Ask a Mormon

[justamere10]

I held on to some of my favorite mission dresses for a while after I came home, even though they were pretty thrashed. It was a combination of being too broke to buy more, and some nostalgia. They have finally all gone on to the great beyond, dress heaven.

Is "dress heaven" canonical? :-)

[RayMan]

Sorry, if you already know everything I know there is no point in my responding to your posts anymore. I'll try to remember that. :-) But on second thought, maybe not everyone knows everything that I know and if I respond to your posts then others get to learn a bit more from me. Hmmm...


Shucks,
At my age I don't even know everything I know. :)

[RayMan]

Is "dress heaven" canonical? :-)

I am waiting for the Ressurection. It is casual dress.

[Old Tex]

thank you noelle.

I saw two on my way home from class today. It was just something that came to mind.

When I grew up in AZ you could always tell the missionaries. It was 105 f. out and two guys would be peddling along with suits and ties. Now that is something I would say is "sacrifice" for the Lord.:lol:

And if it was back in the sixties, they wore black hats with their black suits and the rules were that one never took their coats off.

Things have changed now, but it's still a minumun of a short sleeve white shirt, a consertive tie, and slacks or suit pants that are also of a consenvative color.

The sister missionaries (young females) wear conservative dresses with a little below knee level length. Young men usually start their mission at 19 for two years and the young women usually start their mission at 21 are are up for eighteen months. (If you are going to ask me why the difference, I don't know.) :lol:

The Church tries to provide cars where they can depending on where the missionaries go. Our misionaries here have a car to use when the are in less densely populated areas, and usually just wals when there are in dense areas like groups of apartment complexes.

But yes, when bicycles are used, they are provided by the Church.

[Old Tex]

Don't look at me.......I've already given my response which was almost identical to yours.

What was the question again?

[Old Tex]

Gaithersburg is nice. Spent 3 months in Germantown, 11 in the District, last 7 in La Plata and 4 in College Park. I loved spending time in Georgetown and the Bay. My fiance' and I were thinking of going to D.C. for our honeymoon next yr.

Are you planning to be married in the DC Temple? I've never been there (it takes too long just to get out of Texas) but I have heard from others that it's something to expierence.

[HokieCougarVandal]

Spring and fall were great in MD, hated winter and summer. No matter what you did you could not get cool enough or warm enough with the high humidity. Glad I had a car for just over half.

Not too far from where I served (VA-Roanoke). I actually looked forward to the winters so I wouldn't have to shower 3x per day! But wouldn't you know it, when winter set in I would be transferred to car areas!

Had to buy my own bike. No one got around that, unless some benevolent elder leaving the mission didn't want to take (or ship) their bike home. When my group came into the field ... 10 elders ... 2 bikes. Needless to say, those that were going to the far nether reaches (including me) didn't have a chance.

Still ... wouldn't trade those days for the world.

[HokieCougarVandal]

Are you planning to be married in the DC Temple?

<< Raises hand >>

Been there (many times) ... did that (marriage) there ... very beautiful temple.

They've got one of those newer smaller ones in Raliegh, NC now, and it's actually closer for us to drive than going to the DC temple. But our stake is in the DC district, so we do our work there.

EP: My oldest son's first trip to the temple with the youth was two weeks ago. The wife and I got to go and help while my SIL watched our other kids. It was a good day.:)

[scipio337]

It's good to see you back Scip. I always enjoy your well-considered posts. But I must admit I constantly feel a need to be cautious around you because if anyone thinks they're hot on the trail of a "gotcha" you're right in there pushing for it. :-) Which is not meant to be a criticism, just an observation that although almost all fellow followers of Jesus Christ writing in this thread are friendly (possibly largely because of modfear) there really are differences of belief and doctrine that each of us cling to and are not likely to depart from because of anything written on this board. Such is the way of man.Gratze! (I think). I'm not looking for a "gotcha", and I'm not trying to be contentious. I hope you don't think that.


LDS believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be co-eternal. The spirit bodies of Jesus and the Holy Spirit were created by God the Father who later appointed them to be members of the Godhead. I find it difficult for you to believe that Jesus "Son" is unchanging when 2,000 years ago he was born to a mortal mother, grew up as we did, died, and was resurrected. It seems impossible to think of that as unchanged from the spirit body that was his prior to that change.But in that respect, aren't those ideals (spirit bodies created by G*d the Father) no different than the LDS belief in what humans are?

Would you say humans are of the same, or different species as G*d the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

I don't believe Jesus' incarnation, or his union of spirit and flesh. Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit through Mary, but his essense was intact.


Yes, our physical bodies die, but from God's point of view that is not a punishment, it's a returning back to our spiritual state. Because of the atonement of Jesus Christ, the grave is robbed of its victory, our physical bodies are all eventually resurrected to be united once more with our spirit body, never again to be separated.I don't believe we have a spiritual preexistence.


You base your understanding not on the bible, but on the interpretations of the bible and the decrees of a council of men. Latter-day Saints base their understanding on the bible and on additional revelations God has made to man in our time.My understanding of the Scriptures is identical to the early church fathers, per their writings. Are you claiming your interpretation of the Scripture differs from previous LDS Presidents? Perhaps you could differentiate between a "council of men" who claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, voting on doctrine, and a "council of men" who claim divine revelation, voting on the validity of a revelation?

DS believe that the grace of Jesus Christ is gratuitous as far as resurrection is concerned. Every single human being who now, has ever, or ever will be born on this planet will be resurrected. Human will, the freedom and power to choose for ourselves, is a great and terrible gift from God. By our choices we wend our way to heaven, by our choices we dig our way to hell.I agree......

Restoration Christians are not bound to the manmade Nicene Creed. We believe that authorized apostles and prophets again walk the earth and that God speaks to them His mind and will for His children on earth today.I am not bound by the Creed, but it shadows my own beliefs. We believe that those Ecumenical Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit, just as you believe your apostles and prophets (who are also men) are guided by revelation.

ndeed, prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit, as is healing, tongues, discernment, etc. The office of apostle/prophet has always been handed down by the laying on of hands of other apostles. There is ample evidence of that in the bible. Yes, those men were called of God before being ordained. There is nothing extraordinary about apostles being the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ. That is clearly evident in the New Testament.Where is this unbroken line of "laying on of hands" to Smith? :) Can we site any of those apostle/prophets, say, after 32 AD and prior to 1829 (that's more time without a prophet than with)? Could you provide NT examples where there was a single living prophet, designated by this laying on of hands?

My guess is that you believe the Roman Catholic Church today is the same as the Church of Jesus Christ that he organized. But where are those authorized apostles and prophets again?I beleive that authority passed through Peter. I don't interpret Matthew 16:18-19 to be regarding personal revelation, or a formation of new doctrine.

Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter. Elsewhere in Scripture such a name change always denotes a change in status (ie, . Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, and Saul to Paul). In the Greek text, Simon's name is changed to πέτρος (Petros), and in the second half of the verse the "rock" in the phrase "on this rock" is the word πέτρα (petra).

It's hard to for me to equate "revelation" to "rock", given that play on words, and the change of name from Simon to Peter.

Then you declare that Protestants do not have a whole bible because the Catholic bible is quite different than the King James version for example.I don't believe the deuterocanonical books contained any doctrines different from the King James, or any other version of the Bible.


My understanding is that there is to be a restitution of all things in the last days before the Millennium. That would mean that as it was before the days of Peleg, the waters on this planet will be gathered in the north and the land masses united. Mere speculation on my part, but I think Missouri might be in for a cleansing if the Gulf of Mexico moves to the north. Probably not too many Camaro's left for anyone to drive down a freeway. :-)I haven't thought about the physical changes much, but I don't believe Zion will be in independence, I think it is, and will always be Jerusalem.

LDS believe that Zion is where the pure in heart dwell. However, during the Millennium the Lord will reside in Old Jerusalem and the center of his theocratic government will be in New Jerusalem which is in newly cleansed Missouri where the Garden of Eden was before the drifting off of continents.I find no scripture in my canon to support ot will be in Missouri. Missouri is actually quite clean, to begin with.

Worship what you may, but during the Millennium at least, every knee will bow to Jesus Christ.I do, and I will not assume that others will adopt my form of worship, against their will in life, or contrary to their life in death. I'm sorry I can't change my feelings about that. Judgement on faith is up to Christ, not to me.

[scipio337]

Darn, am I the only one still arguing about doctrine? It alwayss seems so light-hearted, just before I post! :)

[THE LIGHT]

But yes, when bicycles are used, they are provided by the Church.

Holy Bicycles eh?:lol:

[THE LIGHT]

I am waiting for the Ressurection. It is casual dress.

Come as you are?:think:

[jasan22]

Are you planning to be married in the DC Temple? I've never been there (it takes too long just to get out of Texas) but I have heard from others that it's something to expierence.

Love the D.C. Temple. One of the most gorgeous ones, especially when it pops up on you driving the Beltway. This is my second marriage, so just getting married in the church.

[Old Tex]

I am waiting for the Ressurection. It is casual dress.

Formal White robes and black tie.

[jasan22]

Not too far from where I served (VA-Roanoke). I actually looked forward to the winters so I wouldn't have to shower 3x per day! But wouldn't you know it, when winter set in I would be transferred to car areas!

Had to buy my own bike. No one got around that, unless some benevolent elder leaving the mission didn't want to take (or ship) their bike home. When my group came into the field ... 10 elders ... 2 bikes. Needless to say, those that were going to the far nether reaches (including me) didn't have a chance.

Still ... wouldn't trade those days for the world.

I sold mine to a kid in the last ward I served in. We had a standard Schwinn bike we bought from the mission. I had a car for most of it, especially the last 7 with an area that was half of Charles County. My oddest stories came from that area.

[birdonawire]

Shucks,
At my age I don't even know everything I know. :)


This is way off subject but how old are you???? Your age keeps coming up that you are old!!

[Old Tex]

Love the D.C. Temple. One of the most gorgeous ones, especially when it pops up on you driving the Beltway. This is my second marriage, so just getting married in the church.

Good for you. I didn't even know about the Church during my first marriage and was three kids into the second one before I heard about it. I thought everybody was Baptist back then.:lol:

[Reeder]

This is way off subject but how old are you???? Your age keeps coming up that you are old!!


:)) :))

[noelle12]

Is "dress heaven" canonical? :-)

Well, I didn't see it in a vision or anything. I just sent my old mission dresses on in faith that they were going to a better place. :)

[noelle12]

<< Raises hand >>

Been there (many times) ... did that (marriage) there ... very beautiful temple.

They've got one of those newer smaller ones in Raliegh, NC now, and it's actually closer for us to drive than going to the DC temple. But our stake is in the DC district, so we do our work there.

EP: My oldest son's first trip to the temple with the youth was two weeks ago. The wife and I got to go and help while my SIL watched our other kids. It was a good day.:)

DC was my first temple. Before it was dedicated I went to the open house there (I was about 8 or so at the time). I lived in upstate New York, so we were in the DC temple district. Just prior to my mission I lived in Chevy Chase MD as a nanny, and so I took out my own endowment there too. I haven't been back there since my mission, but it is still probably my favorite.

[terri910]

Well Terri, I for one Have No Idea! :lol: Reeder? Old Tex? Anyone?

...I just didn't want you to think I was keeping anything from you! ;)
Thanks!

[RayMan]

This is way off subject but how old are you???? Your age keeps coming up that you are old!!

Buncha freakin' whippersnappers around her. 54 in a couple months. The upside is that I was in the Haight as a young teenager in '67 and made it to the Stones Altamont concert in '69. Got saved during the Jesus People movement in '71.

Wonderful time to grow up in the S.F. Bay Area.

[Old Tex]

<< Raises hand >>

Been there (many times) ... did that (marriage) there ... very beautiful temple.

They've got one of those newer smaller ones in Raliegh, NC now, and it's actually closer for us to drive than going to the DC temple. But our stake is in the DC district, so we do our work there.

EP: My oldest son's first trip to the temple with the youth was two weeks ago. The wife and I got to go and help while my SIL watched our other kids. It was a good day.:)

Good for him. I recently ordained one of my great grandsons to the office of Deacon. He takes passing the Sacrament every Sunday very seriously.

He will be going to do proxy baptisms on our next youth Temple trip. I'm pretty limited physically, but I always go with the youth to act as recorder.

Are you familiar with the new name submission program now being started in some Temple Districts? The Houston Temple (here) goes on it May 13th. It involves your home computer and the internet only. No more making Temple submission floppies. No more Temple Ready software. I'm really looking forward to it.

[terri910]

Okay, I've got to ask this.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, nor am I being a smart-aleck. It's just something I'm curious about.

Here goes..................

I have seen a lot of young missionaries in my life. They come from all over the country. While "working" they ride bicycles.

Do they have to provide them, or does the local church provide them?

Just curious.
Gotta luv ya, buf....afraid a question about bikes is going to make someone mad!

When it comes to defending faith, the LDS, like Catholics, have bigger fish to fry.

But we do it more on Fridays! :mrgreen:

[RayMan]

:)) :))

I will so be messing with you 25 years from now.

Hey, my daughter is at D-Land the next couple days as the finale to her Senior Cruise. They went to Catalina and Mexico and the bid finale is the home of the Mouse.

[RayMan]

Formal White robes and black tie.
Tex, Say it ain't so?? All I got is t-shirts and levis. Give an aging hippie some slack.

[terri910]

You base your understanding not on the bible, but on the interpretations of the bible and the decrees of a council of men.

I would just like to point out that there are few things more irritating, and, IMO, disrespectful than someone else telling you what you believe and what you base your belief upon.

Most of my Mormon friends on this forum would agree with me on that (because they have been on the receiving end of it often enough), and I hope they do in this instance, as well, and tell you so.

Consider this me telling you so, if no one else does.

[birdonawire]

Buncha freakin' whippersnappers around her. 54 in a couple months. The upside is that I was in the Haight as a young teenager in '67 and made it to the Stones Altamont concert in '69. Got saved during the Jesus People movement in '71.

Wonderful time to grow up in the S.F. Bay Area.


Holy crap you grew up in the same area my husband lived when he was a kid!!:eek:

He moved away in 1967!!

I remember the Jesus People!!:)

Your NOT old!!!

I am only two years behind you!!!:lol:

[Old Tex]

Tex, Say it ain't so?? All I got is t-shirts and levis. Give an aging hippie some slack.

OK, for aging hippie Pentecostals, there is a t-shirt and levis section, but don't let the Catholics see you. They think that they are the only ones there.:lol:

[terri910]

Sorry, if you already know everything I know there is no point in my responding to your posts anymore. I'll try to remember that. :-) But on second thought, maybe not everyone knows everything that I know and if I respond to your posts then others get to learn a bit more from me. Hmmm...
Why did I "know" that you would respond in that way, rather than actually reading what I wrote?

IF you had read my post, you would have noted that I said there may be newbies that the information would be useful to. I happened to know everything else you put in that post.

What I did NOT say (and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words into mhy mouth) was that I knew "everything you know."

The point -- which you seem to have missed completely -- was that with all that information, none of it answered what I had asked.

Whether or not you respond to any of my posts is entirely up to you. While I have no doubt that there are things I can learn from you regarding the Latter-Day Saint faith, I managed to learn quite a bit from the other "active, informed" Mormons on this Forum, and I imagine I can manage to keep learning from them. And be friends at the same time.

[RayMan]

OK, for aging hippie Pentecostals, there is a t-shirt and levis section, but don't let the Catholics see. They think that they are the only ones there.:lol:


I understand that they are walled off the Baptist folk. That way nobody gets their feeling hurt. :hug:

[RayMan]

Holy crap you grew up in the same area my husband lived when he was a kid!!:eek:

He moved away in 1967!!

I remember the Jesus People!!:)

Your NOT old!!!

I am only two years behind you!!!:lol:

You and I know wer're not old. But to listen to those young punks Reeder and Buf we are up there with the Flintstones.

[birdonawire]

You and I know wer're not old. But to listen to those young punks Reeder and Buf we are up there with the Flintstones.


LOL!!!:lol:

I probably have kids older than they are!!:lol:

I refuse to be old.....:cool:

[RayMan]

LOL!!!:lol:

I probably have kids older than they are!!:lol:

I refuse to be old.....:cool:

I have Disneyland t-shirts older than Reeder.

[terri910]

What was the question again?
My question, Old Tex, was based on a quote from Joseph Smith that is in the D&C, which I knew was LDS scripture. I asked why that particular quote was included in scripture, while some other quotes are not, including quotes that have to do with the nature of God, etc.

I know that the Journal of Discourses is not scripture. I know that it contains talks that may include inspired words, opinions, and speculation. I just was wondering how it was determined under which heading any given quote would come under.

Thanks in advance!

[terri910]

Buncha freakin' whippersnappers around her. 54 in a couple months. The upside is that I was in the Haight as a young teenager in '67 and made it to the Stones Altamont concert in '69. Got saved during the Jesus People movement in '71.

Wonderful time to grow up in the S.F. Bay Area.
Oh for heavens sake, RayMan. YOU are the whippersnapper! I am five years your senior (and feel every year of it, too). The upside for me is that as a young teenager I saw the Beatles in concert three times before they quit touring, along with the Stones, the Mamas and the Papas, Jimi Hendriz, Herman's Hermits, Jefferson Airplane, Cream, The Kinks, and dozens of others....BEFORE 1967! :eek: Oh, and the Beach Boys when they were just playing gigs wherever they could get booked, like the Wagon Wheel (roller) Skating Rink.

I now feel old....but am remembering some pretty neat stuff!!!

[Old Tex]

You and I know wer're not old. But to listen to those young punks Reeder and Buf we are up there with the Flintstones.

Flintstones? I remember a kid down the block named Barney Flintstone. Uglest kid I have ever seen.

And with that, I'm returning to the thread topic.

[Old Tex]

LOL!!!:lol:

I probably have kids older than they are!!:lol:

I refuse to be old.....:cool:

One of life's lessons is that there's always a "faster gun". I have a kid as old as you are, Bird. That should make you feel young.:)

[justamere10]

I'm not looking for a "gotcha", and I'm not trying to be contentious. I hope you don't think that.


But in that respect, aren't those ideals (spirit bodies created by G*d the Father) no different than the LDS belief in what humans are?

Would you say humans are of the same, or different species as G*d the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

I don't believe Jesus' incarnation, or his union of spirit and flesh. Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit through Mary, but his essense was intact....




I never thought of you as being one to be contentious. I believe you to be sincere, just quite er Catholic. :-)


"But in that respect, aren't those ideals (spirit bodies created by G*d the Father) no different than the LDS belief in what humans are?
Would you say humans are of the same, or different species as G*d the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? I don't believe Jesus' incarnation, or his union of spirit and flesh. Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit through Mary, but his essense was intact."

LDS believe that the spirit body Heavenly Father created for us in our premortal life is what comes from Him, enters our physical body and animates and integrates it. Without that spirit inside, the physical body dies and disintegrates. The spirit bodies of human beings are literally the offspring of God the Father.

We believe that God the Father is the one by whom Mary became pregnant and that the "essence" or spirit body of Jesus is what animated and integrated the physical body that was conceived of God the Father and Mary. Physical mortal bodies, I believe, cannot without being destroyed be in the presence of God the Father unless they are first overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. Read those verses carefully and I think you'll see that is logically what happened, not that the Holy Ghost (a spirit only) was the father of Jesus Christ as you seem to indicate.

I cannot comprehand how Jesus could not have a union of spirit and flesh and be a human being. Your mystical belief to me minimizes his atoning sacrifice. He was human, but he did have power over death because the father of both his spirit and his physcial bodies was literally God the Father. He willingly laid down that body for us. Sorry, I take things literally, as I believe they really are, not mystically as some councils of men seem to have decreed and bound so many others to those beliefs.


"I don't believe we have a spiritual preexistence."

That's why you have such a hard time comprehending simple things, that life the universe and everything is just a FAMILY affair. :-)


"My understanding of the Scriptures is identical to the early church fathers, per their writings. Are you claiming your interpretation of the Scripture differs from previous LDS Presidents? Perhaps you could differentiate between a "council of men" who claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, voting on doctrine, and a "council of men" who claim divine revelation, voting on the validity of a revelation?"

Yes, I expect you, as a devout Catholic, to believe what you have been taught about manmade "tradition" etc. Are you inferring that what I wrote was somehow contrary to LDS canon?

A council of men, sincere and learned as they may be, are still not the authorized apostles and prophets of God whom He speaks to and through. The difference is in the priesthood keys and apostolic authority they hold, having had that passed down to them by the laying on of hands of those with authority to do so. Everyone can be guided by the Holy Spirit, but only God's chosen and ordained servants can watch over the entire Church and keep it in conformity with the original organization and doctrine that Jesus Christ taught.

Yes, there is voting in the LDS Church because everyone has the right to exercise free agency. But ultimately it is the living President of the Church, the Prophet who speaks for God on behalf of the entire Church. It is not a council of men, not even a council of authorized Apostles. God's reign is theocratic, not democratic. But individual's are always free to choose. It is up to each individual Saint to accept, reject, obey with vigor, or be lukewarm to that word of God. By our choices are we judged.


"I am not bound by the Creed, but it shadows my own beliefs. We believe that those Ecumenical Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit, just as you believe your apostles and prophets (who are also men) are guided by revelation."

Noted. :-)


"Where is this unbroken line of "laying on of hands" to Smith? Can we site any of those apostle/prophets, say, after 32 AD and prior to 1829 (that's more time without a prophet than with)? Could you provide NT examples where there was a single living prophet, designated by this laying on of hands?"

Please, I'm sure you understand LDS history. John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith, laid their hands on his head, and conferred the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods upon him, the same way it has always been done. Others such as Moses, Elijah, and Elias also appeared on different occasions and bestowed upon Joseph Smith keys they once held while living on this earth. Every priesthood holder in the LDS Church today can trace his priesthood line directly back to Peter, James, and John and thus to Jesus Christ, through Joseph Smith.

I could cite the laying on of hands of the "presbytery" but that would be a feather in your cap as a Catholic. I really don't know what a "presbytery" might be, but I'm sure there are lots of councils of men who think they do. I do know that the "presbytery" are not the Lord's authorized apostles. There are many occasions throughout the entire bible where the laying on of hands is evident in passing along a blessing or spiritual gift from God from one to another.

Given that:

"And he ordained (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000673/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mark/3/14a) twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach," Mark 3:14

How would Jesus have ordained them if not by the laying on of hands? There were many other instances of the apostles ordaining people. How were they doing that do you think, if not by the laying on of hands?

"Whereunto I am ordained (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000673/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_tim/2/7a) a preacher, and an apostle (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000673/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_tim/2/7c), (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity." 1 Timothy 2:7

That was Paul claiming to have been ordained an apostle. How was that done without the laying on of hands?


"I beleive that authority passed through Peter. I don't interpret Matthew 16:18-19 to be regarding personal revelation, or a formation of new doctrine. Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter. Elsewhere in Scripture such a name change always denotes a change in status (ie, . Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, and Saul to Paul). In the Greek text, Simon's name is changed to πέτρος (Petros), and in the second half of the verse the "rock" in the phrase "on this rock" is the word πέτρα (petra). It's hard to for me to equate "revelation" to "rock", given that play on words, and the change of name from Simon to Peter."

Peter was chosen of the Lord as the chief apostle, perhaps thus the name change. We've already discussed the way LDS believe those verses. To us it is clear that the Lord was saying the foundation of his Church was the rock of revelation from the Holy Ghost, not the man Peter. (Though Peter of course was an apostle, and the chiefest of the apostles.) In our current model, the First Presidency of the LDS Church consisting of the Prophet and two counselors (who are also Apostles) would be Peter, James, and John, with the President of the Church being the chief apostle, the equivalent of Peter.


"I don't believe the deuterocanonical books contained any doctrines different from the King James, or any other version of the Bible."

Then for you too, the King James version of the bible would be sufficient.


"I haven't thought about the physical changes much, but I don't believe Zion will be in independence, I think it is, and will always be Jerusalem."

We too believe that Old Jerusalem is part of Zion.


"I find no scripture in my canon to support ot will be in Missouri. Missouri is actually quite clean, to begin with"

We find that scripture in our canon. I like the state of Missouri, have been there many times.

[CALady]

Buncha freakin' whippersnappers around her. 54 in a couple months. The upside is that I was in the Haight as a young teenager in '67 and made it to the Stones Altamont concert in '69. Got saved during the Jesus People movement in '71.

Wonderful time to grow up in the S.F. Bay Area.

You were in the Haight at 13 years old?!?

I went to the last Beatles Concert at Candlestick.

[CALady]

Oh for heavens sake, RayMan. YOU are the whippersnapper! I am five years your senior (and feel every year of it, too). The upside for me is that as a young teenager I saw the Beatles in concert three times before they quit touring, along with the Stones, the Mamas and the Papas, Jimi Hendriz, Herman's Hermits, Jefferson Airplane, Cream, The Kinks, and dozens of others....BEFORE 1967! :eek: Oh, and the Beach Boys when they were just playing gigs wherever they could get booked, like the Wagon Wheel (roller) Skating Rink.

I now feel old....but am remembering some pretty neat stuff!!!

You're sooo old... I'm a whole year younger than you. :))

I saw the Stones on their very first tour. And Herman's Hermits, too!

[terri910]

Yes, I expect you, as a devout Catholic, to believe what you have been taught about manmade "tradition" etc.
Catholics do not believe any "manmade" tradition.

[terri910]

You're sooo old... I'm a whole year younger than you. :))

I saw the Stones on their very first tour. And Herman's Hermits, too!
It's worth is just to make you feel so young!! *LOL*

Those were halcyon days....really.....

[Reeder]

I'm 27 and I'm feeling old. I can't imagine how some of you must feel. :mrgreen:

(*Reeder finds a bomb shelter....slams the door....... and hides under the couch.)

[Old Tex]

Catholics do not believe any "manmade" tradition.

Terri, I'll have to get back to you later. I will need a few specifics, also.

Too many old hippies around now. They should have been around earlier for the Great Depression. Didn't have many rock stars around then, but a lot of people were singing the "hungry blues".

[terri910]

I'm 27 and I'm feeling old. I can't imagine how some of you must feel. :mrgreen:

(*Reeder finds a bomb shelter....slams the door....... and hides under the couch.)
You're living in amazing times, Reeder....

....but so did we. We experienced the birth of television, the emergence of rock and roll, the Cuban missile crisis, the shock of assassinations, man walking on the moon, space travel.....

[terri910]

Terri, I'll have to get back to you later. I will need a few specifics, also.

Too many old hippies around now. They should have been around earlier for the Great Depression. Didn't have many rock stars around then, but a lot of people were singing the "hungry blues".
Whenever you get to it, OT.

I was just thinking about the amazing changes that took place in my parents' and grandparents' lives.....World Wars....from horse-and-buggy to sportscars...

[justamere10]

I don't believe we have a spiritual preexistence.




If you do not believe in a premortal life, where did the spirit, the "soul" as you may prefer to call it, that animates the physical body of man during life come from?

Surely you believe that every man has a soul. If not, then why Catholic ordinances such as baptism and prayers to saints whose physical bodies have long since rotted away in the grave?

Was your soul created by the mother and father of your physical body? Does God take the time to create a soul every time a woman on earth conceives or gives birth to a child?

Please explain the existence and structure of a soul if it was not created by God in a premortal life, in his own image and likeness.

[CALady]

Terri, I'll have to get back to you later. I will need a few specifics, also.

Too many old hippies around now. They should have been around earlier for the Great Depression. Didn't have many rock stars around then, but a lot of people were singing the "hungry blues".

Well, you're right there. My Generation (that's My Ggggeeeneration, baby..) was a horribly spoiled bunch.

But I was never a hippie. I was one of those squares, conservative, Republican for Reagan, never smoked pot, never slept around.... actually, a lot of my generation were just like me. We just didn't get the media coverage.

[justamere10]

I would just like to point out that there are few things more irritating, and, IMO, disrespectful than someone else telling you what you believe and what you base your belief upon.

Most of my Mormon friends on this forum would agree with me on that (because they have been on the receiving end of it often enough), and I hope they do in this instance, as well, and tell you so.

Consider this me telling you so, if no one else does.

I believe what you are referring to was in the context of a discussion I was having with Scipio. If he thinks I was out of line, I will stand corrected.

I haven't heard complaints from anyone but you that I should be prefacing every one of my sentences it seems with the words: "I believe". Others seem to understand that everything I write is in the context of "I believe" or more generally "Latter-day Saints believe."

But of course you are entitled to write things the way you want to write, including prefaces, as am I, irritating as it may be to you. And you are entitled to your own emotions and judgments. As am I...

Enjoy the weekend.

[Reeder]

You're living in amazing times, Reeder....

....but so did we. We experienced the birth of television, the emergence of rock and roll, the Cuban missile crisis, the shock of assassinations, man walking on the moon, space travel.....


I witnessed Ducktales and E.T. :D

[terri910]

If you do not believe in a premortal life, where did the spirit, the "soul" as you may prefer to call it, that animates the physical body of man during life come from?
From God, but we believe that the soul does not exist before the body does.

Surely you believe that every man has a soul.
Yes, we do, so no point in addressing your hypothetical based on something that isn't so.

Was your soul created by the mother and father of your physical body? Does God take the time to create a soul every time a woman on earth conceives or gives birth to a child?
Catholics believe the soul comes from God. I believe the soul is infused at the moment of conception. Additionally, we believe that life (and thus our physical bodies) comes from God, as well, with the cooperation of man and woman, not ONLY from man and woman.

Please explain the existence and structure of a soul if it was not created by God in a premortal life, in his own image and likeness.
I'm going to wait for scipio's answer to this, because I'm afraid I don't even understand the question (I don't know what you mean by the "structure" of a soul).

[Hardtruths]

What is the evidence from archeology ( secular non BYU or LDS sources) that would vindicate the historical narratives in the BOM?

[Old Tex]

If you do not believe in a premortal life, where did the spirit, the "soul" as you may prefer to call it, that animates the physical body of man during life come from?

Surely you believe that every man has a soul. If not, then why Catholic ordinances such as baptism and prayers to saints whose physical bodies have long since rotted away in the grave?

Was your soul created by the mother and father of your physical body? Does God take the time to create a soul every time a woman on earth conceives or gives birth to a child?

Please explain the existence and structure of a soul if it was not created by God in a premortal life, in his own image and likeness.

You know, I was astounded when the missionaries brought up the premortal life. It was something I had always felt within me, but never heard anyone actually talk about it. Yet when I heard it, (when I was about 30 years old) I recognized it as true. Sometimes it's almost like I can remember it, but then it fades.

Goodnight folks. I really have to go this time.

[justamere10]

What is the evidence from archeology ( secular non BYU or LDS sources) that would vindicate the historical narratives in the BOM?

There is very little if any physical evidence that would be accepted by professional archaeologists for the Book of Mormon story.

There is a huge and gathering speculative body of 'evidence' that Book of Mormon events took place in Mesoamerica.

The proof of the Book of Mormon is spiritual, as is found in the admonition of Moroni, the last of the Nephite prophets. Latter-day Saints gained their testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon through study and sincere prayer.

Professional LDS archaeologists are NOT looking for physical proof of the Book of Mormon. And neither are nonLDS professionals.

I refer you to a website with an enormous amount of information if you are interested in looking at some of those speculative evidences found in the emerging unofficial study of Book of Mormon Geography.

http://www.mormonsites.org

[Hadassah]

If you do not believe in a premortal life, where did the spirit, the "soul" as you may prefer to call it, that animates the physical body of man during life come from?
.

Same One you think it came from...God. Only we believe that God made the soul and infuses the new human being with it at conception.


Surely you believe that every man has a soul. If not, then why Catholic ordinances such as baptism and prayers to saints whose physical bodies have long since rotted away in the grave?

I think you misunderstood what was being said. Of course we believe that human beings have a soul.

Was your soul created by the mother and father of your physical body? Does God take the time to create a soul every time a woman on earth conceives or gives birth to a child?
And why wouldn't He take the time to create said soul everytime a woman conceives?

Please explain the existence and structure of a soul if it was not created by God in a premortal life, in his own image and likeness

Why? Is there an explaination for the structure of a soul made by God in pre-mortal existance?

[terri910]

I believe what you are referring to was in the context of a discussion I was having with Scipio. If he thinks I was out of line, I will stand corrected.
I see. Only if the person it was addressed to finds it offensive, is it offensive.

I will be most interested to find out how the other LDS on this forum feel about telling someone what they believe and what they base it upon (particularly when what is said is incorrect). I will be interested to see if they even address it. If none do, I will expect to never see another post complaining when some anti-Mormon comes on here and does it to them.

I haven't heard complaints from anyone but you that I should be prefacing every one of my sentences it seems with the words: "I believe". Others seem to understand that everything I write is in the context of "I believe" or more generally "Latter-day Saints believe."

But of course you are entitled to write things the way you want to write, including prefaces, as am I, irritating as it may be to you. And you are entitled to your own emotions and judgments. As am I...

Enjoy the weekend.
It's true that I think on this forum beliefs should be stated as just that, and not fact. But I have no power to require it, so I accept it and respond accordingly. That is, I will, when the spirit moves me, point out that something is "according to your belief" or I will state my very different "knowledge" with equal certainty. This will not be an attempt to denigrate or attack your faith any more than I assume your statements are an attempt to denigrate or attack mine. Just like you, I will be standing for what I know to be the Truth.

We are, of course, entitled to write thing the way we want to write (within the confines of the TOS and this forum's special rule). And it always says much about us.

Occasionally, what we do NOT say also says much.

[terri910]

You know, I was astounded when the missionaries brought up the premortal life. It was something I had always felt within me, but never heard anyone actually talk about it. Yet when I heard it, (when I was about 30 years old) I recognized it as true. Sometimes it's almost like I can remember it, but then it fades.

Goodnight folks. I really have to go this time.
Have a good evening, OT

[justamere10]

Same One you think it came from...God. Only we believe that God made the soul and infuses the new human being with it at conception.

I think you misunderstood what was being said. Of course we believe that human beings have a soul.

And why wouldn't He take the time to create said soul everytime a woman conceives?

Why? Is there an explaination for the structure of a soul made by God in pre-mortal existance?


I had actually addressed my remarks to Scipio, but thanks for contributing.

I understand then that you believe every time a human being is conceived (a few cells at least?) God at that moment creates a soul for it.

I was a Catholic, so I know that Catholics believe in the soul. I think Scipio will understand the context and why I wrote that. Also, judging by our views count there are quite a few lurkers to this thread who may want to know more about where the writers are coming from. It was only by reading several comments on the internet quite some time ago that I learned that many Christians believe in ongoing personal revelation from God. I misunderstood and thought most had ruled out all revelation when they closed the bible and decreed that God would no longer speak to apostles and prophets as He did anciently.


"And why wouldn't He take the time to create said soul everytime a woman conceives?"

Just as logically, why would He take the time to create souls everytime a woman conceives when He could just as well have created them well before this planet was even created? Why is it written that a third of God's children followed Lucifer in a rebellion in heaven and were banished from His presence forever?

"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels..." Revelation 12:4,7

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/12/4,7#4 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000673/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/12/4,7#4)

Who are all those "angels" that lived before this world was created?


"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/job/38/7#7 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000673/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/job/38/7#7)

Who were those "sons of God" that lived before this world was created? Why do we consider God to be our Father in Heaven if we are not His sons and daughters?


Yes, there is an explanation for the structure of a soul made by God in pre-mortal existence. That structure is a spirit body created by God the Father in His own image and likeness.

What does your "soul" that God creates at conception according to your belief look like? That is what I mean by "structure".

[justamere10]

It's true that I think on this forum beliefs should be stated as just that, and not fact. But I have no power to require it, so I accept it and respond accordingly. That is, I will, when the spirit moves me, point out that something is "according to your belief" or I will state my very different "knowledge" with equal certainty. This will not be an attempt to denigrate or attack your faith any more than I assume your statements are an attempt to denigrate or attack mine. Just like you, I will be standing for what I know to be the Truth.

That works for me Terri. I have no wish to quarrel with you. In my opinion it is you was trying to chastise me. I was merely explaining where I was coming from.

I accept that when you write it is coming from you, your own beliefs, and possibly representative of what mainstream Catholics think. I don't need to be told each time you write that your words will be only according to your own beliefs, rather than facts.

I do appreciate your participation in this thread, I consider your posts to be as valuable as anyone else's.

Just please keep in mind that when that spirit "moves you" to correct me or someone else, others may not be seeing a need for correction and/or do not think that what you have to say is more credible than what I wrote.

But of course you need to be faithful to the light that is within you. Tend to your duty as you see fit, but please try to stop chastising me, I don't like that. :-)

[mrcuff]

What is the evidence from archeology ( secular non BYU or LDS sources) that would vindicate the historical narratives in the BOM?

I don't think that it needs to be vindicated.

[terri910]

That works for me Terri. I have no wish to quarrel with you. In my opinion it is you was trying to chastise me. I was merely explaining where I was coming from.

I accept that when you write it is coming from you, your own beliefs, and possibly representative of what mainstream Catholics think. I don't need to be told each time you write that your words will be only according to your own beliefs, rather than facts.

I do appreciate your participation in this thread, I consider your posts to be as valuable as anyone else's.

Just please keep in mind that when that spirit "moves you" to correct me or someone else, others may not be seeing a need for correction and/or do not think that what you have to say is more credible than what I wrote.

But of course you need to be faithful to the light that is within you.
I appreciate this post from you, justamere10. I even appreciate that you do not "need" to be told each time I write that my words will be according to my beliefs. But you will find that generally that is what I do because I believe it is more respectful of those with differing beliefs. I remember having the parents of some friends tell me it was not necessary to call them "Mr. Smith" or "Mrs. Jones" but that "Bob" or "Mary" would do. I did not "need" to, but I called them by their title and last name because I thought it was more respectful to do so. That same principle is in effect here.

Tend to your duty as you see fit, but please try to stop chastising me, I don't like that. :-)
Shall we assume that I will treat your request here with the same amount of reflection, thought and consideration for what you "like" or "don't like," as you have done for my request?

I would much rather find a way to become friends, justamere10, than antagonists. That takes a bit of effort on both sides, when if one of our faiths is true, the other is, logically, false. I'm willing to make the effort, and take the time, but I can't do it alone.

I consider many, if not most, of the LDS posters on this forum my friends, no matter how we differ theologically. Any with a decent memory will tell you that I have defended the LDS faith from those that have come on here making claims of what Mormons believe (that I know to be false), rather than asking what they believe. And why do you think that is? Because Catholics have been on the receiving end of that for longer than you believe the gospel has been restored. It becomes more difficult for me to defend the LDS faith when someone comes in here telling you what you believe, if you're doing the exact same thing to MY faith. I HOPE you can understand that.

[Old Tex]

There is very little if any physical evidence that would be accepted by professional archaeologists for the Book of Mormon story.


I personally just as soon that physical evidence not be found any time soon. Some people would be more likely to join the Church based on that rather than joining because they gained a testimony through the Spirit.

[orbitaldecay]

I personally just as soon that physical evidence not be found any time soon. Some people would be more likely to join the Church based on that rather than joining because they gained a testimony through the Spirit.

Great Point Tex!
I would much rather have strong members who who join the church through faith rather than weak ones who join because of physical evidence or proof.

[CID_0687]

Again, I don't know much about Mormons. In the town I live in there is one LDS church with about 200 or so members. There are two teenage boys that ride their bikes to my house once every few months, and everything else I know is from what I've seen on tv. And on that note I was watching something a few years ago that claimed that there was a letter found written by Joseph Smith stating that everything he had written was a hoax. And that he had came up with the idea while in an opium induced state. They stated that the letter was kept in the archives in Salt Lake City out of public view. This seems to me to be a little far fetched but what is if any official word on this?

[terri910]

Do you mean they were saying that the CJCoLDS had such a letter in THEIR archives?

That just doesn't make sense.

[Old Tex]

What is the evidence from archeology ( secular non BYU or LDS sources) that would vindicate the historical narratives in the BOM?

Hello Hardtruths, I haven't seen you here before. Welcome.

To my knowledge there is no "smoking gun" physical evidence as far as I know. I realize that it would probably be easier for some folks to believe if there were, or at least if it looked like there were.

Have you ever considered that all the "physical" evidence that has supposedly been found in the near east still does not "prove" that Jesus is the Christ, that He was the Son of God, or that He was crucified and resurrected? Some speculate on some locations that they think some of those things may have happened, but where is the "proof".

The only "proof" one will get of any of this (or from things pertaining to the Book of Mormon), can really be had only one way. By a witness of the truth of them to your spirit through the Holy Ghost.

That is where real evidence comes from. Not from rocks or diggings, or even from old manuscripts found by archeologists. Those are only material things.

[CID_0687]

I didn't think it did. It was just something that I hear and wondered if there was any truth to it.

[terri910]

I didn't think it did. It was just something that I hear and wondered if there was any truth to it.
Well, I sure don't know anything about Salt Lake city archives, so I'll leave it to the Mormon participants to respond....

....but I've also seen programs that talk about Bible "codes" and all sorts of things that make interesting television, but may not have the most scholarly research behind them!

[CID_0687]

Well, I sure don't know anything about Salt Lake city archives, so I'll leave it to the Mormon participants to respond....

....but I've also seen programs that talk about Bible "codes" and all sorts of things that make interesting television, but may not have the most scholarly research behind them!
You mean the Davinci code isn't real?:((:rolleyes: Sorry I had to say it.

[Old Tex]

Again, I don't know much about Mormons. In the town I live in there is one LDS church with about 200 or so members. There are two teenage boys that ride their bikes to my house once every few months, and everything else I know is from what I've seen on tv. And on that note I was watching something a few years ago that claimed that there was a letter found written by Joseph Smith stating that everything he had written was a hoax. And that he had came up with the idea while in an opium induced state. They stated that the letter was kept in the archives in Salt Lake City out of public view. This seems to me to be a little far fetched but what is if any official word on this?

Such claims are always made by different people over the years, but the thing that's supposed to be "hidden" changes. It's very easy to make a "conspiracy" claim. All one has to do is to say "it's" there (whatever "it" happens to be at the time) and that so and so won't produce "it", with absolutely no evidence that "it" even exists.

How can one "produce" something if nothing is there? They can't, but this gives the one making the claim what he wants anyway. He has raised some doubts and that is his game. He has done what he set out to do with one small lie.

[Old Tex]

I didn't think it did. It was just something that I hear and wondered if there was any truth to it.

I can't help you much on that, but I can give you a couple of good sites to find out some things about "Mormons."

www.mormon.org (http://www.mormon.org)

and

www.lds.org (http://www.lds.org)

[Old Tex]

You mean the Davinci code isn't real?:((:rolleyes: Sorry I had to say it.

Yes, it is, but only if you have the right decoder ring.


And with that....back to bed.

[CID_0687]

Such claims are always made by different people over the years, but the thing that's supposed to be "hidden" changes. It's very easy to make a "conspiracy" claim. All one has to do is to say "it's" there (whatever "it" happens to be at the time) and that so and so won't produce "it", with absolutely no evidence that "it" even exists.

How can one "produce" something if nothing is there? They can't, but this gives the one making the claim what he wants anyway. He has raised some doubts and that is his game. He has done what he set out to do with one small lie.
I thought it was probably bogus. There was supposively something in the letter about magical frogs, or lizards giving the golden scrolls to Smith. lol. That pretty much summed it up I guess.

[CID_0687]

Yes, it is, but only if you have the right decoder ring.


And with that....back to bed.
Cool I'll try that one I got out of the Cracker Jack box when I was in 2nd grade!!:dance:

[justamere10]

Again, I don't know much about Mormons. In the town I live in there is one LDS church with about 200 or so members. There are two teenage boys that ride their bikes to my house once every few months, and everything else I know is from what I've seen on tv. And on that note I was watching something a few years ago that claimed that there was a letter found written by Joseph Smith stating that everything he had written was a hoax. And that he had came up with the idea while in an opium induced state. They stated that the letter was kept in the archives in Salt Lake City out of public view. This seems to me to be a little far fetched but what is if any official word on this?

There are some clever hoaxes in circulation but this is not one of them, there's nothing clever about that supposed letter. Your information is false.

To learn the truth about the Mormons ask questions in this thread and/or visit:

http://www.mormon.org

-

[justamere10]

"We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." LDS Article of Faith

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1)

Comments?

[CatholicDefender]

No one quoted John 15:26 in the first place, so I'm not sure who you're speaking to/of.

I quoted John 14: 12.





Can you really blame the guy? I mean, he was shot multiple times in Carthage Jail and almost died by so-called "Christians." He was persecuted and driven from place to place by so-called "Christians." And, like I said, he is also one of those mortal "men" who makes mistakes.

And besides that, John Taylor grew up attending different Christian sects, and even became a preacher. He was speaking against what he was once a part of. He wasn't born LDS.

This scripture is speaking to the work of Christ within us, we become His hands when we touch the sick, we become His feet when we go where He sends us, and we become His voice when we speak His word. This is the basis of a true prophet.

[CatholicDefender]

He was given the pistol by his jailors--he was supposed to be under "protection" by Governor Ford. It's not like he carried it in with him. And Christ was God while Joseph was a man. I think you're setting up a pretty falacious strawman, here.

Jesus Christ is the "God-man" and Joseph Smith was a man. What is the strawman here?

[CatholicDefender]

So you mean to say that you are greater than Christ? :think:

Not at all, Jesus never went anywhere riding in a car, a plane, or a train. He never led any armies, governments, or any political movements. Yet, His followers would be able to take the gospel using all the means that would develop. I believe that all the inventions of men are gifts from God. Unfortunately, we abuse these gifts from time to time.

[CatholicDefender]

No, you're not being fair. If you don't want others to compare Christ to mortal men and women, then it'd be very decent of you to not do it yourself. Christ had a mission in this life that was vital to the salvation of all mankind. Peter didn't yet understand that, and he tried to save Jesus from the hands of the Roman soldiers and Pharisees. If Christ had been saved, and WASN'T beaten and crucified, then how could He have saved us? Hence, He said "get behind me, Satan." I'm sure Satan wanted nothing more in that moment than to stop the atonement from happening. Christ knew it HAD to happen.

Actually, Christ gave St. Peter a mission that affects all mankind making him a fisher of men for the Kingdom of God. Jesus would install St. Peter as the Shephard of the sheep, the first Prime Minister of Christ, the first Vicar of Christ, the first Chief Stewart, the first Bishop of Rome, the first Pope. The Vatican is the Lord's royal embassy on earth while the earth is the mission field.

[CatholicDefender]

Matthew 5:48 says, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Hmmmmmmm....

I will take you up on your offer that "none of us will ever be on the same LEVEL as Christ." I am glad you finally agree that we are not and will not be gods.:D

That one has always been an issue whenever I would speak with my Mormon Chaplain friends. This owning of and being a god to anything in the afterlife that equates us to Christ is bizzare.

[Warrior4God]

Jesus Christ is the "God-man" and Joseph Smith was a man. What is the strawman here?

"God-man" ?

how unscriptural these phrases get as time goes on blows me away.:rolleyes:

[CatholicDefender]

Yep,
No man recieves salvation except through Jesus Christ.

That is why His Church is important!

[outdamyboat]

"God-man" ?

how unscriptural these phrases get as time goes on blows me away.:rolleyes:

But, with all due respect Warrior4God, you do not believe Jesus=God correct? perhaps it was the grammar/syntax that threw off CD's point?

Perhaps if he had written 'God-Man' it would have been more in-line with what I think he was trying to say...not that the phrase is in the Bible...but Trinity folks (not you, I know) believe that Jesus was/is God manifest as a man...now He reigns in heaven not on earth but while on earth He was both man and God.

BTW: still at the after prom party...slept 4 hours as my husband stood guard...parenting is a hard job!!!

[CatholicDefender]

Bet I know the answer to that one.....

No where? But the Catholic Faith, now that's another story.... The Law and the Covenants, The Pearls of Great Price, and the Book of Mormon has some of the other issues that the Mormons believe.

[HardHammer]

The only "proof" one will get of any of this (or from things pertaining to the Book of Mormon), can really be had only one way. By a witness of the truth of them to your spirit through the Holy Ghost.

That is where real evidence comes from. Not from rocks or diggings, or even from old manuscripts found by archeologists. Those are only material things.

That's not entirely true, LDS indeed owns the property where the last great battle of the BoM was fought, yet it has never been excavated. Though the jury is out on whether the hill in NewYork is the same in the BoM, I have a letter that says it is the same hill. If LDS wanted some proof that would be the place to find it, but alas it goes undiscovered by choice.

His Truth comes by His Spirit of Truth alone, no man of this world has control of His Spirit nor who He chooses to give it too. This is precisely why all this non-sense about authority and who has it and who doesn't makes me cringe. There's only One Authority, His name is Jesus Christ, He left us His message to do His will, not pretend to be the giver of His Spirit, only He does that, not men of this world.

[CatholicDefender]

"God-man" ?

how unscriptural these phrases get as time goes on blows me away.:rolleyes:

Jesus is truely God truely man! God from God, light from light, one in being with the Father. You don't believe that?

[terri910]

Such claims are always made by different people over the years, but the thing that's supposed to be "hidden" changes. It's very easy to make a "conspiracy" claim. All one has to do is to say "it's" there (whatever "it" happens to be at the time) and that so and so won't produce "it", with absolutely no evidence that "it" even exists.

How can one "produce" something if nothing is there? They can't, but this gives the one making the claim what he wants anyway. He has raised some doubts and that is his game. He has done what he set out to do with one small lie.
Yup. And it happens a lot, and inevitably some people fall for it (not saying andrew is one of those, just that some do) and believe it.

[terri910]

No where? But the Catholic Faith, now that's another story.... The Law and the Covenants, The Pearls of Great Price, and the Book of Mormon has some of the other issues that the Mormons believe.
I probably should have said "I bet I know the LDS answer to that."

And I think I do. That doesn't mean I agree with it or believe it myself, only that I think I understand enough about what THEY believe to know what their answer would be.

[terri910]

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=27131081&postcount=1529

Continuing to hope that someone will agree with me....

[terri910]

Please explain the existence and structure of a soul if it was not created by God in a premortal life, in his own image and likeness.
I've been thinking about this request and what your words mean....trying to determine exactly what will answer what you want to know. I'm thrown off by the phrase "structure of a soul"....and I just realized that because I was thrown off by that phrase, I may have missed the key words in your sentence "if it was not created by God in a premortal life, in his own image and likeness." I THINK this phrase presumes that the existence and structure of a soul must somehow be necessarily different (i.e., in His own image and likeness) if it is not created in a premortal life. (If I'm incorrect in that, this may just be rambling).

Am I correct in that? Do you think that God could not create a soul (in which case it would then "exist") at the very moment He infuses it to the physical body, or that He could not create a soul that was in His own image and likeness at the very moment He infuses it to the physical body? I believe it is possible, and, in fact, it is what I believe He does. I understand that you do not believe that IS how it works, but I'm asking if you think that if it doesn't work that way, God CANNOT create a soul so that it "exists" nor create a soul in His image and likeness....

[justamere10]

This scripture is speaking to the work of Christ within us, we become His hands when we touch the sick, we become His feet when we go where He sends us, and we become His voice when we speak His word. This is the basis of a true prophet.


There often seems to be a disconnect when LDS speak to nonmembers about apostles and prophets. I think in the context you are using CD, you are referring to prophesy as one of the GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT rather than an authorized "Prophet" per se. God's apostles and prophets are duly ordained and set apart to their office. Without their priesthood and setting apart they are not prophets as LDS know them, though they may have and exercise the gift of prophesy similar to miracles, tongues, discernment, healing, etc.


Any of God's children on earth can have and righteously exercise gifts of the spirit.

"But the manifestation of the Spirit (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/7a) is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/8b) the word (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/8c) of wisdom (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/8d); to another the word of knowledge (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/8e) by the same Spirit; To another faith (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/9a) by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/9b) by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/10a); to another prophecy (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/10b); to another discerning (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/10c) of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/10d):" 1 Corinthians 12: 7-10
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/7-10#7 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/7-10#7)




Below are the two scriptures that Catholic Defender and Reeder are discussing.


"But when the Comforter (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/15/26a) is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/15/26b) of me:" John 15:26

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/15/26#26 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/15/26#26)


"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/14/12a) on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I to unto my Father (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/14/12c)." John 14:12

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/14/12#12 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000541/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/14/12#12)

[CatholicDefender]

There is a connecting tie between what the Holy Spirit does in our lives and the working mission the Lord sends us out to do. God is with us in all our situations, the issues more relate to how.

[justamere10]

Actually, Christ gave St. Peter a mission that affects all mankind making him a fisher of men for the Kingdom of God. Jesus would install St. Peter as the Shephard of the sheep, the first Prime Minister of Christ, the first Vicar of Christ, the first Chief Stewart, the first Bishop of Rome, the first Pope. The Vatican is the Lord's royal embassy on earth while the earth is the mission field.


Christ made Peter the chief of his Apostles, similar to the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today, as Mormons believe, is not only an Apostle, but is the chief of all the Apostles on earth today. In the President actively resides ALL of the apostolic sealing keys that are only latent within the other apostles as a quorum.

Terri, CD's not playing fair. He declared as if it was a fact that Peter is "the first Bishop of Rome" and "the first Pope." (Just kidding, I understand he's only stating what he believes to be true.)

Please show me in the bible where it says that Christ made Peter the "Bishop of Rome" and the "first Pope." In the early Church of Jesus Christ, as it is today in his restored Church, bishops preside over congregations, not over the entire church. Peter was not just a bishop of a congregation, he was an Apostle, a general authority who presided over the entire church. He, as did the other Apostles, worked to keep all the bishops in line with Christ's teachings.

My guess is that only Catholics believe that the Vatican is "the Lord's royal embassy on earth", but most Christians would probably agree that the earth is the "mission field".

[justamere10]

That one has always been an issue whenever I would speak with my Mormon Chaplain friends. This owning of and being a god to anything in the afterlife that equates us to Christ is bizzare.


It is not bizarre at all when you come to understand, as Latter-day Saints do, that each human being is literally the spirit child of God the Father and has within him/her the potential to 'grow up' and become as their Heavenly Parent is.

This planet, the glowing bodies in the sky, everything you see around you are only made to test and prove and help God's children make enough right choices that they can eventually go HOME and dwell with Him. God the Father is God the Father because He created spirit children. He is God the Father to those children. God's children have a part of Him within each of them, and the capacity by their choices to become all good or all evil, with their Heavenly Father being all good.


"...ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." 2 Corinthians 6:16

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/6/16#16 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000449/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/6/16#16)



"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Psalms 82:6

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/82/6#6 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/82/6#6)


"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many.) 1 Corinthians 8:5

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/8/5#5 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000449/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/8/5#5)



"Who is like unto thee O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" Exodus 15:11

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/15/11#11 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/15/11#11)


"Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." Exodus 18:11

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/18/11#11 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/18/11#11)


"For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods." Psalms 97:9

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/97/9#9 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/97/9#9)


"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward." Deuteronomy 10:17

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/deut/10/17#17 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/deut/10/17#17)


"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works." Psalms 86:8

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/86/8#8 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/86/8#8)


"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Genesis 3:5

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gen/3/5#5 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gen/3/5#5)


"And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth." Abraham 4:1

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/4/1#1 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/4/1#1)


"And the Gods said among themselves: On the seventh time we will end our work, which we have counseled; and we will rest on the seventh time from all our work which we have counseled. Abraham 5:2

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/2#2 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/2#2)


"For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." D&C 132:17

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/17#17 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/17#17)


"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." D&C 132:20

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/20#20 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/20#20)


"Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as Gods, knowing good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good—" Alma 12:31

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/12/31#31 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/12/31#31)


"Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God— " D&C 76:58

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76/58#58 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76/58#58)


For His children (that's us) there is only ONE God the Father in the same manner as there is only one male whose seed it was from which you were conceived in the womb of your mother.

[justamere10]

That is why His Church is important!

Exactly! And exactly as His Church was organized anciently, with Him at the head and a foundation of authorized apostles and prophets, as it is on earth again in our time.

When I was a young boy growing up in a devout Catholic home, I often wished I had been born in a time when the Lord's Apostles walked the earth. I was 22 years old before I found out that I HAD been born in the right time, that the Lord's authorized apostles walk the earth today.

I am grateful for the teachings and the moral values I knew when I was growing up. The Latter-day Saints added to those, they did not take away any of the truth I already knew.

[THE LIGHT]

I personally just as soon that physical evidence not be found any time soon. Some people would be more likely to join the Church based on that rather than joining because they gained a testimony through the Spirit.

Which spirit?

[THE LIGHT]

I don't think that it needs to be vindicated.

you buy a used car sight unseen lately?

[terri910]

Terri, CD's not playing fair. He declared as if it was a fact that Peter is "the first Bishop of Rome" and "the first Pope." (Just kidding, I understand he's only stating what he believes to be true.)
I am aware of that. Please do not mischaracterize my position. I have never said that stating one's belief as fact is "not playing fair" but that I believe it is not respectful of others' beliefs. Logically, that CD states his belief as fact to those of you who also do so, he absolutely is "playing fair." Just because I don't think someone should do something does not mean that turn about isn't "fair" play.

[justamere10]

That's not entirely true, LDS indeed owns the property where the last great battle of the BoM was fought, yet it has never been excavated. Though the jury is out on whether the hill in NewYork is the same in the BoM, I have a letter that says it is the same hill. If LDS wanted some proof that would be the place to find it, but alas it goes undiscovered by choice.




The LDS Church owns at least a part of the hill in upstate New York (near Palmyra, NY) where Joseph Smith was shown the ancient records hidden in a stone box. But many LDS do not believe that the hill near Palmyra is the same hill where the last battles of the Nephites and the Jaredites took place. There is nothing in our canon to say that it is so though there may be some letters in circulation stating someone's opinion on that.

Do you think that is possible that Cumorah of the Final Battles has been unofficially discovered, but it is not the Lord's time for all the Nephite records to be revealed? Faith is a very important principle. It is apparently better in the eternal scheme of things to accept on faith, than to have actual knowledge. If God wanted to He could lift the temple in Salt Lake City, or the Vatican buildings, or Azuza Street or whatever, into the air a dozen times a day to show a sign. But He leaves us ultimately to our faith, because it seems from His point of view that is a better way.

"Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000596/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/4/john/4/48a) and wonders, ye will not believe." John 4: 48

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/4/48#48 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000596/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/4/48#48)

[THE LIGHT]

Such claims are always made by different people over the years, but the thing that's supposed to be "hidden" changes. It's very easy to make a "conspiracy" claim. All one has to do is to say "it's" there (whatever "it" happens to be at the time) and that so and so won't produce "it", with absolutely no evidence that "it" even exists.

How can one "produce" something if nothing is there? They can't, but this gives the one making the claim what he wants anyway. He has raised some doubts and that is his game. He has done what he set out to do with one small lie.

Well put!! That is exactly what Christians have been saying all along! How can we prove the golden plates did or didn't exist if they were suppose to have been zapped back up by the angel? Little bit of a double standard in reasoning?:think:

If so, then your last sentence would apply to both sides.
"He has done what he set out to do with one small lie"

[justamere10]

His Truth comes by His Spirit of Truth alone, no man of this world has control of His Spirit nor who He chooses to give it too. This is precisely why all this non-sense about authority and who has it and who doesn't makes me cringe. There's only One Authority, His name is Jesus Christ, He left us His message to do His will, not pretend to be the giver of His Spirit, only He does that, not men of this world.


Please be careful about using the term "non-sense" to describe someone else's religious beliefs. We do not want this Religion Forum to be closed again as it was a few nights ago.

God's word comes in many ways. The most common for most Christians today is from a study of the bible. Why the bible? Because it is believed that those who wrote the books of the bible were inspired by God to do so. There are of course many other ways by which God speaks to His children on the earth, including the still small voice, signs such as miracles, healing and other gifts of the Spirit, by the unmistakable witness of the Holy Ghost speaking Spirit to spirit, etc. And for Latter-day Saints it also comes from additional scripture and from the mouth of living apostles and prophets.

Indeed Jesus Christ is the Great Mediator between God the Father and man. But when he was on earth he organized a church with himself at the head and apostles and prophets at the foundation. He DELEGATED his authority to certain authorized servants.


------
The Parable of Gad was written solely to help interested people better understand the Priesthood of God the way it's understood by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the "Mormons". This light-hearted parable illustrates how God authorizes Jesus Christ to authorize others on earth to carry on with His work. There is of course much more to what Priesthood holders do on earth. This parable is simply to make it easier to understand lines of priesthood authority, how they are passed down through the Church, and their purpose, as understood by the Latter-day Saints.


DELEGATING AUTHORITY - THE PARABLE OF GAD

Eli was a wealthy man living in a wealthy neighborhood in a wealthy city in 21st century America.

Everyone knew Eli because his fame and name had swept through the television networks in a never ending barrage of ads extolling the virtues of "Just Rub it In" affectionately known as "GOTCHA" the product Eli's company manufactured. Even though the ads were sometimes viewed as obnoxious and questionable they did the trick, more and more people learned about GOTCHA.

Eli, a loving parent, wanted his beloved son Gad to work through challenges similar to the ones he had taken on, so that Gad too might become a great man like Eli had become.

Eli and Gad talked endlessly, but eventually they reached an agreement. Gad would become President and Chairman of the Board of RUBITIN, the name of Eli's company.

But Eli would keep 51% of the shares, a controlling interest, he'd retain the ultimate power.

Gad was good at what he did. He delegated the authority Eli had given him for the company and appointed a new CEO, and twelve new company officers. The CEO and officers in turn delegated the authority Gad had given them so they could apply leverage, extend their personal reach, and build the company. They appointed executives and managers of all kinds who each in turn, to extend their own reach and build the company, delegated the authority that had been given them to hire administrative staff, secretaries, and the myriad workers who did the work of manufacturing more and more GOTCHA.

The ads for "Just Rub it In" continued, and more and more people continued to buy even more and more GOTCHA.

Gad was at the pinnacle. It was ultimately Gad who had grown the company by delegating the authority to operate the company that he had received from Eli. And that delegated authority in like manner had worked it's way all the way down the corporate ladder to every single person who ever had a responsibility within the company.

For everyone working for RUBITIN, Gad, high in his penthouse office, WAS GOD!

But Gad never forgot that it was ELI who held that extra 1% - and he was perfectly obedient...



Eli represents God the Father.
Gad represents Jesus Christ.
The company is the Church of Jesus Christ.
The CEO is the President of the LDS Church.
The Twelve Officers are the Apostles that lead the LDS Church.
GOTCHA is the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and its fruits.
The authority that was delegated is the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.

[justamere10]

I've been thinking about this request and what your words mean....trying to determine exactly what will answer what you want to know. I'm thrown off by the phrase "structure of a soul"....and I just realized that because I was thrown off by that phrase, I may have missed the key words in your sentence "if it was not created by God in a premortal life, in his own image and likeness." I THINK this phrase presumes that the existence and structure of a soul must somehow be necessarily different (i.e., in His own image and likeness) if it is not created in a premortal life. (If I'm incorrect in that, this may just be rambling).

Am I correct in that? Do you think that God could not create a soul (in which case it would then "exist") at the very moment He infuses it to the physical body, or that He could not create a soul that was in His own image and likeness at the very moment He infuses it to the physical body? I believe it is possible, and, in fact, it is what I believe He does. I understand that you do not believe that IS how it works, but I'm asking if you think that if it doesn't work that way, God CANNOT create a soul so that it "exists" nor create a soul in His image and likeness....


God can do anything He chooses to do. What I was trying to elicit is a description of what a soul/spirit would look like within your belief (its "structure".) It's quite possible that we both agree that it would be in the image and likeness of God, i.e. two arms, two legs, head, feet etc.

It just seems more reasonable to me that God would have created His spirit children long before this planet was created and not just at the moment of conception within the womb of each woman on earth at all times through history. Is that universally a Roman Catholic belief? Including the part where the soul is created at conception - two cells or more?

But if that is what you choose to believe, I'm fine with it, it is your right to believe whatever you want. It's just not what Mormons believe about our premortal life or the huge importance of that part of our existence. (Where we came from.)

[outdamyboat]

I am aware of that. Please do not mischaracterize my position. I have never said that stating one's belief as fact is "not playing fair" but that I believe it is not respectful of others' beliefs. Logically, that CD states his belief as fact to those of you who also do so, he absolutely is "playing fair." Just because I don't think someone should do something does not mean that turn about isn't "fair" play.

Thanks Teri, I am not Catholic, which you know, and some times I have issue w/ Catholic positions (Palm Sunday Pope's message) but, I do not think CD's comments are inappropriate, and certainly not any more offensive to me, a non-Catholic, than some LDS posters.

CD's, 'lack of respect' to you, may be the building blocks for some others posters turn towards Catholicism...and this goes for those LDS who I many find to have a lack of respect .....every one has their own style and purpose..

"All things work towards good, for those who love God and are called according to His purpose". Romans 8:28.

I hope that this forum doesn't repeat it's last weeks behaviors...but stating a pure religious belief is not disrespectful...I think you and I agree on this point, Teri. :hug:

[terri910]

Thanks Teri, I am not Catholic, which you know, and some times I have issue w/ Catholic positions (Palm Sunday Pope's message) but, I do not think CD's comments are inappropriate, and certainly not any more offensive to me, a non-Catholic, than some LDS posters.

CD's, 'lack of respect' to you, may be the building blocks for some others posters turn towards Catholicism...and this goes for those LDS who I many find to have a lack of respect .....every one has their own style and purpose..

"All things work towards good, for those who love God and are called according to His purpose". Romans 8:28.

I hope that this forum doesn't repeat it's last weeks behaviors...but stating a pure religious belief is not disrespectful...I think you and I agree on this point, Teri. :hug:
As I've said before, I do not believe that CD is mean-spirited at all....and by that I mean I do not believe he means to be disrespectful when he states his beliefs as fact, any more than I believe the LDS, or anyone else for that matter, does so. I believe it IS disrespectful, but I do not believe the spirit or intent behind it is. I am quite certain that the moderators do not agree with me about it being disrespectful (but it doesn't mean that I think they are correct! ;)) I also think that the evidence to support my belief that it causes contention is contained throughout this and countless other threads, as people get their backs up when someone with an OPPOSING belief does it. Not everyone gets their back up, but enough do to convince me it would be better not to do it.

But....as I've already said, I have zero power to require anything of anyone. So I hope for the better nature of good people to shine through. Overall, I think that very thing happens with glorious regularity on this forum, and I am thankful for it!

[terri910]

What I was trying to elicit is a description of what a soul/spirit would look like within your belief (its "structure".) It's quite possible that we both agree that it would be in the image and likeness of God, i.e. two arms, two legs, head, feet etc.
Ohhhh! I think I finally understand your use of the word "structure" of the soul! Thank you for the clarification. I have never imagined a soul to have a head, arms, legs., etc. I have never imagined a soul to "look" like anything. When it is written that we are made in the image of God, I have never believed that it was talking about us physically looking like him. New Advent's website writes:
The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.
It is not, of course, all that it says. More in-depth explanation of the Catholic viewpoint on "souls" can be found at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

It just seems more reasonable to me that God would have created His spirit children long before this planet was created and not just at the moment of conception within the womb of each woman on earth at all times through history. Is that universally a Roman Catholic belief? Including the part where the soul is created at conception - two cells or more?
It is reasonable to me that God creates a soul as each body is created.
I believe that it is Catholic teaching that the soul is created at the moment of conception. But don't ask me to speak ex cathedra! *L* If I find that there is some record of an infallible (ex cathedra) statement about your question, I'll be sure to link to it in this thread.

But if that is what you choose to believe, I'm fine with it, it is your right to believe whatever you want. It's just not what Mormons believe about our premortal life or the huge importance of that part of our existence. (Where we came from.)
*s* Yes, I know, but thanks for allowing me to believe as I do. :razz:

[RayMan]

As I've said before, I do not believe that CD is mean-spirited at all....and by that I mean I do not believe he means to be disrespectful when he states his beliefs as fact, any more than I believe the LDS, or anyone else for that matter, does so. I believe it IS disrespectful, but I do not believe the spirit or intent behind it is. I am quite certain that the moderators do not agree with me about it being disrespectful (but it doesn't mean that I think they are correct! ;)) I also think that the evidence to support my belief that it causes contention is contained throughout this and countless other threads, as people get their backs up when someone with an OPPOSING belief does it. Not everyone gets their back up, but enough do to convince me it would be better not to do it.

But....as I've already said, I have zero power to require anything of anyone. So I hope for the better nature of good people to shine through. Overall, I think that very thing happens with glorious regularity on this forum, and I am thankful for it!

Cutting to the chase as usual I see terri. I sometimes wonder if some of the folk around here spend any effort in trying to imagine how their words sound to hearers of different faiths or denominations.

[outdamyboat]

It is not bizarre at all when you come to understand, as Latter-day Saints do, that each human being is literally the spirit child of God the Father and has within him/her the potential to 'grow up' and become as their Heavenly Parent is.

This planet, the glowing bodies in the sky, everything you see around you are only made to test and prove and help God's children make enough right choices that they can eventually go HOME and dwell with Him. God the Father is God the Father because He created spirit children. He is God the Father to those children. God's children have a part of Him within each of them, and the capacity by their choices to become all good or all evil, with their Heavenly Father being all good.


For His children (that's us) there is only ONE God the Father in the same manner as there is only one male whose seed it was from which you were conceived in the womb of your mother.

This is an important point and a fair point:

Although the thread on this forum is a private enterprise opportunity for the LDS to teach about their faith principles and doctrine, it in fact, is not an LDS-private enterprise site. Each person of faith is able to state their agreement or disagreement w/ each others faith or principles. This is a discussion not an evangelizing platform. If it is or becomes an evengelizing platform it will not last, IMO.

Now concerning the spirit gods described above. This principle is a LDS principle and contradicts the greater traditional Christian sects understanding of the after-life. It is a great abyss in the LDS and other Christian traditional beleif system (non-reform thinkers).

So, live and let live, yes, this is LDS belief. But just as BBP is not traditional Christian doctrine regarding baptism, neither are spirit children. To take offensive to CD saying it is a bizarre belief, means that you personally take exception to his thoughts and deduction? Rhetorical question.

But, just as we saw that the Catholics interpretation of John 6 is bizarre to some...it did not cause a plea .. PLZ STOP THEM FROM SAYING TRANSSUBSTANTIATION IS BIZZARE. There were discussions to not to refer to it in other more vulgar terms. But, Catholics seemed to know that this teaching is one of the core beleifs that separate them from other traditional sects (less the Orthodox). They actualy understand and say: OKAY, DON'T BELIEVE IT, JUST DON'T PARTAKE...PEACE BE WITH YOU.

In the same way...I am learning much about LDS faith. But, I am not assuming this thread was started to evangelize and convince me that my faith beliefs are in error. You and other LDS may find my faith beliefs bizarre and an abyss but hey, I am not here to evangelize you.

This way of thinking keeps this forum a safe intellectual platform, to better understand my differences and other faith differences. Unity of religious is not the goal, just better understanding.

I came from an eclectic situation of faiths in my home..primarily Catholics but also Orthodox Jews. I appeciate that I was taught in my home, "We think so and so, we are not better than others who believe so and so, but we were called to live this way by God".

[justamere10]

Ohhhh! I think I finally understand your use of the word "structure" of the soul! Thank you for the clarification. I have never imagined a soul to have a head, arms, legs., etc. I have never imagined a soul to "look" like anything. When it is written that we are made in the image of God, I have never believed that it was talking about us physically looking like him. New Advent's website writes:

It is not, of course, all that it says. More in-depth explanation of the Catholic viewpoint on "souls" can be found at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm


It is reasonable to me that God creates a soul as each body is created.
I believe that it is Catholic teaching that the soul is created at the moment of conception. But don't ask me to speak ex cathedra! *L* If I find that there is some record of an infallible (ex cathedra) statement about your question, I'll be sure to link to it in this thread.



Latter-day Saints use the term "spirit" or "spirit body" rather than "soul" when referring to the internal part of us that animates the physical body during its life, and continues to exist into the eternities, as most Christians believe it to.

For LDS, "soul" is both the physical body and the spirit body combined. (Thus a soul to us would be a living human being or a translated or resurrected human being - both parts are together.) But I may use the word "soul" when discussing beliefs with Roman Catholics because I understand that word for them to be synonymous with the LDS "spirit body".

For me it is much less confusing to think of our "spirit body" to be the literal creation of God the Father, made in His image and likeness, than the philosophical definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia you referenced which defines soul as:

"The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated."

For me the LDS concept of spirit body does much more than just indicate that there is such as thing as a spirit body within man, and thus infer a part of man that continues on into eternity when the physical body is in the grave. The LDS definition, in my opinion, not only takes care of life after death (where are we going), it also infers life before death (where did we come from.)

I am interested in learning if your belief in the creation of a soul at conception is the mainstream Catholic belief. I think that would create quite a bit of discussion in the form of: "Does God create the soul when sperm and egg multiply into two cells, three, four, a thousand?" Scholars love such arguments, it gives them a chance to display their learning and analytical prowess compared to each other and the unlearned, as did the lawyers and Pharisees in Jesus time. :-)

[justamere10]

This is an important point and a fair point:

Although the thread on this forum is a private enterprise opportunity for the LDS to teach about their faith principles and doctrine, it in fact, is not an LDS-private enterprise site. Each person of faith is able to state their agreement or disagreement w/ each others faith or principles. This is a discussion not an evangelizing platform. If it is or becomes an evengelizing platform it will not last, IMO.

Now concerning the spirit gods described above. This principle is a LDS principle and contradicts the greater traditional Christian sects understanding of the after-life. It is a great abyss in the LDS and other Christian traditional beleif system (non-reform thinkers).

So, live and let live, yes, this is LDS belief. But just as BBP is not traditional Christian doctrine regarding baptism, neither are spirit children. To take offensive to CD saying it is a bizarre belief, means that you personally take exception to his thoughts and deduction? Rhetorical question.

But, just as we saw that the Catholics interpretation of John 6 is bizarre to some...it did not cause a plea .. PLZ STOP THEM FROM SAYING TRANSSUBSTANTIATION IS BIZZARE. There were discussions to not to refer to it in other more vulgar terms. But, Catholics seemed to know that this teaching is one of the core beleifs that separate them from other traditional sects (less the Orthodox). They actualy understand and say: OKAY, DON'T BELIEVE IT, JUST DON'T PARTAKE...PEACE BE WITH YOU.

In the same way...I am learning much about LDS faith. But, I am not assuming this thread was started to evangelize and convince me that my faith beliefs are in error. You and other LDS may find my faith beliefs bizarre and an abyss but hey, I am not here to evangelize you.

This way of thinking keeps this forum a safe intellectual platform, to better understand my differences and other faith differences. Unity of religious is not the goal, just better understanding.

I came from an eclectic situation of faiths in my home..primarily Catholics but also Orthodox Jews. I appeciate that I was taught in my home, "We think so and so, we are not better than others who believe so and so, but we were called to live this way by God".


But I justamere10 did NOT take offense to Catholic Defender saying something about LDS beliefs is bizarre. That was others who were having that discussion as I recall. I understand that CD is just declaring his beliefs, as do I.

I do not consider there to be an "abyss" between what Latter-day Saints believe and what others of other Christian denominations believe. We too have the Holy Bible in our canon. We believe that there is a great deal of truth to be found among all mankind, not just among the Latter-day Saints. We sometimes define truth as "that which is, that which was, and that which always will be."

But Latter-day Saints believe that we now live in the prophesied fulness of times, when the greatest of the apostolic sealing blessings God has to offer His children are available upon the earth today. That is different than probably many other followers of Jesus Christ today believe. But that does not take away from any truth they may have. It only adds truth upon truth, as we see it.

[CatholicDefender]

It is not bizarre at all when you come to understand, as Latter-day Saints do, that each human being is literally the spirit child of God the Father and has within him/her the potential to 'grow up' and become as their Heavenly Parent is.

This planet, the glowing bodies in the sky, everything you see around you are only made to test and prove and help God's children make enough right choices that they can eventually go HOME and dwell with Him. God the Father is God the Father because He created spirit children. He is God the Father to those children. God's children have a part of Him within each of them, and the capacity by their choices to become all good or all evil, with their Heavenly Father being all good.


"...ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." 2 Corinthians 6:16

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/6/16#16 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000449/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/6/16#16)



"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Psalms 82:6

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/82/6#6 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/82/6#6)


"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many.) 1 Corinthians 8:5

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/8/5#5 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000449/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/8/5#5)



"Who is like unto thee O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" Exodus 15:11

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/15/11#11 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/15/11#11)


"Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." Exodus 18:11

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/18/11#11 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/18/11#11)


"For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods." Psalms 97:9

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/97/9#9 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/97/9#9)


"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward." Deuteronomy 10:17

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/deut/10/17#17 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/deut/10/17#17)


"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works." Psalms 86:8

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/86/8#8 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/86/8#8)


"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Genesis 3:5

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gen/3/5#5 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gen/3/5#5)


"And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth." Abraham 4:1

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/4/1#1 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/4/1#1)


"And the Gods said among themselves: On the seventh time we will end our work, which we have counseled; and we will rest on the seventh time from all our work which we have counseled. Abraham 5:2

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/2#2 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/2#2)


"For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." D&C 132:17

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/17#17 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/17#17)


"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." D&C 132:20

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/20#20 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/20#20)


"Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as Gods, knowing good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good—" Alma 12:31

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/12/31#31 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/12/31#31)


"Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God— " D&C 76:58

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76/58#58 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000551/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76/58#58)


For His children (that's us) there is only ONE God the Father in the same manner as there is only one male whose seed it was from which you were conceived in the womb of your mother.

Is this "playing fair"?

[outdamyboat]

Is this "playing fair"?

I'm sorry CD, I don't understand your question?

[CatholicDefender]

Exactly! And exactly as His Church was organized anciently, with Him at the head and a foundation of authorized apostles and prophets, as it is on earth again in our time.

When I was a young boy growing up in a devout Catholic home, I often wished I had been born in a time when the Lord's Apostles walked the earth. I was 22 years old before I found out that I HAD been born in the right time, that the Lord's authorized apostles walk the earth today.

I am grateful for the teachings and the moral values I knew when I was growing up. The Latter-day Saints added to those, they did not take away any of the truth I already knew.

We basically did a switch as my family were Mormons who became Catholic. I agree that we are born in the Lord's time which is the right time!

[justamere10]

Latter-day Saints speak much of the FULNESS of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I thought it might be of interest to some if I post a few scriptures on the topic.


"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." Romans 11:25

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/11/25#25 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000692/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/11/25#25)



"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:" Ephesians 1:10

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/1/10#10 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000692/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/1/10#10)


"And now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have dwindled (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000692/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/15/13a) in unbelief, yea, for the space of many years, and many generations after the Messiah shall be manifested in body unto the children of men, then shall the fulness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles, and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of our seed." 1 Nephi 15: 13

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/15/13#13 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000692/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/15/13#13)


"Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000692/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/27/5c), whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000692/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/27/5d) of the stick (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000692/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/27/5e) of Ephraim (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000692/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/27/5f);" D&C 27: 5

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/27/5#5 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000692/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/27/5#5)


In Jesus Christ of course was the fulness of God's will. So there was a fulness in former times when he was upon the earth, the fulness was him, Jesus Christ. But also a prophesied future fulness available for all mankind who would seek and find it at a later time, the dispensation of the fulness of times.


Your LDS friends on this discussion board invite you to enrich your life, add to the truths you already know, by seeking in additional fruitful places for that FULNESS of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has been prophesied for the latter days. Latter-day Saints declare that day has arrived.

http://www.mormon.org (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000692/!x-usc:http://www.mormon.org/)

.

[justamere10]

We basically did a switch as my family were Mormons who became Catholic. I agree that we are born in the Lord's time which is the right time!


That's interesting CD. Were you taught LDS beliefs as you were growing up?

[terri910]

For me the LDS concept of spirit body does much more than just indicate that there is such as thing as a spirit body within man, and thus infer a part of man that continues on into eternity when the physical body is in the grave. The LDS definition, in my opinion, not only takes care of life after death (where are we going), it also infers life before death (where did we come from.)
Do you believe that as the spirit children of God the Father that your spirits have always existed? Or do you believe (as is my current understanding) that God the Father created (in whatever way you believe) them at some point? The reason I ask is, I see little difference in the "reasonableness" of God creating a soul that did not exist before, in a "spirit world", and God creating a soul that did not exist before in a physical body created on earth. We both believe it takes care of "where we are going" as well as "where did we come from." We both seem to believe that "where we come from" is, ultimately, God, just a difference, perhaps, in the timing.

Mind you, I understand that that difference in timing is important to the different theologies....I just don't see how one is more "reasonable" than the other.

I am interested in learning if your belief in the creation of a soul at conception is the mainstream Catholic belief. I think that would create quite a bit of discussion in the form of: "Does God create the soul when sperm and egg multiply into two cells, three, four, a thousand?" Scholars love such arguments, it gives them a chance to display their learning and analytical prowess compared to each other and the unlearned, as did the lawyers and Pharisees in Jesus time. :-)
Actually, the discussion you are imagining is not whether the soul is created at the moment of conception, but of the timing of the infusion of the soul into the physical body.

It is true that there has always been much discussion and thought given to various aspects of doctrine....what does it mean in relation to this or to that. But I, personally, would not want to judge the hearts of those who do (or have done) so (especially seeing as how they would not be so very different than those of us discussing our thoughts here on this forum).

[outdamyboat]

bb1.) But I justamere10 did NOT take offense to Catholic Defender saying something about LDS beliefs is bizarre.

I do not consider there to be an "abyss" between what Latter-day Saints believe and what others of other Christian denominations believe. We too have the Holy Bible in our canon. We believe that there is a great deal of truth to be found among all mankind, not just among the Latter-day Saints. We sometimes define truth as "that which is, that which was, and that which always will be."

2.) But Latter-day Saints believe that we now live in the prophesied fulness of times, when the greatest of the apostolic sealing blessings God has to offer His children are available upon the earth today. That is different than probably many other followers of Jesus Christ today believe. But that does not take away from any truth they may have. It only adds truth upon truth, as we see it.

1.) Good, I guess you were being 'funny' and I am of the belief that there is some truth in what a persons says in 'jest'. It's part of my psychiatry training. So, noted, your view of CD's postings.

2.) This is a case where one LDS mans sees a bridge and one Pentecostal woman sees an abyss in belief systems. So, live and let live.

[CatholicDefender]

As I've said before, I do not believe that CD is mean-spirited at all....and by that I mean I do not believe he means to be disrespectful when he states his beliefs as fact, any more than I believe the LDS, or anyone else for that matter, does so. I believe it IS disrespectful, but I do not believe the spirit or intent behind it is. I am quite certain that the moderators do not agree with me about it being disrespectful (but it doesn't mean that I think they are correct! ;)) I also think that the evidence to support my belief that it causes contention is contained throughout this and countless other threads, as people get their backs up when someone with an OPPOSING belief does it. Not everyone gets their back up, but enough do to convince me it would be better not to do it.

But....as I've already said, I have zero power to require anything of anyone. So I hope for the better nature of good people to shine through. Overall, I think that very thing happens with glorious regularity on this forum, and I am thankful for it!

"Mean-spirited", "disrespectful", I do not believe I'm either one. The situation is as follows:

We have basically two churches that are applying for a job. They are both trying to reach the most people possible with the mission both believe to be their responsibility. When these two churches clash on the basis for which they defend, what do you expect? I'm like this, either the Catholic Church is the one true faith founded by Christ or it is an imposter. Either the Non-Catholics are correct in rebelling against the Catholic Church or they may be justified if the Catholic Church is indeed an imposter. Most churches are not seeking this particular job, but the Catholic's and Mormon's seem to be interlocked in a few major points.

The "Great Apostasy" did or didn't happen, this is an accusation by the Mormons that is bedrocked in their doctrine.

The "Trinity" is the reality of God's presence or it isn't.

The Apostles are the true foundation of the Catholic Church or they are not. Joseph Smith is either a true prophet or he is not.

This is very basic, yet the contrast is there. I certainly mean no disrespect to anyone let alone Mormons, I have friends who are Mormons and we have a good time. Fortunately, when I put on my uniform, it reminds me that I defend the right of everyone to practice the faith they choose. I still enjoy the opportunity to have a voice in the expression of free ideas.

[CatholicDefender]

That's interesting CD. Were you taught LDS beliefs as you were growing up?

From my Father's side, my Mother became a Catholic very early. I know more about Mormonism through friends I've had the past 25 years.

[Old Tex]

Which spirit?

OK, light, I tire of your flippancy and trolling. I'm putting you on ignore.

[outdamyboat]

That's interesting CD. Were you taught LDS beliefs as you were growing up?

Justamere 10: Were you brought up DEVOUT Catholic? Interesting....me, also. In Catholicism some one who leaves is considered a committer of heresy...some thing we have in common, perhaps.

I am Pentecostal, a Pentecostal who becomes a Catholic is not considered a heretic, but you did seem to indicate in a prior post that if a LDS leaves the LDS church it is a very hard and seldom traveled road back to the LDS church?

One difference between Pentecostals who leave the truth of the Gospel and then return...there is no 'waiting' period...just a big party!!! We allow the Holy Spirit to do the work...and of course, Christians help strengthen the 'Prodigal'. I love this about the Pentecostal church!!! It's so beautiful and Christ-like, IMO.

[terri910]

"Mean-spirited", "disrespectful", I do not believe I'm either one. The situation is as follows:

We have basically two churches that are applying for a job. They are both trying to reach the most people possible with the mission both believe to be their responsibility. When these two churches clash on the basis for which they defend, what do you expect? I'm like this, either the Catholic Church is the one true faith founded by Christ or it is an imposter. Either the Non-Catholics are correct in rebelling against the Catholic Church or they may be justified if the Catholic Church is indeed an imposter. Most churches are not seeking this particular job, but the Catholic's and Mormon's seem to be interlocked in a few major points.

The "Great Apostasy" did or didn't happen, this is an accusation by the Mormons that is bedrocked in their doctrine.

The "Trinity" is the reality of God's presence or it isn't.

The Apostles are the true foundation of the Catholic Church or they are not. Joseph Smith is either a true prophet or he is not.

This is very basic, yet the contrast is there. I certainly mean no disrespect to anyone let alone Mormons, I have friends who are Mormons and we have a good time. Fortunately, when I put on my uniform, it reminds me that i defend the right of everyone to practice the faith they choose. I still enjoy the opportunity to have a voice in the expression of free ideas.
I know, CD. I know exactly where you are coming from. I just think things should probably be presented a little differently in a forum with a great many different beliefs represented....and I do not think it is where people necessarily come to "interview" either of those two churches for a job! ;)

I agree completely with your assessment (who could not?) that either "This is true or it is not."

I'll not continue to give the reasons FOR my position, here. To continue to do so would -- it seems to me -- to be beating a dead horse...*L* Just know that I do not believe you to mean disrespect -- EVER. And also know how much I appreciate what you do in your defense of freedom. :hug:

[justamere10]

Do you believe that as the spirit children of God the Father that your spirits have always existed? Or do you believe (as is my current understanding) that God the Father created (in whatever way you believe) them at some point? The reason I ask is, I see little difference in the "reasonableness" of God creating a soul that did not exist before, in a "spirit world", and God creating a soul that did not exist before in a physical body created on earth. We both believe it takes care of "where we are going" as well as "where did we come from." We both seem to believe that "where we come from" is, ultimately, God, just a difference, perhaps, in the timing.

Mind you, I understand that that difference in timing is important to the different theologies....I just don't see how one is more "reasonable" than the other.


Actually, the discussion you are imagining is not whether the soul is created at the moment of conception, but of the timing of the infusion of the soul into the physical body.

It is true that there has always been much discussion and thought given to various aspects of doctrine....what does it mean in relation to this or to that. But I, personally, would not want to judge the hearts of those who do (or have done) so (especially seeing as how they would not be so very different than those of us discussing our thoughts here on this forum).


I believe that with God, time is different than time as we consensually know it today. Some LDS scripture indicates that, referring to time as we know it, one thousand years on this planet is one day where God dwells.

But assuming time as we know it, Latter-day Saints believe that God created our spirit bodies in a premortal life prior to the creation of this world. Our premortal experience was vital to our being here on earth because we believe that Father called a grand council in Heaven and presented to us a Plan of Salvation. All of us (God's spirit children) who accepted that Plan as He proposed it, will at some point in time get a physical body. Those who followed Lucifer's contrasting plan were cast out of Heaven with him and will never even get a physical body. So a huge and vitally important part of our existence, we believe, took place prior to our spirit body entering and animating our physical body on earth.


"Actually, the discussion you are imagining is not whether the soul is created at the moment of conception, but of the timing of the infusion of the soul into the physical body."

But that's exactly the essence of the discussion that I apparently am "imagining". I thought you said you believed that the soul was "infused" into the physical body at conception. Maybe I misunderstood your comment. If it is infused at conception, but not necessarily created at that moment (but obviously prior to it) then you are inferring a premortal life to the soul are you not?

Can you imagine then the scholarly discussion (sincere as they may be): "How many seconds/minutes/days/years was the soul created prior to its infusion into the physical body at conception?"

Sorry, I just could not resist that one as a follow-up to our former messages. :-)

[justamere10]

"Mean-spirited", "disrespectful", I do not believe I'm either one. The situation is as follows:

We have basically two churches that are applying for a job. They are both trying to reach the most people possible with the mission both believe to be their responsibility. When these two churches clash on the basis for which they defend, what do you expect? I'm like this, either the Catholic Church is the one true faith founded by Christ or it is an imposter. Either the Non-Catholics are correct in rebelling against the Catholic Church or they may be justified if the Catholic Church is indeed an imposter. Most churches are not seeking this particular job, but the Catholic's and Mormon's seem to be interlocked in a few major points.

The "Great Apostasy" did or didn't happen, this is an accusation by the Mormons that is bedrocked in their doctrine.

The "Trinity" is the reality of God's presence or it isn't.

The Apostles are the true foundation of the Catholic Church or they are not. Joseph Smith is either a true prophet or he is not.

This is very basic, yet the contrast is there. I certainly mean no disrespect to anyone let alone Mormons, I have friends who are Mormons and we have a good time. Fortunately, when I put on my uniform, it reminds me that I defend the right of everyone to practice the faith they choose. I still enjoy the opportunity to have a voice in the expression of free ideas.


Well put CD.

[outdamyboat]

I am Pentecostal, a Pentecostal who becomes a Catholic is not considered a heretic, but you did seem to indicate in a prior post that if a LDS leaves the LDS church it is a very hard and seldom traveled road back to the LDS church?
Justamere: This is a question I have about the LDS faith.

[justamere10]

Justamere 10: Were you brought up DEVOUT Catholic? Interesting....me, also. In Catholicism some one who leaves is considered a committer of heresy...some thing we have in common, perhaps.

I am Pentecostal, a Pentecostal who becomes a Catholic is not considered a heretic, but you did seem to indicate in a prior post that if a LDS leaves the LDS church it is a very hard and seldom traveled road back to the LDS church?

One difference between Pentecostals who leave the truth of the Gospel and then return...there is no 'waiting' period...just a big party!!! We allow the Holy Spirit to do the work...and of course, Christians help strengthen the 'Prodigal'. I love this about the Pentecostal church!!! It's so beautiful and Christ-like, IMO.

I am pleased for you that you have found a denomination and beliefs that work for you.

I don't think I said the way back to the LDS Church is "seldom traveled" for those who have been excommunicated.

I know a man who held a fairly high but local priesthood responsibility. He committed adultery repeatedly and was not found out until quite some time after he continued pretending he was a faithful Latter-day Saint and carrying on with his leadership responsibility. It was considered an offense the magnitude of which would be a "don't call us, we'll call you" road back.

But he sincerely repented, remained faithful to his wife, attended meetings (passively, not allowed to participate actively) for three or four years and eventually was rebaptized with all his former blessings restored by the First Presidency of the Church.

Probably not always, but often when people who were active members of the LDS Church for several years leave, it is because they have chosen to commit sins such as adultery that are not compatible with living as temple worthy Saints live. Giving up those newly found immoral "freedoms" is what is often difficult for them to do.

But there is a way back through sincere repentance, which includes giving up the sin/s. They would then come back through the strait gate of baptism, which in our belief would wash away their former sins for as long as they do not repeat them.

[outdamyboat]

I am pleased for you that you have found a denomination and beliefs that work for you.

I don't think I said the way back to the LDS Church is "seldom traveled" for those who have been excommunicated.

I know a man who held a fairly high but local priesthood responsibility. He committed adultery repeatedly and was not found out until quite some time after he continued pretending he was a faithful Latter-day Saint and carrying on with his leadership responsibility. It was considered an offense the magnitude of which would be a "don't call us, we'll call you" road back.

But he sincerely repented, remained faithful to his wife, attended meetings (passively, not allowed to participate actively) for three or four years and eventually was rebaptized with all his former blessings restored by the First Presidency of the Church.

Probably not always, but often when people who were active members of the LDS Church for several years leave, it is because they have chosen to commit sins such as adultery that are not compatible with living as temple worthy Saints live. Giving up those newly found immoral "freedoms" is what is often difficult for them to do.

But there is a way back through sincere repentance, which includes giving up the sin/s. They would then come back through the strait gate of baptism, which in our belief would wash away their former sins for as long as they do not repeat them.

This is in many ways similar to the Pentecostals. Unfortunately people sometimes need to be 'dis-fellowshiped' in my denomination for blatant unrepentance. This would come after much attempts to restore the individual to proper fellowship. I have only known of one case in my present church b/c it was so public. Many times these situaions are dealt with privately, within the church w/ family pastoral counseling.

Sexual sin is rampant in all of our churches..it's very sad. It is one of the worst pains and hardest sins to overcome. We are taught in the Bible it is also different than other sins because the offender sins against his own body, which houses the Holy Spirit.

[terri910]

I believe that with God, time is different than time as we consensually know it today. Some LDS scripture indicates that, referring to time as we know it, one thousand years on this planet is one day where God dwells.
My belief is that "time" as we know it is a constraint of our physical world....God is outside of time.

But assuming time as we know it, Latter-day Saints believe that God created our spirit bodies in a premortal life prior to the creation of this world.
But if I understand correctly, you do not believe that your spirit life has ALWAYS been in existence. Is that correct? That there was a "time" (even if it is a different concept than we have on earth) when your pre-mortal spirit did not exist? Catholics believe that God has always existed (the Creator, not created by any other thing or God), but that we are created beings. I'm actually unsure of LDS teaching on whether God the Father has always existed or not. The famous couplet (I think it goes: As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become) tends to make me think that it is LDS belief that God was created. But I know that couplet is NOT doctrine, so I get confused on this point.

But that's exactly the essence of the discussion that I apparently am "imagining". I thought you said you believed that the soul was "infused" into the physical body at conception. Maybe I misunderstood your comment. If it is infused at conception, but not necessarily created at that moment (but obviously prior to it) then you are inferring a premortal life to the soul are you not?
I said that *I* believe the soul is infused into the physical body at conception. I am fairly certain that the Church teaches that the soul is not created prior to conception. I am not certain that there is definitive doctrine on when the soul is infused into the physical body. I THINK (and I'm no scholar) that there has been speculation about this, but that the mainstream belief is the same as mine. I may have misspoken, however, previously...sometimes the process of digesting information takes time for me! scipio may be able to better answer with official doctrine (or Catholic Defender, or archangelo, or texan_rep or Hadassah). I'm trying to give you my understanding of it.

Can you imagine then the scholarly discussion (sincere as they may be): "How many seconds/minutes/days/years was the soul created prior to its infusion into the physical body at conception?"

Sorry, I just could not resist that one as a follow-up to our former messages. :-)
I CAN imagine it. I also imagine it would be fascinating, enlightening, amusing, and -- ultimately -- give me a headache. Trying to keep up with the "big brains" does that sometimes (for those who know -- another reference to "Defending Your Life"!)

[CatholicDefender]

Justamere 10: Were you brought up DEVOUT Catholic? Interesting....me, also. In Catholicism some one who leaves is considered a committer of heresy...some thing we have in common, perhaps.

I am Pentecostal, a Pentecostal who becomes a Catholic is not considered a heretic, but you did seem to indicate in a prior post that if a LDS leaves the LDS church it is a very hard and seldom traveled road back to the LDS church?

One difference between Pentecostals who leave the truth of the Gospel and then return...there is no 'waiting' period...just a big party!!! We allow the Holy Spirit to do the work...and of course, Christians help strengthen the 'Prodigal'. I love this about the Pentecostal church!!! It's so beautiful and Christ-like, IMO.

Just as the Church during St. Pauls time would be concerned of those who openly persecuted the Church, today the Church does want to make sure that a person has freedom to choose, that there is no arm twisting going on. Also, that a revert is true in the following of the Faith.

[CatholicDefender]

I'm sorry CD, I don't understand your question?

I was just looking at some of the criticism I have with some when I speak on matters of the faith. I was simply responding to what was written from another perspective. I consider it fair from both sides and I tend to let the lurkers decide whose point are being made.

[terri910]

I am pleased for you that you have found a denomination and beliefs that work for you.

I don't think I said the way back to the LDS Church is "seldom traveled" for those who have been excommunicated.

I know a man who held a fairly high but local priesthood responsibility. He committed adultery repeatedly and was not found out until quite some time after he continued pretending he was a faithful Latter-day Saint and carrying on with his leadership responsibility. It was considered an offense the magnitude of which would be a "don't call us, we'll call you" road back.

But he sincerely repented, remained faithful to his wife, attended meetings (passively, not allowed to participate actively) for three or four years and eventually was rebaptized with all his former blessings restored by the First Presidency of the Church.

Probably not always, but often when people who were active members of the LDS Church for several years leave, it is because they have chosen to commit sins such as adultery that are not compatible with living as temple worthy Saints live. Giving up those newly found immoral "freedoms" is what is often difficult for them to do.

But there is a way back through sincere repentance, which includes giving up the sin/s. They would then come back through the strait gate of baptism, which in our belief would wash away their former sins for as long as they do not repeat them.
Contained in this post is something I have never heard of....the same person was RE-baptized in the LDS Church after having been baptized in it once?

I didn't know that was ever done. May I ask the reasoning for rebaptising? Was it determined that his first baptism was invalid? And if so, what would be the determining factor(s)?

Thanks! (See, I knew I didn't know everything you know about the LDS faith!)

[outdamyboat]

I was just looking at some of the criticism I have with some when I speak on matters of the faith. I was simply responding to what was written from another perspective. I consider it fair from both sides and I tend to let the lurkers decide whose point are being made.

Good idea. We never know who we are influencing when we post, do we?

[justamere10]

This is in many ways similar to the Pentecostals. Unfortunately people sometimes need to be 'dis-fellowshiped' in my denomination for blatant unrepentance. This would come after much attempts to restore the individual to proper fellowship. I have only known of one case in my present church b/c it was so public. Many times these situaions are dealt with privately, within the church w/ family pastoral counseling.

Sexual sin is rampant in all of our churches..it's very sad. It is one of the worst pains and hardest sins to overcome. We are taught in the Bible it is also different than other sins because the offender sins against his own body, which houses the Holy Spirit.

In the LDS Church people can also be disfellowshipped. They remain members of the Church but cannot actively participate in meetings (e.g. offer prayers, give talks) until that is lifted. When they get back full fellowship, they do not need to be rebaptized, their name was never removed from the Church roles. With excommunication, the person's name is officially removed from Church records.

[CatholicDefender]

Good idea. We never know who we are influencing when we post, do we?

Exactly! If a Catholic who was simply wondering around were to stumble on a debate, I hope to encourage them to remain faithful. I understand in like manner, my counterparts will have the same concern. Plus, people who might not know the issues, I certainly do not want only one side represented.

[CatholicDefender]

In the LDS Church people can also be disfellowshipped. They remain members of the Church but cannot actively participate in meetings (e.g. offer prayers, give talks) until that is lifted. When they get back full fellowship, they do not need to be rebaptized, their name was never removed from the Church roles. With excommunication, the person's name is officially removed from Church records.

Would you re-baptize someone excommunicated?

[justamere10]

My belief is that "time" as we know it is a constraint of our physical world....God is outside of time.


But if I understand correctly, you do not believe that your spirit life has ALWAYS been in existence. Is that correct? That there was a "time" (even if it is a different concept than we have on earth) when your pre-mortal spirit did not exist? Catholics believe that God has always existed (the Creator, not created by any other thing or God), but that we are created beings. I'm actually unsure of LDS teaching on whether God the Father has always existed or not. The famous couplet (I think it goes: As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become) tends to make me think that it is LDS belief that God was created. But I know that couplet is NOT doctrine, so I get confused on this point.


I said that *I* believe the soul is infused into the physical body at conception. I am fairly certain that the Church teaches that the soul is not created prior to conception. I am not certain that there is definitive doctrine on when the soul is infused into the physical body. I THINK (and I'm no scholar) that there has been speculation about this, but that the mainstream belief is the same as mine. I may have misspoken, however, previously...sometimes the process of digesting information takes time for me! scipio may be able to better answer with official doctrine (or Catholic Defender, or archangelo, or texan_rep or Hadassah). I'm trying to give you my understanding of it.


I CAN imagine it. I also imagine it would be fascinating, enlightening, amusing, and -- ultimately -- give me a headache. Trying to keep up with the "big brains" does that sometimes (for those who know -- another reference to "Defending Your Life"!)


I too believe that God is "outside of time" and that philosophically all existence/truth may be one great whole sort of like a wedding ring that never begins and never ends.

I wrote about the following previously (I think to Scipio) but it's not something that Latter-day Saints commonly discuss or that most members may even be aware of, though it is mentioned in canon, it is not essential to our salvation.

There is what I call a 'missing link'. There is a state of existence prior to that of spirit. Let's call that "intelligence". So, God the Father when He creates a spirit body draws from that cloud of intelligence that has always existed to 'infuse' if you will that spirit body with life, similar to your infusion of the spirit/soul into the physical body. We, having once been an unorganized part of that "intelligence" (prior to being created as a spirit body by God the Father) are in that respect co-eternal with even God. That's how I see it, my LDS friends might see it differently.

I understand that we are both struggling sometimes to explain not only doctrines that we believe to be true, but the way we have individually in our own minds organized to our own satisfaction (if we're thinkers) things that the mind of man really is not equipped to understand fully. There's a lot we're never going to understand in this lifetime.

[justamere10]

Contained in this post is something I have never heard of....the same person was RE-baptized in the LDS Church after having been baptized in it once?

I didn't know that was ever done. May I ask the reasoning for rebaptising? Was it determined that his first baptism was invalid? And if so, what would be the determining factor(s)?

Thanks! (See, I knew I didn't know everything you know about the LDS faith!)

Excommunication from the LDS Church is excercised rarely but as with every other church in the USA it is the ultimate penalty a church can impose on its members.

Excommunication is one of the sentences that an official church 'court' can impose. Courts are held usually at the local bishop (parish) level except for Melchizedek Priesthood holders who are usually 'tried' at the stake (diocese) level.

Excommunication is done with love for the person who has severly offended God. The person's name is removed from the rolls of the Church.

After a suitable period of repentance and demonstration that the sin has been abandoned, the person can be interviewed and if found worthy baptized again, thus being washed clean of the sin/s and able to be 'born' anew with renewed covenants to take upon him/herself the name of Jesus Christ. We believe if that person commits the same sin again, he/she will take upon themselves once again the consequences of the previous behavior.

The way church 'courts' are conducted was revealed to Joseph Smith and is in our canon (D&C) with perhaps some modifications as approved by the living apostles who watch over the entire Church.

[THE LIGHT]

OK, light, I tire of your flippancy and trolling. I'm putting you on ignore.

Flippancy
FLIP'PANCY, n. [See Flippant.] Smoothness and rapidity of speech; volubility of tongue; fluency of speech.

Trolling
TROLLING, ppr. Rolling; turning; driving about; fishing with a rod and reel.

:think: would that be described as:

touchy

Pronunciation: \ˈtə-chē\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): touch·i·er; touch·i·est
Date: 1605
1: marked by readiness to take offense on slight provocation <he's a little touchy about his past>

[THE LIGHT]

Such claims are always made by different people over the years, but the thing that's supposed to be "hidden" changes. It's very easy to make a "conspiracy" claim. All one has to do is to say "it's" there (whatever "it" happens to be at the time) and that so and so won't produce "it", with absolutely no evidence that "it" even exists.

How can one "produce" something if nothing is there? They can't, but this gives the one making the claim what he wants anyway. He has raised some doubts and that is his game. He has done what he set out to do with one small lie.

Well put!! That is exactly what Christians have been saying all along! How can we prove the golden plates did or didn't exist if they were suppose to have been zapped back up by the angel? Little bit of a double standard in reasoning?:think:

If so, then your last sentence would apply to both sides.
"He has done what he set out to do with one small lie"

I guess OT doesn't have an answer for this but mabe someone else might be able to help out.

[JenT]

I guess OT doesn't have an answer for this but mabe someone else might be able to help out.

LOLOLOL Lightman, I just can't get over that http://www.smileyhut.com/laughing/rofl.gifyou've been put on ignore by a baby!!!! Old Tex has the CUTEST pic of an adorable little man and he put YOU, you big stalwart lug, on TIME OUT

http://www.smileyhut.com/laughing/rofl.gif

[JenT]

:think:

But you did make a very good point!:think:

:think:

[THE LIGHT]

LOLOLOL Lightman, I just can't get over that http://www.smileyhut.com/laughing/rofl.gifyou've been put on ignore by a baby!!!! Old Tex has the CUTEST pic of an adorable little man and he put YOU, you big stalwart lug, on TIME OUT

http://www.smileyhut.com/laughing/rofl.gif

http://bestsmileys.com/notlistening/2.gif

[JenT]

http://bestsmileys.com/notlistening/2.gif

OH YEAH?

[justamere10]

I guess OT doesn't have an answer for this but mabe someone else might be able to help out.


It's much easier for most people to believe that Joseph Smith had the ancient record and the means to translate it by the power of God, as he said he did, than to believe that a young semi-literate farmer from backwoods New York in the 1830's could write the Book of Mormon.

There's also that little matter of the testimony of 11 witnesses who declare that they actually saw the plates and hefted them. The testimony of any two of those men in those days could have been enough to sentence someone to death.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss


Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?

[outdamyboat]

http://bestsmileys.com/notlistening/2.gif

This ADHD behavior has to stop...my advice, take the Adderall XR tomorrow...you are just too impulsive :naughty:, If you keep it up you will lose all your friends...:think:

JenT : can you 'pm' me the links of those very cool animated little characters?? I MUST have them...plz :hug:

[Old Tex]

I noticed part of a segment on Larry King where another group has a compound near the Texas - New Mexico border who's leader claims to be the "the messiah". He has prediced a date for the end of the world, but I didn't get it. More signs of the times.

[THE LIGHT]

This ADHD behavior has to stop...my advice, take the Adderall XR tomorrow...you are just too impulsive :naughty:, If you keep it up you will lose all your friends...:think:

JenT : can you 'pm' me the links of those very cool animated little characters?? I MUST have them...plz :hug:

I think you already know, but it's just a joke. ;)

And by the way the link is: http://www.smileyhut.com

[THE LIGHT]

I noticed part of a segment on Larry King where another group has a compound near the Texas - New Mexico border who's leader claims to be the "the messiah". He has prediced a date for the end of the world, but I didn't get it. More signs of the times.

indeed it apears that way.;)

[CID_0687]

There are some clever hoaxes in circulation but this is not one of them, there's nothing clever about that supposed letter. Your information is false.

To learn the truth about the Mormons ask questions in this thread and/or visit:

http://www.mormon.org

-
Thanks justamere10. And thanks Ron Jon for sending me the link on that completely strange letter.

I noticed in another post you (justamere10) stated that Mormons believe in the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. Do Mormons practice the spiritual gifts, i.e. speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing, etc...?

[JenT]

This ADHD behavior has to stop...my advice, take the Adderall XR tomorrow...you are just too impulsive :naughty:, If you keep it up you will lose all your friends...:think:

JenT : can you 'pm' me the links of those very cool animated little characters?? I MUST have them...plz :hug:

outda, when I try to do that, they just come up as smileys, it's complicated...

Best thing to do when you see one that you like, right click on it. A drop down will appear, choose the last one which is "properties", it will show you the URL, Copy paste that URL into your text box and then wrap it just like quotes except instead of "QUOTE" write IMG and /IMG at the end you know, with brackets around it like the QUOTE

Then you also copy paste that one on a notepad to quickly insert in textboxes if you want to. Takes a minute to set up the first time but after that it's so easy.

If I try to give you an example it turns it into a smiley pfffft

[justamere10]

Thanks justamere10. And thanks Ron Jon for sending me the link on that completely strange letter.

I noticed in another post you (justamere10) stated that Mormons believe in the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. Do Mormons practice the spiritual gifts, i.e. speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing, etc...?


Here's one of our 13 articles of faith:

"We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."

We believe that the Priesthood authority held by the Lord's original apostles has been restored to apostles today from the appearance of Peter, James, and John, and passed along by the laying on of hands of those having authority to do so.

So, after baptism, confirmation, the 'baptism of fire' to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost is given by the laying of hands on the head of the person to be confirmed, by men holding the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Another of our articles of faith reads:

"We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth."

That should answer your questions. Don't hesitate to ask any time.

[JenT]

I think you already know, but it's just a joke. ;)

And by the way the link is: http://www.smileyhut.com

oh she was KIDDING! lol, if she wasn't, she shoulda said something to me right along with ya! Notice how she just wanted MY smilies, did ya, huh, did ya? (chin up)

[JenT]

Here's one of our 13 articles of faith:

"We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."

We believe that the Priesthood authority held by the Lord's original apostles has been restored to apostles today from the appearance of Peter, James, and John, and passed along by the laying on of hands of those having authority to do so.

So, after baptism, confirmation, the 'baptism of fire' to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost is given by the laying of hands on the head of the person to be confirmed, by men holding the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Another of our articles of faith reads:

"We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth."

That should answer your questions. Don't hesitate to ask any time.


well I won't joke about laying on of hands because that's holy stuff and we do that for healings etc., but Just... where's the part about gettin husbands? If you have all those wives there must be a shortage.... lol can ya mail order?

[THE LIGHT]

oh she was KIDDING! lol, if she wasn't, she shoulda said something to me right along with ya! Notice how she just wanted MY smilies, did ya, huh, did ya? (chin up)

I know, thats why I said "I think you already know."

I think I thought and thus the wink.:)

[JenT]

I know, thats why I said "I think you already know."

I think I thought and thus the wink.:)

Nah, she likes me best!
:)

[JenT]

so where do I put my application in ?

hben talked me outta the Christian nunnery and I'm bored tonight, application sounds like a good idea

[justamere10]

well I won't joke about laying on of hands because that's holy stuff and we do that for healings etc., but Just... where's the part about gettin husbands? If you have all those wives there must be a shortage.... lol can ya mail order?


I was just reading an article tonight about how many single women there are in the LDS Church. Perhaps it's a common problem in other churches to? I don't know if it's a shortage of men in churches or maybe a shortage of 'church' in men. Traditionally I think it's a given that generally speaking women tend to be more spiritual that men.

But I do wish you the very best with your search Jen.

[JenT]

I was just reading an article tonight about how many single women there are in the LDS Church. Perhaps it's a common problem in other churches to? I don't know if it's a shortage of men in churches or maybe a shortage of 'church' in men. Traditionally I think it's a given that generally speaking women tend to be more spiritual that men.

But I do wish you the very best with your search Jen.

wow, what a graceful answer! thanks Just! (snappin fingers, walking away pouty)\

I really thought my horizons opened up when I was arguing with no fear about Hebrew stuff and he claimed the "seed of the woman" didn't matter in Biblical lines. I was like, hey, cool, all those possible husbands has just opened up....

[CID_0687]

I was just reading an article tonight about how many single women there are in the LDS Church. Perhaps it's a common problem in other churches to? I don't know if it's a shortage of men in churches or maybe a shortage of 'church' in men. Traditionally I think it's a given that generally speaking women tend to be more spiritual that men.

But I do wish you the very best with your search Jen.
You know I think that is a typical thing in most churches. Atleast the churches I've been in. I've been in the Pentecostal church up until recently we started attending a Baptist church. IMHO women are more spiritual minded than us guys are. I don't know why that is, especially when we are to be the spiritual heads of the family. Could it be sports? I don't know, I do know that's why I have DVR, just in case the Steelers kick off before service is over.

[orbitaldecay]

Woman are more naturally nuturing, a Christ-like attribute, IMHO.

[JenT]

You know I think that is a typical thing in most churches. Atleast the churches I've been in. I've been in the Pentecostal church up until recently we started attending a Baptist church. IMHO women are more spiritual minded than us guys are. I don't know why that is, especially when we are to be the spiritual heads of the family. Could it be sports? I don't know, I do know that's why I have DVR, just in case the Steelers kick off before service is over.

LOLOLOL at the DVR

I've thought about this a bit. I think there are two things feminists go nuts over. One, in the Bible ever since Eve it's always the women who are always deceived, ever notice that? I think that's why men are the leaders. Men seem to think a lot more intellectually about the Bible and therefore can be trusted with it better. Women, on the other hand, are a lot more emotional (its just fact) and I think that rocks because when we get into worship, you men got nothing on us. So (smile) go ahead and be the leaders cause leaders tend to hold back a little more, I like to get into worship and get totally lost in it.

That's my story and I'm stickin to it. :)

[yguy]

Woman are more naturally nuturing, a Christ-like attribute, IMHO.Women nurture egos. Only God nurtures souls.

[JenT]

Women nurture egos. Only God nurtures souls.

hahahahaha is that what I was nurturing when I changed diapers all those years?

[THE LIGHT]

I was just reading an article tonight about how many single women there are in the LDS Church. Perhaps it's a common problem in other churches to? I don't know if it's a shortage of men in churches or maybe a shortage of 'church' in men. Traditionally I think it's a given that generally speaking women tend to be more spiritual that men.

But I do wish you the very best with your search Jen.

search for what? multiple husbands or the male order cataloge?:think:

[orbitaldecay]

Women nurture egos. Only God nurtures souls.

I'm gonna disagree. By following the example of Christ we can confort those who mourn and love one another: nuturing qualities.

[JenT]

search for what? multiple husbands or the male order cataloge?:think:

SAME THING SILLY!

[JenT]

search for what? multiple husbands or the male order cataloge?:think:

you got a point there though, looks like Just was looking through some kind of magazine or catalog for me....

[yguy]

hahahahaha is that what I was nurturing when I changed diapers all those years?Well you tell me. Was the little monster a model of humility from the gitgo? ;)

[JenT]

Well you tell me. Was the little monster a model of humility from the gitgo? ;)

considering what I was doing, I'd have to say yes, LOL!

Can't be too proud of the "presents" you give your day care provider! (I did that to be with my sons for a few years)

[JenT]

you got a point there though, looks like Just was looking through some kind of magazine or catalog for me....

So Just, I think I wanna marry a doctor this time, got any of these in that catalogue?

[THE LIGHT]

SAME THING SILLY!

http://bestsmileys.com/beatup/2.gif

[justamere10]

So Just, I think I wanna marry a doctor this time, got any of these in that catalogue?

My son, but he's happily married for time and eternity and not in a catalog. :-)

Apparently some LDS singles mingle at ldssingles.com but you may need to be LDS for access?? Google "lds singles"?

Be cautious though, you won't find an official website for LDS singles.

What I was looking at yesterday was an article in the Salt Lake Tribune:

http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_9197474

[jasan22]

Good for you. I didn't even know about the Church during my first marriage and was three kids into the second one before I heard about it. I thought everybody was Baptist back then.:lol:

I am marrying a wonderful Catholic girl. I was sealed to my ex-wife and haven't talked to her about a formal Temple divorce yet. Who knows what the future will bring though.

[jasan22]

I witnessed Ducktales and E.T. :D

What about Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers?

[jasan22]

The LDS Church owns at least a part of the hill in upstate New York (near Palmyra, NY) where Joseph Smith was shown the ancient records hidden in a stone box. But many LDS do not believe that the hill near Palmyra is the same hill where the last battles of the Nephites and the Jaredites took place. There is nothing in our canon to say that it is so though there may be some letters in circulation stating someone's opinion on that.

Do you think that is possible that Cumorah of the Final Battles has been unofficially discovered, but it is not the Lord's time for all the Nephite records to be revealed? Faith is a very important principle. It is apparently better in the eternal scheme of things to accept on faith, than to have actual knowledge. If God wanted to He could lift the temple in Salt Lake City, or the Vatican buildings, or Azuza Street or whatever, into the air a dozen times a day to show a sign. But He leaves us ultimately to our faith, because it seems from His point of view that is a better way.

"Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000596/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/4/john/4/48a) and wonders, ye will not believe." John 4: 48

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/4/48#48 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000596/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/4/48#48)

Interesting story about Cumorah from one of my companions who was from Guatemala.

[jasan22]

I am Pentecostal, a Pentecostal who becomes a Catholic is not considered a heretic, but you did seem to indicate in a prior post that if a LDS leaves the LDS church it is a very hard and seldom traveled road back to the LDS church?
Justamere: This is a question I have about the LDS faith.

It all depends on the person. Some leave because they do not want to keep the commandments, my brother was like that. Some are ex-communicated, which when/if they come back there is a waiting period, and I know members who were ex-communicated and came back. It is only as hard as you make it.

[Old Tex]

I am marrying a wonderful Catholic girl. I was sealed to my ex-wife and haven't talked to her about a formal Temple divorce yet. Who knows what the future will bring though.

If you are endowed and sealed to another woman, you might should talk to your Bishop before making the move you are planning.

[jasan22]

Would you re-baptize someone excommunicated?

Personally? If the person asked, then yes. I know members who have been down that road, their stories are touching to say the least.

[jasan22]

If you are endowed and sealed to another woman, you might should talk to your Bishop before making the move you are planning.

I am.

[outdamyboat]

I am.

Glad to hear it...and now my 85 yr old fathers voice booms: "Son, don't ask for advice if you're not going to take it, it's a waste of every body's time". :surprised

That's always assuming you are choosing a wise persons advice...gosh, I love my Dad..and at 85yrs of age he's got a lot of wisdom!!!

[Old Tex]

I am.

Good. The cancellation of a sealing takes a little time. Did you have any children with your first wife? If so, do you realize what their relatiionship will be with you in the future? There are some serious consequences to consider when Temple covenants are broken. I just hope that you have thought everything through.

[jasan22]

Glad to hear it...and now my 85 yr old fathers voice booms: "Son, don't ask for advice if you're not going to take it, it's a waste of every body's time". :surprised

That's always assuming you are choosing a wise persons advice...gosh, I love my Dad..and at 85yrs of age he's got a lot of wisdom!!!

The older I get I realize the smarter my dad is. Funny how that happens.

[jasan22]

Good. The cancellation of a sealing takes a little time. Did you have any children with your first wife? If so, do you realize what their relatiionship will be with you in the future? There are some serious consequences to consider when Temple covenants are broken. I just hope that you have thought everything through.

We do, I have sole custody of them. My daughter was baptized last Oct and my son will be this Sept. I think about the eternal consequences quite a bit, and hope to be worthy for them to be with me. Good thing is that my son, 7, is already talking about serving a mission when he is old enough, my daughter, 9, has thought about one as well.

[outdamyboat]

The older I get I realize the smarter my dad is. Funny how that happens.

Yea, especially when dealing with my 19 yr old daughter. I find myself saying, "Honey, why don't you go ask your Poppy?"

She may listen to me when I'm 85yrs old....until then, thank God for Poppy! Poppy is very 'cool' to her, and the touch of dementia just adds to his wisdom, IMO. He's lost some of his previous inhibition...now he just really calls it as he sees it...lol

[jasan22]

Yea, especially when dealing with my 19 yr old daughter. I find myself saying, "Honey, why don't you go ask your Poppy?"

She may listen to me when I'm 85yrs old....until then, thank God for Poppy! Poppy is very 'cool' to her, and the touch of dementia just adds to his wisdom, IMO. He's lost some of his previous inhibition...now he just really calls it as he sees it...lol

I've already decided my daughter is not allowed to date until she is married. :whistle:

[justamere10]

Latter-day Saints often write about Jesus being a member of the "Godhead". Godhead meaning the three persons who work together with one mind and purpose, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Those persons are God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.

God the Father is our one and only Heavenly Parent. It was Him who created our spirit bodies in His own image and likeness, including the spirit bodies of Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

To help Him carry out His divine purpose, God the Father organized a Godhead, with Himself as the head and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as the other two members.

Under His direction, Jesus Christ, with the assistance of other of his spirit brothers and sisters created this planet, and all the lights we see in the sky. Jesus Christ, we believe, was the God of the Old Testament, sometimes called Jehovah. In the meridian of time Jesus was born to Mary and God the Father, grew up, learned, performed his teaching mission on earth, worked through the atonement, gave up his life, and was resurrected.

The function of the Holy Ghost is that of communicator from God to man. He does not yet have a body of flesh and bone, he is still a spirit. The functions of his office in the Godhead require that it be so.

The three members of the Godhead: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost work together in perfect harmony. They are ONE in mind and purpose to carry out the work of the Father for His children, to bring them HOME, as many as will obey and follow His instructions.

That is what Latter-day Saints think of when they think of "God".

We worship only God the Father. We reverence Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost (will bow our knee to Jesus.) We know those two always represent the mind and will of God the Father perfectly.

We pray only to God the Father, but do so in the name of Jesus Christ. When God answers, it is usually through the Holy Ghost or the spirit of Christ (the latter sometimes called the "conscience".) Revelation from the Holy Ghost is often accompanied by a flow of knowledge (sometimes a remembering of things forgotten), and a feeling of joy.


The word "Godhead" appears three times in the New Testament.


"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2: 9

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/2/9#9 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000559/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/2/9#9)



"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." Acts 17:29

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/17/29#29 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000559/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/17/29#29)


"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1: 20

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/1/20#20 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000559/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/1/20#20)

[outdamyboat]

I've already decided my daughter is not allowed to date until she is married. :whistle:

Lol...that's cute. I'm actually thinking arranged marriages aren't such a bad idea...I mean; I think the couple should be ultimately allowed to decline...but, I said arranged not 'forced'...not a bad idea, huh?

[outdamyboat]

Latter-day Saints often write about Jesus being a member of the "Godhead". Godhead meaning the three persons who work together with one mind and purpose, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Those persons are God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.

God the Father is our one and only Heavenly Parent. It was Him who created our spirit bodies in His own image and likeness, including the spirit bodies of Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

To help Him carry out His divine purpose, God the Father organized a Godhead, with Himself as the head and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as the other two members.

Under His direction, Jesus Christ, with the assistance of other of his spirit brothers and sisters created this planet, and all the lights we see in the sky. Jesus Christ, we believe, was the God of the Old Testament, sometimes called Jehovah. In the meridian of time Jesus was born to Mary and God the Father, grew up, learned, performed his teaching mission on earth, worked through the atonement, gave up his life, and was resurrected.

The function of the Holy Ghost is that of communicator from God to man. He does not yet have a body of flesh and bone, he is still a spirit. The functions of his office in the Godhead require that it be so.

The three members of the Godhead: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost work together in perfect harmony. They are ONE in mind and purpose to carry out the work of the Father for His children, to bring them HOME, as many as will obey and follow His instructions.

That is what Latter-day Saints think of when they think of "God".

We worship only God the Father. We reverence Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost (will bow our knee to Jesus.) We know those two always represent the mind and will of God the Father perfectly.

We pray only to God the Father, but do so in the name of Jesus Christ. When God answers, it is usually through the Holy Ghost or the spirit of Christ (the latter sometimes called the "conscience".) Revelation from the Holy Ghost is often accompanied by a flow of knowledge (sometimes a remembering of things forgotten), and a feeling of joy.


The word "Godhead" appears three times in the New Testament.


"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2: 9

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/2/9#9 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000559/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/2/9#9)



"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." Acts 17:29

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/17/29#29 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000559/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/17/29#29)


"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1: 20

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/1/20#20 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000559/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/1/20#20)


Okay..but we're all talking about marriage here this morning, sir. :think:

Discussion of questioned topics...not out right evangelism ?...I think...right?

AHHH,...it's the ADHD...you caught it!!!

[CatholicDefender]

We worship God who is three persons, so yes, we worship Jesus Christ!

[justamere10]

I am marrying a wonderful Catholic girl. I was sealed to my ex-wife and haven't talked to her about a formal Temple divorce yet. Who knows what the future will bring though.


I wish you, your bride, and your family much happiness, congratulations to all of you.

[justamere10]

Okay..but we're all talking about marriage here this morning, sir. :think:

Discussion of questioned topics...not out right evangelism ?...I think...right?

AHHH,...it's the ADHD...you caught it!!!


I do confess that I sometimes try to get strings of messages back on the topic of this thread, though I don't mind friendly socializing, especially if it's about cornbread and butter. :-)

You have expressed concern about "evangelism" (I assume you mean missionary work) several times now, apparently thinking that it's forbidden in this forum.

You may recall that not long ago Ron Jon (I think it was him) made an attempt in the Talk to the Moderator forum to get the moderators to add a line to the terms of service for this forum, forbidding evangelism.

As several posters quickly pointed out, it would be very difficult to validly rule what was "evangelism" and what was someone explaining and discussing their religious beliefs.

Such a restriction would have placed a limitation on the forum that would have pretty much rendered it useless. Ron Jon (if it was him) failed miserably. A moderator ruled that the current terms of service are sufficient and that we could "knock ourselves out" within the existing TOS. I agree with that ruling 100%.

When I or other LDS post messages in this "Ask a Mormon" thread to teach readers what Latter-day Saints believe, you have the option of message by message deciding for yourself if something is "evangelism" and skipping such messages if they are distasteful to you. Or, you could read what the LDS have to say and possibly learn more about what we believe, which happens to be the subject of this thread.

Enjoy the day.

[justamere10]

Thanks justamere10. And thanks Ron Jon for sending me the link on that completely strange letter.


Please explain what you mean by Ron Jon sending you a link. Did he pm to you a link to a letter that puts down Joseph Smith or the LDS Church?

Thanks.

[justamere10]

We worship God who is three persons, so yes, we worship Jesus Christ!

I won't quarrel with that, it's all in how you define "worship". Normally Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. That in no way diminishes the role of the Savior.

[CatholicDefender]

I won't quarrel with that, it's all in how you define "worship". Normally Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. That in no way diminishes the role of the Savior.

From your reasoning, would praying to Jesus be like for me praying to a saint?

[Reeder]

From your reasoning, would praying to Jesus be like for me praying to a saint?

We don't pray to Jesus. And "saints" are not members of the Godhead.

[Reeder]

<snip>....And thanks Ron Jon for sending me the link on that completely strange letter.


:think:

Thats very interesting.

[Old Tex]

From your reasoning, would praying to Jesus be like for me praying to a saint?

I assume that you mean "saint" in the Catholic understanding? No. Every faithful member in the original church were referred to as saints, as is the case today in the restored Church.

LDS pray only to our Heavenly Father, as instructed by Christ. We do it in the name of the Son, because we are taught that the Son is our only Mediator with the Father, and it is solely through that Mediator that one may be saved.

[justamere10]

From your reasoning, would praying to Jesus be like for me praying to a saint?


Not in my opinion because Jesus is a member of the Godhead and represents God the Father perfectly. I probably should not have written that, I didn't expect it to be controversial, it's only based on the fact that LDS normally address formal prayers to "Heavenly Father" and end in the name of Jesus Christ.

Maybe some LDS in their own minds pray to Jesus. I don't know, it's not something we discuss or are concerned about. I wouldn't chastise anyone for praying as they want, including to the Catholic saints if that gets them closer to God than not praying at all. (I would and did teach my own children though to pray to "Heavenly Father".)

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." LDS Article of Faith

[outdamyboat]

I do confess that I sometimes try to get strings of messages back on the topic of this thread, though I don't mind friendly socializing, especially if it's about cornbread and butter. :-)

You have expressed concern about "evangelism" (I assume you mean missionary work) several times now, apparently thinking that it's forbidden in this forum.

You may recall that not long ago Ron Jon (I think it was him) made an attempt in the Talk to the Moderator forum to get the moderators to add a line to the terms of service for this forum, forbidding evangelism.

As several posters quickly pointed out, it would be very difficult to validly rule what was "evangelism" and what was someone explaining and discussing their religious beliefs.

Such a restriction would have placed a limitation on the forum that would have pretty much rendered it useless. Ron Jon (if it was him) failed miserably. A moderator ruled that the current terms of service are sufficient and that we could "knock ourselves out" within the existing TOS. I agree with that ruling 100%.

When I or other LDS post messages in this "Ask a Mormon" thread to teach readers what Latter-day Saints believe, you have the option of message by message deciding for yourself if something is "evangelism" and skipping such messages if they are distasteful to you. Or, you could read what the LDS have to say and possibly learn more about what we believe, which happens to be the subject of this thread.

Enjoy the day.

In my opinion, your getting 'back on topic' is evangelizing. And, I think by now you know, I wouldn't miss this thread, I'm finding it fascinating. And thanks, I had a wonderful Mother's Day.

[justamere10]

In my opinion, your getting 'back on topic' is evangelizing. And, I think by now you know, I wouldn't miss this thread, I'm finding it fascinating. And thanks, I had a wonderful Mother's Day.


Your opinion is noted. :-)

Yes, I wish all the mothers reading this thread a very happy Mother's day, single women included.

I expect that every ward in the LDS Church has different traditions and customs for Mother's Day. But at least in America that day is always recognized, usually with talks addressed to mothers and often mothers (all the women about 16 and over usually, mother or not) are given a flower or plant to take home.

My own ward is an unusually large one with about 700 members, many, probably most, of the members being retired professionals or career people who did well temporally and remained active faithful leaders in the Church along the way.

My ward has about 100 High Priests, an unusually large number, all of us I think at least 50 years old. Anyway, the Mother's Day custom in our ward is for the High Priests to bake or buy a pie and serve it to the women in the ward, mothers or not.

LDS women are organized into a society called "Relief Society" which today is about five million plus in number worldwide. If it had been the Relief Society serving the pies, they would have organized that event well in advance and it would have gone off flawlessly, as, from the point of view of the men, everything they do turns out.

Well, the bishop announced in our first meeting that at 1:40 p.m. twenty minutes before the three hour block of Sunday meetings usually ends, pies would be served by the High Priests to all the females to honor motherhood and womanhood.

We High Priests carried on with our regular class discussion until, well, er, until 1:40 when someone told the instructor there were a lot of women in the hallway waiting to come in and have pie!

Anyway, no tablecloths, flowers or anything mind you, but an astonishingly few minutes later considering our collective age, we High Priests had rolled out a dozen round tables, deposited chairs around each of them, and way more than a hundred women came in to the room we were meeting in.

It was a surprise to me since I had been at a different ward the Sunday before, but from somewhere materialized pies, paper plates, and forks. By 1:50 (I doubt that it was a minute later) the High Priests stood proudly by as wives, mothers, and single women sat around the bare tables and enjoyed their Mother's Day pie.

A bit later when it was evident there was enough, we dug in too, and a wonderful time was had by all, until next Mother's Day.

We probably should have remembered tablecloths, (there's always next year, if we can remember this year) but not too shabby for a bunch of old guys I thought....

[noelle12]

Your opinion is noted. :-)

Yes, I wish all the mothers reading this thread a very happy Mother's day, single women included.

I expect that every ward in the LDS Church has different traditions and customs for Mother's Day. But at least in America that day is always recognized, usually with talks addressed to mothers and often mothers (all the women about 16 and over usually, mother or not) are given a flower or plant to take home.

My own ward is an unusually large one with about 700 members, many, probably most, of the members being retired professionals or career people who did well temporally and remained active faithful leaders in the Church along the way.

My ward has about 100 High Priests, an unusually large number, all of us I think at least 50 years old. Anyway, the Mother's Day custom in our ward is for the High Priests to bake or buy a pie and serve it to the women in the ward, mothers or not.

LDS women are organized into a society called "Relief Society" which today is about five million plus in number worldwide. If it had been the Relief Society serving the pies, they would have organized that event well in advance and it would have gone off flawlessly, as, from the point of view of the men, everything they do turns out.

Well, the bishop announced in our first meeting that at 1:40 p.m. twenty minutes before the three hour block of Sunday meetings usually ends, pies would be served by the High Priests to all the females to honor motherhood and womanhood.

We High Priests carried on with our regular class discussion until, well, er, until 1:40 when someone told the instructor there were a lot of women in the hallway waiting to come in and have pie!

Anyway, no tablecloths, flowers or anything mind you, but an astonishingly few minutes later considering our collective age, we High Priests had rolled out a dozen round tables, deposited chairs around each of them, and way more than a hundred women came in to the room we were meeting in.

It was a surprise to me since I had been at a different ward the Sunday before, but from somewhere materialized pies, paper plates, and forks. By 1:50 (I doubt that it was a minute later) the High Priests stood proudly by as wives, mothers, and single women sat around the bare tables and enjoyed their Mother's Day pie.

A bit later when it was evident there was enough, we dug in too, and a wonderful time was had by all, until next Mother's Day.

We probably should have remembered tablecloths, (there's always next year, if we can remember this year) but not too shabby for a bunch of old guys I thought....

In my ward we get Hershey candy bars. I like the direction we're going. Flowers are nice and all that, but come on, candy? That is a practice I can really support. Happy Mother's Day to everybody!

[Old Tex]

We do, I have sole custody of them. My daughter was baptized last Oct and my son will be this Sept. I think about the eternal consequences quite a bit, and hope to be worthy for them to be with me. Good thing is that my son, 7, is already talking about serving a mission when he is old enough, my daughter, 9, has thought about one as well.

Good for you. I wasn't prying, just trying to understand. It sounds like you have plans to become an eternal family unit again. I hope all the things will happen that will make that possible for you. Your kids deserve it.

[outdamyboat]

Good for you. I wasn't prying, just trying to understand. It sounds like you have plans to become an eternal family unit again. I hope all the things will happen that will make that possible for you. Your kids deserve it.

Spoken like a true Grandpa...:)

[Old Tex]

I've already decided my daughter is not allowed to date until she is married. :whistle:

When my daughter turned 16 and started to date, I printed up a "dating application" for the boys to sign when I interviewed them. Actually, I didn't, but it did give us something to talk about so that she understood that I really cared about her welfare.

Sometimes she would joke about telling a boy who asked for a date that she would bring him a copy of the application the next day. She said that some boys decided that I was weird, but they didn't ask her for a date again.

[jasan22]

I wish you, your bride, and your family much happiness, congratulations to all of you.

Thanks. I think I got lucky with my fiance', even my kids, and my family love her.

[jasan22]

Good for you. I wasn't prying, just trying to understand. It sounds like you have plans to become an eternal family unit again. I hope all the things will happen that will make that possible for you. Your kids deserve it.

No problem at all. Thanks.

[jasan22]

When my daughter turned 16 and started to date, I printed up a "dating application" for the boys to sign when I interviewed them. Actually, I didn't, but it did give us something to talk about so that she understood that I really cared about her welfare.

Sometimes she would joke about telling a boy who asked for a date that she would bring him a copy of the application the next day. She said that some boys decided that I was weird, but they didn't ask her for a date again.

That is a great idea. I was thinking about having my "little" brother answer the door, or my brother-in-law, they are a bit moer scary than I am. Luckily for me, I have 6 yrs until she starts dating, and already knows only in groups.

[Old Tex]

We probably should have remembered tablecloths, (there's always next year, if we can remember this year) but not too shabby for a bunch of old guys I thought....

Yeah, and don't forget the centerpieces for the tables...... We usually end Sacrament a few minutes early and all mothers, grandmothers, and mothers-to-be remain seated and the young people distribute to each one, either a long stemed rose, or a live potted plant.

[Old Tex]

Spoken like a true Grandpa...:)

Indeed! And the older I get, the more special they are to me. Our sixth great grand child was born five days ago. A little girl to go with the five boys.

[justamere10]

Yeah, and don't forget the centerpieces for the tables...... We usually end Sacrament a few minutes early and all mothers, grandmothers, and mothers-to-be remain seated and the young people distribute to each one, either a long stemed rose, or a live potted plant.

Centerpieces! Oops, forgot about that one. Maybe next year, if we can remember the tablecloths...

[Frazzled]

Here's a tip for you. You make a "donation" to the Young Women's camp fund, to have them set the room up for you in advance.....everybody wins! ;)

[Old Tex]

The Houston Temple District is going on the new program for submitting names for Temple work on-line. If your Temple District has gone to the new program and you haven't registered and gone on the site yet, well, all I can say is, WOW. This new program is something else.

I am going with the youth on a youth Temple trip this coming Saturday. I'm going to check my lines through the new program to see if I missed someone, and if so, this new program will let me get them ready so the young people can take care of the proxy baptisms Saturday. The Church has really "outdid" itself on this new program.

[outdamyboat]

Indeed! And the older I get, the more special they are to me. Our sixth great grand child was born five days ago. A little girl to go with the five boys.

Ohhh...she will be so nicely 'spoiled'!!! God Bless you all!!

I think another aspect of our faith values that we seem to have in common is that we try to teach our youth to have friendships and encourage them in group dating.

I've been very fortunate that my daughters were very careful in their friendships. My oldest still has dated (solo) very little. I think, in general, if teens get the love and attention that they need from home they don't seek it from other sources too early, when they aren't yet emotionally ready.

I thank God that my children have been surrounded from birth by a group of faithful Christians who serve as godly role models. And, it sounds like this is a norm for LDS, also.

[Old Tex]

Here's a tip for you. You make a "donation" to the Young Women's camp fund, to have them set the room up for you in advance.....everybody wins! ;)

Hmmm! Sounds like you have a calling in the Stake Young Women's organization. :lol: Indeed, there are always some girls who have families who could do with some help with the summer camp costs, although the Stake picks up most of the costs here now. The Church has been slowly moving toward fully funding all activities in the last few years.

[Frazzled]

...Not really, but I do have issues with funding disparities between Young Women and Young Men.....but that's probably best left for another time. :shifty:

[Old Tex]

I thank God that my children have been surrounded from birth by a group of faithful Christians who serve as godly role models. And, it sounds like this is a norm for LDS, also.

Yes, the LDS Church is very "youth oreinted", with constant programs and opportunities for them. There are monthly dances where they can mix and learn the expected way to dress and behave.

Dating is discouraged until the age 16 for both the boys and the girls and then only group dating is encouraged with no "pairing off".

The LDS Church has printed a small booklet for the young people, explaining the standards they are encouraged to keep. You might want to read through it. If you can find anything in it that you think may be helpful in your church you are welcome to print it.

http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,6924-1,00.html

[coMITTed]

I just wanted to say that feeling my baby move and wiggle is the absolute coolest feeling ever :).

Happy mother's day to all moms on the board--current and future!

[Old Tex]

...Not really, but I do have issues with funding disparities between Young Women and Young Men.....but that's probably best left for another time. :shifty:

I suppose that may be a problem in some wards, but it may also be because the ward YW is not asking for enough budget at allowcation time. I was ward clerk for over twelve years and have seen all ward organizations getting more money almost every year.

About five years ago the church even allowcated extra money to the YM, YW, and Primary based soley on attendance. This helped those wards a little more that had more participation. (Thus more expenses)

Of course some members would always go buy something for one of the organizatons and not turn in their receipt for reimbursement. I would always be after someone to claim a reimbursement so I could write them a check. This is the only way the Church has to know what the true operating cost is, and since the next years budget is based on last year's expenses, it does make a difference in planning next year's budget.

[Old Tex]

I just wanted to say that feeling my baby move and wiggle is the absolute coolest feeling ever :).

Yeah, I remember everytime I would lay my hand on my wife's belly, the little squirt would start kicking. He wound up being born on Labor Day.


Good night all.

[outdamyboat]

Yes, the LDS Church is very "youth oreinted", with constant programs and opportunities for them. There are monthly dances where they can mix and learn the expected way to dress and behave.

Dating is discouraged until the age 16 for both the boys and the girls and then only group dating is encouraged with no "pairing off".

The LDS Church has printed a small booklet for the young people, explaining the standards they are encouraged to keep. You might want to read through it. If you can find anything in it that you think may be helpful in your church you are welcome to print it.

http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,6924-1,00.html

Thanks, Old Tex. It makes a lot of sense and the point that I wish 'secular' parents understood...is that our youth are really 'okay' with the dating suggestions...they feel safe and are learning to respect themselves and other people. They understand that 'No' means 'No' in the dating world. There is also an accountibility that develops between the youth. They hold each other accountible...so I may hear second hand that there is a problem...but, it's the kids that are 'setting each other straight', it's refreshing.

My daughter goes to college at a secular engineering school. She was just telling her younger cousins yesterday (Mothers Day) that she is RESPECTED by the males b/c of her values...and she is different b/c of her standards and values than her peers that are so 'free' with themselves.

My other daughter received a few text messages from her church friends b/c a young man she went to the prom with on Friday night ...has been 'playing the field' and they want her to be careful...she was upset that she didn't know...but, in Christian love, she will tell the young man (also a church kid)..."I don't even group date w/ 'players' "....so, the system works...I am thankful...

Hope this wasn't to prolific! (or off-topic Justamere10!)

[HokieCougarVandal]

When my daughter turned 16 and started to date, I printed up a "dating application" for the boys to sign when I interviewed them. Actually, I didn't, but it did give us something to talk about so that she understood that I really cared about her welfare.

Sometimes she would joke about telling a boy who asked for a date that she would bring him a copy of the application the next day. She said that some boys decided that I was weird, but they didn't ask her for a date again.
That is a great idea. I was thinking about having my "little" brother answer the door, or my brother-in-law, they are a bit moer scary than I am. Luckily for me, I have 6 yrs until she starts dating, and already knows only in groups.
Two of my four kids are girls (9yr & 3yr), and yes, they are "daddy's girls". One Sunday here recently, in Elders quorom we were discussing that very topic (raising kids with values, youth dating, etc) and one of the brethren commented something to the effect:

"When my daughter goes on a first date, I'm going to be wearing the dirtiest, nastiest clothes I have ... complete with fraying ends and holes. Doesn't matter if I know the boy or not. I'm going to meet him at the door with my Remington, set him on down, and explain to him how important my daughter and her self-image are to me. I'll tell him that in no uncertain terms is he to violate her morals. I'll tell him that curfew time is non-negotiable. And then I'll pat the old gun and add, "I ain't afraid to go back to prison either."

He probably took it from someone else, but it sure lightened the meeting.:lol:

[HokieCougarVandal]

I just wanted to say that feeling my baby move and wiggle is the absolute coolest feeling ever :).

Happy mother's day to all moms on the board--current and future!
Though I got to feel our children on the outside (and it was the coolest thing for me as well), I did envy my wife a little because she got to feel it on the inside.

However, when the delivery came, my envying abruptly stopped.:eek:

[outdamyboat]

Two of my four kids are girls (9yr & 3yr), and yes, they are "daddy's girls". One Sunday here recently, in Elders quorom we were discussing that very topic (raising kids with values, youth dating, etc) and one of the brethren commented something to the effect:

"When my daughter goes on a first date, I'm going to be wearing the dirtiest, nastiest clothes I have ... complete with fraying ends and holes. Doesn't matter if I know the boy or not. I'm going to meet him at the door with my Remington, set him on down, and explain to him how important my daughter and her self-image are to me. I'll tell him that in no uncertain terms is he to violate her morals. I'll tell him that curfew time is non-negotiable. And then I'll pat the old gun and add, "I ain't afraid to go back to prison either."

He probably took it from someone else, but it sure lightened the meeting.:lol:

Well, as a seasoned parent, and a profession who works w/ youth...I think the kinder gentler approach gets you much further...draw them in and get to know their hearts and minds....of course, I'm a woman, and we tend to not carry the Remingtons when answering the door.

My Dad, closed the door on my husband when he came for our first date (I was 18yrs old) ...Dad just let him stand outside in the cold Winter air to wait for me...I'm sure if my Mom had answered the door my husband would have been allowed to wait in the foyer at least!!!

[justamere10]

Hope this wasn't to prolific! (or off-topic Justamere10!)

Families are what it's all about. This discussion is on topic as far as I'm concerned.

I raised a lot of children too, I understand the challenges today's youth have, especially regarding temptations/invitations to immorality. Teens really need strong support from parents who TAKE them to a church where they are taught the Christian walk and can find peers who know that sexual abstinence until marriage is God's way.

In our role as fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, we most closely enact our premortal reality living with a loving Heavenly Parent, and in the LDS belief, we most closely practice our eternal potential.

Because reproduction is the substance of family living, sexual immorality is, as LDS prophets have warned us, a very grievous sin in the eyes of God, second only to murder.

Active young men growing up in the LDS Church really look forward to serving a mission, even though it is a total commitment for two years, at their own expense. Invariably those who serve talk about their mission for the rest of their lives. It prepares them so well that major corporations and government agencies often seek out returned LDS missionaries and offer them well-paying responsible careers when they have completed their education.

Within the last four or five years, no young man or young woman who has commited sexual immorality even once is allowed to serve an LDS mission anymore. That applies even after they have repented and forsaken that sin. It's another way the Apostles are moving the Saints to counter the way Hollywood and secular progressives have changed America as they pursue their godless aggressive agenda to destroy Christian values.

[outdamyboat]

Within the last four or five years, no young man or young woman who has commited sexual immorality even once is allowed to serve an LDS mission anymore. That applies even after they have repented and forsaken that sin. It's another way the Apostles are moving the Saints to counter the way Hollywood and secular progressives have changed America as they pursue their godless aggressive agenda to destroy Christian values.

Oh..that's a tough call...so many kids have poor judgement...and in all honestly.....it's the kids who don't have the best parenting role models that 'fall'...

Do you have an alternative? We don't allow the youth into leadership positions for a period of time and we mentor them closely...

[terri910]

I assume that you mean "saint" in the Catholic understanding? No. Every faithful member in the original church were referred to as saints, as is the case today in the restored Church.
Are you quite certain you know the "Catholic understanding" of "saint," Old Tex?

I'm thinking, "No."

[noelle12]

Oh..that's a tough call...so many kids have poor judgement...and in all honestly.....it's the kids who don't have the best parenting role models that 'fall'...

Do you have an alternative? We don't allow the youth into leadership positions for a period of time and we mentor them closely...

Just because someone does not serve a full-time mission does not mean that they are not welcome to serve an other ways. A full-time mission is tough. It is not for everyone. Some people who want to serve a mission cannot due to health reasons, or physical limitations, as well as because of sexual transgressions that were previously mentioned. If someone want to serve a mission but cannot serve a full-time mission, there are stake missionaries who don't have to leave their community and still share the gospel. There are also many other ways to serve and participate in the church. No one should ever feel for any reason that they are not welcome enjoy activity in the LDS church.

[outdamyboat]

Just because someone does not serve a full-time mission does not mean that they are not welcome to serve an other ways. A full-time mission is tough. It is not for everyone. Some people who want to serve a mission cannot due to health reasons, or physical limitations, as well as because of sexual transgressions that were previously mentioned. If someone want to serve a mission but cannot serve a full-time mission, there are stake missionaries who don't have to leave their community and still share the gospel. There are also many other ways to serve and participate in the church. No one should ever feel for any reason that they are not welcome enjoy activity in the LDS church.

Agree, that's good to know. My daughters have a friend who is 'living an alternative lifestyle'....the church really worked hard w/ their friend, in love, but he is doing it his way, for now. My girls still have frequent contact w/ him...he was at my house a few weeks ago for dinner. They just have a 'heart' for him. He knows how they 'feel' about his decision, but they are willing to hang in there w/ him. I'm proud of them...this kid is hurt; he grew up in an abusive home and came to our church on his own at least 7 yrs ago as a young teen.

I have no fear that they will be drawn into his way of thinking...but I have faith that he will return to God, and that he knows that there are a few friends eager to welcome him back.

[justamere10]

Oh..that's a tough call...so many kids have poor judgement...and in all honestly.....it's the kids who don't have the best parenting role models that 'fall'...

Do you have an alternative? We don't allow the youth into leadership positions for a period of time and we mentor them closely...


All other options are open to repentant youth who have strayed. They just aren't allowed to serve full-time missions. Much later in life when their own children are raised they can if they so choose serve full-time missions as senior couples, assuming they are active and temple worthy at the time.

Adults who commit adultery/fornication are usually offered a time to repent, but they can't go to the temples and are sometimes 'disfellowshipped' so they can't actively participate in meetings.

Adultery and fornication can be offenses that merit excommunication, but bishops don't go around looking for people to take to church 'courts'. Call it discrimination against men if you will but generally men holding the Melchizedek Priesthood are more likely to have their membership terminated because of adultery or fornication.

Often others just go inactive (don't attend meetings), sometimes for years. Many eventually repent and make their way back after having been lovingly visited by local members at least once a month if they permit such visits and their location is known.

Some people who commit serious sins such as adultery lose the Spirit they once had so dramatically that they angrily lash out at the people and beliefs they once treasured. Some of the vilest attacks on the LDS Church originate from apostates who once were temple worthy.

But it's today's youth who are most susceptible to the relentless bombardment of invitations to commit sexual immorality.

You can watch almost any movie today and see within it the easy 'normal' way unmarried people hop in and out of bed. You can even get so caught up in the romance that you HOPE they do so, as evidence of their 'love' (lust) for each other.

There is no consideration in Hollywood and among secular progressives that adultery and fornication are grievous sins that draw even more precious blood from the body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and inflict upon him even more pain as he atoned for the sins of all mankind.

[justamere10]

Speaking of Hollywood, Kieth Merrill, an Oscar winning Hollywood movie director has started a company to revolutionize Hollywood and produce movies that are in keeping with Christian values. You can join in, even vote for screenplays you'd like to see made into movies.

See Kieth on Fox News:

http://www.audiencealliance.com/home.php


There is an annual membership fee or you can just join the free fan club. Here are some of the benefits of becoming a full member of AAMPS:


Members of the Audience Alliance Academy will:

Help select the stories and ideas you would like to see made into movies. REALLY!
Help select the cast and stars to play the major roles.
Stand up for virtues and values in motion pictures.
Have significant influence and approval of the movies that get made.
Recommend stories, suggest ideas and/or submit their own script ideas.
Be involved in the process of production from ideas to finished films.
Receive all of the AAMPS-made movies FREE (cost of postage/handling only).
Enjoy VIP access to select movie locations during filming.
Go behind the scenes with AAMPS proprietary “thru-the-lens” web streaming.
Meet actors, directors, filmmakers and movie stars at the AAMPS portal.
Win a walk-on part in a movie you helped make.
Have the satisfaction of enabling “Feel-Good-Again”™ motion pictures.
Have “insider” information and “at cost” access to movies that never “came to a theater near you” and you may never know about but that you and your family will enjoy.
Help create the Grand AAMPS Movie List: 200 Movies to See Before You Die.
Have your voice heard loud and clear by the Hollywood elite.
Represent and speak for millions of moviegoers who share your tastes and values.
Aspiring actors: receive preferential consideration for on-line auditions.
SAG actor/members receive preferential consideration from casting director(s).
Receive a weekly email newsletter with updates from the world of AAMPS and general developments in the battle to bring values and virtues back to media.
Additional benefits and privileges are being developed by the very active member services team and will be announced regularly.http://www.audiencealliance.com/home.php

[outdamyboat]

This is totally my opinion, but I do think that people who have been drawn into sexual immorality as adult Christians, should refrain from taking leadership positions...such as Deacons and Elders.

I am not trying to be legalistic...but there are so many better ministry fits for folks who have fallen...after making an adult committment. Just my opinion.

[justamere10]

This is totally my opinion, but I do think that people who have been drawn into sexual immorality as adult Christians, should refrain from taking leadership positions...such as Deacons and Elders.

I am not trying to be legalistic...but there are so many better ministry fits for folks who have fallen...after making an adult committment. Just my opinion.


I agree with you, and that's the way it is in the LDS Church. Those who have seriously sinned and are unrepentant are no longer allowed to hold leadership positions or to exercise priesthood functions. Generally it takes a full year of sincere repentance to recover from sins such as adultery and fornication as far as the Church is concerned. Ultimately of course we are judged by God.

[justamere10]

Closing off our Mother's Day theme, here's what the 'Chief Apostle' in our time recently said about righteous women:

"You, my sisters...are sensitive and selfless. You are nurturers; you are compassionate. You genuinely care about others, and you form strong relationships. You love and forgive. With good hearts and willing hands, you make a real difference in the lives of others."

President Thomas S. Monson, May 2, 2008

[jasan22]

Two of my four kids are girls (9yr & 3yr), and yes, they are "daddy's girls". One Sunday here recently, in Elders quorom we were discussing that very topic (raising kids with values, youth dating, etc) and one of the brethren commented something to the effect:

"When my daughter goes on a first date, I'm going to be wearing the dirtiest, nastiest clothes I have ... complete with fraying ends and holes. Doesn't matter if I know the boy or not. I'm going to meet him at the door with my Remington, set him on down, and explain to him how important my daughter and her self-image are to me. I'll tell him that in no uncertain terms is he to violate her morals. I'll tell him that curfew time is non-negotiable. And then I'll pat the old gun and add, "I ain't afraid to go back to prison either."

He probably took it from someone else, but it sure lightened the meeting.:lol:

:lol: Sounds like something from Bad Boys 2. Good idea.

[justamere10]

I just wanted to say that feeling my baby move and wiggle is the absolute coolest feeling ever :).

Happy mother's day to all moms on the board--current and future!


I was never so happy as during the moments my wife would announce to me that she was expecting.

Helping Heavenly Father create physical bodies in which to place His spirit children for their earthly experience brings us close to Him. It closely resembles the reason why He is our one and only God. He is literally the Father Creator of the spirit bodies that animate and integrate the physical bodies we so closely identify with during our lifetime.

Those two parts of our being, physical and spirit, will eventually meld forever in the resurrection, thanks to the AT ONE MENT of our Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ.

[Reeder]

Are you quite certain you know the "Catholic understanding" of "saint," Old Tex?

I'm thinking, "No."

Then what is it? Because I think I'm on the same page as Old Tex. I thought that the formal process of sainthood involves a complicated process taking time, money, testimonies, and miracles, and that the Catholic church follows a strict set of rules in the process. In other words, I thought that only certain individuals reached "sainthood."

I could very well be wrong, but thats how I always understood it.

[justamere10]

Then what is it? Because I think I'm on the same page as Old Tex. I thought that the formal process of sainthood involves a complicated process taking time, money, testimonies, and miracles, and that the Catholic church follows a strict set of rules in the process. In other words, I thought that only certain individuals reached "sainthood."

I could very well be wrong, but thats how I always understood it.

With much respect for Catholics and their beliefs, and I hope a Catholic corrects me if I'm wrong, it is my understanding that Catholics do or used to pray directly to "saints". For example I think it was Christopher who was the patron saint of safety from accidents. So, many Catholics used to and may still have medals or statues of St. Christopher in their vehicles, and some may pray to him for safety prior to embarking on a drive.

It is also my understanding that some of the same saints that Catholics used to pray to were exposed by the Vatican quite a few years ago as not saints because there is no record of their ever being canonized?? (I think that was about the same time as the Latin mass was replaced with mass in the local language.)

Latter-day Saints respect the right of everyone to worship and pray to whomever they will. We formally pray directly to Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ.

[Old Tex]

Are you quite certain you know the "Catholic understanding" of "saint," Old Tex?

I'm thinking, "No."

You are probably thinking right, but I know enough to understand that it is one who is nominated, investigated, and voted on to be ganted an elevated status known as beautification among the "regular" members of the Roman Catholic Church.

My point was that LDS use the term "saint" as it was used in the early Church when the Apostles communicated with "the saints" as indicated in some of their writings in the bible. The apostles wrote to the ordinary membership and addressed them as "saints", which, if I remember meant simply a "dedicated follower" of Christ.

Today we "latter day saints" are called that as dedicated followers of Christ now, in these latter days, as opposed to the days of the saints who lived during the time of the original Church.

[coMITTed]

You are probably thinking right, but I know enough to understand that it is one who is nominated, investigated, and voted on to be ganted an elevated status known as beautification among the "regular" members of the Roman Catholic Church.

My point was that LDS use the term "saint" as it was used in the early Church when the Apostles communicated with "the saints" as indicated in some of their writings in the bible. The apostles wrote to the ordinary membership and addressed them as "saints", which, if I remember meant simply a "dedicated follower" of Christ.

Today we "latter day saints" are called that as dedicated followers of Christ now, in these latter days, as opposed to the days of the saints who lived during the time of the original Church.

I believe the term is "beatification", not "beautification." :lol:

[Dancer]

Then what is it? Because I think I'm on the same page as Old Tex. I thought that the formal process of sainthood involves a complicated process taking time, money, testimonies, and miracles, and that the Catholic church follows a strict set of rules in the process. In other words, I thought that only certain individuals reached "sainthood."

I could very well be wrong, but thats how I always understood it.You are referring to a saint formally recognized by the Church through canonization. The Church does not decide who God considers a saint, the Church simply identifies (through a process of beatification and canonization, some of which you have relayed here) who, through the way they exemplified God in their life, brought others closer to God...I believe time has been historically necessary so that a less biased perspective in future generations can look back at the results of the life of the person and how that person's life continued to impact people of prayer even after they have gone on to be in the Lord's presence.

However, saints are not always formally recognized by the Church, there are saints who act in local communities every day and are never formally recognized as such by the Church.

All Saints Day is a good example of a day for saints, recognized and not recognized through canonization.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm
Catholic doctrine
The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (1 Corinthians 1:2 — Greek Text). The damned are thus excluded from the communion of saints. The living, even if they do not belong to the body of the true Church, share in it according to the measure of their union with Christ and with the soul of the Church. St. Thomas teaches (III:8:4) that the angels, though not redeemed, enter the communion of saints because they come under Christ's power and receive of His gratia capitis. The solidarity itself implies a variety of inter-relations: within the Church Militant, not only the participation in the same faith, sacraments, and government, but also a mutual exchange of examples, prayers, merits, and satisfactions; between the Church on earth on the one hand, and purgatory and heaven on the other, suffrages, invocation, intercession, veneration. These connotations belong here only in so far as they integrate the transcendent idea of spiritual solidarity between all the children of God. Thus understood, the communion of saints, though formally defined only in its particular bearings (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, decrees on purgatory; on the invocation, veneration, and relics of saints and of sacred images; on indulgences), is, nevertheless, dogma commonly taught and accepted in the Church. It is true that the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Pt. I, ch. x) seems at first sight to limit to the living the bearing of the phrase contained in the Creed, but by making the communion of saints an exponent and function, as it were, of the preceding clause, "the Holy Catholic Church", it really extends to what it calls the Church's "constituent parts, one gone before, the other following every day"; the broad principle it enunciates thus: "every pious and holy action done by one belongs and is profitable to all, through charity which seeketh not her own".

[scipio337]

You are probably thinking right, but I know enough to understand that it is one who is nominated, investigated, and voted on to be ganted an elevated status known as beautification among the "regular" members of the Roman Catholic Church.

My point was that LDS use the term "saint" as it was used in the early Church when the Apostles communicated with "the saints" as indicated in some of their writings in the bible. The apostles wrote to the ordinary membership and addressed them as "saints", which, if I remember meant simply a "dedicated follower" of Christ.

Today we "latter day saints" are called that as dedicated followers of Christ now, in these latter days, as opposed to the days of the saints who lived during the time of the original Church.Just what historical data do you have as to the usage of the term "saint" in the "early Church"?

The original term was "martus", "martyr" to us, the original usuage meaning "witness". As the term became accepted to designate primarily those who died for their faith, the word "saint" or "holy" to designate both "martyrs" and cofessors. It still means "holy".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm

[justamere10]

You are referring to a saint formally recognized by the Church through canonization....


You quoted: "The living, even if they do not belong to the body of the true Church, share in it according to the measure of their union with Christ and with the soul of the Church."

Does that mean that even Latter-day Saints are or could be among the Catholic "communion of saints?"

Not sure about that "soul of the Church" part though. :-)

[Old Tex]

Just because someone does not serve a full-time mission does not mean that they are not welcome to serve an other ways. A full-time mission is tough. It is not for everyone. Some people who want to serve a mission cannot due to health reasons, or physical limitations, as well as because of sexual transgressions that were previously mentioned. If someone want to serve a mission but cannot serve a full-time mission, there are stake missionaries who don't have to leave their community and still share the gospel. There are also many other ways to serve and participate in the church. No one should ever feel for any reason that they are not welcome enjoy activity in the LDS church.

You are right, Noelle. The LDS Church has an opportunity for all to serve, but not all are called to knock on doors. Some other opportunities are, Temple workers, working in Bishop's Store Houses and Cannerys, helping with family research, etc., and this is only a part of where members may serve.

This is our ward's month to fill our assignment at the Bishop' Store House in Houston. Six adults from our ward will go each Tuesday to work there stocking shelves, cleaning, and filling food orders for those whom the Bishops wrote orders for people needing help in the area of groceries.

For those families who can not come pick their order up at the Store House, there is a truck that goes to wards and branches on Saturdays to deliver the food to them. Again, the drivers are membes filling what may be called missionary assignments.

"When you are in the service of your fellow man, you are only in the service of your God".

[CID_0687]

Please explain what you mean by Ron Jon sending you a link. Did he pm to you a link to a letter that puts down Joseph Smith or the LDS Church?

Thanks.
He sent me a PM with a link for the "Salamander Letter." Which was the letter I had heard about. The link was not saying anything negative about the LDS or Joseph Smith though. It was simply talking about the forged document.

[Reeder]

He sent me a PM with a link for the "Salamander Letter." Which was the letter I had heard about. The link was not saying anything negative about the LDS or Joseph Smith though. It was simply talking about the forged document.

Ah, the Salamander Letter. Good 'ol Mark Hoffman......A life of forgery, lies, and murder.

[justamere10]

He sent me a PM with a link for the "Salamander Letter." Which was the letter I had heard about. The link was not saying anything negative about the LDS or Joseph Smith though. It was simply talking about the forged document.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[justamere10]

I searched the word "saint" in the King James version of the bible and came up with 70 multiple references. It seems clear to me that common usage for the word "saint" was to refer to the members of Christ's Church. Below are just the first seven of those seventy multiple references.

<LI class=searchitem>Dan. 7: 18, 21-22, 25, 27 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/7/18,21-22,25,27#18)
18 But the saints (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/7/18a) of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

• • •
21 I beheld, and the same horn made war (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/7/21a) with the saints, and prevailed against them;

22 Until the Ancient (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/7/22a) of days came, and judgment (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/7/22b) was given to the saints (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/7/22c) of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

• • •
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/7/25a) out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

• • •
27 And the kingdom (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/7/27a) and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/7/27b) to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/7/27c) kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

<LI class=searchitem>Col. 1: 2, 4, 12, 26 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/1/2,4,12,26#2)
2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

• • •
4 Since we heard of your faith (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/1/4a) in Christ Jesus, and of the love (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/1/4b) which ye have to all the saints,

• • •
12 Giving thanks (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/1/12a) unto the Father, which hath made (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/1/12b) us meet to be partakers of the inheritance (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/1/12c) of the saints in light:

• • •
26 Even the mystery (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/1/26a) which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/col/1/26b) to his saints:

<LI class=searchitem>Eph. 1: 1, 15, 18 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/1/1,15,18#1)
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/1/1a) which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

• • •
15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/1/15a) in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

• • •
18 The eyes of your understanding (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/1/18a) being enlightened (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/1/18b); that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/1/18c) of the glory of his inheritance (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/1/18d) in the saints,

<LI class=searchitem>Ps. 149: 1, 5, 9 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/149/1,5,9#1)
1 Praise ye the Lord. Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/149/1a).

• • •
5 Let the saints be joyful in glory (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/149/5a): let them sing (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/149/5b) aloud upon their beds (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/149/5c).

• • •
9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the Lord.

<LI class=searchitem>Dan. 8: 13 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/8/13#13)
13 Then I heard one saint (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/8/13a) speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

<LI class=searchitem>Acts 9: 13, 32, 41 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/9/13,32,41#13)
13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/9/13a) he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

• • •
32 And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/9/32a) which dwelt at Lydda.

• • •
41 And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/9/41a) and widows, presented her alive (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/9/41b).

Rom. 15: 25-26, 31 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/15/25-26,31#25)
25 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.

26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000616/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/15/26a) for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.

[Old Tex]

I believe the term is "beatification", not "beautification." :lol:

Yes, indeed it is miss smarty, but that's how us old blind people with numb fingers spell it. Ailments will come to all of us if we last long enough. And something I've been meaning to tell you.....I sure do like your avatar. It's fits your personality very well.....and it reminds me of one of my grown grand daughters. She's a "miss smarty", too.

[terri910]

Then what is it? Because I think I'm on the same page as Old Tex. I thought that the formal process of sainthood involves a complicated process taking time, money, testimonies, and miracles, and that the Catholic church follows a strict set of rules in the process. In other words, I thought that only certain individuals reached "sainthood."

I could very well be wrong, but thats how I always understood it.
You speak of "the formal process"....that would be "formally" recognizing a particular person as a saint. It does not mean that the Church is saying no others are saints. ALL the faithful are saints.

Just because we don't call the person sitting next to us in a pew a saint, doesn't mean they aren't. On the other hand, simply calling the person sitting next to you a saint, doesn't make it so, either. It is the faithfulness of that person that makes it so, isn't it?