off at home and had the strongest feeling to leave and go over to her house. It was just a powerful force seeming to be lodged in my chest. I did not feel peaceful until I left my house and went over to her house. I have no idea why in any of these instances but I do believe they were warnings. Its very easy to spin these into coincidence or believe that they are just results of my anxiety or whatever. I just know that they were warnings from the Holy Spirit.
Other times I've felt an overwhelming sense of peace when pondering a decision, or pondering my life, the gospel, my family.
When I was younger we were driving with my mom, it was my little brother and I in the back seat. It was raining and we were going around a particularly dangerous curve. Suddenly my mom slowed down drastically and began to pull to the side. Immediately following her decision the truck in front of us slammed on its brakes. Had she not already been slowing down she would have slammed into him because of the rain. The dumb driver slammed his brakes to avoid hitting a rabbit. She thanked us for saying "hey look there's a rabbit" because it warned her that the guy would try to stop. Neither one of us had said a word! I have also had an experience with hearing a physical voice. But those experiences are rare I believe.
Explaining how I feel the Holy Spirit is hard to do. Its one of those things I think you know when it happens if that makes any sense. Feel free to email me if you need more. I hope I haven't shared too much.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I've felt the spirit in two ways, and perhaps this can show you the difference between having the Gift of the Holy Ghost when you are confirmed and recieving revelation (like is the Book of Mormon a true book?) through it.
The Holy Ghost as it is always with me: it is an emotional steadying post. It is the peace that is in my life. It is what gives me the strength to overcome the despair that on occasion threatens to swallow me up. I know that the despair is not me, who I really am. So I ride out the storm for a while, knowing that I am in God's care and that it will pass.
The Holy Ghost has on occasion whispered to me, given me revelation. It's not huge or anything. You can barely discern it from your own thoughts, but it is different. The peace I spoke about is there, but stronger, a warmth, a joy. The thought makes complete sense. It is logical. It is wonderful. It echoes through your lifetime. It becomes scripture written on your heart.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Amka, that was beautiful.
I can't put it into words, but for me, the difference between feeling the Spirit and not is like the difference between color television and black and white.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*cough*
I asked the missionaries the question about Heaven and Hell (before the Second Coming), but I'd like to hear your guy's responses too. Also, in The Bible there seems to be a lot of mention of Hell as burning and fire and flame, but none of the after-lifes described in The Book of Mormon has fire and falmes, or even anything similar.
On another note, I would like to to e-mail some of you my "plan", because I want to know if it makes any sense. If your willing to look over it, will you e-mail me?
Hobbes Posted by ravenclaw (Member # 4377) on :
I want to know your plan.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
The fire/flames are a metaphor for great spiritual anguish.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Hobbes-
actually, you'll find flames, fire and brimstone mentioned in the Book of Mormon as well. Look at 2 Nephi chapter 9 for example:
quote:O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.
For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.
Later on in the Book of Mormon there are less references to flames etc and more references to hell as pain or torment. This could be due to the fact that the idea of hell as a fiery pit (gehenna) was particularly strong for those who lived near Jerusalem (Like Nephi and Jacob in the Book of Mormon) because there was a garbage pit near the city which burned constantly and so the imagery would have been quite vivid for them. Later authors would have been subject to different cultural imagery more specific to the Americas. What strikes me especially are the constant associations of [url=http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=chain+hell&search.x=0&search.y=0[/url]chains and captivity with the idea of hell in the book of Alma and then in third Nephi "gates of hell" is a common phrase. This difference in emphasis may be cultural as I said or it could be simply due to the fact that the different books were written by different authors who wrote using different phrasology.
At any rate, whatever imagery is used to convey the idea it is clear that the Book of Mormon authors were using metaphor to convey the following idea:
quote: And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.
Hell is basically a state of suffering brought on by inability/ unwillingness to change. Every human being at some time or another has allowed habit/culture/comfort dictate his or her actions over what they know to be good or right. People who do so frequently find themselves trapped in terribly unhappy situations they can't get out of (think of drug addicts, or spouse abuse or just about any human failing). To escape such a situation requires knowledge of a better way and the faith to act. It is easy to see that this is the case. I think that hell is essentially the same thing- people for one reason or another find themselves unable or unwilling to make the changes which will bring them happiness and so they are stuck in their misery. It is as if they are captives to their own worst natures- they are chained to their bad habits.
Hence, hell in my view is not a punishment God inflicts on the wicked but is a state of suffering the wicked inflict on themselves by their own choice.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
Hobbes,
I joined the Church about 3.5 years ago. If you would like the perspective of someone who grew up with very little religious influence before finding the gospel, please feel free to email me. The address is in my profile.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm going to take everyone up on their offer to look over my plan. Thank-you all for this! The reason I haven't gotten back to all of you is that after getting some feed-back from a couple of people, I'm re-thinking and revising my plan. So don't think I don't appreciate it!
<--*Points up to his un-answered question* What is Sunday dress supposed to be, what is the dress-code? I read a little about it on a website, but what do people normally wear?
Is there any, even vague, reference to the number of intelligence that exist before coming down to this universe?
Hobbes Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I don't know if there's really a dress code, per se. I know the standards for guys better than the ones for girls, mostly because Sunday dress for guys is much easier to figure out. Here it is as I understand it: white shirt and tie, slacks, dress shoes, and non-white socks ('cause you can't wear white socks with slacks and dress shoes!). I see lots of guys wearing colored shirts, saggy cargo pants, white socks, and tennis shoes to church. I really don't like it.
[ May 05, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:What is Sunday dress supposed to be, what is the dress-code? I read a little about it on a website, but what do people normally wear?
General minimum is nice slacks, button-down shirt (usually white, but younger guys have a variety), leather shoes (from loafers to dress shoes) of some sort, and a tie (optional). Also, a suit is always appropriate. Girls wear a skirt and dress (usually) modestly.
From www.mormon.org: "Those who attend will most likely be wearing their “Sunday best,” which may include suits, sport coats, and ties for the men and dresses or skirts for the women. Children also typically dress up for Sunday."
quote:Is there any, even vague, reference to the number of intelligence that exist before coming down to this universe?
Hmm... not that I know of. There are the references to the third of the host of heaven following Lucifer, but no references to numbers.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
About the white shirt for church:
My understanding is that this has never been an actual requirement, but it does seem to be done by most men. My first bishop definitely required it for blessing and passing the Sacrement. I haven't owned a white dress shirt for the past 2 years so I obviously don't wear one. I am in the visible minority.
I quite often wear a light blue dress shirt with my (mainly red) Silver Surfer tie. I always wear at least a shirt and tie with either dress pants or khaki style pants. Probably once a month I wear a suit as I currently own only one suit.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I have always felt that a tie was more than optional. It is rare to see someone without a tie. Dressing our best is a sign of respect, in my opinion. Modesty should be taken into account. Dress slacks, clean button down shirt and tie for the men and nice, modest dresses/skirts and nice shirts for the women. Oh the white sock thing is more of a preference then a requirement. Some of us just don't think the white socks look as nice as dress socks Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* The white sock is more of a sartorial detail. In terms of dressing well, you never wear white socks with dark pants, excepting only blue denim jeans.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Wendybird,
What about someone who grew up where they rarely wore ties, unless they were government or mafia or military. The military ties were clip-ons.
I had to teach my husband how to tie a tie. He'd never done it before. He hates them and wasn't brought up to wear them as a sign of respect. He wears ties at church most of the time, but he occassionally takes advantage if I haven't paid attention Sunday morming.
So what would you think if you saw him on Sunday without a tie?
These things are cultural. They change. Wearing a beard used to be conservative, the cultural norm for a man of honor. It is no longer so. Women used to not cut their hair at all. Then for a time, only the harlots did it. And now it's common and conservative. In fact, I see very few gray haired ladies with long hair.
These things change and I think that it doesn't really matter to God what we wear as long as it is modest and doesn't permanently alter our body (except that pierced ears in women are accepted), and is at the time respectful dress.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Amka,
I appreciate your point, but I don't think Wendy was implying that the standard was absolute. I know it is changing, but truthfully, it hasn't changed yet. If you look around most wards I have been in, 90% of the guys are wearing a tie.
And really, these are generalcustoms. Hobbes would probably feel more comfortable dressed nicely, but people hardly spent time in church commenting or even thinking about what other people are wearing.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
The point of a "dress code" for church is to help people to respect the church building (God's house) and to help them get in the proper mind-set to attend a worship service (i.e. people act differently wearing shorts and t-shirts than they do when wearing suits). That being said, what you wear to church is not (should not) be the most important thing about attending church. I have gone to church in areas where people wear jeans and t-shirts, because those are the nicest clothes they have. I have known women who always wore slacks to church because they either did not own any skirts/dresses or because the ones they did they not feel were appropriate (i.e. miniskirts). In my ward, most of the men wear a dress shirt, tie, slacks (or khakis), and conservative shoes. But there are also men who attend wearing jeans and polos. There are women who wear conservative dresses, hose and heels and there are women who wear denim skirts, tshirts and sandals. Basically, how you dress is up to you.
Edit: I get frustrated when people seem to fixate on what people wear to church. Yesterday, a woman became concerned when her elderly, hard-of-hearing mother arrived at church wearing a pant suit and spent several minutes trying to tell her that she needed to make sure that whoever dressed her next time put her in a dress. It made me a little sad.
[ May 05, 2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
What is the purpose of fasting? When do you do it (besides the first Sunday of every month)?
Hobbes Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Just to note:
There are regional and cultural variations related to Sunday dress.
My bishop rarely wears white shirts, and while there are quite a few men who do, there are a lot less men in the Bay Area who wear white shirts than in other places where I've been to church (Utah, Idaho). I didn't wear a white shirt to church until a few months ago when I figured out that it'd be a lot easier to match my ties and pants if I didn't have to worry about the color of my shirt as well. Plus, since I have to wear dress shirts for work (but no tie---except for on the day of commencement), I like wearing a shirt that's different from the ones I wear all week.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I find it mind boggling that anyone pays attention to what color dress shirt someone wears.
I don't mean that to sound critical. It's just completely outside my experience.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
in one of my wards deacons, teachers, and priests weren't asked to bless the sacrament unless they where wearing a white shirt. was this just a tradition that stuck in my area? i hardly care, personally, but iwondered if there was guidance or counsel concerning that specific matter.
i think someone should mail hobbes the Mormon Doctrine book and yet, somehow i don't think that would slow the questions down Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
dkw,
Some people do, some people don't. I'm sure it is the same way in any church. Especially in the alien Idaho and Utah (where I live folks, so I'm not knocking it too hard) there are some who do get hung up about white shirts and a tie.
Anyway, about fasting.
It's an interesting practice, with a lot of levels to it.
The easiest to understand, is that we obviously don't pay for the food we haven't eaten, so we take than money and donate it to the church. It is called a Fast Offering, and it only goes one place: to the welfare and humanitarian program. The welfare system is the best set up I know. When you fall on unfortunate circumstances and find that you need help, you go to your Bishop. If it is job related, he will send you to the employment specialist. You will also get those things you need: food, etc. You will be asked to pay for everything you are able, but what you can't do, the church pays for. Interestingly enough, the checks that get written out are not to the folks in need, but to the utility companies that need to get paid. So, you need to pay the electric bill, the church writes out check to the electric company for the amount needed.
But fasting is more than that. By not eating, you are denying your body to a point, and it is your spirit which is more in control. By itself, it's not a bad thing to do. When combined with prayer, it is a powerful thing. And it helps to have a point, or something specific to pray for. Someone, or even a whole nation in need. Or perhaps, a question Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:What is the purpose of fasting? When do you do it (besides the first Sunday of every month)?
Fasting is a means of focusing your thoughts. Fasting involves going without food or drink for a period of time while increasing your focus on spiritual things (prayer, scripture study, etc.). Often people fast at times when they feel a need for special guidance, are stuggling with a particular problem or question, or when they do so with the hopes of helping someone else (such as a family member or friend who has a special need). By fasting, you are focusing on your spiritual needs rather than your physical needs. A typical fast (like that on the first Sunday of every month) skips two meals and lasts about 24 hours - but it is up to each person's discretion. By nature, fasting can be done whenever you feel the need to do so. There is no right or wrong time to fast. Also, not every person can fast (for physical reasons, such as diabetes). Those that can't certainly are not expected (or encouraged) to do so. Also, members are encouraged to set aside the money that would have been spent on the food they did not consume and donate it to the church (known as fast offerings). These funds are then used to help the less fortunate people in their immediate area (ward, stake, etc.) under the direction of the local leaders (like the bishop or stake president).
As a missionary, there were times when I got to see some of the blessings these fast offerings can be to other people. Because the missionaries in the particular area were also the leaders of the congregation, we were involved in helping to meet the needs for food, clothing, etc. of the people in the congregation (through these fast offering funds).
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
The Mormon Doctrine book is great to a point, and explains a lot of things. Bruce R. McConkie was a great scriptorian and a wonderful speaker. But there are places where he states his own speculation as doctrine and that gets a little dicey, especially since he was a General Authority.
It was him that gave me something of a crisis of faith when something he stated didn't fit my own studies. I had to learn then that not everything that passed the lips of the General Authorities, or came from their pen, was Gospel Truth.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Sorry, chiming in again.
In my experience, one thing that people who physically are unable to fast do is to eat foods that only meet their needs. Foods that are bland, without taste. For instance, they would have plain toast. This way, they can still sacrifice something without harming themselves.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Heavens, it's not that some people obsess about what other people wear that surprises me. I've certainly seen that. It's that I've never heard of making a distinction between white and colored shirts for men. Is this a regional thing, or am I just oblivious to men's fashions? Is white more formal?
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
While some bishops are very strict about how the young men dress, I spent years preparing and blessing the sacrament in a black suit, with a black shirt and various brightly-colored ties. It was part of how I liked to present myself at the time, and I'm glad I was allowed to.
If I were a leader, and I saw a kid dressing in a way that seemed disrespectful, trying to change the way he dressed would be my absolute lowest priority. If the kid is otherwise on the up-and-up, then most likely, I'm being too picky. If he has real problems, on the other hand, I think we should help those, rather than correcting the superficial.
quote:Is there any, even vague, reference to the number of intelligence that exist before coming down to this universe?
I get the impression that there was an infinite number, and that there still is. We believe that this Earth is not God's first project, nor is it His last. He'll need an endless sea of intelligences to draw from to keep this cycle going.
But no, there is no direct reference to the number.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Heavens, it's not that some people obsess about what other people wear that surprises me. I've certainly seen that. It's that I've never heard of making a distinction between white and colored shirts for men. Is this a regional thing, or am I just oblivious to men's fashions? Is white more formal?
This is a small cultural nuance of the mormon church I think. For whatever reason (probably because missionaries are required to wear white shirts as part of their dress code) there is a general perception in many areas that white shirts are more conservative. Some folks get rather adamant about it at times. The fact of the matter is that there is a good deal of what I call cultural doctrine in the church (as I am sure that there is in any human organization). The cultural doctrine consists of the unwritten norms of behavior which have absolutely no bearing on actual doctrine but which are nonetheless often followed. Folk doctrines vary by region, but here are a few that I've seen:
Only take the sacrament with your right hand. Wear only white shirts to church. There must be at least three jello salads at any given social event.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Jacare - but you forgot the most important - Mormon Standard Time (MST) - everyone has to show up late (5-30 mins.) to everything.... Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I've always been under the impression that the leaders of the Church have said that men should wear white shirts. Perhaps it's just one of those myths. But it's the way I was raised, and I never questioned it. I have always worn a white shirt to church, and I imagine I always will. But now I'm wondering if there's any truth to the white shirt thing. I hate to think that I'm being critical of people for no reason. Even if there is a reason, I need to stop caring so much about what other people are wearing.
[ May 06, 2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Interesting, the only person who wears a tie at our church on Sunday is the pastor. Even the elders of our church normally only wear khakis and a polo shirt or something similar.
I've many pants many times to a Sunday service, though normally I do wear a casual cotton dress.
Not that I'm saying either thing is right or wrong, just that it's kind of neat to see how people view these type of things differently. Maybe it's a regional thing as well, considering that down here if you wore a suit and tie every Sunday in the summer you'd roast.
And I just wanted to say, even though we've moved past the topic, that I have some very personal stories about the Holy Spirit and it's effect on me personally that I'll be happy to share, if anyone wants to email me. Like dkw, it's not something I want to put out in a public forum where it could be misinterpreted, but I'll be happy to talk about it as best as I can.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Actually I'm so worried about getting my kids in line, if my own clothes match and did I get all of breakfast off my baby's face (and consequently my shirt) that I pay very little attention to what other people are wearing. I don't judge someone for not wearing a tie. I was trying to explain what the majority of U.S. members wear. I assume Hobbes lives in the U.S. In other countries the dress code is different. I didn't mean to cause any hurt feelings or contention on this. Just wanted Hobbes to get a good idea of what to expect. I know I hate not knowing what to wear and wearing something out of place. That feeling is awful, for me anyway.
Instead of Gospel Doctrine (which does contain a lot of personal opinion) we ought to send Hobbes the Gospel Principles manual.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laugh* I do think it is funny that after all the doctrine and scriptures in this thread, the biggest controversey has been over the clothes. Then again, maybe it's just the only safe topic.
I don't think it is a regional difference. I have been in church all over the south, and I have a dear friend who served a mission in Alabama. The general dress is the same as explained above. There are regional differences in terms of countries - I mean, best dress is very different in India and Polynesia than it is in the US - but mostly I think its funny because no one actually pays attention to what people are wearing.
The whole white shirt thing is less a dress code for male members than it is for those priesthood holders who will be performing ordinances. It ends up being most male members since most of the teenage boys will be blessing or passing the sacrament, most college guys are still wearing their missionary outfits which are required to consist of white shirts, and most adult men end up dressing conservatively as a function of age. I can promise that this thread contains more anguish over the dress code than any given Sunday would.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Sorry about obsessing over the shirt-color tangent. In penance, I offer these thoughts on fasting:
We live in a culture that teaches us how to be consumers, as if that were our highest calling. Any need, or even want, should be satisfied immediately. After all (says the hair color commercial) “we’re worth it.” Fasting, a time when we don’t “consume,” can be a time to reflect that humanity’s first call, from God, is not to be consumers, but to be stewards. Giving away the money that would have been spent on our own consumption further emphasizes this. It can be a time to look at how we manage the resources that are entrusted to us.
Going without something, even going hungry for a time, can also help us to reflect on the differences between “need” and “want” and the fact that we actually have an overabundance. It cultivates an attitude of gratefulness for all that we have, a reminder of our blessings.
Fasting and other spiritual disciplines also help us clear space in our lives. Sometimes when we feel a deep longing we try to fill it immediately rather than taking the time to identify what it is we’re really longing for. Disciplines of abstinence, of which fasting is the most common, help us to stop and identify the source and object of our desires. Too often we try to fill a longing for God with things other than God. Fasting can help us avoid that mistake.
Marjorie Thompson’s book Soul Feast has an excellent chapter on fasting. In fact, I recommend the whole book to anyone looking for ways to deepen their spiritual life.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Let me tell ya—the minute that stupid piece of cloth we call a "tie" even shows a glimmer of going out of style, mine's coming off. The only possible use for a tie that I can see is so my 2-year-old daughter can strangle me.
I wear one to Church on Sunday, but it comes off the minute I step through our front door. Jeans and a t-shirt are my preferred garb for Sunday afternoon.
I'd probably go for the "alternative" styles at Church, like the different colored shirts and the tie substitutes, but alas I am the Ward Chorister.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For me, fasting is a recently acquired principle.
I didn't do it for a long time because I got headaches from not eating, and I also didn't like putting off gratification. I didn't see the spiritual benefits of it.
In terms of fasting for something, it didn't seem to work. I had a Huckleberry Finn experience. The first two times I fasted sincerely and desperately for something, my grandmother and my mother died anyway. That was irritating, and fasting seemed like a wash.
However, I tried again - this time without the bravado and flippant undercurrant, and I can tell you that fasting works. I felt closer to the Lord, and I found the courage and wisdom that I didn't possess of myself to deal with a situation that left on my own I was fouling up badly. What Isaiah says is true.
My favorite fasting scriptures:
quote:Isa 58:5-7
5 Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?
6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the bpoor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
A little late on the white shirt issue, a quote from Elder Holland, "This do in Remembrance of Me," Ensign November 1995, page 67:
quote:
May I suggest that wherever possible a white shirt be worn by the deacons, teachers, and priests who handle the sacrament. For sacred ordinances in the Church we often use ceremonial clothing, and a white shirt could be seen as a gentle reminder of the white clothing you wore in the baptismal font and an anticipation of the white shirt you will soon wear into the temple and onto your missions.
That simple suggestion is not intended to be pharisaic or formalistic. We do not want deacons or priests in uniforms or unduly concerned about anything but the purity of their lives. But how our young people dress can teach a holy principle to us all, and it certainly can convey sanctity. As President David O. McKay taught, a white shirt contributes to the sacredness of the holy sacrament (see Conference Report, Oct. 1956, p. 89).
I like the way he puts things--a white shirt is recommended but we don't want to get all Nazi about it either.
--Emily
[ May 06, 2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Emily Milner ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Emily (or anyone else), is the "Conference Report, Oct. 1956, p. 89" that he quotes available online? I'm fascinated to read how a white shirt contributes to the sanctity of the sacrament.
(Note, I am not belittling. I wear an alb and vestments, so I'm hardly one to make fun of other people's ritual clothing.)
[ May 06, 2003, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Beautiful, Emily! Thanks a lot for digging that up. Now I can stop being so anal-retentive.
dkw, the Church web site has a magazine archive dating back only to 1971. I'm not having any luck finding it elsewhere online.
[ May 06, 2003, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sadly, the online church publications only go back to 1971.
I'm trying to find a place to get a copy of the 1956 May Ensign.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
I'd just like to point out that the recommendation only extends to those who are handling the Sacrement, not to the general congregation.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Wendybird, no offense taken. And the Gospel Principles book is great advice.
I too think it is funny that it is clothes that has become the most controversial.
AFR, The front door? My hubby has it off in the car.
Also, I'd like to say that a white shirt and tie doesn't necessarily mean an entire suit. Even the missionaries often wear only short sleeved white shirts during the hot seasons and in tropical areas. Heck, I know of a missionary that wore his white shirt, tie, and a Kikepa. The Kikepa is a colorful, often floral, wrap around skirt for both men and women.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Katharina, et.al. - what makes you say that the shirt issue has been controversial?
Interesting, most likely to catch the attention, easiest to talk about, maybe, but I haven’t seen any actual disagreement about it. More like curiosity than controversy, really. The inner sociologist in all of us, poking at why we do the things we do. Doctrinal questions have, in comparison, obvious answers – “this is what we believe and this is why.” But how customs become formalized . . .that’s a fascinating question that LDS and non-LDS can all relate to.
Or maybe that’s just me. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, it is just one of the few issues that hasn't been
Hobbes: question Horde: answer
I think there was a flurry of discussion over something earlier, and it was asked to be moved to another thread so this thread would be still be a safe place to discuss beliefs. The flurry of discussion over the clothes has been fine because I don't think anyone is wildly attached to the dress code enough to be hurt or wary if their faith in it is questioned.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Very true, dkw.
I think we can both agree though, that cultural traditions have to be kept in check, or they can run the risk of becoming pseudo-doctrinally based.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
“Ah yes,” says the pastor who has spent the last three years trying to convince a congregation that children do not have to wait until after they are confirmed to receive communion.
Sometimes local customs can even be in direct contradiction to doctrine.
[ May 06, 2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Sigh. I have to say that the thing about women having to wear dresses to church has always really bothered me. I don't like them. I'm not comfortable in them. Ever since I hit eighth grade and wasn't required to wear them to school every day anymore, I have only worn dresses when absolutely required to do so. To me, the real issue is that when I have to wear one, I'm always worried about things being pulled up and pulled down and whether I'm sitting so that nothing is showing that shouldn't be. That leaves me with less time to think about the things I should be thinking about in church. I honestly think it is cultural and has very little to do with faith or respect or anything else. Just my opinion.
Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
JonBoy--you're welcome . dkw--what katharina said. I think to find an Conference Report that old you'd have to go to a library in Utah to find it--my first stop would be the BYU library if I were trying to find anything.
--Emily
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
First and Foremost, the Ensign only goes to 1971 when The Friend, and The New Era were also first printed to coordinate all LDS Church Publications. You would have to find an old edition of The Instructor or Deseret News. But, it is easier than that as I have the copy of all the General Conferences since about 1898 on my Infobase. If I find the time I will look for it.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
quote:I am not going to say much about the dress. We are not a people who look to formality, certainly we do not believe in phylacteries, in uniforms, on sacred occasions, but I do think that the Lord will be pleased with a bishopric if they will instruct the young men who are invited to administer the sacrament to dress properly. He will not be displeased if they come with a white shirt instead of a colored one, and we are not so poor that we cannot afford clean, white shirts for the boys who administer the sacrament. If they do not have them, at least they will come with clean hands, and especially with a pure heart.
I have seen deacons not all dressed alike, but they have a special tie or a special shirt as evidence that those young men have been instructed that "you have a special calling this morning. Come in your best." And when they are all in white I think it contributes to the sacredness of it. Anything that will make the young boys feel that they have been called upon to officiate in the Priesthood in one of the most sacred ordinances in the Church, and they too should remain quiet, even before the opening of the meeting.
That is just preliminary. I said I saw these two boys leave the building this afternoon, and it reminded me that in some of our wards, these young men who have been appointed to administer the sacrament, and who have officiated in the order of the Priesthood, start for the door and leave the worshiping assembly. I will not say it is sacrilege, but I will say that it is not in keeping with the order and sacredness of the service which they have rendered by virtue of the Priesthood.
Instruct them, bishops. When they accept that duty, they accept the responsibility of remaining throughout that entire meeting hour. They are part of it. A bishop would not think of leaving. His counselors would not. Neither should your representatives who administer the sacrament. (David O. McKay, General Conference Report, 1956, pg. 89)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Thank you Jettboy. I still don't understand why a white shirt is better than a colored one, but at least we can see that the idea has been around for a while. Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
White clothing represents purity. This is especially the case with Latter-day Saints. That a person who does ordinances and blessings should wear white shouldn't be surprising. As for the tie, it just represents a formal dressing standard.
quote:The Laodiceans were proudly independent of Roman reconstruction finances, and some felt spiritually self-sufficient, sensing no need for the help of God. They were now encouraged to seek assistance from the Source of lasting treasure and richness. As Jesus had earlier taught, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal [and where earthquakes destroy and bury], but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.” (Matt. 6:19-20.)
“I counsel you to buy from me . . . white garments to clothe you and to keep the shame of your nakedness from being seen.” (Rev. 3:18.) White garments are here contrasted to the celebrated soft, raven-black wool for which Laodicea was famous in John’s day. White garments were symbolic of cleanliness and purity, as revealed in the Lord’s words to the church at Sardis: “He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments . . . and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy.” (Rev. 3:5, 4.) (D. Kelly Ogden, "Spiritual Lessons in Physical Settings," LDS Church News, Jan. 7, 1995)
also . . .
quote:a symbol of purity (2 Chr. 5:12; Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:18; 7:14). Our Lord, at his transfiguration, appeared in raiment "white as the light" (Matt. 17:2, etc.). (Easton's Bible Dictionary, "White")
[ May 07, 2003, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Jettboy ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I know that you should "respect The Sabbath" however you feel fit, but what does that mean to you guys? What would you feel comfortbale doing, or not feel comofortable doing on Sunday?
Hobbes Posted by Diosmel Duda (Member # 2180) on :
I've noticed that many people have different personal interpretations of this. I'm probably more strict than some and less strict than others. Here's a list of what I like to do and don't feel comfortable doing on Sunday.
Like to do: read the scriptures, visit with my family, play games with my family (Scrabble is a tradition almost), pray, go to church (of course), prepare lessons/ talks if appropriate, think, write letters, look through photo albums, visit with friends and neighbors, go on walks, play the piano, etc.
Don't feel comfortable doing: homework, going to work, watching TV or movies, going to the store, preparing extravagant meals, doing housework
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
For me:
Like to do: take a nap, read, spend time with my husband (since it is the only day both he and I have off), cook (not necessarily extravagent things, but good things that may take longer than I usually have), play the piano, play with the kitties, visit my parents, etc.
Don't like to do: listen to my usual music (rock), shop, do housework (beyond the normal stuff like dishes), do work-related things, do things I would normally do any other day, etc.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I know I've seen a quote from, I think President Kimball, about appropriate Sabbath activities... I'll see if I can dig it up.
I try (not always successfully) to stay away from the computer, to read my scriptures and other good books, take a nap, spend time with family, take a walk or do other quiet fun activities with the kids and rest before my week starts again. I try to remember the reason for the day, a day of rest, a day to focus our thoughts on the Savior and his sacrifice. If an activity enhances that then I think it is appropriate. Because strengthening families is so important we often go to my mom's house and visit and eat and have fun.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I certainly want to hear more on the Sunday topic (though this thread will probably close down tomorrow because of it ), but I have another question you can answer.
I know that you'll eventually have a chance to accept Mormonism, but if you are given that chance and don't, what happens (when you are judged)?
Hobbes Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Some people take a more stringent view of it, but I think the scriptures indicate that God judges us all individually, based on our true motives and understanding. If, for instance, you rejected the Church because you wanted to live as a drunk, whoring bastard, then you'd be in trouble. If you rejected the Church because all you ever saw of it was its worst members, I think God would understand. If you rejected the Church because you just plain weren't all that sure about it ... who knows? But ultimately, I don't think that fear of judgment should play an important role in anyone's choice of religion. God knows your heart, and if you mean well and are honest, you really can't do too badly.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The consequences of not converting are irrelevent to me. Because if I don't convert it will be because I think it's not true, and if it's not true then the consequences of it are meaningless. I asked the question not to worry about what would happen if I didn't convert, but to get a better feel for Mormonism in general.
Hobbes Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: if you have to choose between joining the church of the community you live in and a Mormon church which is too far away to be able to join in ward's activities and all other social things, what would you do?
This was the first 13 years of my life, ginette. I'm not sure how far away you are, but we were 45 miles away from our Church. There were no other Mormon kids in our town, the next town over, or anywhere near us. What did we do? The same thing everyone else does. . . made friends with those around us.
It took some doing to get to the Church's social activities, but we managed.
quote:My parents were atheists and didn't approve when the missionaries wanted me to come over to the church.
This made me grin. Usually, it's the religious folk who don't want their loved ones going to the Mormon church.
quote:if someone wants to be baptized, are there any questions being asked about motives
No-- I think the questions are mostly about belief and desire. Things like, do you believe in God, in Christ, that Joseph Smith restored the Gospel, that there are prophets guiding the Mormon church. . . They may ask some dedication type questions to see if you will pay tithing or accept callings in the church.
quote: is it ever refused?
I'm not sure. I've heard that those who have murdered must get approval by the Church's leaders before they can be baptized. And if a person is mentally handicapped and unable to consciously sin, they may not baptize him. But I have never heard of anyone flat-out refusing to baptize someone who is repentant.
Of course, if you walk into the Q&A smoking a cigarette, cursing and kicking a puppy, you might be delayed. . .
quote:If you are married, does the Church expect your husband to also get baptized?
We expect everyone to get baptized, sooner or later. . . that why we have baptisms for the dead. Maybe you missed that thread.
Seriously, no. However, in order for the wife to be baptized, she must have the husband's approval. I'm not sure if there's a vice-versa to this-- but the idea is to make sure that a family isn't broken apart by one member joining the Mormons.
Posted by WedgeAntilles (Member # 5154) on :
I am very new to this forum, in fact this is my first posting (as you can see). I have been reading through several threads and I figured that I could pretty much ask questions and get questions. Here goes. I am pondering D&C 88:28-33 and I am wondering who are the people mentioned in verses 32-33? Is this outer darkness or more kingdoms of glory? Verses 28-31 talk of the three kingdoms and the quickening of those who receive a portion of the glories of those kingdoms. However, verses 32-33 talk of those who "remain" and how they shell return to "their own place". This is a serious question for me because I have been reading the automatic writings of James Padgett who received pure revelation from Christ and other spirits from the spirit world. These writings are amazing, enlightening, and refreshing. However, they deny the atonement of Christ as is taught by the LDS (and much of Christianity). Any clarification on the above verses would be appreciated.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"This is a serious question for me because I have been reading the automatic writings of James Padgett who received pure revelation from Christ and other spirits from the spirit world."
How do you know?
Posted by WedgeAntilles (Member # 5154) on :
It is stated that they are revelations received and from what is said in them as to the kind of life that they are experiencing, it makes sense. I am not specifically saying that I believe them to be, however, I find them to be very interesting. I also find very little difference in them to the revelations of Joseph Smith found in the D&C. My concern is not whether Padgett received them as he states through his psychic abilities or whether he just pondered them through his own intelligence. I am more concerned that what these writings state make more clear the revelations of Joseph Smith rather than the accepted interpretations of the Church (or Sunday School doctrine). Hence, my question regarding D&C 88.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:I also find very little difference in them to the revelations of Joseph Smith found in the D&C.
I find a lot of difference. Doctrinal considerations aside, the literary merits of the Doctrine and Covenants greatly surpass those of James Padgett's writings, which are self-aggrandizing, prosaic, and like the writings of many of the other self-proclaimed prophets on the Internet (Mormon-related or otherwise) reveal nothing of intelligence.
But this thread is for Hobbes.
If you'd like to start a new thread on this subject WedgeAntilles, then do so (assuming the moderators are comfortable with this topic of discussion).
Posted by WedgeAntilles (Member # 5154) on :
That is ok, I won't pursue the subject.
Posted by ginette (Member # 852) on :
He WedgeAntilles, welcome to Hatrack!
I guess it's perfectly OK to start a new thread with your question about D&C 88. As long as you ask and not try to discuss it with counterproof from what is regarded as false scripture by the Mormon Church.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, go ahead and discuss it using what's regarded as "false scripture." It's not like any one scripture is empirically more trustworthy than another.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There's a reason why Mormons don't accept James Padgett's writings as scripture-- thus, discussing them as being valid to the Mormon experience as inspired work is impossible.
It'd be like trying to discuss the validity of Christianity by using the Vedas.
But, hey-- in other context, discuss away. Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:It's not like any one scripture is empirically more trustworthy than another.
True (at least empirically scientifically). But, Tom, would you dispute the idea that some sacred writing is more interesting, well-written and imparts more potential wisdom than other sacred writings---regardless of the purported source?
Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
Ginette--I taught a girl on my mission who wanted to get baptized to have a fresh start, and because she felt there was truth in some of the things that we taught. However, as we spent more time with her, it became clear that she had no intention of attending our church regularly. She wanted the ordinance--baptism--but did not intend to keep the covenants or commitments that go along with it. She did not end up getting baptized. I hope that she will one day. Part of baptism is entering into the kingdom of God--she wanted entrance, but didn't want to become a participating citizen. That was not the only reason she didn't end up getting baptized, but I think her problem with surrendering was at the heart of other issues she had.
That story may not relate with your experience at all; it's just what your question reminded me of. I hope you find more of the answers you are looking for . And (hey, I just talked to my twin brothers on their missions yesterday for Mother's Day, so I'm feeling the missionary spirit ) I also hope baptism when you are ready is one of them.
--Emily
Posted by ginette (Member # 852) on :
Thanks Scott and Emily for answering my questions.
Emily, that's what I meant when I asked 'is it ever refused?' Sure I understand that baptism also means participating. I am reading some stuff about baptism right now. I have to find an answer to this: Somehow I think baptism should be unconditional providing someone has the right heart, or motives, strange idea something like house rules from a wordly organization can be a stumbling block. On the other hand I guess some consequences follow naturally from the wish to be baptized, so these things you recognize in your heart and you'll be willing to do them even if there were no rules. But I'll find the way sooner or later, at least I am sure of that and thanks for the encouragement .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I met a lady on my mission who was refused baptism, but I don't exactly why. However, during the course of the conversation, we discovered she believed in reincarnation, so that provided an inkling. I would say that not actually believing the doctrine would probably disqualify.
[ May 13, 2003, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
Ginette--in my experience baptism is only refused if 1-it's clear that a person has not completely repented of a past major sin--adultery and abortion are two examples. I taught a man who had three baptismal interviews before he was able to fully repent of his previous adultery. Or if 2-a person who desires baptism has no intention of keeping an important, basic commandment. I taught a woman who was not able to be baptized because she would not commit to closing her spiced-milk stand on Sunday mornings. Sunday was her most profitable day, and she did not think it was a fair thing to ask... the missionary who interviewed her, though, felt that her lack of willingness demonstrated a lack of understanding of the importance of the Sabbath.
Also, children under 18 need their parents' permission, and spouses should seek each others' permission before baptism.
One more thing--before a person is officially a member, they must be confirmed and receive the Holy Ghost. This happens in Sacrament Meeting, two or three weeks after the actual baptism. If you are not confirmed within a few weeks after your baptism, you will have to get rebaptized. (My brother has this particular situation on his mission right now.) If you don't get confirmed, your baptism doesn't count on church records.
--Emily
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think that I have only one sizable issue left, one that I’ve been milling over for a few weeks now. Not to say that this is the last question, good gracious no! However, this is the one thing that has been really bugging me, the one aspect of Mormonism that I can’t seem to get a grip on. I’ve brought it up in a small part before but it’s (clearly ) still here, my question is about baptism. I’m basically going to just list off the questions I have with it… so here we go!
Why is the choice alone not enough?
Why is a proper authority needed (why can’t a decent person without authority baptize someone)?
What about the baptism isn’t symbolic?
Anything else anyone wants to say about baptism, or about similar procedures is also welcome.
Two more things (not questions, just side notes ). The first is that I think everyone realizes this, but I want to make it clear that I ask these questions to find answers, not to challenge their validity. The second is that those who have asked questions in this thread are more than welcome to it, and if anyone has questions they haven’t asked because they felt that it wasn’t a good place, I hereby welcome all of you to ask your questions! (Not debate over it, but questions about beliefs ).
Hobbes Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Emily (and anyone else)...Is confirming "two or three weeks" after baptism a new thing? When I was baptized, there were several other baptisms at the same time on a Saturday afternoon, and all of us were confirmed directly after baptism. Was that an aberration, have things changed, or is there discretion from stake to stake or region to region? I was baptized in Southern California, by the way. As I recall, my mother, who was baptized a few years after I was in a different stake but also in Southern California, was also confirmed directly after baptism.
Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
Little miss--yes, it is relatively new. Towards the end of my mission five years ago they were just starting to implement it. It's standard policy today, I'm pretty sure.
On the rest of the questions... I am a tired pregnant woman so I'm going to bed. But I will mull them over and post something tomorrow (unless everything I think of has already been mentioned ). --Emily
Posted by ginette (Member # 852) on :
Thanks Hobbes for inviting us all to ask questions
I know you want answers from the LDS people on this forum, but as I just happened to read something about baptism, I'll tell you what follows from the Bible, hope you don't mind. If I say something wrong, I am sure I'll get corrected by someone:
Even Jesus himself got baptized by John. At the end of Marcus and Matthew, the disciples are commanded to baptize those who believe. The baptism in water itself is to wash away sins while repenting, the confirmation is to receive the Holy Ghost. I don't know WHY baptism is needed. My book didn't answer that question, other than 'It's a matter of obidience'. I only know that I feel the need, but I have no rationalization. It's like (this comes also from the book I read) without the baptism you can see and know and feel about the Kingdom, but only through baptism you can enter it.
About the proper authorization to baptize another, I don't know. My book says everyone who is able to pass the power on, that is another person who has received the Holy Ghost, may baptize another. I just wish I could go to my neighbour, and ask her to go down to the river with me and baptize and confirm me. I feel sure she has the proper authority to do so. But it's not that easy anymore in these times nowadays.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:Why is the choice alone not enough?
The choice alone IS the important thing, to you. The baptism is like the paperwork surrounding the choice. If you and your wife decide on your own to stop being married, but never get a legal divorce, are you married, or are you divorced? Or, to look at it another way, if you decide that you belong to a political party, but never register with them, do you get to vote in their primary?
People spend their lives deciding to do things, but only actually DO a small fraction of them. Baptism — and all ordinances — mark moments in your life when you truly DO something to commit yourself to what you believe.
Someone can imagine themselves stealing as much as they want. They can even be seriously tempted to do so. But they do not become guilty of thievery until they actually take something that isn't theirs. We face many temptations in life, but we are judged only on those temptations that we follow through with. God is fair with us when it comes to sin, but He is also fair when it comes to righteousness. We can have all the good intentions in the world, but if we always manage to avoid DOING anything about them at the last minute, it's not going to avail us much.
So, to sum it up, baptism is important because while things like faith and belief can be fleeting and fickle, actions always have permanent meaning, for good or ill. Does that make sense?
quote:Why is a proper authority needed (why can’t a decent person without authority baptize someone)?
For the same reason that I can't give you a speeding ticket. I can write all the tickets I want, but without the backing of the police department, they are meaningless pieces of paper. Similarly, in order for a baptism to have any meaning, there must be some assurance that the ritual is recognized by the Lord. Barring apparitions of doves and voices from the heavens, we must rely on the knowledge that the performer of the baptism has been ordained with God's authority.
Besides, how would you define "decent person"? I suppose we'd all agree that someone like, say, Johnny Knoxville, shouldn't be going around performing baptisms — at least, not serious ones. And there are a lot of decent people who we'd imagine might qualify just fine for the job. But there's got to be a way to draw a line between those two extremes, and when you're running an ecclesistical organization, it's essential to know exactly where that line is. Priesthood ordination is where the Church draws that line. It isn't always perfect (not all priests are decent), but at least it's clear.
quote:What about the baptism isn’t symbolic?
None of it. It's all symbolic. The act of going through this symbolic ritual is what marks you as a member of the Church, and is the point at which you turn your inner yearnings into outward actions. It is the moment when you turn from being a casual dabbler in the faith to being a full and active participant. So it has definite meaning to you and to the Church in the real world. But the actual act, the water, the prayer — all of it is symbolic.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
[Edit: Dang it, Geoff, some of us had to go put crying babies back to sleep. I'm still going to let the post stand, just as I wrote it, just so everybody can see you were copying off my paper.]
Okay, to answer some of the questions about baptism:
We believe the choice alone isn't enough for the same reason that, were you and I to enter into a business transaction, my telling you what's what wouldn't be enough. You would want to have things in writing, signed, notarized, witnessed, etc, etc, etc.
Same thing with baptism. We believe that baptism is a covenant. It's a binding covenant where you make certain promises to God, and God makes certain promises to you. Rather than using a pen and paper contract, God deals in symbolic ordinances for making these covenants. Symbols that represent aspects of the covenant (death and rebirth, in the case of baptism) and help clairify and solidify them in our minds.
This is why someone with authority must perform the ordinance. Imagine if I were to enter into a contract with you by having someone sign for you who claims to know you really well. You wouldn't consider that binding at all. You would only want someone who you had designated as your representative to do that.
It's the same way with baptism. Not every baptism is valid because not every person has authority to baptize. "No man taketh this honor (meaning the priesthood) unto himself, except he is called of God, as was Aaron." It's not a matter of how much you know or how bad you want to. A lawyer might know every traffic law on the books in your state, but he can't hand out traffic tickets. Even though the policeman might know less about the law, he's the one with the authority, so he's the one who gets to do it.
Same thing with priesthood. We can't claim to have authority from God just because we want it, or just because we've read a lot of scriptures. The only way to get authority from God is to get it from someone who already has enough authority to be able to give it to us.
So the part about baptism that isn't symbolic is the covenant--the promise that, as we try to obey the comandments and repent when we've done wrong, he'll forgive us our sins. We believe those promises are very real.
So it's more than just a simple decision to live a different sort of life. We're promising that we'll do it in a very specific way. And just as we want to be bound by that promise, we want God to bound to keep his promise as well.
This is why we believe you have to be baptized to get to heaven. It's not because God only likes Mormons. It's because baptism is when God is making the promise to you that he will forgive your sins, since that is the point when you've definitively and publicly demonstrated that you want to be rid of them.
And the public part is important. Just like a legal document or a marriage (another covenant) there are also witnesses present for baptism.
So I guess you can see that in our view, there's a lot of difference between making a simple choice in your mind that you want to live a certain way, and publicly entering into a covenant with God under the hand of someone with proper authority.
-----------------------------------------
On the white shirt issue--
From my understanding, the only reason we're encouraged to wear white shirts and ties to pass the sacrament is because it shows respect for what you're doing to be dressed as nicely as possible (hence the shirt and tie) without being too flashy to distract from the sacred nature of the ordinance (hence the lack of color).
Now we're not insane about this. People pass sacrament in colored shirts or no ties all the time. Generally these are people who are new to the church or don't have white shirts and ties. But generally within a few weeks somebody will pick up a shirt and tie for these people, more to help them feel comfortable than anything else.
-----------------------------------------
And as for your disclaimer about asking not for purpouses of arguement, in the same way our posts (including this one) aren't meant to "tell you how it is" but are meant to "tell you how we see it." If something seems too strongly worded, just add the phrase "As we see it," in front of the sentance to make it less preachy.
----------------------------------- About the "two to three weeks" thing--it's not new. In fact, it's kind of old. More and more they're trying to shorten the amount of time between when a person is baptized and when they receive the gift of the holy ghost. They're even often giving men the Aaronic Priesthood immediately as well. But usually it either happens at the baptism or the next day in sacrament meeting.
The two to three weeks thing usually happened when the ward would only give the gift of the holy ghost on fast sunday (the first sunday of the month). Most wards still only bless babies that day.
[ May 14, 2003, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: docmagik ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Hobbes, as you know, these people know so much more about doctrine than me, and they explain things so much better, that I haven't felt the need to do anything in this thread besides throw in my love and support and to express my joy for you, for the step that you are about to take. But I want to say one thing here. It's good that you want things explained, and these people are doing a wonderful job explaining, but realize that there's much more to it than anything that can be put into words. In some ways you just have to experience it to know.
For instance, the authority of the priesthood. I knew it was true and I believed it, but until I was confirmed and actually felt it, I didn't truly know. I didn't understand that I would really exude light and happiness out of every pore for three weeks afterwards so that strangers would turn and smile at me in crowded elevators. <laughs>
I don't know if everyone has that same experience but the holy spirit is real and the priesthood has the authority to give it to you. So don't quit asking for explanations but do realize that words are inadequate to convey the totality of the answers.
If God weren't higher and better than we could understand, something would be wrong, neh?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Hobbes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[ May 14, 2003, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Emily's pregnant again! Yay! Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Yeah, what those guys said. I'd also like to add the LDS believe that God's house is a house of order. (D&C 132:8) To keep that order He has designated those who may use His authority on earth. This is the "proper authority." (If you follow the link, read verse 7 as well)
This question was something that was very difficult for me when I first joined the church, not only to understand, but to explain to my catholic mother who was quite offended that I was "RE-baptised".
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm going to think over a lot of this stuff, it's starting to make a lot more sense. However, it did raise another question.
quote:None of it. It's all symbolic. The act of going through this symbolic ritual is what marks you as a member of the Church, and is the point at which you turn your inner yearnings into outward actions. It is the moment when you turn from being a casual dabbler in the faith to being a full and active participant. So it has definite meaning to you and to the Church in the real world. But the actual act, the water, the prayer — all of it is symbolic.
It seems like if it's all symbolic, then it could be done symbolicly in thr Spirit world. Why can't a properly ordained member of the Priesthood baptize a new convert there? I understand that on earth you need to be immeresed in water, but if it's symbolic...?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't agree with Geoffrey on that point - for that exact same reason, Hobbes. If it was just symbolic, it could be done in the spirit world. It wouldn't matter if the person doing the baptizing had the priesthood or not.
I don't know exactly what it is, but it can't be just symbolic.
I think of it like the form and the substance. (I might have said this before. If so, please forgive the repitition.)
For every ordinance, there is a form and a substance. For baptism, there is the inward change of heart and committment, and there is the dunking of the body by someone with the priesthood. For the sacrament, there is the inward repentance and rededication, and there is the actual taking of the bread and water. Even for a temple sealing, there is the inward committment to making one out of two, and there is the ceremony.
Baptism of the body by someone with authority can't be only symbolic, but if it were, then the form wouldn't matter. Since the form does matter (by immersion, by one who is worthy and has the authority), it can't be only symbolic.
I realize that is circular reasoning, but then, there it is. If it were only symbolic, there wouldn't have needed to be a restoration of the Priesthood. I don't know what happens or why it is important, but it is. I just can't explain why.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Clearly, I'm only giving my own impression of the whole issue. If there's something that doesn't ring true to you in what I say, by all means, run with kat, or with someone else
Personally, I wonder exactly what can be done in the Spirit World. I mean, if it's the same as the mortal world, only more spirit-y, then I would be confused as to why flesh and physical reality are necessary at all. I mean, God created us as spirits first. If we could do everything we needed to do in that form, He would have had no reason to give us bodies.
I suspect (though this is speculation, and plenty of people will disagree with me) that Spirits can't physically DO much of anything. The whole purpose of the physical world is to have a place where people can act out their inclinations, and make real choices that they may be judged by. As Spirits, people have those inclinations, perhaps, but not much more. They can learn, they can think, they can perceive, they can communicate ... and nothing beyond that. If anything is to be put into action, then it must be done here, on earth, where all the actions take place.
I do feel like the scriptures fit my point of view, though not necessarily proving it. For one thing, in all the tales of the spirit world (both before mortality and after), the only physical-sounding actions ever mentioned that I can recall are (1) Satan being cast down, and (2) Christ releasing the prisoners, both of which could be symbolic for something far less physically demanding. Otherwise, it's all words, words, and more words. Everyone talks and plans, but never physically DOES anything until they come to Earth.
But again let me say that this is just my personal impression, and has nothing to do with anything anyone else "ought" to believe. In short:
God found us as primitive intelligences — mere embryos in the cosmic scheme. He gave us spirits so that we could think and communicate, but in order to act on any of our thoughts — in order to prove ourselves — we needed a physical form. So God created the earth and placed us upon it with physical bodies to give us that chance. When we die, we return to our impotent spiritual state, helpless to alter the choices we made as physical beings ... unless those still alive on earth offer us their assistance.
As far as symbolism goes, I don't think we should deride its value. An act can be entirely symbolic, yet still have great meaning and power. When you asked if baptism was entirely symbolic, I assumed that you were asking whether or not something about the water or the physical movement or the words spoken had some real, unavoidable effect in the real world, the way heating an egg really does cook it, and the way stabbing a needle into your finger really does make it bleed.
And no, baptism doesn't work that way. The only value of a baptism is its spiritual meaning as an expression of your commitment to the Lord. He has asked that we go through baptism in order to join His people. Therefore, if we want to be His people, we must be baptized, and by receiving baptism, we make a vital spiritual transition in our relationship to the Lord.
But that transition occurs entirely because that act of baptism has a specific symbolic meaning to us and to God. The act itself could have been anything. God could have asked us to dip our feet in honey or hug trees or do the hokey-pokey in the snow, and the same effect could have been achieved.
When you sign your name to a contract, are you physically bound to do what the contract says? No, of course not. It's symbolic. The signature on the contract has an agreed-upon symbolic meaning to you and to the law. Before you signed, the contract was null, but after you signed, it became a legally binding document, entirely because of symbolism. I feel that baptism works the same way. We perform a symbolic action to seal an agreement between us and the Lord. Before we do it, there is no covenant. After we do it, we are a part of something greater.
As usual, I had to talk myself into my point, so I apologize if this post is long and unwieldy Now I'm on my way to e3, so I hope this all made sense!
Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
You see hobbes there are opinions even within the LDS faith. Thats why it is so important to us that we believe that God direct this church through revelation.
My opinion; Baptism is symbolic, becuase if it was not then we could not do baptism for the dead. As in any ordinance, part of the blessings are for the people who officiate as well as the individual. All are lifted and partake of the feeling of the spirit. Baptism is a nessecary ordinace because it shows our commitment and belief that it is the only way. It's the gateway to starting on the path. But it is all symbolic of your choice. I repeat if it was not symbolic then we would have to use the bodies of the dead to baptise them, instead of doing it by proxy.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
My own two bits:
Every commandment men are given is tied to a real, physical effect. There are no "temporal only" commandments- every commandment is tied to an objective truth- a spiritual reality. Remember, Mormons believe that there is no such thing as "Immaterial matter". Spirits are matter just as our physical bodies are, just more refined.
This means that commandments such as baptism are not "only" symbolic but also have a real physical effect. We can see this taught in the doctrine. We read that after death there is a real physical separation between the just souls and the unjust souls of men.
The water itself is key in some way which I don't think anyone understands, but it is clear that it is absolutely necessary Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Can aliens from a planet without water be baptized?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Lord gives no commandment without preparing a way for them to do what is commanded of them.
Given that premise (and without that premise, the discussion is meaningless), what do you think?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Tom- do you know of any aliens on planets without water?
Though there may be surprises out there as far as I know liquid water is pretty much essential to life.
Also, consider the following:
quote:And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.
So if there are aliens on a waterless planet you can rest assured that there are certain laws which they must obey, though not necessarily the same laws as what we must obey.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Since artee brought up the “rebaptism” question, I’m going to throw out a few more words on why some of us non-LDS Christians are so twitchy about it. I’m speaking as a member of a particular protestant denomination, but most of this holds true for Catholics and all the denominations descended from magisterial Protestantism.
We believe that baptism is a covenant between the baptizand and God, but that the initiative is God’s. That’s also why we support infant baptism, because the emphasis is on God’s action. The technical term is “prevenient grace.” Prevenient means “to come before,” – grace that is given before we even realize that we need it.
But because we believe baptism is primarily a promise made by God to the person being baptized, rather than the other way around, it’s not repeatable (or necessary to repeat it). God does not break promises, so the covenant is permanently in effect. If a person were to come to me as their pastor and tell me that they were baptized as an infant but never really took it seriously, lived a life of complete sinfulness but had repented and now wanted to be baptized as an adult, I would not re-baptize that person. Because, whether they took it seriously or not, God did. God’s promise to that person and claim on that person’s life was not invalidated by their lack of response to it. The person is still baptized. We do have a service of renewal and remembrance of the baptismal covenant that is appropriate for this situation, but we do not re-baptize. To do so would be to say that God’s promise failed, or that God was unfaithful. Which is obviously something we don’t wish to say.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Thanks dkw!! Now I understand so much better why people get so upset about being "rebaptised" - we are interpreting the act of baptism differently.
From an LDS standpoint, baptism is primarily a promise made to God. It is a covenant with God. The nature of covenants is contractual. God keeps up His end if we keep up ours. If we don't keep up our end, the contract is null and void and God does not have to (or, even stronger, cannot) fulfill his end.
We do not practice infant baptism for this reason (the need to be cognizant of the promises you are making, therefore being responsible for keeping or breaking them) and for one other reason. We do not believe in the inherant sinfulness of a person. Christ's atonement ensures that every child born is already "in God's grace" - in a state of innocence. It is only when they reach the "age of accountability" (which we believe to be at 8 years old), when they become accountable/responsible for their deeds and misdeeds, that they can be eligible for baptism.
Also, there can be re-baptism into the LDS faith. Some sins are severe enough that they require excommunication. Within the LDS church, excommunication is viewed as more than removal of the person from the records of the church, but as a first step to being brought back into the church. It provides the opportunity to repent for your sins and be re-baptised and have all of the blessings you forfeited by your action restored. [FYI - the excommunication and re-baptism of church members is not a public matter - it isn't announced in church or made public in any way.]
[ May 14, 2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
quote:The person is still baptized. We do have a service of renewal and remembrance of the baptismal covenant that is appropriate for this situation, but we do not re-baptize.
This statement actually applies perfectly in an LDS context. People are not baptized a second time into the LDS Church unless their original baptism has been made null through excommunication.
So why do we baptize people who have already been baptized into another faith? Ludosti described baptism as a covenant or a 2-way promise: it must involve both the individual and God.
Who represents the individual? The individual himself, or, if the individual is dead, a proxy. If the baptism is performed by proxy the individual must still give his or her seal of approval to the ordinance.
Who can represent God? The answer to this question explains why we have to re-baptize someone who has been baptized into another faith: only an authorized holder of the Priesthood can represent God in the performing of ordinances. To us the baptisms that occur in other organizations are nothing more than expressions of good intentions by the individual and of hopes by the performer of the ordinance. There is no ratification from Heaven, and so the covenant has not been made.
Thus it is not that we consider baptism to be primarily the act of an individual that directs our policy, but that we consider it to be an act of God through the channels that He has chosen as well as an act of the individual.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think Tom makes an interesting point. Sorta.
What happens when the symbolism of an act is not culturally understood? I think many Christians take for granted the idea of vicarious sacrifice because they've been raised knowing it all along. But missionary work in China and other Buddhist countries where (I presume) vicarious sacrifice for sin is greatly hindered because there is no cultural connection as far as symbols go.
[shamelessSelfPromotion] Heh. This is actually the premise of a short story I'm devising. What happens to the Mormon law of chastity (no sexual relations outside of marriage), when it is discovered that alien converts must have intercourse with multiple partners in order to procreate? [/shamelessSelfPromotion]
I believe that the Lord will always work things out-- in Tom's example, let's suppose the aliens don't have water. The Lord will find some other method to symbolize cleansing, burial and resurrection. He's omniscient, after all-- coming up with allegories ain't all that tough when you know all that can be known. The question is whether or not His people will listen when He tells them the New Story. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Catholics don't recognize LDS baptism. There was a ruling about it in the past couple of years since I've joined the church. Just thought I'd mention that.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yes BebeChouette, I realize that to you everything I hold sacred is merely wishful thinking. I hope you understand that I don’t agree.
Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
Sorry dkw. I didn't mean to make it sound quite like that if it did. The phrase 'merely wishful thinking' sounds much more pejorative and dismissive than one I would want attributed to me as a description of your most sacredly held beliefs.
In defense of the doctrine if you take out the dismissive and pejorative tone you could make the same charge to anyone who doesn't hold your creed. I can certainly make the same charge to any who don't hold mine.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
dkw, every other religion thinks we are nothing more than wishful thinking -- and worse. Such is expressions of religious belief.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
BebeChouette -- Thank you. I was, in fact, trying to point out how the tone of your post sounded to me. I'm glad to know you didn't mean it to sound that way.
Jettboy -- that is probably true. But you haven't seen anyone saying it on this thread, have you?
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
No, but I didn't know your intentions as much as you didn't know about BebeC's.
Posted by WedgeAntilles (Member # 5154) on :
Ginette, I enjoyed your sincerity and can tell by what you are reading and how you feel that you are truly searching and desiring to do the will of our Father. I have been there and keep my heart in that same place at all times. I was reading in the New Testament in Luke 9:49-50 which tells of how the Apostles saw a man casting out devils in the name of Christ and they wanted to stop him because he didn't follow the Apostles. Christ told them to stop because He said "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us". Eventhough this man did not have the authority of Christ, as He had given to His Apostles, Christ still appreciated his help. That, however, did not stop Christ from either empowering His Apostles or organizing His Church (Kingdom) according to the principle of authority. The man was actually helping people to come unto Christ by searching for truth. All, eventually, will have ALL truth taught to them whether in this world or the next as Christ did when He went into the spirit world. I,for one, am very happy for that.
Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
Anne Kate--I'm due on labor day ! It's a girl. I am trying to convince my husband to name her after my mom--Norah--but he's not quite sure of it yet.
On baptism... I really like what Geoff talked about, the importance of actions... After that, I just skimmed . I am not sure I have anything new to add, except to say that there's something powerful about baptism as such a physical experience. The total immersion is also a symbol of complete submission to God, body and spirit. Sometimes I don't think about the physicalness of baptism, just the spiritual aspects, but I think that's a mistake: God created our bodies and he wants us to covenant with them, as well as with our hearts.
--Emily
Posted by ginette (Member # 852) on :
You sure have your heart in the right place, WedgeAntilles. Your post brought tears to my eyes, thank you so much .
[derailing Hobbes thread] As to my searching, here is a topic from half a year ago I posted on this forum. [/derailing Hobbes thread]
[ May 15, 2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: ginette ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I’ve been looking for some other sources online to do research on. Mormon.org was certainly the first place I went for this search. However, I found that just about everything on it was pretty basic doctrine, stuff that I already knew. So I kept searching. Mostly I wanted to find a summary of what each discussion was so that I would feel more prepared when going to these discussions (like I didn’t have to learn everything for the first time, so I could focus on other things). No Mormon sites had this. I suppose I should have realized that this was because they don’t think that you should know exactly what is going to be said. Obviously though, I didn’t realize this and decided that getting the information was worth getting it from a non believer.
The place I found was www.lds4u.com. The author of this site is clearly an ex-Mormon, and his writing influences that. His tone is certainly negative about the Church but I found that he had a lot of information and he at least tried to mention the Church’s view. I found that some of the things he said were wrong, and so I always kept that in mind; however what happened at the actual discussions was what he had written, and I think it did help me to be experiencing this information for a second time instead of a first.
However, I began to realize that reading this site wasn’t having a completely positive impact on me. First off, his general tone was rather demeaning, I disagreed with a lot of it. Number two was that not all he said was completely correct and I was afraid that despite my trying to differentiate fact from fiction, I would screw up believe something negative about the Church that just plain wasn’t true. And third was I began to realize that I was reading some stuff that I really just plain should not have had access to.
The Church’s (apparent) position of not having a basic outline of the discussions is not something that I really agree with, and I think not something that is that big a deal to them. It helped me understand better what the Missionaries where trying to tell me, and better prepared me for what they asked of me. However, their policy of not telling anyone what happens say at an endowment is not the same thing. This site I was reading happened to post a rather detailed outline of what happens at an endowment when you visit the Temple for the first time.
What do you think I should do about that fact that I have read what is held sacred and secret by members?
Most importantly, I’ve spent a lot of time reading semi-anti Mormon literature trying to find out more about the Church. I don’t think that’s fair to the Church or to my understanding of it, so I was hoping to read some general statements from believing members. I tried to find sites like this but didn’t really find anything that went beyond basic doctrine. Certainly reading the Scriptures is something, and I’m of course going to continue to do that, but I wanted to hear from some members. I’ve been to five discussions and read everything posted in this thread, so knowing that, what is it that you would want to tell me? Anything you want to say or discuss or some piece of information you felt should be presented would be very welcome.
I’m leaving in about 1 and 1/2 hours from now and I’ll be gone until Monday night, so if you want some sort of time scale..I guess that’s it. Thank-you for all that you’re done for me.
Hobbes Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Here's my feelings on anti-Mormon literature:
One of my best friends lost his faith towards the end of high school. He started reading anti-Mormon stuff and stuff about the endowment. Before getting into this stuff, he had had a strong testimony. He had some personal struggles, but he was still a good kid, and he knew what was right. He knew that the Church was true.
After reading this stuff, he started to question it. He started to get involved in a break-off group called the United Apostolic Brotherhood. They say they follow the prophet, but the very fact that they exist shows that they don't. They still practice polygamy, and they have many other beliefs that don't coincide with the Church. As he kept reading this stuff, he lost his faith in the Church altogether. He started looking to other Christian religions, and he decided that if any church was true, it had to be Catholicism. He was baptized Catholic just over two years ago.
My friend is still a good guy. He is very devout, and he has high standards. But I know that his research led him away from the truth that he had. He couldn't accept it anymore, so he found something that he could accept. He's happy where he is, but I feel that he lost something precious and beautiful.
Here's my advice to you, Hobbes: Talk to an LDS bishop. Tell him about what you've read, and tell him how you feel. He can give you counsel. I'm not sure what you're supposed to do if you find out about the endowment ceremony before you're supposed to, but I'm sure a bishop could tell you what to do.
Pray a lot. Pray unceasingly for the Lord's guidance. Pray to be able to recognize the truth.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
This anti-Mormon literature didn't change any of my opinions on Mormon beliefs, mostly I'm just worried about the Endowment thing. Acually, the website isn't really anti-Mormon, but it does lean closer to that than pro-Mormon so I guess that's why I called it semi-anti Mormon.
Hobbes Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
On anti-Mormon info: I would hesitate to try to get accurate and reliable information about any group from its detractors. That said, I am glad that you are able to differentiate between some of the correct and incorrect statements made by non or anti Mormons. However, I do not think that you will get the information that you are looking for from such sources.
About the discussions: I do not think that anything that is covered in the discussions will be new to you. I would send you my Engish discussions, if they were not in my younger brother's possession. In some sense, widely publishing the information from the discussions (in the same format) on the web would be silly and possibly counter-productive. The whole point of the discussions is to give the missionaries a reference point for introducing people to the church. They are *very* basic. People might possibly rely on the non-missionary discussion info in leiu of seeking any contact with the missionaries, meaning no opportunity for them to get answers to other question. Also, it may make carrying on a "discussion", difficult if you already know everything they're going to say and in the order they are going to say it. But, since you seem so terribly concerned with what they say (rather than waiting to hear it from any missionaries), I will try to recall (from 2.5 year old memory) what they cover. 1st discussion: basic introduction to God, and our identity as his children, basic mention of Christ. 2nd discussion: the mission and purpose of Jesus Christ. 3rd discussion: the apostacy of the early Church (that Christ set up while He was on earth) and its restoration through Joseph Smith. 4th discussion: the plan of salvation - what God expects of us, "where do we come from? why are we here? where do we go when we die?", basic laws, such as the Word of Wisdom and the law of chastity. 5th discussion: the principle of sacrifice, introduction to fasting and tithing. 6th discussion: (I'm having a difficult time remembering this one) the idea of needing to endure to the end, the "three-fold mission of the Church" - 1. perfect the Saints 2. redeem the dead 3. preach the gospel. I am sure that nothing that is discussed in these 6 brief lessons will come as a surprise to you. From what I can remember of this thread, you have already covered all of this ground. So, don't sweat it, it's not like the discussions are some massive initiation into some secret realm of knowledge.
[ May 23, 2003, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Hobbes, it sounds like you have a better attitude than many who read anti-Mormon literature You're keeping a measured distance from what you're reading, you're not letting it freak you out, and you're recognizing that being labelled as an "exposé" doesn't automatically make something true
E-mail me if you have questions about the endowment. This isn't really the place to discuss it. Thanks!
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
Hobbes, I would like to add something that very few people either understand or accept outside the LDS Church. The reason you might be hearing just the basics when you search for discussions both from Mormons here and other places, is that the basics are the most important and critical parts of our religion. Everything else, to half-quote Joseph Smith, "are only apendages." In fact, sometimes members inside the LDS Church forget this and go off on several inconsiquential tangents. It happens to most of us. On the other hand, I am still not sure what you are looking for as it sounds like you already have some great sources (especially this thread).
This is not to say there isn't really deep stuff to learn. But, like so much of life and history, the more isoteric you go the more open to interpretation and misunderstanding. I have to agree with everyone here and praise your willingness to understand that just because something declairs an opposing viewpoint doesn't automatically mean its true by virtue of being different or "objective."
If there was anything I would say to you it would be to remind you that you are dealing with the nebulous subject of Religion. What this means is that the ultimate authority on anything is God and You. No matter how much things make sense either from a Mormon or a non-Mormon, it is your conversation with God that is the most important in identifying truth and your personal path.
As for the Temple question, I wouldn't worry about it in any way. Theologically speaking the problem resides in the person who gave away the information and not those who read it. On the other hand, dwelling on it after having read it might represent a disrespect for the Mormon's beliefs in its sacred nature. My guess is that even if you did pay attention to it you can never know exactly how truthful the version is you found or even what it means.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Thanks guys!!
I spent a lot of time thinking about the Endowment (that I read it, not the specifics of the procedure) and I decided that it's one of those things I would've rather not known but doesn't really change anything. I guess you guys kind of re-affirmed that, so... .
As for the anti-Mormon literature, it was pretty easy to tell what was actual fact and what was the presenter putting on spin or even lying, I'm glad I have the information he gave there (besides the endowment of course) so it wasn't a total loss; but reading something that you have to spend so much time disserning fact from fiction is a little tiring.
I like to know what's coming up in the discussions since the first time they completely caught me off gaurd and asked me to baptizied. I didn't mind the question (to which I responded that if I thought it was true I would be), but I like to know in advance that it's going to happen so I have time to think about it before giving an answer. I certainly understand why the Church doesn't publish this online, but for me I think it was a help to know what was going to happen (in kind of a broad outline, not the specifics).
I knew that this was just the basics, but I've been curious, if I do join the Church, will the missionaries keep teaching me, or am I supposed to learn just by going to Church on Sunday (and other functions for members)?
Hobbes Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hobbes- Unless the Spirit prompted us otherwise, we generally invited everyone to baptism after our second discussion.
Go figure-- the people who I taught who wound up getting baptised were invited the first time I met them.
Some other things the missionaries will (or should) ask you to commit to before baptism (during the discussions)-- abstaining from all sexual activity before marriage; paying tithing after your baptism; following the word of wisdom by not drinking alcohol, coffee, and tea, and by not smoking; and committing to be an active member of the church, which, at it's simplest level, means coming to church every week.
After baptism, the missionaries may still come by and visit every now and then. Ideally, though, prospective members already have made friends with other members. These other members should take over the instruction of the new member (and indeed, should have done most of the teaching anyway).
Urghh. Looking back on what I've written, I realize how. . . I don't know, stolid it sounds. Programmed.
Anyway, there is another set of six discussions after baptism (or WAS anyway, back when I was a missionary), called the new member discussions. In a nutshell, they are the six missionary discussions all over again, but a little deeper.
In addition, after baptism, there is a Sunday School class called Principles of the Gospel. You can get the manual (I think) off of one of the elders-- it's very well laid out, and goes into the topics the six discussions address a little deeper as well. If the elders can't get you a copy, you can find it online at www.lds.org.
I'm not sure of the exact URL, and I'm on dial up here-- the Church's website is atrocious when trying to load on 56k.
Good luck!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I thought asking me on the first discussion to be baptizied was a bit quick, but I was more taken by surprise than upset. The comitments about chastity, the word of wisdom and such I certainly apreciated and had no problem with (I was already planning on following them even before any of this Mormon stuff;) ). Mostly I wanted to have an idea of what was going to happen in a vague and general sense because I felt a lot more comfortable knowing the outline of what was going to happen. That's just me I guess. Today I;m going to the 6th discussion, and I assume they'll asked me to get baptizied again (they said last time they hoped I would do it on my birthday, but I think I'm going to have to tell them no). When do most people committ? Not that I plan on doing it because and when other have, but I'm curious if there's a ceratin discussion or time period that most people convert durring.
Hobbes Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Actually, I think the New Member Discussions take the sixth discussion and develop each of its six points in much more detail. They're about the life and responsibility of a member of the church.
Hobbes, I'm impressed with the way you're handling the Endowment Even I looked a little askance at it the first time I went through. Then I remembered that baptism is actually kind of weird. So is the sacrament/communion. So is every ritual in which people participate. Some are simpler and quicker than others, and are easier to digest, but ultimately, all rituals really demand that you look past some of the surface aspects and recognize the inner meaning.
I'd still like to discuss it with you over e-mail if you have the time, mostly just to see if you heard the most recent version The ritual has changed over the decades, and sometimes the Church's detractors quote older versions to make it look weirder than it is.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
People commit to be baptized at completely different times. There is no "standard" schedule Some people get into it all very quickly, like they've been looking for it their whole lives and suddenly, here it is! Other people take a very long time, studying it out and making absolutely certain before they are baptized — and such people often make the strongest and most committed members of the Church. So do things at your own pace, and don't feel bad about it. This is your baptism, so it's your timing that matters.
I think one of the reasons the missionaries invite to baptism early is to make it clear why they're there. They aren't an information service, they're proselytizers, and it's in everyone's best interest for them to say so from the outset You're always free to say no, and I'm glad that you are saying no until you're ready. Faith and spiritual commitments shouldn't be trifled with Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
When I was taking the discussions, I was rather surprised by the invitation to baptism after the second discussion. I knew that I wasn't ready, and I felt sort of panicky. Then I learned that Brigham Young took two whole YEARS to decide to get baptised. I decided that whatever period of time I needed to take to decide was OK. I was baptized about eight months after taking the discussions. By then, I had been attending my ward so long that most people thought I already WAS a member. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I had talked about the doctrine in great detail with my friends from hatrack and then sort of decided I would definitely join when I was ready. After that I waited about a year before I made the decision that it was time for me to join. Then I called the missionaries and took all six discussions as quickly as possible and was baptised.
I guess there's no set schedule. I also wanted to study the discussions more intently, so I got the missionaries to get me copies of the brochures. I think they are available from the Mormon catalog. I'll go look for them. Also there are wonderful books and videos available from the same source for nearly nothing. One of my very favorites is "Jesus the Christ", which is like an in-depth scholarly immersion in the gospels.
I had a roommate who was a committed and dedicated anti-Mormon who had been raised in the church. I've never thought it was dangerous to entertain ideas that contain doubts. I'm just a highly skeptical type, a scientist type, and if there is any danger of changing my mind from seeing other information then I want to explore that information completely and THEN make up my mind.
I didn't see any light of truth in any of the anti-Mormon information she brought forward. To me it seemed the problem was that she lacked the ability to feel the spirit. I don't know why this should be. It's a grievous thing. But without the spirit, the church would be empty and that's how she perceived it. As empty. If it's empty of the spirit of God then it's just a group of people like any other social group... like a sorority or a country club, with personalities and politics and so on. And indeed if it were only that, I would not be interested in being a member either.
I AM saddened by the bitterness and the vituperative nature of much of the anti-Mormon stuff she showed to me. But I think studying people whom we have lost is a valuable exercise, if only to understand our mistakes and try to learn what not to do.
But I was given a light in my life which I followed to find the church. In reading the anti-Mormon stuff I never saw any light there. So I concluded that they for some sad reason are simply unable to see to the heart of what the church is about. Lacking that central unity of love and purpose that brings the rest of us together, they naturally fall away.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Okay, I'm so glad you asked for these, Hobbes, cause I explored the site and ordered some new stuff for myself.
Go to lds.org and on the far left hand side near the bottom is a link Order Church Materials. On the middle bottom, under the heading "Missionary Work" is a link for Missionary discussions and study guide. About halfway down is the link for Missionary discussions, large, complete set, printed for $7.25. Below it is the Missionary discussions, Large, instruction booklet, in which you also might be interested. You can order them there, or ask your missionaries nicely and they will get you a copy, I'm sure.
I told them how I was a print media person, and liked to be able to read back over things to fully absorb them, so they were very glad to oblige me in that way. I studied for my baptism interview as though it were a test, though they laughed at me for being that way and said I didn't have to make an A+ to be baptized but I said I just wanted to. <laughs>
[ May 27, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
Hobbes, You want to know the content of the discussions, those prior to your baptism and after, read Gosple Principles. You can find them online at lds.org. under the gosple library both in HTML and PDF. Though they do not follow the discussion word for word they do discuse the basic belief in detail of the LDS faith. Also, depending on the ward you should be attending a class each sunday that uses this book as the manual.
Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
Howdy--I have been out of town, so I haven't kept up, but I just wanted to mention (if someone's already said this, I apologize) that the way the discussions are being taught has changed dramatically. Missionaries are still supposed to follow the basic outline, but instead of reciting or reading the text word for word, they are encouraged to add their own favorite scriptures or insights. They are also encouraged to teach the discussions out of order if the Spirit indicates that to them. To this I say YAY! It's nice that the Church is endorsing greater flexibility... however, it does place a greater burden on the missionaries, and I think some of them will probably do better with it than others.
I also would like to add that the temple is the greatest place of light and insight I know. Thank you for treating the things we hold sacred with the respect they deserve, and not allowing the anti-slant with which you read them to cloud your spirit.
--Emily
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I've only read bits and pieces of this thread, but I have a question about LDS, and this seems like the most appropriate place to ask it. My apologies if this has already been addressed, or if thiss is derailing.
Does the LDS church, take communion, and if so, do is it regarded as purely symbolic, does it fall under one of the headings that I know from my background in mainstream Protestantism, or is it entirely different, and unique to the LDS church?
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:Does the LDS church, take communion, and if so, do is it regarded as purely symbolic, does it fall under one of the headings that I know from my background in mainstream Protestantism, or is it entirely different, and unique to the LDS church?
Every Sunday, at church, the sacrament is offered, which is akin to communion. It consists of bread and water over which specific prayers are said. Taking the sacrament is a more symbolic act (meaning we do not believe in transubstantiation). The taking of the sacrament is seen as a weekly renewal of the covenant made at baptism.
[Sorry this is kind of a short answer, if you'd like further clarification I'd be happy to help - or someone else, I'm sure will]
[ May 27, 2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Note – transubstantiation is only one very specific form of belief in “real presence.” My understanding (from folks on this board) is that LDS don’t believe in any of the others, either.
Blacwolve, if you’ve studied the full spectrum of mainline Protestantism, on this issue the LDS are probably closest to Zwingli.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I haven't, I'm seventeen, I just have a basic idea of what Luther and Calvin believed on the issue. However, I'm always open to reading suggestions that don't take several years at seminary to understand. Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
I would say the biggest difference between Zwingli's ideas and LDS Theology on the Last Supper/Communion/Sacrament is that Mormons believe there is a real vehicle for grace tied to the bread and "water" blessing. It is seen as part of the process of Atonement. This has nothing to do with any "presence" issue (either physical Luther's or Catholic Tran or Con-substantiation, or Calvin's Spiritual). Rather, it is a spiritual change in each individual as Christ accepts our actions according to our faith (as opposed to Zwingli's post-grace memorialism).
A simple list of Communion Theologyto see where I got my definitions.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Hey Hobbes- just a couple of quick ideas: here is a website put together by a member of the church which contains a whole lotta info on just about any question you could ever want to ask. Many of his answers are his own opinion rather than official church doctrine, but I haven't found anything that I disagree with completely on his site: http://www.jefflindsay.com/MyPages.shtml#religion
As far as the endowment goes- knowing what it is and how it works shouldn't make a huge difference since pretty much everything which occurs in the ceremony can be found with a careful reading of the Bible and pearl of great price. It is only the bringing together of the information which makes it different. Feel free to e-mail me if you have any specific questions
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As a former Baha'i and friend of many Mormons (and someone who knows pretty much what the Endowment Ceremony involves), I found this link hysterically amusing, especially since the author apparently knows next to nothing about Masonry and consequently completely misses the point. *grin*
[ May 28, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Thanks for the clarification Jettboy.
But Zwingli did believe that the Eucharist was a vehicle for grace, just that the grace was given by God as a result of the faith and obedience of the person receiving, as opposed to the real presence of Christ specifically in the elements.
Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
If that is how Zwingli saw it than I suppose it is the same as LDS Theology. I suppose that it is only a minor quibble, but what I read didn't seem exactly the same.
Where Zwingli saw Communion as a Memorial of Christ and a sign of a Grace already performed on a believer, Mormons see it as a Memorial of Christ and an actual part of the Grace process necessary for the full Atonement. Christ isn't "present" in the Eucarist/Communion/Sacrament, but his Grace enters the ceremony as an active force. Minor as this might be, it is important to understand this point because its exactly how LDS Theology understands Baptism that the Eucarist/Communion/Sacrament is considered directly related.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*bump*
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Hey, I didn't know this was here! Thanks for the bump, kath.
quote: If the baptism is performed by proxy the individual must still give his or her seal of approval to the ordinance.
*looks vaguely confused* Is "the individual" the living person or the dead one? If the latter, why not give the seal of approval? I understand that you believe very few people go to hell, but this "telestial salvation" doesn't sound very appealing. I seem to remember someone saying (about a different proposed means of salvation for the dead) "It would be a short sermon and a universal response."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The individual is the dead one, I think.
Why don't people do what they know is right, right now?
A key part of the Mormon afterlife is the idea that when we die, our character does not significantly change.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
*nods* I would not expect a person's character to change, but their circumstances obviously do (unless I'm missing something completely). Like the difference between my attitude toward menial work when I thought I was on a fast track toward a high-paying research job and later, when I was trapped out of college by a lack of money. My character didn't change, at least not immediately, but I buckled down and started searching for any job I could find.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<bumped because I just barely noticed a month-old thread *sigh*>
[ February 10, 2004, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the "few" in this thread title has to be misleading.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I know this was years ago, but it seemed like such a great discussion. Would hate to see it go before I finished reading.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
or quilts ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Anyways, glad to hear you weren't. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)