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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 334 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
*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>
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
[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.
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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 Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
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. 
