posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
posted
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. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)?
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. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* Check out the time stamp on those posts. If I were still wearing the badge, I'd be so busted...
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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]
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
posted
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.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
