posted
There is being married "Till death do you part" and being married "For Time and All Eternity". You can only be married "For Time and All Eternity" in the temple. That is being sealed.
You do not need to confess every little sin to the bishop. Only those that are fairly serious and/or require a little extra help in the repentance process. When you do talk the the bishop, he doesn't give you some arbitrary task that will absolve the sin once you complete it. He is there merely as a help. He may remind you of what it takes to repent:
Feeling sorrow (If you went to the bishop yourself, chances are you are already there)
Asking for forgiveness, of God whose commandment you've broken and of those you've wronged.
Restitution. Fixing it as much as possible.
Never doing it again.
Let us say your problem is an addiction to something. You may have trouble with the 'never do it again' step. In this case, regular counsel with your bishop may help or very likely he will refer you to professional help. If you can't afford it, the church will pay for it.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
With regard to repenting and "never doing it again," what is the Church's view on forgiveness? Are you forgiven if you sincerely regret and realize what you've done and ask for forgiveness, or is there such thing as a sin that cannot be forgiven even with Christ's sacrifice?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They also do marriages for time only, in the event that one or both of the marriage partners were already sealed to someone else. I guess the benefit of that would be that the temple is a really nice place that is always set up for doing weddings for no charge. My husband's grandma and my sister both got married for time only. When my sister's divorce (the ending of a prior sealing is called a cancellation) got cleared up they went on and got sealed in a separate ceremony. I know a lot of couples who have been married civilly and sealed later.
P.S. Sevumar: I don't know about first degree murder. I think the first presidency of the church decides if someone actually serves their time and then wants to return to church membership. There's also denying the holy ghost. See my explanation of the three kingdoms, I think it's on page one. I think I'm often guilty of not giving the holy ghost a proper reception, but I keep trying. I'm not sure what it means to deny the holy ghost to the extent that one would go to outer darkness.
posted
There is only one sin that can never be forgiven. That is the sin against the Holy Ghost. Basically its knowing (more than mere faith) the truth of the gospel and still rejecting it, if not actively going against it. Chances of members, or even apostates, having this kind of knowledge is improbable. It has been compared to seeing the sun, but denying its existance.
The only people who would know they had sinned to such a degree would be those who have been condemned directly by God.
All other sins are forgivable, even if you commit them seven times seventy fold. There is a question of if murder is forgiveable if you are already a member. Some interpretations show yes and some no. However, there have been murderers who have repented and joined the Church, both in the Scriptures and otherwise.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Occasional, that clears it up. Speaking of the Holy Ghost, I was also curious as to what the role of that entity is in the LDS Church. I know that you believe that the Father and Son have perfect, glorified bodies and some actions are attributed to each in scripture. Where does the Holy Ghost fit in the godhead, what are his duties and his relation to the other 2?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even Presiden Hunter was married civilly in the Salt Lake Temple. He was a widower, she a widow.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seventy times seven used to sound like a lot, and then I realized one day that I've probably been angry at various people more than that. How long was the Clinton administration?
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Holy Ghost has Spirit only. It has no physical body so that it can touch our own spirits more directly. It acts as a Witness, communicating the truth of the other two.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to add that the Holy Ghost bears witness of Truth - all truth.
All 3 members of the Godhead bear witness of each other. I guess some people might think of the Holy Ghost as a junior partner in the Godhead, but I kind of think of them as President (God), Vice-President (Jesus), and CFO (Holy Ghost). Each has a different role to play, all of which are vitally important. God's plan could not function without all three parts - Father, Savior, and Witness.
posted
Despite comments to the contrary, there is no such things as "junior gods" in LDS teachings. You either are one or you aren't. The Holy Ghost is fully God, as much as Jesus is fully God, and God the Father is fully God. That is why we call them "One God," because they all have the same mission and attributes. It is impossible to differenciate them except by trivial matters. When you speak of one, you are speaking of them all.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the Book of Abraham speaks of a plurality of gods, and the Old Testament uses the word "elohim" or gods, what are the other beings that are being referred to?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the corporate ladder structure was divinely inspired. But that's getting into deep doctrine, I guess.
The Holy Ghost testifies to the Saving role of Jesus Christ. The "all truth" idea has to be compatible, first and foremost, with that. The Holy Ghost is also a purifier, comforter, and guide in making decisions.
My understanding of the plurality of God is strictly the Godhead of The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, this kind of speculation is pretty much the poster child of speculative/inessential "deep" doctrine. I mean, it's fine to ask, but realize we don't know. If it was important for us to know, I'm sure we'd be told.
posted
I think it implies, along with other historical evidence, that the ancestors of the Jewish people were once polytheistic. Over time and through the teachings of prophets they probably narrowed down their belief to the chief god of the pantheon to the exclusion of others.
EDIT: which doesn't exclude the LDS view that Jesus and the Holy Ghost always existed, but were not acknowledged in the Judaic view of the unity of God.
posted
Rivka, correct me if I'm wrong, if you're hanging around. . .
Elohim doesn't refer to a plurality of gods. It refers to the completeness of God's strength. Although the -im ending USUALLY connotates plurality, in this case, it refers to a single being who has cornered the market on might, strength, etc.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are referred to as "callings" because Church members are "called" (by the Priesthood leaders in the ward, who we believe are inspired in this capacity) to serve in various positions in their congregation - anything from being a Sunday School teacher to being a choir director to being a Bishop (leader of a congregation known as a "ward").
posted
What happens if you refuse a calling? What if you don't feel called yourself? Does this ever happen?
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My calling right now is as an assistant or councillor to the person running the Primary (the children's Sunday School) in my ward.
It can be anything that helps the running of the church including: being an usher at meetings on Sunday, ordering copies of the church publications for people, being the Bishop in charge of the running of the ward, being a class teacher, being a full time missionary, being an Apostle etc.
All of these callings are extended to the members of the church who are asked if they are willing to fulfill that role. Once a person agrees to accept the calling their name is put before the members of the church (whether at a ward level in the case of a Sunday School teacher or the whole church in the case of the Prophet). The church members are then asked if they will sustain that person (i.e. support and assist them). We agree to sustain someone by "raising our hands to the square" - thus showing outwardly our support. Then we are also given the opportunity to object to any callings as mentioned before - if someone does then the bishop would take them aside and discuss their reasons for objecting and resolve any issues.
We believe that callings come from the Lord via our church leaders. When we accept a calling we serve until the Lord feels its time for us to do something else. They're really a chance for us to serve others and develop our talents and testimony.
Posts: 394 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah it happens - usually though people express a reservation about serving because they don't feel they have the right skills/ abilities. Usually the person extending the call will ask why they don't feel they can serve and then ask them to go away and think and pray about it. If its what the Lord wants he'll let them know.
There's no issue made if someone refuses a calling though. Their leaders will probably try to find out if the person has any issues/ problems that might prevent them from serving. Then they try to help them resolve those. But if a person outright says no then nothing happens as far as their memberships concerned.
Posts: 394 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People often do refuse callings, for whatever reason.
I don't think that anyone ever feels completely prepared to do the things they are called to do (at least I know I never have).
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had to turn down a calling as nursery leader because I'm out of town so much. I help in the nursery when I'm there, but I'm not the leader. Nobody minded or was upset at me.
The idea of callings, I think, is that you learn the most of all by teaching. So we all take turns doing the teaching of each other and that helps us all learn more than we would if we just sat and were taught. I really like that part about the church. And they really do need you, too. It's not that they make up some busy work. It's real work that matters and needs to be done.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rivka, correct me if I'm wrong, if you're hanging around. . .
Elohim doesn't refer to a plurality of gods. It refers to the completeness of God's strength. Although the -im ending USUALLY connotates plurality, in this case, it refers to a single being who has cornered the market on might, strength, etc.
It depends on context. The phrase elohim acheirim -- "other gods" (found in the Ten Commandments, among other places) is plural, and refers to idolatry. However, "Elokim" (actually spelled the same way as the other in Hebrew, but I don't write out His names) is not plural. It is His name of might and justice and Oneness. LinkyPosts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Grammatically, the root word of Elokim is "eleh" the demonstrative pronoun "these". In the plural, "these" connotes the binding unity between each of the individual items, e.g.: "These five buildings were all built by a famous architect." Therefore the plural of eleh, (elohim), represents the unity of many different things combined together.
quote:"one through whom all the plurality, (by everything being related to him), becomes a unity."
So, it still represents more than one, although united in one under the title of G-d. The author presented it to mean that it represented everything G-d created was united under the Source. I still don't see it rejecting the use as a definition of three or more existing powers, if you will, placed under the same title of G-d.
I also have a problem with this:
quote:For the purpose of this column, I will write the word elohim as Elokim when referring to G-d.
Does the Torah, espcially older ones, use one or the other word? It would seem to me that would be an important point. Of course, if one word is used at one time and another at another time, yet in similar context, that could show possible editorial reworking.
Oh, I see you said it was spelled Elohim in Hebrew. So, it is only an assumption that the word should be different at particular times. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. Seems more a matter of choice than rule.
Edit: I don't mean to be argumentative. I just don't like how this commentator decides things by what I consider presumptions.
posted
In transliteration from Hebrew, what's being represented as "h" "ch" "kh" or occasionally "k" is really a sort of a more throaty sounding "h" as we know it in english.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in the LDS church Elohim is sometimes used as a name for Heavenly Father, who we believe is an individual god. We call the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "The Godhead". I didn't realize that the trinity was a different idea until I was in college.
The eternal progression (that we are the spirit children of God) model would seem to imply that He was the spirit child of someone else. But we only acknowledge and worship Heavenly Father. There is a fine line between gratitude to Jesus and worshipping him. I'm afraid it gets crossed with fair regularity. But we are supposed to only pray to Heavenly Father.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sevumar is correct that a heyh is far more guttural than an English H, but that's NOT why both I and the link used Elokim.
The word elohim, not referring to God, is not His name -- so there's no problem saying or writing it. However, when it is used to refer to God, it is one of His Names, and thus is only spoken or written by Orthodox Jews as part of a prayer.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LDS have a more flexible view on the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain. While we shouldn't swear, any sincere and reverent use of His name is acceptable. Of course, in addition to formal prayers we have a commandment to pray always.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO, a sincere and reverent use of His name would most likely be a prayer (or possibly for teaching purposes, which would also be ok, as necessary). Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a more "unified" conception of worshipping the "Godhead," although its all been arguable. When you are worshipping Jesus Christ, you are basically Worshipping the Father. On the other hand, when you are worshipping the Father, you are equally Worshipping Jesus Christ. Of course, you are ALSO worshipping the Holy Ghost who is the Witness of both.
Now we are commanded to pray to Heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, but that doesn't represent a gradation of "rank" as it were. Rather, it is mostly a matter of procedure. There are times in the Scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, where Jesus Christ was directly prayed too. On the other hand, in return He prays to Heavenly Father on behalf of the people.
On the other hand, this is partly one of those "deep doctrine" ideas that aren't particularly important to the basic doctrine. That is because the "rank" view of things isn't exactly beyond the truth. It just depends on if you are focusing on the individual members' roles or the unifying purpose of their mission.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have a more "unified" conception of worshipping the "Godhead," although its all been arguable. When you are worshipping Jesus Christ, you are basically Worshipping the Father. On the other hand, when you are worshipping the Father, you are equally Worshipping Jesus Christ. Of course, you are ALSO worshipping the Holy Ghost who is the Witness of both.
Now we are commanded to pray to Heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, but that doesn't represent a gradation of "rank" as it were. Rather, it is mostly a matter of procedure. There are times in the Scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, where Jesus Christ was directly prayed too. On the other hand, in return He prays to Heavenly Father on behalf of the people.
This is similar to what one of my very good LDS friends has told me too. It seems to me that if you pray to one part of the godhead, the unity of purpose that the Church holds could also mean you are praying to all of them. Just like if you speak of "America" you are speaking of the 50 states that make it up.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify, unless you are in the presence of Christ, you are commanded to pray to the Father.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think God knew the majority of His children would not choose to be married forever. But it is a good ideal to aspire to, and we believe, an importand part of becoming like God.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
The longer answer -- You don't have to be married to be in the Highest degree of Heaven living with God (i.e. The Celestial Kingdom). However, you won't be able to increase your full potential, but become as the angles to those who did marry. Of course, if you didn't recieve that chance on Earth to marry than you will at some other time.
The Eternal Marriage section of the Doctrine and Covenants; especially the yellow portion.
quote:When you do talk the the bishop, he doesn't give you some arbitrary task that will absolve the sin once you complete it.
Minor aside: I know this is the popular conception of Catholic confession, which is actually called the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but there really is much more to it than that. I don't want to derail the thread, but I did want to let people know.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
