Changing People From the Inside Out

hjoi
http://percocetpharmacy.clicdev.com Buy Percocet Online

hjoi
http://percocetpharmacy.clicdev.com Buy Percocet Online

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://users.newblog.com/protonix_online protonix online

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://users.newblog.com/protonix_online protonix online

Useful site. Thanks!
http://users.newblog.com/plavix-purchase plavix

Useful site. Thanks.
http://users.newblog.com/nexiumpurchase nexium

zfgekyh qzagn oksg hdot gipsq ifbxozpw zholn http://www.itxmy.epbql.com

cvqawthl ucxpbgq vtiajrpxh yajfruopx koylcm eiam hrfnl

Dear Beloved Michael Otterson,
Greetings to you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are praying for you and your family and for your ministries.

In the month of April we are going to arrange the seminar with 300 pastors and a huge public meeting so by this time few are welcoming you and your wife and family to preach and teach the Gods word in the midst of the Indian people. We want to work with you and have touch with you to extend the coming kingdom of God. We are working mostly in the Hindu areas many people are coming to know He is the only one God who can save from sin and give eternal life.

So Dear Friend, as we are working please help us and guide us to go through the village by village to bring the perishing souls un to Christ. Strengthen us pray for us stretch your hands for the Glory of God. I and my team willing to work with you and your ministries in the days to come.

Please remember us in your committee meeting as you are gathering. If are willing to come to India go by this direction. Fly to directly Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh head quarters from there you fly to vishakapatnam airport from there we will be with you to receive and visit my ministry.

We want to pray for you and your ministry and family that God may bless you abundantly as light of the world. In same way please pray for us and for our families and ministries in India Andhrapredesh. We want to hear from you soon amen,

Yours faithfully,
In His service,
Pastor. JOHN PRADESH.
Pastor. RAJU K.SPERGEOUN.
AIDS GLOBLE CHILDERN MINISTRY.
INDIA.
John_prasad63@yahoo.com

Great work!
My homepage | Please visit

Well done!
[url=http://vnofeyuc.com/memi/ritl.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://tewtcczj.com/mmvy/djrm.html]Cool site[/url]

Stan Chan aka Che Dali ~

I'm fascinated by your story. I'd love to see some of your art sometime as well, if you have any.

I had a very unorthodox upbringing.
TBM Grandparents. Dad was raised Mormon, but was never active as an adult. (I'd always just assumed he was Atheist. But since we never really had a religious discussion I didn't know anything for sure.) Mom was a nevermo artist/teacher/feminist, but pretty spiritual in a humanist, very secular sort of way.

I basically had very little organized religious upbringing, other than the fact that my TBM grandparents saw to it that I was baptized at 8, along with all their grandkids. No explanation, no consent, just dunk, wham-bam-thank-you-mam. It was really pretty meaningless to me.

I was however very influenced by Alex Haley and Roots and was deeply influenced by the book of rememberance my Grandmother had assembled about the whole history and geneology of my family. I was intrigued by my roots. I grew up fascinated with the complex lives of those people who were my heros, my fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters.

I was an artist like my mother and took a real interest in the Arts, humanities, culture, anthropology, philosphy and psychology. I was a pretty precocious kid in high school. I signed myself up for night classes in art at University of Washington at age 16.
I became good friends with a teacher of mine who was a sculptor and a Jungian analyst and very spiritual.

He became my spiritual guide and mentor.

I grew deeply interested in Carl Jung, and through Jung, myth, dreams and how we are all connected through the collective subconscious.

I turned 18 and was accepted into an elite Art Institute and found myself surrounded by very talented artists who were much older and wiser than me. They were fascinating. Everyone of them had wonderful stories to tell about their world travels and all the great books they had read and experiences they'd had.

By contrast, I had nothing to say. I was just a white kid from suburbia who grew up with a cynical Boeing engineer for a father and a frustrated artist for a mom.

I took a history class from a genius of a history professor who made me realize that I really knew nothing about the world about which there was so much to learn. I was at a major crossroads in my life. Here I was studying to become an artist and I had nothing to say. My life was a giant void. I felt like a fraud. I had no roots. I had no clue what my purpose was or what my place was in society. I didn't know if I wanted to be an artist. I didn't even know what purpose artists served in society.

So I decided I really needed to go find out about the world before I decided what place I would take in it. I dropped out of college and travelled around the entire US, Europe and Africa for 9 months, in search of my roots. I went to the places where my forefathers had come from. Walked the streets they walked. Worshipped in the churches they worshipped in. Marched in the candlelight processions they marched in. Listened to the gregorian chants echo off of the same cathedral rock arched ceilings they had helped build.

Where ever I went in the world, I was drawn to holy places. From Mega christian churches in Texas with 8 cameras and a guy in a polyester yellow suit named "Brother Bob" and his bleach blonde buffont hairdooed wife begging for money to the TV cameras, to Mountain tops. The Rothko Temple in Houston to Cathedrals in Europe. From Stonehenge to Tibetan Budhist temples in the French Alps and Mosques in Africa. It was clear to me that religion was the center of culture and had a major impact on the people and communities that practiced the religion. Whereever I went in the world there was a different religion that suited the people who lived there and connected them in their own way to the cosmos, universe, God, Tao, whatever name you gave it, it was all the same to me. People just had different ways of expressing their respect to the same God.

I'd had some very spiritual experiences in Europe. Since my family had joined the Mormon church in England I decided to go visit the Mormon church there where the Mormon side of my family had come from. The people were lovely. To be honest, that was the first time I'd ever felt the spirit in my life the way I did that day. As I listened to these girls sing in that masonry chappel, I could have sworn there were angels accompanying them they were so beautiful. I was very influenced by a particular Mormon family there who took me in and treated me like a son. I will never be able to repay their graciousness, kindness and hospitality. I was very touched by them and decided that was one thing I wanted in my life was a loving family, united and supportive in every aspect of each others lives.

I eventually wound up in North Africa and became fascinated by the culture and the religion. They were the most devoted people I'd ever met. Even the men digging ditches stopped digging ditches when the Imam called for prayer.

Allaaaah Akbar. Alllaaaah Akbar. Achado ana La. Illah ha Illah. Achado wanna Mohamed. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar.

Whenever I hear that call, I am trasported back to an oasis I grew to love in North Africa. Where date palm trees sway in the Saharan breeze, as women wash their clothes in the sweet stream where I first learned the ritual Muslim washing. Great frogs live peacefully in the watery gardens around the mosque. Where sparrows turn into bats as twilight falls. And the Imam calls out for the people to come to the mosque for the final prayer of the day.

The ditch diggers would roll out their mats and face mecca and pray right there next to their ditch, next to the business men who were also prostrate in the same position. They were equals before God. I had never known anyone so devoted to their religion.

I made fast friends in Morocco who taught me daily, everything about Islam. I learned the prayers in Arabic, they taught me their beautiful ritual washing, TaWadat, required before entering a Mosque. When I had learned everything I needed to learn I went to the inner sanctum when the Imam called me to prayer and washed alongside the other worshippers.

At first I could tell that he was skeptical of this Western interloper. He asked me in Arabic if I had performed TaWadat. If I believed in one God, Allah. If I believed Mohamed was his prophet.

I knew all the answers to his questions and as I looked into his eyes, I saw that he accepted me as a brother.

I realized at that moment that deep down, there was no difference between us.

I could just as easily have been born in North Africa as North America. I was not Mormon or Muslim or American or African, I was just human making a deep spiritual connection with another human.
We didn't even speak the same language, but we managed to connect on a deep spiritual level and see beyond our superficial differences. I felt at home in that beautiful oasis. I loved it there. It was really like a paradise on earth.

I had acheived what I had come to achieve. I had totally integrated myself into another culture. I wore their clothes, ate their food, lived in their houses, learned their customs, learned their language, worked beside them, learned their religion, made friends there, was accepted into their inner sanctums, their families, and made deep spiritual connections.

Then as summer approached and my oldest sister's wedding grew near, my heart yearned for my family back home and I decided to return.

When I got back to Spainish teritory in the North of Africa I went into a Catholic church and saw a crucifix behind the altar. I looked at Jesus hanging there on the cross and said, "I no longer believe in you."

That day was the worst day of my life, before or since. I was beaten badly and nearly lost my life.
It was a brutal fight for my life and I was afraid I killed a man. Luckily I didn't kill him and I managed to survive, bloody and beaten, but it was my darkest hour. I connected it to having renounced christianity.

There's this strange place on the Barbary Coast of Africa. It's a no man's land. So many battles have been fought here between Muslims and Christians. Today it is considered Spanish Teritory, but it is Spanish in name only. It is a place mostly ignored by the world. The populace is descended from the pirates who once called this place home. There's a port city called Mellilia on the Mediteranian Barbary coast of North Africa.

I got stuck there for a couple of days waiting for a ferry to take me back to Europe.

While I was waiting I met a man who asked me for some food, which I gave him.

He then asked me, "Comma me Casa?"

I had a vision of a white house on a hill somewhere with a lovely family waiting to host me. I said nothing, but shrugged my shoulders and followed him, since I had nothing better to do in this place.

He took me up inside this fortress on a hill by the sea and we entered into an apartment where he was apparently squating.

There was nothing there except a matress and the remnants of a fire he'd apparently lit in the corner of the room. The whole house had a sickening acrid smell from the fire that had been lit in the corner of the main room. I took pity on this poor young man and started asking about his family. He was obviously a street urchin. Before I knew it he picked up an empty bottle of African Star beer and asked if I wanted one. I said "No. I'm Muslim."

Then he disappeared without a word.

Something told me to get out of that hellhole, but I hesitated a moment too long.

Next thing I knew, he came back into the room with a guy who looked like Satan, dressed in white. Wearing a white turban, with an evil look in his eye. He was pure evil incarnate. I felt a very evil vibe the moment I saw him.

I knew this encounter would not have a happy ending.
I picked up my backpack and said I gotta go.

They insisted that I stay.

The more strongly I insisted I leave the more strongly they insisted I stay. To the point where they physically took my bags off my back and made it clear I was not getting out of there without a fight.

There was some small talk and before I knew it they were asking for money.

I told them I had very little money.

They told me they knew I was a rich American and must be traveling with plenty of money.

In the course of this conversation I noticed that Satan had a gun tucked into the front of his pants. I looked around the room to see what options I had.

There was a 2x4 leaning up against the wall in the corner. I figured that was my best option for getting out of this thing alive. As they grew more and more insistant that I give them my money I stood up and tried to force my way out of the room. They both tackled me but could not take me down. That's when I started throwing punches.

I managed to back up against the wall to where the 2x4 was leaned up against the wall. And I told satan that my money was in my backpack on the floor in front of us. I told him to take it. The struggle stopped and I had one guy holding onto me with my right hand on the end of a 2x4 and Satan in front of me digging through my belongings looking for money. I felt like I was in a movie. Everyting from that point happened in slow motion. I pushed the street urchin away from me with my left hand, raised the 2x4 up over my head and swung for the fences. I actually knocked the guy's turban off his head when I hit him and he collapsed. I thought I'd killed him and had a vision of spending the rest of my life in a prison like the guy on Midnight Express.

Before I knew it the street urchin pulled out a knife and cut me twice before I was able to get a good shot at him. Fortunately I didn't get stabbed or I probably wouldn't be here writing this. The fight went on, but I was so scared I'd killed the guy that I kind of went into shock and just managed to defend myself from being killed. I didn't want to kill two guys in one day, but I didn't want to die either.

In the end I managed to get out of there and go get the cops.

When we came back they were both gone, with some of my stuff. Fortunately they left my passport and some travelers checks so I could make it home.

I was on the next boat, grateful I'd escaped with my life, and one fight wiser.

I learned from that experience to trust my instincts.

I arrived home two weeks later, my own man, having traveled accross 3 continents on my own. Surivived some serious battles and made some great friends. I had stories to tell, but nobody was interested.

My homecoming was overshadowed by my sisters upcoming wedding in the Mormon temple. I had never taken Mormonism seriously but I had a new appreciation for the religion of my forefathers when I got home. It was my heritage, my tribe, the legacy I'd inheirited, my roots.

I got home and found that the Mormon family I had visited in England had written my parents basically asking why they let their son travel around the globe when I should be preparing for a mission. Nobody had ever said that to me before. Nobody had ever expected that of me before.

My parents were pretty offended, since they didn't "let" me do anything, I was an adult and responsible for my own life, and for that matter they didn't really care if I served a mission or not since they were not even Mormon. They would have rather I joined the Peace Corps. They thought the guy was pretty presumtuous to write to them and rip them a new one for not taking the church seriously. (and they were probably pretty right on with that assessment)

But I thought it was interesting that out of all the people I had met on my journey, the only one who'd bothered to keep in contact with me and take an interest in me enough to inquire about my well being was this one Mormon father I'd been impressed with. I decided I should take a serious look at Mormonism for once. As I did, it seemed like it was a good lifestyle. I didn't find a whole lot wrong with the religion, it was just didn't make a heck of alot of sense. But my grandparents were Mormon, my sisters were all mormon, most of my relatives were mormon and I had all this Mormon geneology and roots I could identify with. There were definitely some absolutely gorgeous mormon women I knew, which didn't hurt.

Most of my friends who were mormon were relatively on the ball and mature, out serving missions, in college, married, kids the whole nine yards.

I'd been to nearly every other holy place I could think of but the one place I was not allowed to go was inside a mormon temple. That was sort of a challenge to me, so I decided make it a goal to gain acceptance into a Mormon temple, like I had the Muslim Mosque. The way I saw it, it was just a different way to worship the same God.

I naievely went in and talked to my sister's bishop about what it would take for me to go to the temple and the rest is history.

Now I'm back to where I started before I got sidetracked--my own religion, with a whole lot more stories to tell my grandkids.

Life has come full circle and that's good.

I'm fortunate that I got what I wanted. A loving family united and supportive in every aspect of each others lives, to contribute to the world. Hopefully I can acheive what my father set out to acheive, to leave behind better individuals than ourselves. Only time will tell.

I'm glad that I'm able to add my story to that of my forefathers, in the book of life. Perhaps somebody in a couple of generations will read my story and recognize something of themselves in it and gain the courage to follow their consicence and become their authentic selves as a result.
That is my hope anyways.

Now you know my whole life story.

It is not the responsiblity of government to ensure that everyone has a job, food, housing or healthcare. Period.

Do not be blinded by Socialism.

James,

I only did my best, based on a more in-depth conversation I had with my evangelical freind on the purpose of life.

He went to Calvary Bible college, which is unaccredited. So he may be theologically illiterate in the academic sense. At least my pastor friend is no longer a wacko, at least I could do that for him. I could not claim theological literacy by any means, as I have read little to no nity grity theology; only anthro of religion, which is quite different; and general conference talks :).

You shall be my theological teacher James.

I will now sign off. I have let my life run away from me with my obsessive posting.

Cheers,

Jd1

"In other words, I was answering my critique on his behalf, given he is not present to defend himself from charges of being a wacko."

ahh - my apologies... I did misread your post.

Thanks.

JD
Yes, I understand that you were speaking in the pastor's voice in the Garden of Eden example.

Thus we can't really critique him, or you: however, if our friendly pastor really did hold the beliefs you illustrate in the Eden story, he would rise in my estimation from Wacko to theological illiterate.

Once again, we humans can't KNOW why something we call God created the world. But we can know that he had to have foreseen the fall if we believe the Genesis Judeo-Christian Creation Myth. To imagine him creating Adam and Eve so he could revel in their frolicing in the Garden is quite patent anthropomorhizing. Which is of course what all human creations of God have been to one degree or another. We have to understand God, whether or not she exists, through the limitations of our finite human experience and imagination.

Why IS there something rather than nothing? It is the great unanswered theological question.

In other words, I was answering my critique on his behalf, given he is not present to defend himself from charges of being a wacko.

NEWSFLASH:

A man by the name of Richard Bushman is now listed as an On Faith Panelist. I am relieved to no longer have to postulate shoddy hypothesis as to why Mormonism has only one representative here.

I am quite looking forward to seeing what he writes.

Jd1

Guys,

I am guessing you thought I was talking as a Mormon. I was giving the explanation I imagined the Evangelical Pastor would give, provided my understanding of Evangelical theology. That is all. Does that make sense?

Jd1

JD1 ~

You wrote, "When God created us, we lived in the Garden of Eden where there was no pain, and everyone was blissfully happy. Then Adam and Eve threw a wrench in God's plan and used their God given freedom to disobey, and evoked God's displeasure by bringing sin and pain into the world."

1. Were "WE" in the Garden, or just Adam & Eve?
2. Had they not disobeyed, wouldn't all of us minus Adam & Eve still be in the Spirit World, enjoying our peaceful pre-existence?

HJ:

I have to admit, every once in a while I sit back and chuckle on your selection of words. Your calm and kind closing remark to JD1 had me in stitches, "my gentlemanly friend."

JD1:

You wrote "...Adam and Eve threw a wrench in God's plan and used their God given freedom to disobey". You have me thinking on this one. Do you truly feel that they went against God's plan by disobeying? My understanding of God's plan was that the fall had to happen, hence the need for a Savior. This isn't to say that God didn't want them to obey, but I feel that he knew they were not going to, else how would they know good from evil? I hope you do not misinterpret my question - my intentions are not to be confrontational. I am asking sincerely, for clarification on your understanding of this event.

JD and HJ:

Your exchange reminds me of a quote from the movie Out of Africa that has stayed with me, although I may not recall it perfectly. In the scene, Karen Blixen has driven off a lion that was in the process of killing one of her oxen. The ox lies groaning, in the process of dying, and Blixen's Kikuyu servant is pulling thorns out of her shoulder and cleaning her wounds. He says to her: "This lion is hungry, he does not have this ox. Memsahib is bleeding, she does not have this ox. God is great, he plays with us."

A multi-faceted comment, that.

I enjoy reading your thoughts, my brothers,

P.

Thanks James for the reassurence,

In inter-faith dialogue misunderstandings can abound. I am always wary of that, maybe a little paranoid.

I must say I do not think my evangelical pastor friend is a wacko. Once you accept the premise of Biblical literalism, his statement is perfectly rational. Revelation 4:11 says "for thou has created all things and for thy pleasure they are and were created." He continually reminded me that he was only answering my questions with what the Bible says.

I think my interpretation of this explanation reflects my LDS bias. Had I pressed him I am sure he could have provided a nice apology for God's non-narcissism in the face of this explanation.

One I can think of is this: it gives God pleasure to see us in a state of paradise and happiness. When God created us, we lived in the Garden of Eden where there was no pain, and everyone was blissfully happy. Then Adam and Eve threw a wrench in God's plan and used their God given freedom to disobey, and evoked God's displeasure by bringing sin and pain into the world.

God sent His son to restore us to the state we were in the Garden of Eden, so our existence would once again give him pleasure.

I am sure a believer in Biblical Literalism would do a better job. So I would not assume he is a wacko based on my biased interpretation of his statement.

Best,

Jd1

JD
I didn't think you were being offensive to Karen with your story, or to anyone. I was just noting the strangeness of your Protestant Minister's statement. Not your strangeness. I thought your post was completely congenial and interesting, as usual.

You DO touch on the BIGGEST QUESTION of meaning.

Why DID God create the world?
or, as Aristotle and other philosophers have puzzled throughout the ages,

"Why is there SOMETHING rather than Nothing.?"

For many great philosophers, this question leads to an infinite regress.

If you answer, "to fulfil god's plan"
Aristotle will ask you, "Why?"
and once you answerr THAT question
he will ask you WHY again and again.....

The Catholics, who have the best developed religious/philosophical tradition in the West, will tell you that the Ultimate Answer is
"It's a mystery." So it is a GOOD thing that you and Karen and I are comfortable NOT knowing lots of things (though I, as is patently obvious, know ALMOST everything).

Best regard JD, my gentlemanly friend.

Henry

Thanks again for helping me not offend Karen. I was not providing "evidence" against Protestantism. I was just giving a taste of an anecdotal experience that has shaped my unconscious perception. I should have made that clear.

In reality, the only Christians that I have had much contact with are hard core fundamentalists. Most of my non-Mormon peer groups has either been fundamentalist Christians or atheists/agnostics. That's part of why I enjoyed Karen’s post, her answer to the questions of the fate of non-Christians, the status of infants etc. were refreshing to me.

She is happy not having all the answers, which I can totally identify with. My fundamentalist friends do have all the answers, and the answers are, well, you know.

Best,

Jd1

JD it IS interesting for you to compare your understandings with Karen

Your Anecdotal Protestant minister sounds like a wacko. And the evidence is quintessentially anecdotal. NO protestant i know would say god did it for his own pleasure, and that's not just because i am in New England. You know the Calvinist tradition well, for instance. Pleasure? What is that? And WASPS are notorious for abstemiousness in regard to everything but liquor.

I am continually struck by how the best aspects of your God (or anyone's) are pretty equally descriptive of the
• Highter Power, in general, that 12 steppers turn things over to.
• Buddhist concepts of flow and nirvana.

In other words, completely generalizable.

Your feeling that God reveals things to HIS children as they are ready to receive them, for instance. That is equally true for my Higher Power, which is Not a Him or All-Knowing or motivated by intention.

I think human beings who practice loving kindness and the Golden Rule get pretty much the same benefits that you and Karen get in this life. For instance, the Mormon concept of Eternal Progression is LESS satisfying to me than the schema presented by Ernst Becker in The Denial of Death., and none of us can know what happens when we die. But we can all see the good results of someone like Karen believing in Jesus *in the way that she does*. (some believe in Jesus in a very destructive way).

Yours in Buddha.

Henry

Hi Karen,

Thank you for your lovely post. If we accept as Christians that God's "ways are not our ways", we can accept the fact that we do not have the answers to everything. I too have to wrestle with God at times when it seems things do not add up. I can totally identify with the experience you detail of developing faith and trust in God.

I don't think my faith has all of the answers by any means. I am okay with that. I find my faith provides satisfactory answers to some big questions, particularly central questions about the purpose of life, where we came from and where we are going. I find this expanded Eternal context beautiful and helpful in understanding God's love and character.

Maybe a personal story would help in conveying why I see Protestantism as having “gaps in revelatory knowledge.” I was interviewing an Evangelical pastor for a research project of mine. I asked him why God created us. His answer: “For his own pleasure.” To me that seemed like kind of an empty answer. It made God seem like a selfish narcissist. This answer seemed entirely inconsistent with my conception of God’s love. I am not saying this would be your answer. You may have better one, or you might say we don’t know but you trust it was for a good reason. Which I think is fine. This might be satisfactory to me, if I were bred in the protestant tradition.

I find my faith meaningful because it postulates a God that continually reveals His mysteries to His children as soon as they are ready to receive them. There is no end to what I can learn from God, and there is nothing that is off limits if I am prepared. I am naturally curious, so I love this aspect of my faith. There are things which are unanswered of course, as many of the critics of Mormonism will attest. But I am okay with that because I think Mormonism provides great answers to the most important spiritual questions and it promises I can receive my own testimony of their truthfulness through the Holy Spirit.

As one who has a continual interest in the arguments of skeptics and atheists, I find Mormonism has answers to classic arguments against God that I do not find in orthodox Christianity. Though it does not have all the answers. The answers it does provide allows me to maintain my belief in God where I might otherwise loose it to the “If God exists, he must be a monster” arguments. My faith helps me understand God’s love in the context of real life. To that I am Eternally grateful to my Father in Heaven.

You said earlier that you believed in your faith because you asked questions, and because you felt like it could stand up to scrutiny. I believe the revelations God has given us in our modern days provide a context in which God as an personal, powerful, all loving being can stand up to scrutiny.

In the end, the answers I love in Mormonism are not the foundation of my faith. You said earlier that only the Holy Spirit can convert, and I agree. My belief springs ultimately from my trust in experiences with the Holy Spirit, and that is why I am okay with still unanswered questions.

Yours in Christ,

Jd1

JD1: I am glad that you found my earlier post informative. Just to clarify, I am not claiming in any way that my answers to RTC necessarily reflect any "official protestant doctrine" because for one thing, there is no such thing given the many denominations with their little variations on non essential doctrine.

I find your statement re: "gaps in revealed knowledge" interesting. Do you find it difficult to have gaps? I ask this question sincerely, and I most certainly do not mean to be condescending. I ask because in my case, the deeper my faith becomes, the more I trust God, the easier for me it is to accept gaps in my knowledge/understanding of God and His ways. There was a time when I felt I needed answers for everything. Now I accept that there are things I will never fully know and understand on this side of heaven and I don't find that as unsettling as I used to. I think it is a reflection of my deepening trust in God even when I don't "get Him", or at least I hope that that is what it is. I still wrestle with God quite a bit but not in the same way that I used to.

James,

Okay, let me clarify something. I never said there are objective conditions wherein Mormons are treated worst than anyone else, or Mormons are too good for this. I repeatedly said that his is an attribute of the entire forum.

Mormons are not as a whole any less contentious than any other people (just read the article I posted for evidence of that). But there is a tradition in Mormonism of *avoiding* conversations that are characteristically contentious. The Book of Mormon says "contention is of the devil." So the belief is that if something is of the devil, nothing good will come of a contentious conversation.

What occurs at ON Faith will be *considered* more contentious than, say, Robert Millet's debates with evangelicals.

Also Mormonism is a new, and smaller than traditions like Catholicism and Islam (which are considered legitimate world religions), so I admit Mormons might be more sensitive than them to what goes not here (I prefer sensitive to the pejorative "thin skinned").

Sensitivity combined with the anti-contention tradition explains why many will have secular academic conferences on Mormonism, but Quinn is having difficulty finding people for ON FAITH.

But I admit this is just a speculation. I really *don't know* who she asked, or why she is having difficulty. It is a mystery.

Best,

JD1

Yes JD, I was the anonymous who called you a gentleman.

I truly don't want you to say Mormons are closeminded and cultish. I do think Mormons are trying to be more and more engaged with the outside world, and of course the Missionary effort requires that the church not be seen as a Crazy bunch of nuts. My private secretary, though now an Ex mormon, still bristles when people describe Mormons, his people, as a bunch of nuts.

i only want you to admit that it doesn't make sense to say Mormons don't come on here because they are treated so badly. Otterson is treated like everyone else, and better than many. And aside from the obvious crazies, the criticisms he and the Church have gotten have a valid basis.

And Mormons are no more Non-Contentious than Unitarians or Episcopalians. Have you ever seen how polite those Episcopalians are? I think yours is a non answer because I don't think it is a valid reason.

More mormons should come on here, and it is no excuse for them to say "we are treated unfairly and persecuted" or "we are too non-contentious."

I thought the Bushman press conversation was interesting. He is clearly a lovely man (i know him a little) and very smart and charming. And the discussion was nuanced and instructive.

That last anonymous was me.

James,

So you were anonymous!! Once again, thanks for the warning. I don't know how you can call what I have said a non-answer. I have given the answer several times. I wish we wouldn't beat a dead horse here.

It seems to me you want an answer that acknowledges how closed or cultish the church is. I just think that is a poor explanation because the church members are interacting with outsiders all the time in academic and religious venues. Remember the conference on Joseph Smith at the Library of congress, which included LDS and non-LDS presenters? Robert Millet's public discussions with various evangelicals? And countless other public conversations and debates Latter Day Saints are having about their beliefs?

John Reynolds said this about Latter Day Saints (on this forum):

"A traditional Christian should only make political alliances with groups that embrace reason, with a theology with agreeable public policy implications, and with a history of successful participation in the Republic. Fortunately for Romney, Mormonism easily passes these tests.

First, the religious beliefs of the candidate should be held by a significant number of people willing to defend them (even if unsuccessfully) in a rational manner.

The mere existence of a fully accredited Brigham Young University and Mormon apologetic groups settles this question. The Evangelical Torrey Honors Institute has hosted thoughtful Mormons willing to debate their ideas."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/05/should_christians_vote_for_mor.html#comments

It is a surprise that they are having difficulty finding somebody. Bushman was surprised. I offered what I think is best explanation. In any event, Bushman said to Sally Quinn that he could think of lots of Mormons that would be interested, so I predict we will see more Mormons.

best,

JD1

Dear Henry ~

Just so you aren't offensive to ME (your future wife in heaven)...I heard they don't need frying pans up there, and I don't want to have to find any alternate methods of showing you I care.

Anonymous,

Okay clarification. That is how *I* interpreted many of the things she said to James. It would be good if she could clarify to me what she thinks.

BTW, thinking someone elses beliefs are irrational does not make one close minded. It is pretty much what everyone does with beliefs that are foreign to them. I do it, we all do it. It doesn't make us closed minded as much as it makes us human.

Thank you for the warning, AND for calling me a gentlement :)

Just wish I knew who you were....

Not that there is anything wrong with being offensive. I do it all the time.

I just like to point it out when it happens.

JD
a prediction:

you wrote to Karen:
"It seemed like you were pretty convinced that Mormonism was irrational when you first began posting. When I am learning about a religious tradition, one of the first things that I enjoy wraping my head around is how that faith is rational for the adherents."

I don't think she is going to like your characterization of her. You are pretty clearly saying she is close minded. If I were she, I would be offended, and she doesn't realize what a gentleman you really are as I do.

Your (non) answer to Karen's question is again
"the Mormon non-contention tradition."

You had earlier said (I paraphase) "poor otterson gets picked on and personally attacked so much that who would want to put up with that?"

Karen effectively showed both reasons up for the evasions that they are. If Mormons want to engage in an open relationship with the world, they can't say "oh, we're non contentious, don't criticise us."

If they don't want to engage with the world, then they of course won't come on this blog at all, and they can stay an isolated enclave.

But as Karen quite effectively showed, Otterson has no more been subjected to the rough and tumble of open pluralistic dialog than many others, and much less than many.

Hi Karen,

I don't know why she's having a hard time finding Mormons. I already gave my opinion on that. I think it comes down to the anti-contention tradition. You can read about it in the article I cited earlier if you are interested in understanding this dynamic in Mormonism.

It's nice to see you’re interested in learning about Mormonism. It seemed like you were pretty convinced that Mormonism was irrational when you first began posting. When I am learning about a religious tradition, one of the first things that I enjoy wraping my head around is how that faith is rational for the adherents. That’s why I enjoyed your post because it helped me understand a bit more how Protestants deal with what I see as major gaps in revealed knowledge.

Best,

Jd1

Here's the link again if you’re interested:

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/132/Defending_the_Kingdom.pdf

Jim A

good grappling with the meaning of truth.

a couple of comments:
you say "Truth does not contradict itself by definition."

A cursory study of Quantum Mechanics would make you doubt that proposition. Though i DO agree with your example, Christ can not both BE the only begotten son of God, and at the same time NOT Be.

In terms of the relation of god(s) to humans, contemplate this quote from Shakespeare, who gave us more and deeper truths than even Jesus:

"As flies to wanton boy, are we to the Gods.
They kill us for their sport."

Look at the tsunamis and earthquakes and plagues and tell us Shakespeare didn't nail this one.

luv
henry

RTC: thank you for your response. Again, I really don't think you meant it that way but you made a pretty condescending statement to me: a grand canyon separates us in that you are still seeking more truth and knowledge whereas I am satisfied with where I am and looking no further. You are quite wrong about that assessment I'm afraid. I am a life long learner. What I am not doing is seeking additional knowledge about God through the LDS church. You seem to be saying that I could be only continuing my learning and spiritual growth if I delve into mormon theology. Nothing could be further from the truth. I still have much to learn and understand from the Bible plus the writings of C.S. Lewis, J.I. Paker, Philip Yancey, Sturgeon, Hannah Hunnard and many many more. Knowing God is a lifelong process that goes on even for those outside of the LDS church. Having said that, I will look forward to the results of your research. I think it is OK for me to be interested in the teachings of your church without being interested in joining your church. Learning about other faiths helps us all to love and accept each other despite our differences.

Phaedrus: thank you for your kind words again. Our pastor used to say that adversity can make you bitter or better, the choice is up to you. When I sense myself sliding towards bitterness and self pity I try to catch myself as fast as I can. I went through some pretty harrowing times before coming to the US. Why I survived when others didn't, I have no idea. I certainly was not more deserving. But here I still am, and there has to be a reason why I am still here. Engaging in hatred and name calling surely can't be one of them. I do believe that Jesus is the Word of God, the truth and the light. But if believing in Him does not make me a better person, then what is the point of asking Him to fill me with his Holy Spirit? I pray everyday that God help me be a good agent for Him in this world. Part of that is sharing my faith and God's love but again, not hitting people on the head with a Bible.

JD1: thank you for your kind words. Re: other mormon leaders posting here. why not? YOu say people are tough on Bill Marriott or Otterson. And that they have particular merit in agreeing to "put themselves out there"? Maybe so, but have you taken a look at the venom regularly poured out at Chuck Colson, Cal Thomas, Pamela Taylor, some of the catholic bloggers etc.?.. Even Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos got slammed for some pretty innocuous posts. In every single posting, at least 3 or 4 people slam Chuck Colson for being a convicted felon, something that he does not hide and has acknowledged many times. These people seem to think that as such, he has no right to free speech anymore. I do not agree with Colson's politics but the depth of anger he elicits is rather unbelievable to me. I have seen nothing even approaching that kind of attack on the Otterson thread. Pretty much all the catholic and evangelical panelists regularly get slammed, but still post week after week. So why do the moderators have such a hard time finding mormon panelists? Can't they take the heat?

As usual, Phaedrus has a very wise observation about the use of the word "truth." I can't pretend to answer, but I believe that God is the source of all truth. He knows all. Life is about finding and gaining truth- trying to learn what God knows and what his will is for us. Obviously our capacities are currently limited.

RTC has commented previously that additional truth is given to us as we live according to the truth that we have received, and thus we learn and progress "line upon line." It is very much a process and requires faith, and I don't think that the amount of truth that anyone has obtained can be quantified or compared to anyone else's truth.

I also enjoyed RTC's description of continually seeking truth and how, even after a trying to learn for an entire life, one can still continue to learn new truths. She also explains the important role of the Holy Ghost in teaching and testifying of truth.

Truth does not contradict itself by definition. So if one says that Christ is the Son of God, that he suffered for mankind, and that he resurrected, and another says that these things did not happen, both cannot be correct. Of course all are free to believe what they wish, and those with differing beliefs should respect one another.

I find great comfort in believing in a loving, merciful God that will make his truth available to all of his children. Some may agrue that it does not seem very loving to seem to bless some of his children more than others, but we do not understand God's ways.

Karen,

I liked your post. Thank you for sharing.

Best,

Jd1

Question for the group:

The implied definitions of the word "truth" as it is being used in these various posts are getting a little confusing for me. I struggle with the concept of absolute truth vs relativism, so in an effort to aid my understanding of what you all mean when writing of "personal truths," do you mean that there is no actual "truth," and that an infinite number of personal "truths" is plausible? Or is it your intention to say that whereas an actual "truth" underlies all phenomena, in instances in which it is subject to contention, "beliefs" about it can be referred to as a "personal truth?" I am writing quickly out of necessity, and apologize for any awkwardness of phrasing my question.

Karen:

You write: "I grew up in a civil war, I have seen enough hatred, death and destruction to last me a lifetime. I would rather live my faith then clobber people with it."

I think that the intelligence and virtue of your second sentence speaks to the wisdom you gained from experiencing those things mentioned in your first sentence. Would that it did not require the one to acheive the other. Beautiful credo you have, and thanks for sharing it.

Sincerely,

P.

RTC ~

The thing it seems you don't "get" is that Karen feels she has truth every bit as much as you do. Just as I feel I have truth just as strongly.

Grand canyon of difference is, we accept that others can find their own truths that work for them, and we can fully support them in their different truths, whereas you feel compelled to insist that unless we adhere to YOUR truth, then we are lacking in some way that you are not.

Jiminy Cricket, RTC

You should write a book.

In fact, if you just collected all of your posts on this site, it would add up to a book.

Over the next three hours I will read your last missive and get you a pithy and incredibly perceptive reply.

Luv
Henry

Dear Karen -

I suppose the two of us could hit the tennis court if that were the game of choice, but I doubt that it is, for either one of us.

And, I also imagine that we both have very similar feelings toward each other's faith and the beliefs that we hold to, in that we feel the other to be misled and would more than likely wish we could say more in hopes of a course correction. Also, I am certain that these feelings come from loving places, with no judgement.

But there is still one major difference that I am most confident in and this sets a grand canyon apart in difference between us. It is, that I honestly am convinced after our dialogues, in which you have been very clear, is on your position that you are completely satisfied with your own, personal search and find of all you need to know of god, and have no intention of looking any further. Although you did explain you desire to learn about other religions and faiths, I believe, to get along in the world... something like that.

Whereas I, love to continue to add to my knowledge of God and find that all truth, which and if is truth, then adds to truth! This is most thrilling, which I love. So I love to seek truth, no matter where it is to be found and test it against itself.

Ahhh, you say, be careful... sometimes one can be deceived? Oh, but that is where the Holy Ghost comes in and then guides in the discovery and assists in the puzzle. Awesome journey.

Karen - We are the same and we are different. My best to you as you continue to bless the lives of others, which you apparently are quite successful at:-)

And thank you for responding to my inquiries, for you have given me some followup homework of which I intend to do!
rtc

HJ -

I knew you would most likely choose to capitalize upon my closing remarks, as IF that would be written on my epitaph, considering my critic to be one who is already dead.

I quote myself...

"It is not important that one of us be right. What is important, is that we know what is true. Is this not the quest of our lives and that we be not deceived?"

Do you wish you had thought of this yourself first? By the way, what does yours say? I do not know what I would have written on mine and I am not sure If I want control of such, or if I shall leave that to others? (no suggestions please folks... lol)

I am glad you are having fun, because I do believe learning is an exciting journey and should be. Yes, I did write an extraordinary thing, that I knew you did not expect to hear or emerge from I. Even astounded?

Truly joyful!

Therefore, my pithy remarks relating to the Holy Ghost were imperative to the "game". And now, I too, must become a bit more genuine natured for further discussion on that which you have extracted to discuss.

You asked of me, " Isn't is important to accept the LDS gospel rather than the Muslim gospel so that we can achieve the highest degree of glory, splendid as those other 3-star hotels are?"

1. It is our eternal destiny to ultimately come to all truth and in so doing, become as that parent of who's we are. Each soul will have a journey different than the next in coming to that truth. I believe this is determined upon our desire to progress toward that truth and this is shown by our willingness to receive truth when it is placed before us. I believe this journey began long before we were born into this mortal existence and will continue after we die our mortal deaths.

This destiny was designed within The Plan of Salvation by God our Heavenly Father. It is universal in its ability and scope to save all of his children from physical death, as well as spiritual death, which is to be separated from him throughout eternity. This separation is a result of The Fall, that occurred in the Garden of Eden, thus the need for an at-one-ment for all of mankind who would then be born into a world where choice between good and evil would be possible, thus sin being inevitable.

2. The results of the Fall, now bringing about the necessary circumstances that the children of god needed to progress, they could exercise their agency and choose between good and evil, thus learning through their own experiences to prize the good. It also gave them the ability to receive a physical body that would also enable them in their eternal progression, in the becoming like that of their eternal parent, although not immortal, perfected and glorified.

As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive...

3. And so it was foreordained before the creation of this earth and carried out by His Only Begotten Son, born in the flesh, who is Jesus Christ, our mediator with God the Father. Both are separate and distinct individuals, who's images we are created in... their literal image and not figurative. We believe them to have glorified bodies of flesh and bone, the Holy Ghost is also a personage of spirit, which is matter, but more refined.

Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and set the perfect example for us to follow. He lovingly gave of himself as a sacrifice for all of our sins and in gethsemane made an atonement for each of the sons and daughters of God, then hung on the cross until His work was finished... on that solemn evening, he then giving up His life willingly, for us, then gave up the ghost and died, so that we might live again.

Three days later he arose, overcoming the bands of mortal death as he came forth from the tomb. And we, by accepting his sacrifice on our individual behalf, are made clean, as we follow the laws, that he too subjected himself to in obedience and humility as he was baptized by one with proper authority, and remaining clean and pure as he set a perfect example for us, thus meeting the demands of justice and enabling entrance back into the Presence of the Father.

4. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is given to members of his church as a constant companion, to be with them, to teach them all truth, and to testify of all truth and to ultimately lead them back into the presence of the Father, as summarized in my previous post.

Today, his Church is still alive and his authority is administered through the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, through those who are called, ordained and set apart to act in His name, just as in the ancient church. As individuals are baptized and then confirmed a member, they receive The Gift of the Holy Ghost.

NOW... this is what is REQUIRED that we accept or RECEIVE. In fact, in the ordinance, the specific words are... "I say unto you, RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST" and this is done following the covenant of baptism and in conjunction with the ongoing partaking of the weekly covenant and ordinance of the Sacrament, which is a commandment.

You may read in Section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants the words of this ordinance, which is in memorial of our baptism and a renewal of our covenant to continue in our progression upward. IF we then do our part, then he will fulfill his promise to send us his spirit in the constant companionship of gift of the Holy Ghost.

D&C 84:

 45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
  46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.
 
 47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.
 
 48 And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you, which is confirmed upon you for your sakes, and not for your sakes only, but for the sake of the whole world.
  49 And the whole world lieth in sin, and groaneth under darkness and under the bondage of sin.
  50 And by this you may know they are under the bondage of sin, because they come not unto me.
  51 For whoso cometh not unto me is under the bondage of sin.
  52 And whoso receiveth not my voice is not acquainted with my voice, and is not of me.
  53 And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked, and that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now.

So HJ, my friend, I do not need to be right, but I do need to know the truth and I am assured to find it by the only one way possible.

Again, it is not important which one of US is right, only that we are both seekers of THE TRUTH. In this journey of which I am still actively engaged and finding to be quite thrilling in daily discovery, I have a trusted and very friendly ghost by my side, not deceptive in the least and given by the source of all truth:-)

I am deeply saddened by your cynical remark, hoping that it is only that, in the discovery of only 1% of truth in your journey here upon the earth. Did you believe in reincarnation? If so, maybe you could come back and try again, and this time an experiment using a small mustard seed perhaps? And I would be most happy to introduce you to my good friend, who you would find most captivating.

Oh, and do thank William for me please. I did consider also his lesson. And you and JD1 must behave yourselves, as the two of you are viewed by most, as usually of the more civilized:-)
rtc

Sister Mary Lisa:

In an earlier post you said: "I would like to be more like Karen, truth be told, and I think the world would be a much better place if more people were like her".

I am incredibly touched by your words and thank you deeply for them. I give all the credit to Jesus for transforming me. I grew up in a civil war, I have seen enough hatred, death and destruction to last me a lifetime. I would rather live my faith then clobber people with it. I make no apologies for my beliefs but I will not judge others or their motives because they disagree with me.

Faith is believing in things unseen. There can be no faith without doubt. And in the midst of our searching and seeking, there is no reason why we can't be kind to each other.

Best to you SML. You made my day but we are just too kind. I am still very much a work in progress.

RTC: I just saw your post to me earlier today but did not have time to respond until now. I have not been on this thread for a couple of days, lots going on.

I will do my best to briefly answer your questions as it is getting late here for me.

Baptism for the dead: I don't believe in it. I disagree that it was ever done in the time of Christ. It is absolutely not normative. I know the LDS base their baptism for the dead practice on 1Cor15:29. However, there are no other scriptures anywhere in the Bible that remotely mention baptism for the dead. In fact, this would stand in direct contradiction of Hebrews 9:27 that says that after death comes judgement so mainstream christians do not believe in and reject the idea of vicarious baptism for the dead. There is an important principle of interpretation of scripture that says that all scripture must be in agreement and must not contradict itself. Also, when the interpretation of an obscure passage is in doubt, we are to go with the preponderance of evidence. We believe it is wrong to make a normative and vital practice out of an obscure and unique verse in the Bible. If God meant for us to baptize the dead and thought it of critical importance, surely there would be more then 1 verse in 1 letter (not even in the Gospels) commanding us to do it. You're free to disagree of course, but I am just trying to explain my position as you requested.

How do I feel about infants and young children that die without being baptized? I feel confident that they go to heaven. What about those that have never heard of Jesus? Well, if I believe that God is just and fair, than He will not keep people out of heaven that belong there. Additonally, I do not believe that baptism in necessary for salvation. It is a public statement, an outward declaration of an inner conversion. Kind of like me getting a citizenship certificate when I became a US citizen. Baptism is a statement we make to the world about receiving Christ as our savior. But it is not what saves us. I believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. There is nothing we can add to Jesus' atonement on the cross. See again my post about the thief on the cross.

My beliefs about the resurrection are pretty simple: because I have received Jesus as my savior with all that that means (including repentence), I know that I will be with God when I die. Again, personal merit has nothing to do with it. Repentence and reliance on God has everything to do with it. I think that initially my soul will be with God until the day of the second coming of Jesus when I will receive my glorified body. I have never been that interested in exactly what, where and how heaven is. I am like Henry James in that regard in that I think that the catholic and the mormon churches spend way too much time trying to figure it all out, and come up with many theories such as purgatory or the mutliple layers of heaven that in my opinion do not have any basis in scripture. It is enough for me to me that I will be with God, that I will have a glorified body that knows no pain or decay and that I will be reunited with my loved ones in Heaven. I mean, what else could I wish for?

My children: we are raising them as a christians. We encourage them to think for themselves. We understand that faith cannot be inherited and that they will each have to make their own decisions about God and Jesus and faith. I have already told my daughter that her faith is personal, that she should not believe just to please us and that we will love her and accept her no matter what. We encourage her to accept all people and respect their beliefs even if we disagree with them. We pray constantly that they will grow up to be commited christians that lead moral and ethical lives. But as Gibran says: your children are like arrows... So we can aim the arrow and position it as best we can but in the end, once the arrow leaves the archer, it goes on its own way.

Finally, I will leave you with one of my favorite verses from the Bible: Provers 3:5 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways, acknowledge Him and He shall make your paths straight". I do not need to know exactly what happens in Heaven or how God will administer His justice, or what happens to people who have never heard of Jesus, in order to believe in God and live a christian life. I believe that it is OK to be humble enough to say: I don't know.
The ways of the Lord are not always made clear to us. As He says to Job: "Would you discredit my justice?" I think that it is incredibly presumptious of any church to say that they know exactly every aspect of God's will and God's plan. I believe it is divisive and presumptious of any church to claim that only their theology leads to salvation. Jesus saves, not your church and not mine.

You mention temple works. I am against any aspect of religion being carried out in secrecy. Always smells of a cult to me. I am with Phaedrus here: let the sun shine on all your theology and your doings. A church that reserves certain practices only for the "chosen few" and conducts much of its business behind closed doors is immediately suspiscious to me. The more power is given to the "holy ones" or "priesthood" or "living prophet", or "clergy" the more potential for abuse. Whether it be the pope or the living prophet or the bishop of canterbury, they are all mere men. Do not elevate them above you. You are as beloved of God as they are and probably more so because you are trying to live out your faith and not use it to control others or glorify yourself.

Phew... So much for being brief! I am so sorry all for having you endure this long post. I will not be offended if you scroll through it... I just wanted to answer as clearly as I could RTC's several questions to me.

Sorry SML

I stupidly and inadvertantly left you out of my reasonable serious posters list, when i should have put you first.

esp since you are one of my future wives.

Please don't hit me with a frying pan

HJ

JD writes
"I think pot-shots are made at Muslims and Catholics at ON Faith also. It undeniable that every Mormon guest panalist was attacked personally, and Otterson has been personally attacked numerous times."

Yes JD, pot shots HAVE been taken at many panelists, Mormon and non-Mormon. "Pot shot" is not a very precise term, and covers a multitude of "sins".

This is a forum on a major national newspaper that is open to the public. Kind of like democracy.

People are FREE to say what they want pretty much. Panelists and the rest of us can pretty quickly judge submissions as to whether they are sane, crazy, serious, inane, substantive, easily dismissable. We have to do the same when we walk through a book store.

I have a hard time feeling lots of sympathy for poor Mr Otterson when I compare his treatment to that received by Colson, Thomas, numberous Catholics, Muslims who have to fend off the crazies.

Further, there is little evidence Otterson ever reads what we all write.

Again, as I scrolled though this group of almost 600 posts, the great majority critical (mildly) of Otterson were by Yockel, Mayan, Phaedrus, Betty, and Henry William. Mayan may be too truthful for some, but he is definitely serious and substantive, and all of the comments he has made have arguments in their favor. The others in this group are unfailingly substantive and as respectful as truthful dialog demands.

As far as Otterson being "attacked personally", once again I must cry Thin Skin. He hasn't been called a Nazi or a child molestor. He has been called a flack for the church because certain of us think he is a PR man rather than a truth teller. But many PR people in politics or religion are called flacks for their employer, often with good reason. And in my opinion they should always be suspected of being such.

a grown up can disregard the crazies and the obscene. None of the above mentioned critics, who se type make up the great majority of those who disagreed with Otterson, can be called crazies or un-serious posters.

This open forum is DESIGNED to elicit discussion and disagreement, not merely for Muslim or Catholic or Mormon believers to gushingly describe how wonderful their religion is.

Hey P.,

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. It is actually worth a lot to me.

With respect,

JD1

JD1 ~

Thanks. I appreciate that clarification. I would hardly want to be considered one who takes pot shots. I generally try to tell it like it is from my point of view.

Glad to see you back posting.

John:

I think that you are right, people have strong opinions about the types of things that end up being discussed on these threads, and the panelists inevitably come in for rough treatment, no matter what they write. After all, they are being critiqued by those who hold diametrically opposing views frequently. I think that most probably post and run, I would certainly be tempted to do that! I do think that Susan Jacoby deserves credit for posting, reading responses, and then regularly coming back with clarifications or rebuttal based upon the responses to her post. I respect that about her.

And, for what it is worth, I do not think that you intended to single any of the regulars out for a bit of ad hominem here. Doesn't seem like your style.

Regards,

P.

Thanks SML,

I could see how it could be interpreted that way. A few weeks back the question was about Mormons and there were many participants who could fit that description that are not On Faith regulars. I think pot-shots are made at Muslims and Catholics at ON Faith also. It undeniable that every Mormon guest panalist was attacked personally, and Otterson has been personally attacked numerous times.

I have no desire to single any one out. I have reacted ways that I regret on this forum, (look a few posts back!) so I am not one to judge. My position is that this has been done on most threads, it will likely be a regular occurence at ON Faith, and many LDS are repelled by it.

My purpose in making this point was not to criticize anyone in particular, but to give my honest opinion in response to P's question.

All the best,

JD1

Hi JD1 ~

"My guess is most Mormons do not want to contribute to an environment where popular sentiment can be exploited to take pot-shots at Latter Day Saints."

I assume that this comment by you is the one which causes HJ (and me) to assume you are talking about him, me, Phaedrus, and possibly Mayan Elephant too. Whom else besides us on this forum would you describe as taking "pot shots" at the Latter-day Saints?

"I do attach great importance to morals and ethics, to determining good vs bad behavior and justice vs inequity. Religion at its best is a tool to achieving goodness and justice."

Well-said per usual, HJ. Of course it is HOW some religious systems determine "goodness and badness" that concerns me, as I know it does you also.

yacttb: Now I see why you used anonymous.

Once again, a very engaging piece of writing. Your description of your perception process was very nicely observed. Great detail, nice narrative.

Understanding how we humans "understand" things is a knotty problem, and you have grappled with it admirably.

Your Sabbath illustration seems to be an example of the difference between The Letter and The Spirit of the Law. When my Catholic Priest friend elucidates the benefits to him of resting on the seventh day, I DO indeed have a clearer idea of the virtue of that practice.

I myself react very badly to dogmatism, and the inflexibility of certain unthinking approaches to the law. And I am an un-abashed anti-authoritarian.

I do attach great importance to morals and ethics, to determining good vs bad behavior and justice vs inequity. Religion at its best is a tool to achieving goodness and justice. I have NO interest in where I go after I die.

I agree that we don't and can't and won't have a complete picture of "whatever-we-call-God"s plan is. I think your approach is the right one. Study and pray about the laws and interpret them according to your moral conscience.

Some actions are clearly and unambiguously bad. The interesting ones are more complicated and problematic. Was it right for Sarah and Jacob to fool Isaac? Yes and no. That's why we have Rabbis, to argue about such things. Contentiously.

Best to you.

Henry

HJ:

I appreciate the dialogue and kind words you have extended to me. I hope I can address your comments well…

"Splendid arguments. I don't agree, but you made them lucidly and most intelligently. WHO the heck are you?"

>> I have used YACTTB before but stopped. Since there are obviously many anonymous posters now I will continue to use this alias to differentiate

"As to my novels, and other great ones, generally what happens is that many uncertainties multiply as the novel goes on. You start out thinking that Mr Darcy is simply a priggish yuppy, but you end up seeing his character in all its complexity, and that he has very good qualities along with his faults."

>> In this case, I will agree that your novel can reveal additional complexities. However, as even you stated, the additional "complexities" have also revealed further light and knowledge about your character.

"In sections the Bible is great literature. The story of Sarah and Jacob and Esau, for instance. But does that story tell us how we should act? Steal our brother's birithright? Maybe. Lie to our father with the help of our mother? Maybe. Your Fibonnacci example is a good try, but serves mainly to illustrate a fundamental difference between numbers and words. When I say to the cashier, I have two apples and two oranges in my basket, he knows how to charge me without ambituaity."

>> I believe you may have only recognized one aspect of my argument. If you were to replace each number in the Fibonacci sequence with a moral from a story learned, a pattern of lessons also begin to form and become more recognizable. I feel that when complexities begin to invade our thoughts, we truly did not understand the underlying principles and/or further light and knowledge is needed. What do I mean by that? Take for instance the lesson of working on the Sabbath in Matthew Chapter 12. See:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/12/10-12

During the time of Moses, many were given basic laws to follow. Since these laws were new to them, it follows that they should be simple. Followers of the faith were given a simplistic portion of the law through Moses that one should not work on the Sabbath (I am envisioning a stick-figure drawing to illustrate the basics). But after Jesus offered more detail through an example, followers of the faith began to understand more of what it meant to obey the Sabbath. (no longer a stick figure, but now an outline of a person). As we are obedient to the laws and accept them (or understand them) further light and knowledge can come which will then fill the voids to complete a full work of art. Now the image becomes very clear and is well defined.

But here is where I feel my argument differs with yours. As a believer of the Plan of Salvation, I believe that there is a clear picture that has already been painted; not one that is constantly being added to or changed as the story develops. I also believe that "portions" of the painting have been modified or removed from their original meaning, thus needing an original to restore the missing components. Otherwise, what could happen if the basics are not corrected, is a faulty final image. (remember the 2, 3, 3 hypothesis?) Right from the start, one will view that “stick figure” as something else. Then they will begin to develop upon that perceived image which was not intended. Now the image becomes (let’s say) a gorilla, instead of a person. Similar outline, but much different being.

I feel that some are probably preparing to ask me about the questions that no one has yet answered. Why did Heavenly Father do certain things? To that I myself cannot answer. I don’t think the complete picture is given to us yet (and I certainly have much more studying to do in order to be near a caliber of someone such as JD1). I do know that enough of it is given that we can understand the basics. Further conversation of specifics (if it has not been revealed through His proper authority) is purely speculation. I do believe as we are obedient to the law and follow it, more will come and it is through that revelation that the overall masterpiece will be witnessed. We’ve seen it happen before where many did not know why they were asked to obey a commandment, but found out later in life the reasons for doing such a thing.

It's sometimes hard for me to stay on focus when I delve into discussions such as these. I hope I have stayed on topic!

I must get back to work now....

I just can't help coming back James.

You said:

"I have said many critical things about Mormons, and a fair number of complimentary things, in my time on this post."

I agree. Where did I dispute this?

"JD's claim that the poor persecuted Mormons are too good or sensitive for this "un moderated" forum is fatuous."

Is this what I said? I don't remember saying that. I said Mormons have a tradition of avoiding confrontational polemics, which is true. If you interpret this to imply Mormons are "too good" for this forum, I guess you can do that, but it is not what I said.

"Whew. Testy again."

Okay, okay, that was testy. I actually tried to erase that before it posted but alas, it escaped me. You don't mind testy posts do you?

"Commenters like Phaedrus and SML, not to mention myself, are as intelligent and discussive and appropriate as any posters on any moderated forums i have participated in."

I guess you saw my comment as a critique of the named posters on this forum. I never named any individual. And I never meant to criticize anyone in particular. I am talking about the entire forum, I think I made that clear when I generalized "ON FAITH." I made that comment in order to respond to P's question, and for no other reason. I don't think P. took it personally, he said he agreed with me!

"JD, You are no more civilzed, and no better judge of appropriate argumentation, than are either Phaedrus or myself."

Oh dear me James, where did I make that claim? It seems you are a little testy my friend. Sorry if you felt attacked by my original comments concerning the ON FAITH forum.

"And, it is UNDENIABLE that organizations like Mormonism control the cultural norms of conversation in order to preserve their power."

This is a can of worms I don't really want to open. But I think the anti-contention tradition is based on religious principles found in the scriptures. Sure there are other dimensions, but to reduce it to power, is to miss the spiritual context of princples of brotherly love, and unity.

"Friendly dialog" is wonderful. It is not what got the South integrated during the Civil rights movement, however."

It is clear you see your position as a modern extension of the civil rights movement in the 60s and every other moral advance prior to it. Thus you adopt the conflict = revolution = progress meta-narrative. That's great!! I'm sure you find meaning in that. That is surely why you are very comfortable with "contention"
and confrontation in advocating your moral positions.

Best,

JD1

JD comments
"When I posted that part of the interview, I was aware the info would be used to support some negative conclusion about Mormons. Carry on and expound in that regard if you wish."

Whew. Testy again.

I have said many critical things about Mormons, and a fair number of complimentary things, in my time on this post.

Most countries and religions have a fair amount to be critical about. This "forum" is not designed just to have people say polite things.

And, on issues like Women and Religion, many religions have come in for most deserved criticism, not just Mormonism.

JD's claim that the poor persecuted Mormons are too good or sensitive for this "un moderated" forum is fatuous.

Commenters like Phaedrus and SML, not to mention myself, are as intelligent and discussive and appropriate as any posters on any moderated forums i have participated in.

That perhaps is what Anon the second meant by the JDI cloud comment. JD, You are no more civilzed, and no better judge of appropriate argumentation, than are either Phaedrus or myself.

And, it is UNDENIABLE that organizations like Mormonism control the cultural norms of conversation in order to preserve their power. "Friendly dialog" is wonderful. It is not what got the South integrated during the Civil rights movement, however.

James,

It is interesting that those people participate in an unmoderated forum like this, when there are so many good discussions going on in moderated forums all over the web.

I don't know what Mormons Quinn asked to participate, so I am just making a guess as to why she's having difficulty.

When I posted that part of the interview, I was aware the info would be used to support some negative conclusion about Mormons. Carry on and expound in that regard if you wish.

As Bushman said, there are many who would love to participate, she's just not contacting the right people.

If that conversation is any indication, we should see more Mormon voices soon. That's why I posted it.

Signing off, I must get to work,

JD1

Those Thin-Skinned Mormons

JD
you say that self-respecting Mormons don't want to subject themselves to putting up with the Hoi Polloi on this Common Site.

It is good enough, and safe enough, for the following, but no other Mormons than the paid PR guy dares come on?

Posters have included
Starhawk the Pagan
President of Chicago Theological Seminary
The Former Secretary of State
Various Muslim Voices, who face REAL venom in the US
A Nice Little old Lady Rabbi
The Leader of the National Episcopal Church

I guess these folks are better prepared to deal with contention.

It doesn't take a lot of psychological strength to realize that people like Frank Collins and Jacob are dismissible wackos, and concentrate on getting a message to the fair number of reasonable people on here.

And as i go through this post with 535 comments, i see very few ad hominums or nutcases.

?????

JD1 remains on a cloud of his own... and chooses not to come down. Where he lives, we all shall never know for sure! Ha ha ha.

Mr. Holmes:

My dear Sir, how you do get around. Chemistry, logic, music, sociology, jurisprudence, and now religion as well? One should think such a subject beneath your keen cognitive sensibilities. Is nothing safe from your all-encompassing intellectual and observational powers? Perhaps I shall cook up a little something over which you may puzzle for a spell. We know how boredom sends you running for that little 7% solution, do we not?

James!!!!!!!

How did I know that you would do that!!!

If you don't mind I will now BREAK the Mormon anti-contention tradition to say: YOU ARE MAKING LEMONS OUT OF LEMONADE!!!

The anti-contention tradition is NOT against dialogue and/or freindly debate. It is against animosity, ad-homineims, and unproductive, divisive mud-slinging. Dialogue and freindly debate is constantly occuring under the Mormon umbrella. Sadly contentious polemics are often employed by Farms (also under the church umbrella), which I think hurts their case more than it helps. The latter's use of polemically charged rhetoric has been criticized inside and outside the church for its lack of civility.

Best,

JD1

P.S. Read an interesting article the discusses the Mormon anti-conentions tradition, as well as intellectual and anti-intellectual strands within Mormonism here:

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/132/Defending_the_Kingdom.pdf

Thanks John, I am inclined to agree with you on this. I am particularly struck by those who see what is similar to accepted notions as being "weird," based primarily on its lack of familiarity.

My best,

P.

The Virtues of Non Contention

JD notes in his valedictory:
"The anti-contention tradition in Mormonism proscribes against confrontational polemics"

which is a common tactic of authoritarian regimes, as opposed to democracies, where free speech and breadth of opinion freely expressed is valued.

It isn't polite to say "Why can't blacks hold the priesthood."
Is isn't polite, and is certainly "unladylike", to say "why can't women hold the priesthood like they do in the Episcopal Church."
It isn't polite to say "but Iraq had no real connection to 9/11 and al qaeda."

I have noted before that Authoritarian regimes value obedience to authority over Truth, Justice, and the Free expression of Ideas.

JD agrees with me.

Remember, be polite. Don't be contentious. It's not nice.

Hey Pheadrus,

I don't know. My best guess is that a scan through the posts on most threads will indicate a forum that is entirely unmoderated and where the panelist is frequently maligned. I am surprised any panelist is willing to put their cherished beliefs out there in this kind of environment; especially non-academic types like Harry Reid and Bill Marriot.

I particularly found many of the posts towards Bill Marriot were of a hurtful character. As Bushman notes, there is defensiveness among Latter Day Saints which indicates a still lingering minority mentality. We know how others view Mormon beliefs and the Mormon membership as a whole; that knowledge breads distrust (rightly so).

My guess is most Mormons do not want to contribute to an environment where popular sentiment can be exploited to take pot-shots at Latter Day Saints. Polemics aren't for everyone. The anti-contention tradition in Mormonism proscribes against confrontational polemics. I think non-participation by panalists and LDS posters has more to do with the polemic nature of the On Faith forum, than a general reluctance to share one's beliefs in dialogue.

For academics also, polemics are not terribly fruitful, because as you have already said, the views being debated are so divergent, arguments on both sides turn out to be circular.

In the end, I think Otterson should be praised for his willingness to non-anonymously put himself out there.

Best P,

I'm out....

Jd1

Henry's Ruse

Anon: it is worse than you think.

William James is dead TOO!!
Has been since 1915 or something.

AND
i scrolled up and found one post that was headed

"Henry and William James"

I don't know what to believe anymore.

Anonymous

Phaedrus is correct as usual.

It is Ironic to be "exposed" by someone who doesn't even know their own name.

My brother William would advise you to be skeptical of ANY truth claims, whether on the internet or in the Tabernacle.

And aas P says, no perceptive readers of this thread have been surprised to learn that I no longer exist. They can look it up on Wikipedia, which we are not allowed to quote because it is "anonymous."

Anon:

I have to wonder about anons taking issue with other people's noms de plume, but those who have been posting on the thread for awhile know already that Henry and William are, shall we say, particularly close to one another. There is no real effort to conceal this fact, and it adds to the "humor quotient" of what can be an acerbic dialogue.

However, I believe that you are not correct as to "their" wise sister.

Ouch "Mr. James", looks like your tangled web of lies has been revealed. You used the name "William James" and even began writing as if you were "William James" but made a critical habitual mistake. You signed it Henry.

So, now we all know Henry and William and Betty are all the same person just trying to play it off as three separate people. I think you'll soon find that your parapraxis will diminish your credibility amongst many here.

TVORE = The Varieties of Religious Experience

Philosophy of Theoogy 101

RTC: amplifying on your dialog with Brother Henry:

My famous position in TVORE is that it doesn't MATTER whether our religious beliefs about the afterlife are True or not,
as long as
our religion WORKS for us in this life.

I.e., it makes us happy, productive, moral, loving, engaged.

This school of Philosophy is called Pragmatism.

As an eminent philosopher i can assure you that there is no way to KNOW that the Mormon version of the afterlife (or ANY version of the Afterlife) is "true," that it describes what actually will happen.

You being a seminary teacher, RTC, I am sure you realize this.

Philosophically,
Henry

Thanks RTC.
I KNEW you had a rich imagination: i was challenging your vaunted boldness a bit. Just for fun, and I know you like fun.

You wrote an extraordinary thing:
"It is not important that one of us be right. What is important, is that we know what is true. Is this not the quest of our lives and that we be not deceived?"

I am being almost totally serious now, and I am astounded to hear you say
"It is not important that one of us be right." Isn't it important to accept the LDS gospel rather than the Muslim gospel so that we can achieve the highest degree of glory, splendid as those other 3-star hotels are?

You seem to be taking my position. I think it doesn't matter whether you or I are right about whether God exists and the Church is true, as long as we are good moral people and treat our fellows with loving kindness (hopefully while practicing Buddhism, but that is not required).

I do agree that we are seeking for Truth (and beauty) along with this Goodness. But I am under no illusions that we won't be deceived in our pursuit 99% of the time.

In fact, when you read my novels, I WANT you to be deceived.

Luv
Henry

BHJ-

You are being quite silly today. Now in regards to your hypothetical experiments of which you suggest, why would you think I or any other LDS would have a problem considering such?

Do you think we would tremble or lose our emotional stability in some way to even consider this thought? If that were the case, then of course, all your silly imaginations that we are mind controlled might have some validation.

So, sorry to inform you, but I would be comfortable in saying that most of my dear friends that I have deeply conversed with are comfortable enough with their spirituality to have shared that they have already crossed the path of which your game is based on. So as too have I, let the games begin!

Of what you suggest, we are basically considering something comparable to a terrestrial kingdom of glory as a final reward. Not bad really. On many days, I must confess, it does not sound bad at all. Frankly, my favorite song is...

"There is beauty all around, when there's no one home"!

So, there are times when one might ponder the reasons as to, WHY complicate my life for eternity? lol After all, glory is glory, and we are assured eternal bliss in all kingdoms, so what is all the fuss about... right? Covenants, commandments, standards, rules, etc....

Problems is, I know too much. Because then I re-MEMBER. (member=covenant) I can play the game, but I can't play the game, because it is no game.

Once a person has administered to them, by proper priesthood authority, the ordinances and covenants required for membership, they then become a member of the household of god, and IF they are true and faithful to that which they have promised... they are entitled to the Gift of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. (this is different that a single manifestation of His power)

Joseph Smith taught that the gift of the Holy Ghost was the one thing that set The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints apart from all other churches upon the face of the earth. It is that we have prophets today that receive revelation from God and are directed by him for the whole. And also, that each individual member also receives personal revelation to confirm for themselves these truths and seek answers to their own questions as desired.

The priesthood has been restored by angelic ministration, with the keys necessary to administer salvation to the children of God. All the gifts of the spirit are available to the members of the church through the holy ghost, following baptism and the laying on of hands.

The Holy Ghost follows only one path and is given to testify of all truth, which shall lead the recipient back into the presence of the Father.

Thus the reason that such a sureness is found in so many LDS of their faith and most likely the reason others may feel offended by this confidence, and members so surprised to find this response to their genuine testimonies. I am guilty of this, as my poor son-in-law certainly shakes his head often in my use of boldness. lol (love you sweetie)

And of course, Thankful-ly my dear daughter knows best not to tell her mama to zip-it too often, as we very much respect one another and I too, though the mama and not an apologist, am learning to soften:-)

So, can I imagine, yes. Do I have a place in my reality for the possibility? Here is the deal.... I will leave a small place for these possibilities IF you will leave room for the place that God does in fact exist and that He does love you and has a plan that must be followed... so that He may bless you fully.

BHJ, what kind of people would either of us be, IF we could not do even this one thing? It is not important that one of us be right. What is important, is that we know what is true. Is this not the quest of our lives and that we be not deceived?
rtc

Hello John:

Interesting. Why do you think there would be reluctance for prominent LDS to embrace this opportunity?

Some information I thought would be everyone's interest (Interview with Richard Bushman):

QUINN: We have a new website on The Washington Post/Newsweek called On Faith, and we have about 80 panelists from every different religion. The hardest group to find panelists for is Mormons. We have one Mormon, and that's Mike Otterson, who is the spokesperson for the Mormon Church, and we keep saying, get us Mormons, get us Mormons, but nobody wants to do it. The only other problem we have is with Catholic priests. (Chuckles.)

We did get some guest voices when we had a question on Mormonism. We wanted Bill Marriott and Harry Reid, and they both turned us down, and then I called Mike and he got them to speak out. But Marriott's PR person told him not to do it, that it would be dangerous for Mormons. Basically what he said was, I love my family, I care about my community – you know, all the things that you would want to hear from somebody, and yet there is this real reluctance. I think that's one of the things that lead people to believe that there is a secrecy, when in fact what they finally wrote was lovely and very compelling.

So I do think that there is this problem of Mormons not wanting to speak out, and I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to be on the panel. (Laughter.)

BUSHMAN: What can I say? I have to volunteer. (Laughter.)

QUINN: Anyway, maybe you have an answer to why people have been so reluctant to speak out and to talk about it.

BUSHMAN: I don't know; Mormons are very talky about their faith. I think it may be a kind of defensiveness; they don't know whether they can trust you, whether it is a trap. I think I could easily find well-spoken Mormons who would be very pleased to take part in an operation of that sort.

http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=148

Might we expect some new participants? I hope so.

Best,

Jd1

Gordon B Hinckley would say, when confronted by the supposed quotes above from Joseph and Brigham,

"I don't know that we taach that."

I suggest we all stick to that response if questioned.

RTC and other Faithful Mormons

I now see what you mean. Having to put up with Nutcases who make up these quotes from Joseph and Brigham confirms what you have always been saying:

these Anti-Mormons will stop at nothing, and have no respect for accuracy or Truth.

I finally repent my skepticism. Forgive me for doubting the virulance of the anti-mormon forces.

Don't forget what I said:

"...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith."

(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 289).

Faithfully,
Brother Brigham

Doesn't anyone care what I had to say on the subject?

"Question 3rd. Will everybody be damned but Mormons?

Answer. Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent and work righteousness."

Source: Elders' Journal Vol. I. No. 3. (July 1838)

Yours,
Brother Joseph

RTC
Is it against your religion to engage in hypothetical thought experiments?

If not, try this one (also open to the rest of you).

Assume for JUST a moment that the Metaphysical Truth is that the Catholic Church IS the one true Church, and the Mormon Church isn't.

Then what would you think if you got to heaven and it was the Catholics behind that nice brick wall and there WERE no Mormons or anyone else there.

Second experiment )this is really stretching, so you may not be able to do it)
what if things are just like they are in the story without your addendum, Ie the Mormon heaven is no different than anyone else's.

I KNOW you KNOW the Church is true.
But can you IMAGINE either of these two scenarios.

I know this joke is very threatening to people like Mormons, so you may fear to engage in this play, even though it is directly related to the Golden rule.

Are you bold enough for this?

RTC:

correction, I mistyped my email. It should be:

blogusanonymus@gmail.com

Sorry...

RTC:

I would like to take a conversation with you offline. Could you please email me at blogusanonymous@gmail.com?

Thanks

Storyteller -

Truth is truth. If you have ever read any of my post before you would know as I have always said, there will be no mormons in the celestial kingdom, only those who were willing to receive the law and have kept it, therefore qualifying themselves for return into his presence.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is his church here upon the earth that is duly authorized to administer his gospel as was the ancient church through the keys of the priesthood... as times of old. It was clearly organized then by Jesus Christ with his apostles in him giving them the necessary keys of authority and priesthood required to administer the church. Apostasy ocurred.

His church has been restored in it's fulness today and again these keys and priesthood with all the covenants and ordinances that are necessary for the salvation of man are administered for those who are willing to receive them.

The name mormon is a nickname for the members of the Lord's church here upon the earth only.

I realize that others consider the LDS church to think its self quite exclusive, but we do not, quite the contrary. Apologies if it seems so, as this could not be further from eternal truth, but the error of the fallible humans such as myself most likely.

rtc

RTC

The original version has Catholics instead of Mormons in the punch line.

Would you think it was just as much truth in it in that version?

Anonymous Storyteller -

It is interesting that you would share such a story. I say this because as much as you tell it to mock the LDS faith, there is so much truth in most of it, as you can see in my addition to it. Although there will not be an ugly wall separating kingdoms. But there will be separations, and there will be the inability for those of lesser glory to ever behold that of the higher glory. As well there will be associations with those of the life, so who knows who you may be having a picnic with? Surely many whom you loved here. Also every kingdom is a kingdom of glory and is said to be more than we can imagine.

Our Heavenly Father loves each of us and is determined to ensure our eternal happiness, whatever that looks like for us. We will choose it according to what we are willing to recieve and that is according to whatever light and knowledge we gain.
rtc

and so it was that this very high brick wall with barbed wire had no gate and no way for those who were enjoying the glory that they had attained unto to ever know all that they could have had... for ignorance is truly bliss... even throughout all eternity!

You may have heard the story of the old Methodist minister who died and went to heaven. Because he'd lived an exemplary life (as Methodist ministers are wont to do), St Peter took him on a personal guided tour. They passed a sunny green garden, where well-dressed people were drinking cups of Earl Grey tea and eating cucumber sandwiches, while other genteel people were playing croquet with less malice than is usually encountered in that most aggressive of games.

"They're the Anglicans," said St Peter. "This is their idea of heaven."

Next they came to a very fertile oasis in the middle of a romantic desert, and there were lots of happy Jewish families eating chopped chicken livers on unleavened bread. They passed the bonny bonny banks of Loch Lomond (the Presbyterians), and elaborate palaces with silken girls bringing sherbet (the Muslims), and lots of Buddhists sitting blissfully under lotus trees. And finally they passed a huge brick wall, very high and solid, with barbed wire along the top of it.

"Ssh," said St Peter, as they tiptoed past.

The Methodist minister was very puzzled.

"What was all that about?" he whispered when they'd passed. "Who's behind that wall? Is that hell?'

"No," said St Peter. "It's still heaven, but those are the Mormons - they think they're the only ones here."

HJ -

You know I love you all dearly. Give Betty and William my love. I stand rebuked in my open words regarding the Jews, as I understand better in these forums the sensitivity I encounter with my historical understandings.

I am commited to more study this summer break. Please recommend reading that you feel might be of interest to one such as I on this subject. I will be teaching the Old Testament come Fall. I thrill.

We who believe in the Jehovah of the Old Testament who did fulfill the law unto the New Covenant, do crucify him each and every day when we refuse to accept him as one and the same, or when we are not one...

This regardless of our faith. We, all of us, are his children and I do believe that literally.

As I have stated before, you are a good teacher and I learn much from you, even my boldness has become necessary due to my freinds here, as I expressed to Jim A. lol But for the most part a good experience for all, I am still inclined to believe:-)
rtc

Jim A -

Thank you for your response and your sincere honesty regarding my delivery. I asked for a reason...

When I first began posting here at On Faith, I found myself walking on egg shells and making sure with each and every single word that I typed (literally) that I would not even come close to offending even an ant, heaven forbid, as this was and is my first experience with blogging.

Then to add to that stress, of course we are going to feel the weight of those we encounter in our dialogue, not of our faith, then potentially having feelings associated to the church, due to what we may have posted?

What I came to find out though, was that most here were those that were either disaffected from the church or though not members, in a similar negative attitude toward the church.

Not all, but the definite majority. Some do come along, very rarely, but few that actually post with a desire to just understand and learn from a true objective position.

What I received most often times that I posted with this objective, was an overwhelming attack of most usually a "word" .

What I have learned here then is that there is no delivery that works for those that oppose truth.

Therefore, I have opted for it in its purity and not worried so much about offending, but speaking it, with no intention whatsoever to offend or to be self-righteous in any way. Although I realize that is contrary to what many others would assess.

I imagine there are many who read these threads and I have come to believe that those with honest hearts are able to discern truth from error, if they are being led by the spirit and truth is being taught.

I honestly believe that truth is much more powerful than any of us realize, and as long as truth is given without rancor it can be received by those that are true seekers. I honestly do my best to avoid any kind of negativity in all my dialogue and particular in what I post.

I also believe that it is important to correct false doctrines when they are posted here.

I like you, believe firmly in the teachings of Jesus Christ... all of them. So in saying that, I too, affirm with you, that there is only one way and he has shown us his way very clearly.

I will recommit myself in trying to subdue my delivery with a little less edge, so that it may be received with greater power to those who are true seekers.

But I must say that when interacting with many of the same individuals and often times repeating the same themes, one does have a tendency to get louder.

God has the elements at His command and I only my computer. lol
rtc

The Adversary is trying to Mess Up My Letters:
here is a better version of the above

RTC my Friend

I for one Love your boldness. I am pretty bold myself. And so is my sister Betty. William is kind of a wimp.

Regarding the Jews:
You are stereotyping, and stereotyping sloppily. SOME Jews participated in Jesus’s crucifixion IF it happened the way SOME of the gospels tell it. Most did not.

So to say “THE JEWS killed Jesus” is inflammatory, more important, substantially inaccurate. And such statements have contributed to anti Semitism and holocausts over the centuries.

I have noted before that you have not shown an ability to write about “the Jewish question” without getting yourself into a sinkhole. I still believe that.

But I do think you are a good person, probably as good as my sister Betty.

Your “for God so loved..” quote is lovely IF one believes the New testament in the first place, and is a Christian. None of us dispute your right to believe it, or Karen’s.

Many of us do note that there are 4,000 other belief systems about God and her children in the world, and that there is no reason for thinking the Christian one is any better or worse than the others.

The ONE thing they ALL say is
Love your neighbor as yourself.

Peace

henry

RTC my Friend

I for one Love your boldness. I am pretty bold myself. And so is my sister Betty. William is kind of a wimp.

Regarding the Jews:
You are stereotyping, and stereotyping sloppily. SOME Jews participated in Jesus’s crucifixion IF it happened the way SOME of the gospels tell it. Most did not.

So to say “THE JEWS killed Jesus” is inflammatory, more important, substantially inaccurate. And such statements have contributed to anti Semitism and holocausts over the centuries.

I have noted before that you have not shown an ability to write about “the Jewish question” without getting yourself into a sinkhole. I still believe that.

But I do think you are a good person, probably as good as my sister Betty.

Your “for God so loved..” quote is lovely IF one believes the New testament in the first place, and is a Christian. None of us dispute your right to believe it, or Karen’s.

Many of us do note that there are 4,000 other belief systems about God and her children in the world, and that there is no reason for thinking the Christian one is any better or worse than the others.

The ONE thing they ALL say is
Love your neighbor as yourself.

Peace

henry

Anon on Uncertainties

Splendid arguments. I don't agree, but you made them lucidly and most intelligently. WHO the heck are you? You are almost up to JD's level.

But then, who the heck am I, you might ask. Uncertain? Just as I am uncertain.

The more anonymous's there are on this post, the more uncertain you and I will get. QED, almost.

As to my novels, and other great ones, generally what happens is that many uncertainties multiply as the novel goes on. You start out thinking that Mr Darcy is simply a priggish yuppy, but you end up seeing his character in all its complexity, and that he has very good qualities along with his faults.

Demagogues love novels with little ambiguity. Great literary critics love novels and symphonies with multipyling ambiguities.

In sections the Bible is great literature. The story of Sarah and Jacob and Esau, for instance. But does that story tell us how we should act? Steal our brother's birithright? Maybe. Lie to our father with the help of our mother? Maybe.

Your Fibonnacci example is a good try, but serves mainly to illustrate a fundamental difference between numbers and words.

When I say to the cashier, I have two apples and two oranges in my basket, he knows how to charge me without ambituaity.

But if i ask you to
"sanction" my "oversight" of this blog,
the two words could each mean totally opposite things.
2 apples + 2 oranges = specificity.
2 words = rampant ambiguity.

and if i had four such words, the ambiguity would have multiplied geometrically.

But again, very smart post. Thanks.

The problem with RTC's method of boldness is that it can sometimes seem condescending and judgemental, whether or not she means it to be. And it also seems that whenever someone nicely points out to her that something she's said to someone could be considered offensive, she comes right back and does the same thing more, as if more of the same will make it better.

I would like to be more like Karen, truth be told, and I think the world would be a much better place if more people were like her.

Good Evening HJ:

You said to Jim A: "exactly the same thing can be said of the BoM ... Your approach makes things worse rather than better." This is in regards to your argument that the BoM multiplies uncertainties.

I can't say I agree entirely with your argument. I believe the more information is given, the less likely misinterpretation can be had. I'm not sure "America's Greatest Literary Critic" would want someone to read the Cliff Notes version of one of your well written books. Certainly one could indulge more heavily in the concepts offered from a well written masterpeice containing more detail, than to glance over a yellow and black booklet. I think choosing the booklet with less information can certainly lead to more interpretation on the reader's part than what the writer would want them to.

To portray my point in other ways, if you were asked to figure out the sequence of a simple mathematical problem given as such:

1, 1, 2, ?, ?, ?

What would your assumption of the question marks be? Would they be 2, 3 and 3 respectively? Without further info we could only speculate. If I then gave you three more digits as such:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, ?, ?, ?

You could further conclude that the pattern given is a fibonacci sequence.

Now granted, this may be a very rudimentary example but I hope it is one that illustrates my argument.

RTC,

I have enjoyed your posts since my participation at On Faith and have said such here previously. I realize that you have no intention of offending, and I agree wholeheartedly that you have clearly and boldly stated the LDS beliefs.

In my opinion, some here do not appreciate your boldness, and I believe it is more of a disagreement with the style than the substance. But, some, too obviously disagree with LDS doctrine as they understand it and are very bothered with the LDS stance of being Christ's restored church with his authority.

For me, as I study the Bible and learn from Jesus' teachings and as I try to follow the truths that I learn, the more sure I am of being in the path that Christ intends. Others have this same convinction as they honestly strive to follow Christ, and that is to be commended. I continue to be amazed at his teachings and at the perfect plan by which all can be clean to return to live with him if this is their desire.

Christ did teach that there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. So, although everyone is obviously free to believe and to worship as they choose, and many religions contain much truth, logically, religion A and religion B cannot both be Christ's restored church with his authority.

Sorry- previous post regarding Bible/Book of Mormon teaching on infant baptism was mine....

Henry James,

In response to your question: "you say the bible is nice but "some plain and precious truths have been lost to us." can you give an example."

An example that comes to mind most readily about a doctrine that is unclear in the Bible is infant baptism. I cannot say that I know every verse of the Bible, but I have tried to study it for much of my life (still learning new things by the way), but I am unaware of a scripture in the Bible that clearly states that infants have no need of baptism.

Some may disagree with the LDS practice of baptizing children once they reach 8 years old. We believe that this is the age at which children begin to be accountable for their actions. By this age, children generally have a basic understanding of the gospel and understand that by being baptized they are making a promise to follow Christ.

From my LDS perspective, and I try to see things from other points of view as well, infants and children younger than 8 have no need for baptism. This is a doctrine clearly taught in the Book of Mormon and is one example of where this book gives us additional truth that is not clearly stated in the Bible. I could find other examples if necessary....

From the Book of Mormon regarding infant baptism (Moroni 8: 10-15; http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/8):

10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

Hello again Karen and HJ

When I commented on Luke 23:43, I was not referring to the many degrees of Glory, but rather rebutting an argument you attempted to make. The information is all given in the New Testament, there has not yet been a reference to the Book of Mormon.

Jesus used the word Heaven many times in the scriptures, but here he does not use the word Heaven for a reason. Instead he says "paradise". These two are different. It is further examined after Jesus has been resurrected (3 days later) and appears to Mary. John 20:17 says "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

It is very clear here that Jesus hasn't been to Heaven yet. If he told the theif "today" you will be with me in paradise, but three days later says he has not yet ascended to his Father, you have to question where he was for 3 days.

However, in response to your degrees of glory and Mormon doctrine, try reading Corinthians Chapter 15 versus 40-42. Again, if you follow the Bible, it is stated here that those who are resurrected will follow the three degrees of glory. Once again there has been no reference yet to the Book of Mormon.

Karen -

What are your comments regarding baptism for the dead? And tell me how you feel about all of god's children who have died without ever having the chance to be baptized or do not ever learn about Jesus Christ here on earth, knowing that baptism for the dead was performed during the time of Christ? Why would it be important then and not now?

What are your beliefs regarding resurrection? Do you believe in a literal resurrection of the body and spirit, in that they will reunite as did Jesus Christs' body, never to be separated again? If ours do, then what about the Saviors? What will be the state of existence for us at that point in your belief system?

How do you see yourself and your family after you leave this earthly existence? Are you single and separate again? Do your relationships continue and progress?

What do you hope for your children as a parent as far as your religious beliefs are concerned?

I am honestly interested to know what your faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible alone without current revelation gives to His children? I know you feel that I rely on the arm of man as my mediator. I do not feel that way at all.

Therefore, I feel it a fair question to ask of you since we have had such open dialogue. I hope you don't mind answering sincerely, for I ask sincerely.

I am in awe of the great temple work that takes place inside and outside of these holy edifices and the attendant spirit that is felt in that work. It testifies to me of the love of god for each and every child of god. I cannot get over this one thing alone.

I know that in the garden of gethsemane our savior took upon himself each and every one of our sins, etc... one by one by one by one by one by one...

This is exactly how temple work is done for each individual who has ever lived upon the earth... one by one.
rtc

Anonymous -

I would also be interested in your comments regarding my post to Jim A. I feel as though this is one of the biggest hurdles that the adversary has placed before the work of the kingdom.

I believe we are witnessing a clear example of this right before our eyes?

This can be seen countless times when the law is used against Jesus by those claiming to be the law! Satan will use the law up until the very end...

And it will be ONLY those who have kept the laws through covenants, AND because they have KEPT the laws, they are ABLE to qualify for the grace and mercy of the atonement and become justified,

thus ENABLING them to ENTER IN AT THE GATE AND BE RECEIVED INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

Those who continue to deny the need for law, as did many refuse even John's baptism, they will not progress. For these same one's did not accept Jesus Christ when John pointed the way...
rtc

Jim A -

I have appreciated your objective viewpoints that you have stated. As well your comments in clarifying biblical texts and its integrity. Thank you.

It has not been my position to be condescending to anyone here as I have attempted to state my opinions within the context of LDS doctrine. I will confess, I am straightforward.

But in saying that, please recognize that these are my opinions and that I do believe that they are soundly stated within our LDS doctrine, or general beliefs, with no intention to offend.

Also, of my much earlier comments... they seem to be hanging on to the Jews rejection of Jesus Christ and his crucifixion as if they themselves have been accused in our day, and that we are not discussing a past, and well recorded history. Of which we can only attempt to gain understanding from...

If I am discerning the problem that most are having with my comments, it is that they are offended with the law versus grace and mercy issue as I stated earlier on? Would you agree with this assessment?

Therefore, they now judge me, of the two, as law, thus evil.

Again, this is the great divide beautifully orchestrated by the adversary to separate the children of god from him.

Put another way, you must pick one or the other? Pit one against the other. You cannot have it both ways.

Thus, the trinity and not a Godhead, with each a different mission or facet of the plan and the true need for an atonement to satisfy the demands of Justice!

John 3:16
For God So Loved The World, That He Gave His Only Begotten Son, That Whosover Believeth IN Him Should Not Perish, But Have EverLasting Life.

It is simply masterful! Tell me please... is this what you are seeing here? If not, what do you see? Please be bold?
rtc

Hello Jim A

you say the bible is nice but
"some plain and precious truths have been lost to us." can you give an example.

it seems to me that adding the BoM to the Bible as a sacred scripture SIMPLY MULTIPLIES the uncertainties we agree are in any text.

you write
"How many different people and religions can read passages in the Bible and interpret them differently? "

and you are coorect in your implication.

AND, exactly the same thing can be said of the BoM (which is largely plagiarized from the Bible, by the way).

Your approach makes things worse rather than better.

Love
henry

Karen's retort to Anon is Right On (I understand that phrase was popular in the 1960s).

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Catholics and Mormons are a lot alike. They have 93,536 fine points on the afterlife that only the priests or prophets can fully interpret.

paradise doesn't REALLY mean heaven, it means a 3-star hotel that you stay in on the 4th floor with an ice machine down the hall and 43 exotic dancers whom you can't touch but are OK to look at because that is no longer a mortal sin that costs you double your tithing this month .....

Oh please.

Karen, thanks for your clarification on reading the bible.

I couldn't agree more with your approach. As my rant above illustrates.

Permit me to repeat the story about the Rabbi who was asked to summarize the whole torah while standing on one foot.
He said
"what is hateful to you, do not do unto others. the rest is commentary."

Lots of religious people have OCD. 365 laws about how to prepare your food. 46 hail marys if you beat your wife.

Keep it simple. Love your neighbor. Don't hit her if you wouldn't want her to hit you.

Luv
Henry

Anonymous: I take the statement in Luke to mean that the thief is going to be with Jesus after he dies. And that is good enough for me. The rest is semantics. I really really do not get into the whole muliple levels of paradise, heaven, celestial kingdom, and whatever else. Being with God for eternity, wherever that may be will be more then enough joy for me. Don't need to get my own planet (though I guess even I were mormon, since I am a woman that would not happen either).

Henry James: about reading the Bible... you are right about multiple interpretations. I guess what I meant is that I try not to wander too far from the literal text. I think that is where people get into trouble and start seeing justification for whatever they want to do. I read and study the Bible carefully but it seems to me that the main points are: receive Jesus as your savior, love your God with all your heart and all your mind and your neighbor as yourself, let the Holy Spirit of God transform you and don't quench it, share the good news of the Gospel telling others of the hope that lies within you with gentleness and with respect and in your hopes and your despairs, your happy times and your worst times, go to God and don't loose faith.

Though I am strong in my beliefs, I also try not to get too wrapped up in points of contention. I love the quote from St Augustine: in essentials unity, in non essentials liberty but in all things charity. Now does that sound like the words of a lost, misled apostate to you? I think we would all be better of if we tried to keep especially the charity aspect in mind.

And on that note, good night HJ. Even brilliant literary critics need to sleep.

Henry James wisely points out:
"Though I applaud you desire to read the bible for what it *actually says*, there are significant difficulties in determining what ANY text Actually says, and people DO hear what they want to hear."

This is one reason that relying on the Bible alone is problematic. How many different people and religions can read passages in the Bible and interpret them differently? I love the Bible and have especially enjoyed studying the New Testament recently. The parables are amazing in the messages they contain for those that heard them originally as well as for us today. The Bible is the word of God, but some plain and precious truths have been lost from it.

Karen:

Regarding your comment on the thief, you quoted Luke 23:43 "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise"

- Paradise is not Heaven. It is a temporal place where spirits go to after death, before they are resurrected.

Hello Karen

on your dialog with RTC about whether one needs a Priest and the Laying on of hands for full salvation:

It seems to me an aesthetic preference, since it is very hard to prove one way or another. I do agree that the examples you cited - Christ's thief - are convincing, but if I were determined to believe I needed a Catholic Priest to give me last rites or a Mormon to marry me in the temple in order to achieve the highest salvation, i could rationalize it for myself pretty easily.

Though I applaud you desire to read the bible for what it *actually says*, there are significant difficulties in determining what ANY text Actually says, and people DO hear what they want to hear.

I think it is morally outrageous to blame "the Jews" for killing Jesus. *Some* Jewish people and Roman authorities and Pilate (who was probably not as hands off as the bible says) were probably involved, IF Jesus actually died the way the Bible says - remember, all the gospels were written 30-60 years after the supposed death, and details were changed and added later than that.

It is morally obtuse, after the tragedy of the holocaust and centuries of Christian anti-semitism, to appear to say "the Jews killed Jesus." I have castigated RTC before for her loose words in this regard.

You are right: if you follow a Christian sect that is not the LDS church, you and your church are apostates. Not that this makes you a bad person. You just don't know any better. Let that light shine in, sister (Irony warning).

The Christ of the Bible did sacrifice for you out of love, a love that is unfathomable and profound. Your statement of your belief in this regard shows that you base your religious beliefs on love.

Those who base their religious beliefs and actions on a fear of hell, or a fear of not reaching the Celestial Kingdom, or a craving for a reward in some Afterlife
are operating at the lowest level of moral reasoning and sensibility.

Some good souls can rise above such a system that depends on fear to control the flock,
but I think we should wish to get the flock out of those religions, and convince people to act out of an intrinsic sense of loving kindness and compassion, rather than
"how can I make the Golden rule benefit me?"

RTC: actually, I am not that thin skinned. While some of what you say comes across quite condescending, I am not that easily offended. Example of a condescening statement: you are offering me more light but I shut the door. I truly have all the light that I need from Jesus. Everything that you have described to me about the LDS church adds layers and intermediaries and distance between Him and me. Henry James is right when he says that telling the faithful that they need an intermediary gives more power to a church and its clergy over its people. But telling people to go directly to God as Jesus taught by saying "Our Father, who art in heaven" is an incredibly freeing experience that I would not trade for anything. I really cannot understand why you cling to this whole priesthood, laying of hands sort of thing. I could quote chapters and verses to you as well but since the LDS church is so good at taking scripture out of context, that probably won't convince you. How about the thief on the cross? What did he do to get to heaven? Was he baptized? NO. Did he take communion? NO. Did he give money to the poor? NO. Did anybody lay hands on him? NO. He just said: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom". and Jesus answered him:" I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise". Moral of the story: all that is required for salvation is receiving Jesus as our Lord. And because receiving Jesus bring the Holy Spirit to reside in us -again without needing anybody to lay hands on us- we are transformed, but only if we truly allow the Holy Spirit to work in us and we do not quench HIm.

About the jews at the time of Jesus: most rejected Him but many did not. After all, I owe my knowledge of Jesus and most of the NT to 12 jewish men that all were martyred, except for one, in order to bring to the world the message of salvation. My point is that we all, as fallen sinful humans, killed Jesus. He died for us. If we had not all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, God would not have had to come to earth in the person of Jesus and suffer and die to reconcile us to him. Because of the church's horrible history of persecuting the jews (despite Jesus forgiving his slayers while on the cross), I think we should use our words carefully lest hatred gets inflamed against the jews over and over again. Theologically, I absolutely disagree with their rejection of Christ. But I will not partake of any blaming.

Finally, about apostacy. Do you not believe as the LDS church teaches that all non mormon christians are apostates? You do not have to call me this directly but since you hold to all official mormon teachings, I would assume you hold to that one too.

Henry James: I try to keep my understanding of Jesus as close to biblical scriptures as possible. I try not to read between the lines or believe any stuff added later. I let Him speak for Himself. I love Him because He first loved me. The Bible tells me that there is nothing I can do that will separate from God's love once I am His. Is there anything more freeing then this? As the old hymn says: Blessed assurance... Why on earth would I trade this for a merit system, waiting upon mere men, as fallen as I am. to bring me some kind of blessing?

Act of Christian Charity Witnessed

I just went to the grocery store
and at a table outside
taking donations of food and money
and handing out flyers
for a Battered Women's Shelter

were

Four Jewish Men.

Maybe they were the Wandering Jews from Christ's time.

(this IS a true story this tiime)

Hello Jim A

It was I who advised RTC to learn humility and virtu', not Brother Henry.

Henry doesn't know what humility is.

Do you know the song from Camelot, "The Seven Deadly Virtues."?

It contains this line, which Henry believes:
"I find humility means to be hurt.
It's not the earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt."

Love
Betty

Hello Jim

thanks for your thoughts.

There may be only one Christ, but people interpret his meanings in very different ways. (I leave aside that there is not one historically verifiable fact about Jesus's life - topic for another day).

Some people think that they should
Kill for Jesus.

You and I would probably agree that that is not what Jesus meant us to do.

Some people (George Bush, apparently) think that the Political Philosophy Jesus would advise is to give massive tax cuts to people who are already in the top 1% of the country as far as wealth.

You and I might agree that Jesus would not approve. He would be more likely to favor more relief to the poor rather than the rich.

I don't advise HUMILITY for RTC.
I advise Skepticism.
What I say is obviously only my opinion. History has shown me to be right in my opinion much more frequently than the average Great Literary Critic.

But that doesn't mean that even I can't be wrong from time to time.

It is clearly MY OPINION that RTC is very wrong. She thinks the same about me. Free country.

It is my opinion that
Christians like Karen
embody the basic teaching of All Moral Systems
"that which is hateful to yourself, do not do unto others"
more fully than
Christians like RTC.

They both think they are following Christ.

Kant both be right.

Peace and love and skepticism

Henry

HJ:

I believe in Christ. There is only one Christ, so logically Karen and RTC believe in the same Christ but only have differing interpretations and ways of expressing their beliefs. We all do, to some extent. Maybe I am naive, but hopefully each true Christian, in his/her own way is trying to follow Christ. Karen and RTC both have described their sincere desires to do this. Perhaps you should say that you prefer Karen's presentation to RTC's.

It does seem ironic to me that in the same breath you call on RTC to learn virtue and humility that you deride her by saying that she thinks that she knows more than she does. I don't think that Karen's Christ would approve....

dear OTHER anonymous

they are smarter than you.

deal with it.

Can you please tell me what all of you do for a living? I'd sure love to have your jobs. I truly cannot believe how many posts and how much time many of you have spent on all of these blogs. I also find it interesting how a person can possibly state that they have no agenda by posting here every day all day long.

Seriously, how can I do what you guys do and still make a living?

Be not deceived.

God is not mocked.

and Henry and Betty are two very different people.

RTC
Karen, in her wonderfully loving and sincere and questing manner, writes to YOU
"RTC, please do not assume you understand my motives or know what is in my heart. It makes you sound condescending and judgemental, which I don't think you really are"

These words should be as important to you as anything YOU THINK that Christ said to YOU.

And Karen and I think that you misunderstand Christ every step of the way (Karen, correct me if I'm wrong).

RTC, you think you understand SO MUCH MORE than you do. none of us can understand what YOU claim to. that is a Sin. it is called Hubris. Go read the Greeks. learn humility. learn moderation. learn virtu' in the Greek sense. you think you know so much more than you know. and it is Evident to all the rest of us.

but we love you

Rtc

I believe in Karen's Jesus Christ.

but you have NO understanding of Jesus Christ.

By their fruits you shall know them, saith this fruit.

you , RTC, do not know the Law at all. You just think you do. And it does not make you kind. you have a natural kindness, but your relligion get's in the way. as it so often does. not always though. study karen.

You also do not understand what you call "weakness"
Gay people have the strength
to love
and people like you strive to take that strength away.

THAT is sad. Christ is sad today because of you.

BJH -

Thank you for your loving critiques, as they are well received and appreciated from both my brother and sister.

Now in regards to the homosexual question and law. Let me just say from a personal place, that I can love HJ no matter what, as I know God does as well, but from the side of law it is a sadness when one considers that there is a separation involved that cannot be justified unless a different choice is made.

So I am so sad, because I do love HJ and would like to see all the joy that is available, but I am fully aware of the law that is required and do know that grace and mercy understand this situation even though HJ does not feel this to be so.

What is maybe not understood is that grace and mercy are more than just extended kindnesses by Deity, and extra forgiveness, but grace is actual POWER that is granted to those who exercise faith unto repentance.

So when we are weak and feel we just can't do it on our own... we are right, we can't, but through our faith it shows Him our desire and because of His compassion He then gives us His grace or POWER to continue on.

Christ grew from grace to grace... We all need His grace desperately!
rtc

Karen -

I just read your post of 11:21 pm. Please correct me if I am wrong, as I am more than willing to learn if I have been incorrect with my previous understanding.

I too learn as much as anyone here on these threads, thus my continued dialogue. So please give me your Christian/Jewish teaching of the correct position of how we should view those who were Jewish and waiting upon the messiah, but then would not receive Jesus Christ as such?

What group of people was it, that when given a choice, passionately cried out "crucify him" who is king of the jews... then allowed Him to hang on the cross wearing a crown of thorns and let the thief go free?

For tho they did not accept Him, He was the promised messiah of whom they had awaited. Therefore, their open rebellion of Him and his teachings constitute apostasy according to those who do accept Him as the messiah.

Is it your position that someone other than the Jews supported him being crucified and rejected him as the messiah they waited upon in the Old Testament?
rtc

Karen,

If you be a true Christian, then I pray that you will then forgive me for offending you. Honestly however, I do not understand why it would bother you that I did extend an invitation to you to take a deeper look into the teachings of the LDS doctrine.

The reason that I made this invitation was, because from the many comments that I had read in your post, it was evident to me that you clearly had many misunderstandings of the LDS teachings. Unfortunately, this is far too common. But more than that, I truly sensed your sincere heart as a disciple of Jesus Christ. Your background as one who has forged a testimony through adversity does not surprise me at all, for it is detected easily even from afar.

I admit, I am still suprised at your offense at the invitation. Why do you choose to be considered an apostate Karen? I did not call you or any other christian that is not LDS such a thing.

What I was saying is that the christian teachings of today are what we have left over, after the apostasy, following the death of Jesus and the loss of His priesthood authority with the death of the apostles, etc.

Yes, we have the Bible and there are good people who love God and desire to keep the commandments, such as yourself. But just as Jesus did when he was upon the earth in setting up his Church and organizing it then... He has done that again today through a restoration.

My disappointment only comes in having felt that one who is a seeker of truth would then shut the door when more light is being offered.

Who would ever place fear before us, as we traveled that long journey of life, if there were one with light streaming around the corner... who set it upon a hill, to lead us safely home?

Karen, think me arrogant if you will, but I am sincere in what I am saying to you now. My intent was only that I feel if you were to know more about the LDS Church, you would most likely be pleasantly surprised. I am not speaking about conversion. I am speaking about a correct understanding unto knowledge.

By the way, it is exactly because of The Law that ruled The Fall and the consequences therefrom, that God sent His only Begotten Son to die and atone for the sins of the world, that grace and mercy could take effect IF men would repent and come unto Christ and be baptized in His name and receive the Holy Ghost. Then from there we are commanded to do the works that he did to the best of our ability and from there he would make up the difference.

We believe that this must be done by one with the proper authority as it was also for Jesus Christ, who even though innocent, it was also required of him to fulfill law by submitting to the Father.

This is clearly taught in the New Testament in the Baptism of Jesus Christ by John, who held the Aaronic priesthood (or the priesthood of Aaron) and was the only one who had the right by lineal descent to do so, and this was done by complete immersion.

Karen - I am sorry that you have had negative experiences at times with religion in your life. I am happy for you that now you seem to have found peace and comfort in your faith.

I want you to know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is far from a money-digging, power-hungry or dominating organization that you may be thinking or have heard of. It is the closest thing to Zion that exist in the earth today and those that are blessed by association in it come to know that it can only be said that it is The Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Karen - My husband was called as a Bishop when he was in his early 30's and I about 30. I can't begin to tell you what a shock this was to our little family. I had four children at the time, the oldest was 10... she is now 28 with four of her own:-) We did not know what hit us, but we exercised faith in the Lord and gave our all in service and love to him.

I now teach seminary (8 week break) at 6am each weekday morning to 10th grade students just because I love the Lord and I love teaching his word. So I get up at 4:15 am each morning. yikes. I don't tell this to boast, only to let you know that most members I know simply say yes... I will do whatever is needful in building up the kingdom here upon the earth. Just like you probably do. But nobody fills out an application in the church for any service that they do. They don't even suggest what they would like to do. They just wait to see where they are needed.

I too love C.S. Lewis as you do. In fact, he is the most quoted by our LDS General Authorities of any who are not LDS. It is not unusual to hear him referenced in a talk every now and then. He was a wise soul with a brilliant mind, who thought deeply on the spiritual.

Oh and one more thing, we are not working our way into heaven. But we do believe in covenants, meaning we have made promises to do certain things and God promises us certain things. Well, we are a temple loving people as you are probably aware of and we do work and work and work... a lot. But we do it for those who have not had a chance to receive the gospel while here upon the earth.

Can you believe that God would send to *Hell* all those who never had the chance to hear about Jesus Christ? This one thing should stop every christian in their tracks and cause them to question a bit???

Heavenly Father does have a Plan of Salvation that encompasses this injustice for all of His children who have ever lived and who will ever live upon this earth. What happens in temples is about all those who have died without having the opportunity to hear and receive Jesus Christ in this life. It is marvelous and it is true.

Elijah has returned as stated in Malachi and has turned the hearts of the children to the Fathers. This is about genealogy and tracing our families, so that we might identify them to know that they know about God. What more important and unselfish work could there be?

The Savior set His life to redeem the souls of as many as would receive Him, and we are assisting in His work for those who did not have that opportunity here upon the earth.

1 Cor. 15: 29
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Such beautiful doctrine is taught in the 15th Chapter of Corinthians. Paul truly embraced grace, of which was so fully extended to him, as to all of us through the atonement. But, he fully acknowledges law in this same speech, as he teaches of the three kingdoms of heaven according to that law which is attained of the body.

So we do love that he teaches that all are resurrected and do require the earthly ordinance of baptism and that baptism for the dead was performed in the ancient church and must continue for all those who have ever lived and not had the chance to hear.

Think of how many souls that must be and it has never even been possible to even perform this work until this time in history with the modern technology that we have with computers, etc...

Who else on the face of the earth is doing this work, but the Church of Jesus Christ. Did you realize that genealogy is the number one hobby in the world?

Is this not evidence that there is a God, just as much as there are stars, a moon and a sun. All things testify of Him.

rtc

Well after re-reading RTC previous posts to me, here are some clarifications:

Why I come to this thread? Actually, I chanced on this one, I normally only read a few of the blogs on "On Faith". Because of the usual animosity that develops on most of the blogs, and because believers are usually reviled, I hardly ever posted before. But scrolling back to the top, I see that what really got me was RTC's offensive comments about jews. As I have said before, I believe that the Jews were (and are) wrong to reject Jesus but I am sick and tired of them being vilified, called Christ killer and so on. Then the conversation changed over with Phaedrus to asking LDS for full disclosure of its beliefs. Then I did not post for quite a while.

RTC, please do not assume you understand my motives or know what is in my heart. It makes you sound condescending and judgemental, which I don't think you really are. I certainly don't pretend to understand your motives beyond being an apologist for your church (I mean that in a positive way). Yes I am interested in learning about other religions, and I am very truthful about it, but it is not with the goal of changing religions. I am strong in my faith and commited to Christ. But I also believe that the more we all know about each other, the better we can live together, even if we disagree. Is there anything wrong with being curious and inquisitive? I have asked muslims to explain their beliefs to me, budhists, hindus, etc. I never even attempted to mislead you or anybody about my interests, my faith or where I come from.

Henry James: thank you again for the very kind words. If my words, or my witness, encourage others to try to find what it is that makes me so, that would be great and indeed a testament of God's work in my life. I come from a place (the middle east) where hate is very common and I truly believe that it is Jesus that has allowed me to overcome all the hate. I would be lying if I said that I wouldn't hope that you would give christianity another chance because of what my faith has done for me. But you know what, you sound like a great person and what you believe is up to you.

Henry is not QUITE as infallible as he would have you think. But then, neither is the pope or Gordon B Hinckley, the Mormon Prophet, Seer and Revelator. About God, we should read the book of Job and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

What the Rabbi Hillel ACTUALLY Said, even though it amounts to the same thing, is:

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. The rest is commentary"

A thought experiment.

If my brother Henry had been sexual at all, he would have been Homosexual.

He would thus have been a sinner in the Mormon and Catholic Church, if he acted on his natural impulses, even if he had been married in Massachusetts and thus had NOT been committed adultery."

What would the Golden Rule say about us if we said to Henry:

"You are an unnatural sinner to have carnal relations with your spouse."

Would we want others to say the same to us. Would it not be hateful if they did.

The only justification is that Homosexuals are weak and thus we can get away with condemning them.

What would Jesus do? Or Rabbi Hillel? Or Immanuael Kant?

I know what Karen would do. RTC, I am not too sure.

thanks RTC

sorry for the lashing.
we are brothers and sisters in Joseph Smith, and you know how frank brothers and sisters are with each other.
My sister always used to say to me "you're such a slob, Henry." Perhaps that is why I turned out to be such an aesthete.

But I really do love you. That is why I am so frank, as you are with me.

The line from Mame goes
"who else but a bosom buddy would tell you how rotten you are."

they always say "it's for your own good."

one tactical thing to think about:
"I statements."

like
"this really works for ME. i don't know if it will for you, but see if it is interesting."

You, my darling, tend to come across as saying "if you just believed as I do and saw things as I do, you would be much better off."

dangerous stance.

i certainly wouldn't advise you to take my stance.

One of Karen's virtues is that she concentrates on HOW THINGS LOOK TO HER.
Not
why WE SHOULD SEE WHAT SHE SEES.

Big difference. Think about it. I may be wrong, but it's a thought. I have been wrong before. Once, in 1874.

Karen
Though I will never admit it, I am not an unfailing source of critical wisdom.

That said, your sentiments have an unerringly human and godlike ring of truth to them. To preserve your Christian humility, you should just think of it as God speaking through you.

We artists have the same feeling. Brahms said: "I take no credit for my themes. They come from God. I just work them out." Grace indeed (and Brahms was quite an agnostic, BTW, but a loving human man).

I like the phrase of some theologian who said
"you don't believe in God? well, tell me what you do believe in, and we'll call that God."

There ARE truly loving denominations and church groups, and i keep coming back to Unitarians as my most usual model.

And I do truly have a great love and affection for Jesus and most of his sayings: it is truly the Christians who have perverted him, not himself.

So yes, in the mind of this fallible but exemplary literary critic, you have a remarkable ear for truth. Hemenway said that good writers have a superb bullsh&t detector. a Good quality.

as i finish this, I just heard the song from les Miserables intone
"to love another person is to see the face of God."

That is so much more profound, and so much more important, than what planet god lives on and what level of heaven the fatuously pedantically law=quoting scripturalists thin they are going to.

the Rabbi said, when asked to summarize theology when standing on one foot
"love thy neighbor as thyself. the rest is commentary."

HJ -

Why Henry James, you are sounding more like your sister Betty. I much prefer my lashings from a sister. But I am glad you find some value in what I did post, brass to you that it may be?

It is Friday night, so if you find yourself without anything to do, please do try to get over your high blood pressure and consider reading what I have posted. I admit that it is lengthy, but as this thread is trailing quit thin, I did take a risk and post what I feel of value considering the recent conversations.

If some who do claim to indeed value truth, then it may shed some light on the religion of which this thread is supposed to be educating those who visit.

As it was not my intention to be brass but maybe silver, I do apologize to those I have offended. Not for the content, because to me it's worth is more than gold, but for the length of the material if it is the scrolling that is a real bother.

Truly sorry for the inconvenience.
rtc

RTC: your initial post about me being interested in mormonism was indeed a bit condescending. The subsequent one even more so. Believe me, I am far from heading towards humanism. So if I am not interested in LDS theology, I become an unbelieving humanist? I am a bible believing christian, and not just, as you say full of disdain, a sunday only christian. My faith permeates every aspect of my life. It was forged in the adversity of living in a hellish civil war and seeking God in the middle of misery.

It is interesting that in so many postings, mormons complain about hostility from christians, not being respected and accepted and so on, yet you have no problems telling us that millions or billions of us, through 1800 years have been apostate and lost until the wonderful, polygamous Joseph Smith appeared on the scene. Then he went on to set up a system that glorifies white man, and like HJ said adds so many bizarre layers to every aspect of christian faith that it reaches totally unbelievable levels. (HJ, I loved the hair cut bit by the way!).

You are chiding us christians for emphasizing grace and mercy rather than the law. Well let's see here... I wonder what gives us this impression. Could it be Paul in Galatians that says : "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing. You foolish Galatians, ... did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard (notice no laying of hands by a holy priest here, just belief in Christ brings the Holy Spirit to you). Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? ...Does God give you His Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?" and on it goes. I gather that you believe that Paul was a true apostle, not an apostate. He spends his time in his letters telling us that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, that we are temples of the Holy Spirit, that our works do not earn us heaven. We are saved onto good works because once we receive Christ, He changes us and we want to do good both to honor him and because we see the needs of the world. But we should not burden ourselves with the idea that Heaven can be earned. If so, what is enough? Is anything short of Mother Theresa good enough?

Henry James: I am with you on that super long post, just scrolled right through it. And once again, you put my christian humility to the test with your compliments. By the way, I find your posts so interesting, I often read them twice.
After I became a christian, I actually did not go to church much for quite a while because I deeply mistrusted organized religion, and still do to some extent. I love C.S. Lewis's writings (highly recommend the Screwtape Letters) and he said: what attracts people to christianity is Christ, what repels them is christians. And unfortunately, organized christianity has not done a very good job of staying true to the message and teachings of Christ. As you said HJ, then it becomes about power, money, etc.
What has made a huge difference for me is belonging to a local independent non denominational Bible church where we all know how much money is raised, how it is used, the senior pastor is accountable to the elders and there is transparency in all the decisions that are made. I find that in this setting, the light of Christ shines very bright because nobody is consumed with becoming a bishop, or going to the national headquarters etc.

Finally Henry James, you have given me great encouragement by your kindness. It is indeed my dearest prayer that Jesus comes through me and make me his agent. If you can see Him ever so slightly through a limited person such as myself, then I will consider myself blessed.

I find what you described as your "nature faith system" intersting. What you believe came through evolution, I believe is the moral law that God puts in our hearts.

Did I mention that you also have a great sense of humor?

RTC
you REALLY have lost it.

the length of your last post is obscene.

what gives you you brass to think anyone would want to slog through that sh$t?

reallly REALLY offensive

FYI:

Here is an excellent, brief overview, of the organization of the priesthood as evidenced in the ancient church (both OT/NT) and how it is manifest in the restored modern-day Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.
rtc

Church Organization and Life

"The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent."

- Joseph Smith1

Perhaps none of the issues we have studied is of greater contemporary significance than the question of how the earliest Church was organized and how the business of worship was conducted in it. Catholics postulate that the priesthood was given to relatively few men who conducted a rich ritual tradition, and the governance of the Church as a whole was given to the Bishop of Rome after the death of the Apostles. Protestants, on the other hand, see the early Church as a loosely-bound community of love, administered by a "priesthood of all believers," and with a minimum of ritual.

Who is correct? Does an ordained clergy separate from the laity help or hinder the kind of personal relationship with God Jesus intended for us when he established His Church? Unfortunately, there is not enough information available on first century Christianity to completely differentiate fact from speculation, and hence Davies calls the evidence concerning the constitutional order of the earliest Church "fragmentary and ambiguous."2 However, even though we can't piece together these fragments to get a completely coherent picture of the earliest Church, it will be possible to once again examine what evidence exists for the kind of organization and worship Joseph Smith restored.

Church Organization

Priesthood Authority

Almost everyone agrees that some kind of authority is necessary to minister in Christ's Church. However, broad disagreements exist as to the nature of that authority and as to how it is transmitted. Members of the Catholic tradition, some Protestant churches, as well as Mormons, recognize that priesthood authority must be transmitted by ordination, accomplished by the laying on of hands of those who already have the authority in question.

The Necessity of Ordination
Priesthood ordination goes back to the times of the Old Testament. For example, Aaron and his sons were consecrated as priests by Moses: "Anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office." (Exodus 28:41) This "consecration" was certainly accomplished by the laying on of hands, since that is the way Moses transmitted authority on other occasions. "Moses set Joshua before the congregation; he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the Lord commanded." (Numbers 27:22-23)

In New Testament times as well, officers were ordained by those in authority. For instance, Jesus ordained His Apostles: "He ordained twelve, that they should be with him to preach, to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils." (Mark 3:14) These men didn't volunteer for the job. Rather, they were called and ordained by Jesus Christ Himself. "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you." (John 15:16) According to both Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria, the Apostles would go about preaching and organizing congregations, appointing and ordaining leaders in every locale:

The Apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the Apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.3

Referring to John, Clement of Alexandria stated:

For when, after the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.4

Likewise, Hippolytus gave the accepted procedure for ordaining men to the offices of bishop, elder, and deacon by the laying on of hands in his Apostolic Tradition.5

Paul told Timothy to "neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands of the presbytery." (1 Timothy 4:14) Notice also that these appointments were always made with the assurance of the Holy Ghost, not for any political motive, and by ordination. Thus Paul could say (in the present tense) of the priesthood that "no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4) And we have seen that Aaron was called of God and then ordained by one in authority.

Not only did these ordinations take place, but once called, God respected his servants in their offices, and did not allow others to usurp their authority. For example, Paul found certain disciples at Ephesus and asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost. (Some missionaries at that time, e.g. Philip, had only the authority to baptize, but not to give the gift of the Holy Ghost, so higher authorities had to be called in sometimes to make sure all the proper ordinances were performed--see Acts 8:12-17.) However, these believers hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost.

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-6)

Was John's baptism then invalid? Obviously not, since John was an Aaronic priest, and Jesus Himself submitted to the authority of John's baptism. (Matthew 3:13-17) But since John always preached that one would come after him who would "baptize . . . with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matthew 3:11), Paul had reason to suspect that they had been baptized by some well-meaning, but unauthorized, imitator of the Baptist who neglected to preach John's message about the one who would baptize with the Holy Ghost.

Likewise, the authority to perform ordinances is not conferred at baptism. Simon Magus was baptized, and then desired the power to confer the Holy Spirit, so he offered to pay for the privilege. Peter rebuked him for his temerity:

And when Simon saw that through laying on of the Apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou has thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." (Acts 8:13, 18-20)

Indeed, in the early Church there was always a distinction made between ordained clergy and the lay-membership. Bettenson asserts that Clement of Rome's use of the word "layman" (laikos) before A.D. 100 marks "the clear distinction of ministers and people."6 Clement's exact words are as follows:

For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.7

The Apostolic Constitutions made the same distinction even more specifically:

Neither do we permit the laity to perform any of the offices belonging to the priesthood; as, for instance, neither the sacrifice, nor baptism, nor the laying on of hands, nor the blessing, whether the smaller or the greater: for "no one taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God." For such sacred offices are conferred by the laying on of the hands of the bishop.8

Kelly reports that Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and the author of 2 Clement (in the late first and early second centuries) all preached that the church is inseparably tied to the ordained priesthood.9 We have already seen in Chapter 2 the immense stress Ignatius placed on loyalty to the bishops10, and likewise the author of 2 Clement warned that at the Judgment the wicked would cry, "Woe unto us, Thou wast He, and we did not know and did not believe, and we did not obey the presbyters [elders] when they declared unto us concerning our salvation."11 Indeed, Wand points out that unity and authority were the hallmarks of the early Church:

Nearly every epistle we have in the New Testament shows how anxious were the leaders to maintain the close unity of all in one body, openly exercising their own authority where necessary to that end. Unity and authority, as we have seen, were the two most characteristic notes of the primitive Church.12

The Church was not only a body but a corporation, which necessarily involved organisation and a law. It is indeed doubtful whether in the mind of the Jew, stored as it was with hopes of a coming Messianic Kingdom, any mere vague sentiment or disembodied ideal could ever have been received as a possible new religion.13

Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D.) summed up the natural conclusion drawn from this information. Namely, without the ordained priesthood, there is no Church. "In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the Apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church."14

The "Priesthood of All Believers"
Some Protestants defend themselves against such charges with their doctrine of a "priesthood of all believers." That is, Peter called the Church a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood . . ." (1 Peter 2:9), so each believer is by definition ordained as a priest to God. It might be inferred from this that the priesthood was meant to be more generally spread throughout the Church than is the Catholic practice. As Irenaeus put it, "For all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank [i.e. the priestly rank or the rank of an elder]."15

However, when Protestants claim that "our baptism consecrates us all without exception and makes us all priests . . .," and that all offices within the Church are merely "human callings"16, they are every bit as out of step with the early Church as are the Catholics with their limited concept of the priesthood. As Noll points out, Peter's characterization of the Church as a "royal priesthood" must be taken in the corporate sense of an elect and holy people who had the benefit of the priesthood, just as in the ancient Israelite community:

In conjunction with this, the faithful of that early sub-Apostolic period were also challenged by 1 Peter and by the Apocalypse to see themselves as a 'priestly' people. This did not imply that each one of them was a priest, but rather that the whole community was/is made up of those who are elect and holy, and to express this fact the community was described, by adopting the covenant formula of Exodus 19:6, as a body of priests or a priestly community.17

This corporate conception of the priesthood was described by Origen: "Or are you ignorant that to you also, that is, to all the Church of God and to the people of believers, the priesthood was given? . . . [1 Peter 2:9] Therefore, you have a priesthood because you are a 'priestly nation . . . .'"18

Any such conception of a corporate priesthood did not make the Church hierarchy superfluous, however. Early writers such as Irenaeus and Cyprian were adamant that any schism from the "Apostolic succession" was heresy itself. The following are representative statements from these writers:

He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it,--men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.19

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,--those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth.20

There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made, except the one altar and the one priesthood. Whosoever gathereth elsewhere, scattereth. Whatsoever is appointed by human madness, so that the divine disposition is violated, is adulterous, is impious, is sacrilegious. Depart far from the contagion of men of this kind. and flee from their words, avoiding them as a cancer and a plague, as the Lord warns you and says, "They are blind leaders of the blind."21

Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.22

An interesting case is that of Tertullian, who early on in his career was quite critical of heretics who separated themselves from the priesthood leadership. Note the following comments:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the Apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the Apostles, because they existed in the time of the Apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of Apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the Apostles.23

For even on laymen do [the heretics] impose the functions of priesthood.24

On the other hand, after Tertullian had joined the Montanist heresy, he changed his tune. His attitude was surprisingly similar to that of modern Protestants:

Vain shall we be if we think that what is not lawful for priests is lawful for laics [i.e. laymen]. Are not even we laics priests? It is written: "A kingdom also, and priests to His God and Father, hath He made us." Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the right of a priest.25

Therefore, it is easy to see that the "priesthood of all believers" was not the original Christian concept, but rather a convenient invention of those whom modern Protestants themselves would consider heretics. Clearly, the true Church of Christ must either have a continuation or a restoration of the original priesthood and Church leadership.

The Priesthoods of Aaron and Melchizedek

In ancient Judaism, the priesthood was held by members of only one tribe of Israel, the Levites, and certain offices could only be held by direct descendants of Aaron. The high priest was the firstborn of the sons of Aaron, and the other male descendants were priests. These priests were responsible for the sacrifices, etc., which went on at the Temple at Jerusalem, the high priest being responsible for the special services on the Day of Atonement. The rest of the Levites were basically assistants to the priests.

But all the sacrifices for the sins of the people performed by the Aaronic priests were only a type of the great sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which was still to come. Thus the Messiah was the "Great High Priest," who sacrificed Himself for the sins of all mankind. However, this sacrifice was not done under the auspices of the Aaronic priesthood, obviously, since Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda[h]; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." (Hebrews 7:14)

This sacrifice had to be accomplished by the authority of another priesthood--the same priesthood that was held by the Old Testament figure, Melchizedek. Indeed, God told the Messiah, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Psalm 110:4) Melchizedek was the king of Salem (later Jerusalem) around 2000 B.C. He is described as a "priest of the most High God" (Genesis 14:18), to whom Abraham paid tithes.

Paul explained that this change in priesthood authority necessitated a change in the law: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12) And instead of daily offering sacrifices, the Great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek offered a single sacrifice, which needed no repetition. "For such an high priest became us . . . who needeth not daily, as those [Aaronic] high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." (Hebrews 7:26-27)

So there you have it--essentially all the information contained in the Bible concerning the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. Consequently, there is not much in the Bible to either prove or disprove the wealth of information Joseph Smith restored concerning both priesthoods and the relationship between them. The Lord explained:

There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood. But there are two divisions or grand heads--one is the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the other is the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood . . . . The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things . . . . The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations. Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power in administering outward ordinances. (D&C 107: 1-6, 8, 13-14)

While the extant early Christian documents make no mention of the two priesthoods within the Church, it is at least clear that there was a hierarchy of authority at least roughly corresponding to the distinction made by the Lord to Joseph Smith. That is, certain officers in the Church were authorized to perform only the "outward ordinances" while others were also able to "administer in spiritual things." For example, Philip, who was one of the seven ordained by the Apostles to take on the work of caring for the needy in the Church (Acts 6:1-6), was able to baptize quite a few people in Samaria, but the Apostles had to travel all the way there from Jerusalem to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost on these new believers.

Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen on none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:14-17)

Likewise, members of the Aaronic priesthood among the Latter-day Saints perform temporal functions and ordinances, including baptism, but cannot perform the higher ordinances, such as the laying on of hands.

Specific Priesthood Offices

The Lord did not merely restore "the priesthood" through Joseph Smith, however. Specific offices within the priesthood were also given, forming a hierarchy of authority and function within the Church. These can be compared to those offices known to have existed within the early Church, but one caveat must be taken into account before we proceed with this comparison. Specifically, this dispensation includes the priesthood and power given in all other dispensations. "For unto you . . . is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time . . . in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the creation . . . ." (D&C 112:30-31) It is a "welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories . . . ." (D&C 128:18) Therefore, since different variations on the basic organization of God's kingdom have existed during the various dispensations, it should not be expected that the organization of the Restored Church would necessarily correspond exactly to that of the early Church. For example, the offices present in the Church in ancient America after the advent of the Savior are included in the present LDS organization, but the Restored Church also includes many additional priesthood offices. (See Moroni 2-3)

In any case, since the information we have about the organization of the early Church is somewhat ambiguous, our method will not be to compare the restored and primitive organizations side-by-side, but to list the various offices and their functions in the Restored Church and then try to marshal any scraps of evidence for their existence in the early Church. If we find that the evidence for the existence of certain offices is somewhat sketchy, however, it should come as no surprise considering the caveat noted above.

Apostles and Prophets
The necessity of Apostles and prophets in the Church was discussed in chapter 2, but not in connection with the general Church organization. In the Restored Church, there are two distinct groups of Apostles which govern the flock. The highest council of the Church is the First Presidency, consisting of three Apostles, one of which is the President of the Church. Under the First Presidency is the Council of the Twelve Apostles. All of these men are considered general officers of the Church, whose authority has no territorial boundaries, and as special witnesses of Jesus Christ they are called to receive direction for the entire Church from the Lord and to preach the gospel in every nation.

While the early Church was led by a council of twelve Apostles, as well, there seems to have been no separate presidency of three additional Apostles. However, Peter, James, and John apparently had some position of primacy among the Apostles, equivalent to a presidency within the Twelve. Jesus told Peter, "thou art Peter [petros], and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church;" (Matthew 16:18) and shortly thereafter the Lord took Peter, James, and John upto a mountain and was transfigured before them. Moses and Elias appeared, as well, and the Apostles heard the Father's voice. (Matthew 17:1-9) In addition, Clement of Alexandria claimed that these three Apostles were entrusted by the Savior with some items of "higher knowledge," which they then dispensed to the other general officers of the Church: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the Apostles, and the rest of the Apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one."26

This arrangement of councils of three and twelve to lead the community of the faithful may well have been an accepted Jewish practice from which early Christianity derived its own order of government. The Essenes of the Dead Sea Scroll community, Qumran, list this arrangement in their Manual of Discipline, which contains their community rules. "In the Council of the Community there shall be twelve men and three Priests, perfectly versed in all that is revealed of the Law, whose works shall be truth, righteousness, justice, lovingkindness, and humility."27

What about "prophets"? In contemporary LDS tradition both councils of Apostles are termed "prophets" by virtue of their callings. In addition, those who are called to positions of leadership in other general and local capacities are in need of the gift of prophecy to effectively shepherd that part of the flock entrusted to them. Indeed, any member of the Church may be given the gift of prophecy, and thus effectively become a prophet, though the Lord does not direct the Church as a whole through him or her.

It is evident from the New Testament that there were people called prophets within the organization of the Church (Ephesians 4:11), as well as lay members who were given the gift of prophecy. (1 Corinthians 12:10) The first century Didache contains instructions on how to receive the Apostles and prophets who traveled from community to community.28 Also, "certain prophets and teachers" who were in the Church at Antioch ordained Paul and Barnabas for a missionary labor which extended beyond the bounds of the local area, and so were undoubtedly part of the Church organization. (Acts 13:1-4)

The Seventy
Under the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve in the Restored Church is another group of general officers called the Seventy. These men are essentially the "chief missionaries" of the Church, and they also have administrative authority under the direction of the Twelve.

During His earthly ministry, Jesus called seventy disciples for the preaching work in addition to the Twelve. "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." (Luke 10:1) But did the Seventy survive as a body in the post-Resurrection Church? There is some evidence that they did. For example, Clement of Alexandria was quoted above as saying that the Apostles handed down the higher knowledge given after the Resurrection to the Seventy, and in Chapter 2 we noted that Clement of Rome claimed the local officers of the Church had been appointed by the Apostles or "other eminent men."29 Eusebius records that "After the ascension of Jesus, Judas, who was also called Thomas, sent to [King Abgar] Thaddeus, an Apostle, one of the Seventy."30 Perhaps there aren't very many references to the Seventy after the ascension of Jesus because such officers were referred to by their general functions as "prophets" and "evangelists" (see Ephesians 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5), rather than as "the Seventy." This would explain the order in which Paul listed the various functions or offices in the Church: "And he gave some, Apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers . . . ." (Ephesians 4:11)

Patriarchs
The Restored Church also includes certain ministers called patriarchs. Until recently, there was a patriarch for the entire church as well as local patriarchs in most areas where the Church is established. "This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage . . . from Adam to Seth [through Enoch, etc.]" (D&C 107:39-52) The main duty of patriarchs is to give "patriarchal blessings," which outline the will of the Lord for individuals, to the saints. Similarly, the patriarch Jacob, or Israel, gathered his sons together and administered blessings relating to them and their children. "And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days." (Genesis 49:1) Isaac gave a similar blessing to Jacob. (Genesis 27:27-30)

One might think that this office is likely not to have been included in the early Church, since it seems to belong to the first dispensations after Adam, but according to Joseph Smith the New Testament Church did include patriarchs. "An Evangelist is a Patriarch,"31 the Prophet preached, indicating that the New Testament function or office of "evangelist" included (but perhaps was not limited to) this calling. Indeed, the word "evangelist" is a translation of the Greek "euangelistes," meaning "a messenger of good tidings." Can the good tidings of the gospel be preached in any more personal way than through a patriarch called to bless the saints and pronounce the will of the Lord for them?

None of this can really be considered firm evidence for the existence of patriarchs in the early Church, however, since the office of evangelist is merely mentioned, and not described, in the New Testament. On the other hand, the ultraconservative Montanists at the turn of the third century are said to have been governed by the usual bishops, elders, and deacons, as well as officers called "patriarchs" and a shadowy order known as the koinonoi (stewards).32 Perhaps these officers were a holdout from the old Church order.

Local Officers
At the local level, the Restored Church is administered by the Stake Presidency, a council of three high priests who preside over a small number (generally 7 to 10) of congregations. Although there seems to be no trace of church organization at the equivalent of the stake level in the early church (there may well have been various levels of "pastors"), the offices of bishop (Greek episcopos = overseer), elder (Greek presbyteros), and deacon (Greek diakonos = minister) were present in the early Church. The relationship between elders and bishops is not expressly given in the New Testament, however, and therefore this has been the source of some confusion. It seems that in some communities the Church was governed by a council of elders, while in others a bishop was placed at the head of the council of elders, and as a consequence the terms "bishop" and "elder" are used almost interchangeably.33 Perhaps the situation was similar to that in the Restored Church, where exceptionally small congregations are administered by a "branch presidency" who may be elders rather than a bishop, who is a high priest.

By the first decade of the second century the roles of bishop, elder, and deacon were fairly well defined. Ignatius of Antioch revealed some of the specifics of this hierarchy.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the Apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out [through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord's might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast. But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.34

Davies explains that a presbyter could perform all the same ordinances as a bishop, but only with the bishop's express permission.35 This is exactly the case in the Restored Church. Elders and bishops both hold the higher priesthood, and so can perform both temporal and spiritual ordinances. However, everything must be done under the auspices of the bishop to be considered valid.

As for the offices of the Aaronic priesthood, only deacons are mentioned in the New Testament Church. Davies explains that the deacons served as messengers to the bishop, ministers to the sick and imprisoned, carriers of the sacrament (Eucharist), and collectors of offerings.36 We might characterize the early Church deacon as roughly equivalent to a priest in the Restored Church, who is authorized to perform all the functions delegated to the Aaronic priesthood. Were there further divisions within the order of the lesser priesthood in the early Church? The Restored Church has both priests and teachers, as well as deacons, but it is unclear whether these offices existed in the Apostolic Church. At least as early as the late second and early third centuries the offices of priest and subdeacon were introduced. For example, Davies asserts that the order of subdeacons, who performed some of the functions of the deacons, must have existed at least as early as A.D. 170-180.37

The author of the Acts mentioned that "a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." (Acts 6:7) Did these men then lose their callings as Aaronic priests, or were they included as priests in the new covenant community? The New Testament is silent on this matter.

Origen mentioned the presence of priests in the Church of the early third century. Interestingly, he also reveals that priests were selected by the Church hierarchy, but had to be approved by the entire Church.

For in ordaining a priest, the presence of the people is also required that all may know and be certain that from all the people one is chosen for the priesthood who is more excellent, who is more wise, who is more holy, who is more eminent in every virtue, lest afterwards, when he stands before the people, any hesitation or any doubt should remain.38

Cyprian indicated that the vote of the people was required to install someone into the priesthood, but Bettenson notes that this was limited to the ratification of the choice made by the other bishops.39 This, of course, is exactly the case in the Restored Church. "No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church." (D&C 20:65)

The New Testament does mention the presence of teachers (e.g. Ephesians 4:11), but the context of these passages suggests that these were merely members who had a spiritual gift for teaching. Certainly the teachers among the "prophets and teachers" at Antioch who ordained Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1-3) were not teachers of the Aaronic order.

High Priests after the Order of Melchizedek
Another local priesthood quorum in the Restored Church is that of the high priests. These men hold the Melchizedek priesthood just as the elders do, but their office is higher, and consequently one must be a high priest to hold certain administrative positions, including that of bishop. As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, the New Testament identifies Christ as the great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, but says nothing more on the subject. Were there other high priests after this order? It seems obvious that Melchizedek was one, at least, and it is called an "order," after all. Theophilus of Antioch taught that Melchizedek was the first of many priests of his order:

And at that time there was a righteous king called Melchisedek, in the city of Salem, which now is Jerusalem. This was the first priest of all priests of the Most High God; and from him the above-named city Hierosolyma was called Jerusalem. And from his time priests were found in all the earth.40

Again, it is unclear whether an actual office of "high priest" existed in the early Church, but many early Christian documents other than the New Testament do refer to prophets and bishops as "high priests." However, it is not completely evident whether this was just a literary device to compare them to the old order of Aaronic High Priests or a reference to their specific office.

Both Ignatius and Hippolytus called bishops "high priests": "And say I, Honour thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God--of God, inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest."41 "Grant unto this Thy servant whom Thou has chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest . . . ."42 Clement of Alexandria called each man who had been entrusted with the mysteries of God a "truly kingly man; he is the sacred high priest of God."43 Likewise, the Didache referred to prophets and Apostles, as "high priests." "Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests."44

Origen called the Apostles and their successors "priests after the great High Priest." "In the same way the Apostles also and their successors, priests according to the great High Priest . . . ."45 On the other hand, Origen insisted that only Christ can be a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek:

But to this we reply that the Apostle clearly defined his meaning, and declared the prophet to have said about the Christ, "Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedek," and not according to the order of Aaron. We say accordingly that men can be high-priests according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedek only the Christ of God.46

It is clear from the foregoing citations, however, that bishops and others were considered "priests" after the order of Melchizedek, if not "high priests." We have also seen that the New Testament Church may not have made a distinction between offices corresponding to the Aaronic priesthood. Therefore, if there were no office of Aaronic priest, there may not have been a need to distinguish priests of the higher priesthood by calling them "high priests." That is, the office of "priest after the order of Melchizedek" in the early Church may have been equivalent to the office of "high priest after the order of Melchizedek" in the Restored Church.

The Purpose of Priesthood Offices

What can we say about the organization of the Restored Church as compared to that of the early Church? Simply that they are quite similar, although certain offices present in the Restored Church may or may not have been present in the Church of the former dispensation. But as was pointed out earlier, one need not expect the early Christian Church to have had all the same offices as the Restored Church because Joseph Smith claimed to have restored priesthood offices from all former dispensations.

The most important thing to note is that Joseph Smith restored the basic structure of the early Church "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." (Ephesians 4:12) Not just human inventions, the offices in the Church reflect these purposes Paul listed and were meant to endure in God's Church "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ," so that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine . . . ." (Ephesians 4:13-14) Therefore, these same offices of "Apostles; . . . prophets; . . . evangelists; . . . pastors and teachers" (Ephesians 4:11) and others for which there is some evidence in the records of the early Church were restored by God through the Prophet Joseph Smith after a long period of apostasy had left Christianity without inspired leadership.

Church Life

Just as the LDS Church has a similar organization to the early Christian Church, several peculiarities of LDS worship, church government, and sacramental practice have early Christian analogues as well.

The Lord's Day

Along with most of the rest of Christianity, Latter-day Saints conduct their regular worship services on the first day of the week, Sunday, rather than following the Old Testament custom of celebrating the Sabbath on the seventh day. On the other hand, some other millenarian movements which started around Joseph Smith's time, notably the Seventh Day Adventists, have claimed that Christians should continue the Jewish custom, since the New Testament never explicitly states that the original Sabbath had been superseded.

However, the evidence from early Christian documents weighs heavily in favor of those who celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday. And while this is not particularly striking confirmation of the Prophet's inspiration, it is nevertheless solid evidence when placed in context with the rest of this study. Therefore, a brief presentation of this evidence is in order.

While it has already been pointed out that the New Testament never explicitly states that the Old Testament Sabbath had been superseded, it does show that after the Lord was resurrected on the first day of the week, the Apostles and other Christians began gathering together on that day:

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead [men]. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. (Matthew 28:1-6)

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (John 20:19)

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

The first day of the week was called "the Lord's day" by Christians thereafter, because they celebrated the day of the Lord's resurrection. (E.g. John indicated that he "was in the Spirit on the Lord's day" when he received his revelation--Revelation 1:10.) And while the scriptures themselves are not especially explicit on this point, other very early Christian documents are. Both Barnabas and the Didache indicate that the Sabbath was to be celebrated on Sunday:

Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.47

But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice.48

Ignatius told the Magnesians to go forward, "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death.49 Clearly this practice was initiated very early on in Christian history, most probably immediately after the Ascension of the Lord.

Worship

An examination of early Christian worship reveals that it was manifestly dissimilar to the ornate displays which grew up as part of the medieval mass. The earliest Christians had simple worship services which more resembled those of the Latter-day Saints and many Protestant denominations. That is, the believers gathered on Sunday to participate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and to preach the gospel to one another, pray, sing hymns, etc. Davies asserts that there was a remarkable amount of freedom exercised in the organization of these early services, nevertheless, there were certain fixed liturgical forms such as the sacrament.50

Justin Martyr described a typical Christian worship service in the second century:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability . . . . But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.51

The bishop or president was not the only one who could give sermons in such a meeting. Bishops Alexander and Theoctistus of Jerusalem and Caesarea, respectively, insisted that it was the practice of many churches in their day (3rd century), as it is in many contemporary churches, to allow qualified laymen to preach:

For whenever persons able to instruct the brethren are found, they are exhorted by the holy bishops to preach to the people. Thus in Laranda, Euelpis by Neon; and in Iconium, Paulinus by Celsus; and in Synada, Theodorus by Atticus, our blessed brethren. And probably this has been done in other places unknown to us.52

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper

Water, Wine, or Water and Wine?
It is interesting to note that Justin indicated the use of wine and water in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Similarly, Latter-day Saints usually use water in the sacrament, although they at one time used wine. This practice was started as a result of a revelation to Joseph Smith, wherein an angel warned him not to purchase wine from his enemies for communion, since it could easily be poisoned. The Lord explained that the exact substances used in this ordinance didn't matter, as long as it was done in remembrance of Christ's body and blood:

For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory--remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins. (D&C 27:2)

And while some anti-Mormon critics charge that Latter-day Saints substitute water because they "reject the full value of Christ's blood,"53 it can be shown that some early Jewish Christians used water in this ordinance, as well. One of the very early (first or second century) Odes of Solomon referred to this practice. The hymn asserts, "Blessed then are the ministers of that draught who are entrusted with that water of His . . . ." 54 Commenting on this passage, Carl Jung points out that the use of water shows that, like the Mormons, these early Christians were more interested in the symbolism behind the ordinance than in the use of any particular ritual substance: "The fact that the Eucharist was also celebrated with water shows that the early Christians were mainly interested in the symbolism of the mysteries and not in the literal observance of the sacrament."55

The principal reason many Jewish Christians opted to use water in the sacrament was that some of them had taken Nazarite vows; that is, they had vowed to abstain from wine56, from cutting their hair, and from contact with the dead. The second-century writer Hegesippus claimed that James the brother of Jesus had taken such a vow:

James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the Apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James. He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place ; for he wore not woolen but linen garments.57

The Acts of Thomas also described the Apostle Thomas as one who drank only water58, so when one Mygdonia brought him some bread and wine for the sacrament, he refused it and "He brake bread and took a cup of water . . . ."59

As early as the late second and early third centuries, however, this practice was called into question by those who insisted on using water mixed with wine. Therefore, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian all condemned the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian "heretics" who used only water:

Therefore do [the Ebionites] reject the commixture of the heavenly wine, and wish it to be water of the world only . . . .60

And those destitute of prudence, that is, those involved in heresies, "I enjoin," remarks Wisdom, saying, "Touch sweetly stolen bread and the sweet water of theft;" the Scripture manifestly applying the terms bread and water to nothing else but to those heresies, which employ bread and water in the oblation, not according to the canon of the Church. For there are those who celebrate the Eucharist with mere water.61

Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament.62

Changes in the Doctrine of the Sacrament
This attention to symbolic meaning rather than empirical reality by the Jewish Christians was a product of the Hebrew roots of the early Church. It was the loss of this attitude that led to the adoption of the strange doctrine of "transubstantiation," which was foreign to the Hebrew mind. Davies explains:

The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: 'This is my body.' The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.63

Thus, Edwin Hatch asserts that "it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ."64

This unfortunate trend of formalization in sacramental practice and changes in the doctrine of the sacrament continued into the Middle Ages, as various pagan concepts and formulae were adopted into the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. And as we have seen, this type of thing was an inescapable consequence of the loss of revelation in the Church.

Anointing the Sick

It is common for Latter-day Saints to follow the admonition of James: "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick . . . ." (James 5:14-15) Accordingly, Latter-day Saint elders consecrate olive oil for use in blessing the sick. And while people of other denominations also anoint the sick on occasion, the consecration of the oil in early Christianity is not found in the New Testament, but is consistent with LDS practice.

Specifically, there was a clear demarcation in the early church as to who could and who could not bless the oil. While bishops and elders could consecrate oil, those in the lower echelons of the priesthood, such as deacons, could not. The Apostolic Constitutions described the practice:

Concerning the water and the oil, I Matthias make a constitution. Let the bishop bless the water, or the oil. But if he be not there, let the presbyter bless it, the deacon standing by. But if the bishop be present, let the presbyter and deacon stand by, and let him say thus: O Lord of hosts, the God of powers, the creator of the waters, and the supplier of oil, who art compassionate, and a lover of mankind, who hast given water for drink and for cleansing, and oil to give man a cheerful and joyful countenance; do Thou now also sanctify this water and this oil through Thy Christ, in the name of him or her that has offered them, and grant them a power to restore health, to drive away diseases, to banish demons, and to disperse all snares through Christ our hope, with whom glory, honour, and worship be to Thee, and to the Holy Ghost, for ever. Amen.65

Gradually the rite of anointing the sick was corrupted. For example, John Chrysostom advocated using oil taken from church lamps and from martyrs' shrines, while some others suggested the use of oil filtered through martyrs' relics.66 Finally, J. Halliburton notes that after the patristic period, anointing of the sick became restricted to those who were deemed incurably ill and needed a ritual preparation for purgatory.67

Tithes, Offerings, and the United Order

All churches need money to function in the world, and the Restored Church is no exception. Inspired by God, Joseph Smith restored correct, biblically based principles for the collection of church revenue. The principles restored fall into two categories which we will call the "law of consecration" and the "law of tithes and offerings."

Consecration and Tithing
The law of consecration concerns the consecration of all one's time, talents, and substance to the building of the Kingdom of God. In the spirit of this law members of the New Testament Church renounced the practice of "serving Mammon" and lived with common ownership of all their substance.

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common. (Acts 4:32)

Similarly, the Lord instituted a program called "the United Order" in the Restored Church, and at one time the Saints lived with all things in common. Various revelations to Joseph Smith delineated exactly how this order was to be administered. (e.g. see D&C 51, 82, 104) Unfortunately, the Saints proved themselves unready to live such a lofty law and therefore it was held in abeyance and the lesser law of tithes and offerings was instituted:

Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. (D&C 64:23)

The law of tithes and offerings is basically that one should give one tenth of one's income to the Lord, as well as offerings for the poor. This law was practiced in the Old Testament, as evidenced by the following passage from Malachi:

Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings . . . . Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. (Malachi 3:8, 10)

Although it is obvious, the "United Order" in the early Christian Church didn't last long, the New Testament is not clear about what replaced that system. Consequently, some have criticized the Latter-day Saints for practicing the law of tithes and offerings, which they say is a holdover from the Mosaic Law. This law was terminated by the death of Jesus, they say, and therefore should not be required.68 However, the Apostolic Constitutions make it clear that the law of tithes and offerings was practiced in the early Church:

Let him [the Bishop] use those tenths and first-fruits, which are given according to the command of God, as a man of God; as also let him dispense in a right manner the free-will offerings which are brought in on account of the poor . . . .69

In fact, it can be shown that tithing was thought to have replaced consecration as a lower law. In the third decade of the third century Pope Urban I claimed that some Christians, especially clergy, still attempted to live the law of consecration:

We know that you are not ignorant of the fact that hitherto the principle of living with all things in common has been in vigorous operation among good Christians, and is still so by the grace of God; and most of all among those who have been chosen to the lot of the Lord, that is to say, the clergy, even as we read in the Acts of the Apostles: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."70

In 251 A.D. Cyprian looked back with nostalgia at the time when the early saints lived with everything in common, and complained that the Christians of his day were for the most part unwilling to even pay tithes:

But in us unanimity is diminished in proportion as liberality of working is decayed. Then they used to give for sale houses and estates; and that they might lay up for themselves treasures in heaven, presented to the Apostles the price of them, to be distributed for the use of the poor. But now we do not even give the tenths from our patrimony; and while our Lord bids us sell, we rather buy and increase our store. Thus has the vigour of faith dwindled away among us; thus has the strength of believers grown weak.71

Fast Offerings
In addition to tithes, free-will offerings are given in the Restored Church in conjunction with a monthly fast. That is, the members of the Church fast, and then give at least the amount of money they saved by not eating to the Bishop for distribution to the poor. A passage in Isaiah indicates that the Israelites of the Old Testament had a similar practice:

Is this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? (Isaiah 58:6-7)

Once again, the early Christian documents are clear that Joseph Smith restored a genuine early Christian practice in this case. Davies explains that in the second century, "fasting was closely linked with almsgiving."72 For example, Barnabas and Hermas advocated a practice nearly identical to that which the Prophet restored:

Behold, this is the fast that I have chosen, saith the Lord, not that a man should humble his soul, but that he should loose every band of iniquity, untie the fastenings of harsh agreements, restore to liberty them that are bruised, tear in pieces every unjust engagement, feed the hungry with thy bread, clothe the naked when thou seest him, bring the homeless into thy house, not despise the humble if thou behold him, and not [turn away] from the members of thine own family. 73

Offer to God a fasting of the following kind: Do no evil in your life, and serve the Lord with a pure heart: keep His commandments, walking in His precepts, and let no evil desire arise in your heart; and believe in God . . . . Having fulfilled what is written, in the day on which you fast you will taste nothing but bread and water; and having reckoned up the price of the dishes of that day which you intended to have eaten, you will give it to a widow, or an orphan, or to some person in want . . . .74

Notes

1 Joseph Smith, in TPJS 157.

2 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 60-61.

3 1 Clement 42, ANF 1:16, brackets in original.

4 Clement of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:23, in NPNF Series 2, 1:150.

5 Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 2, 8-9, pp. 2-3, 13-17.

6 Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, 43.

7 1 Clement 40, in ANF 1:16.

8 Apostolic Constitutions 3:10, in ANF 7:429.

9 ECD 35.

10 E.g. Ignatius insisted that "apart from [the bishops and elders] there is no elect Church, no congregation of holy ones, no assembly of saints." Ignatius, Trallians 3, in ANF 1:67.

11 2 Clement 17, in ANF 7:522.

12 Wand, A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500, 26-27.

13 Wand, A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500, 3.

14 Ignatius, Trallians 3, in ANF 1:67.]

15 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:8:3, in ANF 1:471. In fact, laymen in the patristic period did have an active role in the Church.

History shows that laymen took an active part in all of the internal workings of the Church. They had an important role to play in the liturgy, which was still, at that time, a "popular" liturgy, that is, a liturgy for the people. They had their word to say in the election of bishops, and the nomination of priests. They contributed to the drawing up of church laws and customs; prepared some of the matter for discussion at the councils, and even took part in them. They administered church properties, and it was an accepted thing that they should be allowed to preach. . . ; the records show that they often did so. LeClerq, J., "The Priesthood in the Patristic and Medieval Church," in Nicholas Lash and Joseph Rhymer, eds., The Christian Priesthood (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970), 55.

However, in the Middle ages this all changed so that there developed a vast chasm between the clergy and the laity. See LeClerq, 56-62.

16 Sinclair B. Fergusen, David F. Wright, and J.I. Packer, eds., New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 531.

17 Noll, Christian Ministerial Priesthood, 43; cf. J.H. Elliot, The Elect and the Holy: An Exegetical Examination of I Peter 2:4-10 and the Phrase "Basileioun hierateuma" (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966), 223.

18 Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 9:1:3, translated by Gary W. Barkley (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), FC 83:177.

19 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:33:7, in ANF 1:508, brackets in original; cf. Ignatius, Ephesians 5, in ANF 1:51.

20 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:26:2, in ANF 1:497, brackets in original.

21 Cyprian, Epistle 39:5, in ANF 5:318.

22 Cyprian, Epistle 26:1, in ANF 5:305.

23 Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 32, in ANF 3:258, brackets in original.

24 Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 41, in ANF 3:263.

25 Tertullian, Exhortation to Chastity 7, in ANF 4:54.

26 Clement of Alexandria, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2:1, in NPNF Series 2, 1:104.

27 The Community Rule 8, in Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 85.

28 Didache 11, in ANF 7:380-381.

29 1 Clement 44, in ANF 1:17. Jean Daniélou claims that these men were clearly the "heirs of the Twelve," and were different from any of the priesthood officers normally discussed. He also asserts that this institution must have been created by Christ Himself. Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 355.

30 From a Syriac appendage to a letter from Jesus to King Abgar, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:13, in NPNF Series 2, 1:101.

31 Joseph Smith, in TPJS 151.

32 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 90.

33 Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, 90, n. 1.

34 Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 8, in ANF 1:89-90, brackets in original.

35 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 131.

36 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 131-132.

37 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 132.

38 Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 6:3:1, FC 83:120.

39 Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, p.267.

40 Theophilus, To Autolycus 2:31, in ANF 2:107.

41 Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 9, in ANF 1:90.

42 Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 3:4, p. 5.

43 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:7, in ANF 2:533.

44 Didache 13, in ANF 7:381.

45 Origen, On Prayer 28:9, translated by John J. O'Meara (New York: Newman Press, 1954), ACW 19:112.

46 Origen, Commentary on John 1:3, in ANF 10:298. However, Ignatius wrote that Christ was the only High Priest "by nature." Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 9, in ANF 1:90. Perhaps others can become "High Priests" by grace.

47 Epistle of Barnabas 15, in ANF 1:147, brackets in original.

48 Didache 14, in ANF 7:381.

49 Ignatius, Magnesians 9, in ANF 1:62.

50 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 63-64.

51 Justin Martyr, First Apology 67, in ANF 1:185-186.

52 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:19, in NPNF Series 2, 1:268.

53 Decker and Hunt, The God Makers, 136.

54 Odes of Solomon 6, in Platt, ed., The Forgotten Books of Eden, 122.

55 Jung, C. G., "Transformation Symbolism in the Mass," in Joseph Campbell, ed., The Mysteries (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955), 280-281.

56 One rationale for continuing the LDS practice of using water in the sacrament is that the Word of Wisdom, the LDS health code, forbids the drinking of alcoholic beverages. However, I am not suggesting that the early Christian Church had any such health code. The Word of Wisdom explicitly states that it was designed "in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days. . . ." (D&C 89:4.) Therefore, there is no need to suppose that this revelation was a restoration of anything from a former dispensation, especially in light of the fact that the New Testament shows Jesus drinking wine.

57 Hegesippus, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2:23, in NPNF Series 2, 1:125.

58 Acts of Thomas, in ANF 8:539.

59 Acts of Thomas 121, quoted in Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 371.

60 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:1:3, in ANF 1:527; cf. Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 371.

61 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1:19, in ANF 2:322.

62 Cyprian, Epistle 62, 13, in ANF 5:362.

63 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 54.

64 Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, 308.

65 Apostolic Constitutions 8:29, in ANF 7:493. Apparently by this time they also used water (holy water?) for anointing.

66 Halliburton, J., "Anointing in the Early Church," in Dudley and Rowell, eds., The Oil of Gladness, 86.

67 Halliburton, J., "Anointing in the Early Church," in Dudley and Rowell, eds., The Oil of Gladness, 89.

68 Jehovah's Witnesses have recently made this criticism. See "The Mormon Church: A Restoration of All Things?," Awake! (November 8, 1995): 24.

69 Apostolic Constitutions 2:25, in ANF 7:471.

70 Pope Urban I, Epistle to All Christians 1, in ANF 8:619.

71 Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church 26, in ANF 5:429.

72 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 108-109.

73 Barnabas 3, in ANF 1:138, brackets in original.

74 The Pastor of Hermas, Sim. 5:1, 3, in ANF 2:33-34.

TAKEN FROM FAIR WEBSITE

RTC!!!!!!!

You can't help yourself, can You???????

you wrote to Karen:
"Maybe you should say it is more of a hobby of yours instead, as I felt from your earlier post a true desire to know about true religion.

Can't you trivialize her any more? Do you NOT see how offensive this is? I fear you don't and i know you don't mean to be,
but IT IS.
take it from a great lliterary critic.

do some self examination. you are NOT RIGHT.

i will pray for you (iirony warning)

RTC
saints and socialists? you lost me.

anyone in karen's position would have read your admonition to her as saying

" if you will just study the Mormon doctrine and read the book of mormon and pray about it, you will see the error of your ways and come to a testimony of Christ's true gospel"

karen: is that how you read RTC?

If so
RTC
if you don't see how that is offensive
Karen and I can't help you. Only God can

HJ-

Satan it was. Apology accepted. Now, you should know me by now and I do not consider Karen's reply in any way a slap of any kind. I full well expect that I may be taken either way when I put myself out on a limb such as I have done. I do not mind. It is a good way to detect a person. And this I have done with Karen and very clearly I might add.

But I will confess, I did think here more of a saint than a socialist.
rtc

Karen,

I apologize once again. I took you for your word when you said that you were interested in learning about other religions. Maybe you should say it is more of a hobby of yours instead, as I felt from your earlier post a true desire to know about true religion.

When you say that you come here to mostly stay in touch with HJ and Phaedrus, etc... then I can see that you are probably heading toward humanism. It is much more clear now that I would be offensive to you. The spirit is not necessary for such a journey, so you should be fine on your path of discovery. You have very good teachers for such a trek.

And never you mind about me Karen, I am quite aware that the only exalted men I need in my life are my Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ who is my Savior and Redeemer. I also have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to teach me the truth of all things, which is different than the spirit of Christ. Did you know that?

But what I am so grateful for upon my sojourn here in this life, is to know that God still speaks to a living prophet, who is just a man like any of the ancient prophets of the past, who directs Christs' Church upon the earth today, just like in times past...

And Karen, I Know these things are true independent of what anyone else tells me because I was given the gift of the Holy Ghost by one with proper priesthood authority at the time I was baptised a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

Jesus Christ gave Keys to His Apostles when He organized His Church and that were taken through apostasy. They have been restored. These are absolutely necessary for those claiming authority to administer His Gospel. This is not a free-for-all. He has made it clear that He is the way, the truth, the life!

And this is something that can only be known by those who are willing to receive, just like those in times past... reMEMBER?
rtc

RTC and Karen
sorry for the multiple post: Satan did it.

RTC, sorry to say this, but you did deserve the slap Karen gave you. It has been clear from the start she is not investigating the church and a likely convert. You were, pardon me, offensive in assuming she should be.

Karen

i think when you pray to jesus about a life decision you are doing the same thing that i do when i "meditate" on such a decision.

you believe God set up the system of the world and maintains an order that is ultimately good, and that supports justice and beauty.

I don't believe in god, but i believe evolution and natural forces have endowed us humans with an innate sense of right and wrong and good and bad, and if we can get access to our true and better selves we can act with loving kindness. it is a buddhist belief system.

you and i come out at the same place in terms of how we should behave. you call it Jesus, i call it Nature. we have the same goals in mind, the same understanding of right action in the world.

Maybe Jesus (or Allah or Shiva) is really a God. Maybe not. whether or not she is, we should act with loving kindness. we, you and i, try to do that, fallible humans that we are.

if Jesus makes you be the way you are, i love Jesus.

luv

henry

Karen
what a choice spirit you are. let me speak as clearly as i can about my relationship to God, and how I interpret yours.

i TOTALLY agree with you that the doctrine that one needs the laying on of hands from a priesthood holder is an execrable doctrine.

Frankly, it exists to give the powers of the Catholic and the Mormon churches a reason for being, and a way to exert their power, and collect tithes.

Any God that you and i would feel connected to would not put this barrier between us. Administered by fallible men, who in protecting their power tend to exploit the weak or those without formal power, like the poor, gays, women, blacks in the mormon church.

They can't very well campaign against the rich, as Christ did. The rich support the political system that aligns with the churches to send men to war and keep things under control in a way that both the church and the state like it.

The longer a church is in power, the further away it gets from the poor. Imagine how the Mormon or Catholic Church would react if the new president proposed repealing the gigantic tax breaks that Bush gave the rich. Wow.

to be continued

Karen
what a choice spirit you are. let me speak as clearly as i can about my relationship to God, and how I interpret yours.

i TOTALLY agree with you that the doctrine that one needs the laying on of hands from a priesthood holder is an execrable doctrine.

Frankly, it exists to give the powers of the Catholic and the Mormon churches a reason for being, and a way to exert their power, and collect tithes.

Any God that you and i would feel connected to would not put this barrier between us. Administered by fallible men, who in protecting their power tend to exploit the weak or those without formal power, like the poor, gays, women, blacks in the mormon church.

They can't very well campaign against the rich, as Christ did. The rich support the political system that aligns with the churches to send men to war and keep things under control in a way that both the church and the state like it.

The longer a church is in power, the further away it gets from the poor. Imagine how the Mormon or Catholic Church would react if the new president proposed repealing the gigantic tax breaks that Bush gave the rich. Wow.

to be continued

Karen
what a choice spirit you are. let me speak as clearly as i can about my relationship to God, and how I interpret yours.

i TOTALLY agree with you that the doctrine that one needs the laying on of hands from a priesthood holder is an execrable doctrine.

Frankly, it exists to give the powers of the Catholic and the Mormon churches a reason for being, and a way to exert their power, and collect tithes.

Any God that you and i would feel connected to would not put this barrier between us. Administered by fallible men, who in protecting their power tend to exploit the weak or those without formal power, like the poor, gays, women, blacks in the mormon church.

They can't very well campaign against the rich, as Christ did. The rich support the political system that aligns with the churches to send men to war and keep things under control in a way that both the church and the state like it.

The longer a church is in power, the further away it gets from the poor. Imagine how the Mormon or Catholic Church would react if the new president proposed repealing the gigantic tax breaks that Bush gave the rich. Wow.

to be continued

Karen
what a choice spirit you are. let me speak as clearly as i can about my relationship to God, and how I interpret yours.

i TOTALLY agree with you that the doctrine that one needs the laying on of hands from a priesthood holder is an execrable doctrine.

Frankly, it exists to give the powers of the Catholic and the Mormon churches a reason for being, and a way to exert their power, and collect tithes.

Any God that you and i would feel connected to would not put this barrier between us. Administered by fallible men, who in protecting their power tend to exploit the weak or those without formal power, like the poor, gays, women, blacks in the mormon church.

They can't very well campaign against the rich, as Christ did. The rich support the political system that aligns with the churches to send men to war and keep things under control in a way that both the church and the state like it.

The longer a church is in power, the further away it gets from the poor. Imagine how the Mormon or Catholic Church would react if the new president proposed repealing the gigantic tax breaks that Bush gave the rich. Wow.

to be continued

RTC

I KNOW that God loves me. She has told me so.

My God is the moon. I can prove she exists. Not to one up you. I feel her power every day.

i KNOW she is true. She shines her light on me.

HJ (it is) -

Well, certainly Paul taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ as one having authority. But it was more than moral authority, it was authority and keys, which gave these Apostles the power to act in the name of Jesus Christ.

Why do you argue the connection between Jesus Christ and Paul, as it being Paul as the founder and not Jesus Christ of the church? No doubt apostasy did occur, but it was Jesus Christ who set up his church by His authority and under the direction of His original twelve apostles with the intent that his church carry on... and we are speaking of the same church here.

What was left of the true teachings of Christ, as taught by his apostles, but then interpreted doctrinally by those uninspired is what has trickled down through the ages, and now we have remnants of truth mingled with the doctrines of man. Whatever works for each individual group at this point, unfortunately.

So of course we do not see much in the way of ordinances and covenants. Meaning law. What we see that remains are the comfortable parts of religion, that of grace and mercy. Sunday only religion. Not many really keep the ten commandments even.

HJ - You know the gospel somewhat. But you don't want to accept it as truth, because of the law. You are letting the law keep you from the Savior's grace and mercy. Like many in the world who find themselves in this predicament, they reject God entirely and look for grace and mercy elsewhere.

(It can be found in this world in so many counterfeit forms, for there is one who receives a temporary joy also in seeing the separation of the children of God from Him)

They decide that a God could not possibly exist IF it would reject ME because of a thing, for how is that possible to be love?

But God does not reject any person at all, only temporary behaviors that by law, he cannot tolerate, or HE would cease to be God.

He does love you, so much in fact, that HE has provided a Savior for ALL of mankind, so that each of US may overcome WHATEVER it is that would separate us from HIM.

WE ALL have that which would separate us from HIM. Some have greater weakness that others. I do not know why some are tormented more than others, but I trust His loving mercy and grace.

His HESED, as your Jewish friend would call it I am sure.

Weakness is a result of mortality. He calls us to come unto Him and He will make our weakness strong unto Him. It takes greater faith for some of us than others. I know many in your same circumstance that are doing this in amazing faith, and they are being blessed tremendously.

I know that you are a great person. I have told you this before. I have felt your sweet spirit on so many occassions... kindred to be sure:-)
rtc

RTC: I disagree strongly with just about everything you said in your last post. You see, I am someone who came to true faith in Christ by seeking a lot, asking a lot of questions, reading a lot of books, and so on. I am not bound by human tradition but only by the word of God. I am neither indocrinated nor misled.

I will not dwell on all the things in your post that I disagree with but the biggest issue that I have is with the idea that we can only receive the Holy Spirit by the laying of heads of priests or "holy men". I say total nonsense to this and even a cursory reading of the Bible shows no support to this notion. If you base this idea on teachings of the mormon church, that does not convice me one bit. Nobody laid hands on the apostles at Pentecost, the spirit descended on them straight from God. YOu see, i totally reject the idea that we need an intermediary between us and God. This was true in the old testament but not after the coming of Jesus and not after the gift of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us when we receive Jesus as our savior, period.

Our trust should never be in mere men, no matter how "holy" they are. Our trust is in the Lord. I do no need a "prophet" in every generation to explain scripture to me. I have a brain and I use it. I pray that God guides me in my prayers and my readings of the Bible and He opens up the scriptures to me.

I agree that there has been much corruption in the church but the problem is with human greed and search for power. There has also been excellent people in the church at all times. The catholic church with its faults still managed to produce Saint Augustine, Francis of Assisi, Thomas Aquinas, and even Martin Luther who came to correct many errors that he saw in his time. But that does mean that the message of God was lost, only that people distorted it for their own purpose. You speak of corruption in the apostate church. How do you explain the continuoulsy changing prophecy in your church? As Henry James, how do you explain the moral relativism of your God? changing "revelation" for convenience sounds like a corrupt practice to me.

To be honest with you, I do not come to this thread because I am remotely considering the possibility of joining the mormon church. I come here because I enjoy reading the James family, Phaedrus, the back and forth between you and them and others and because I have always been interested in learning about other religions.

Finally, I do not see where Jesus having a body somehow makes it logical that God did too. we are told that God became man in Jesus. We are not told that he came down from his planet to dwell amond us in the same state that he is on that planet. If God always had flesh and bones, why did he not show himself as is to Moses rather then the burning bush and the pillar of light? Seems he could have just walked down to earth. We believe that Jesus is God incarnate, the way I think of the Trinity is God above us, God with us (Jesus) and God in us (Holy Spirit).

I hope for your sake RTC that you will come to understand that you do not need an exalted man to bring to you God's blessing. Man or woman, we all are equal in Christ, and we all have direct access to God and to his Holy Spirit. Go back to the Bible, not the book of Mormon or church teachings and see where it says that.

I don't know JD
my secretary tells me that he grew up singing
"If you could Hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye" and he knows every word.

You MUST answer this question:

Have you read Matthew Arnold's Culture and Anarcy (you sound like you have)

wonderful disquisition on the differences between the Hellenistic and Semitic traditions.

I think the Mormons AND the Catholics have the most highly developed eschatologies in the world. Compare them to the unitarians, for instance.

A simple logical point: when one's system has so many details, there are so many ways it could be wrong (and, of course, right).

I will meet you in the afterlife and we can compare notes.

Thank you James,

You bring up a point of Mormon doctrine that has bothered people sense the beginning. That is the sanctification of the concrete. We enshrine the abstract in western tradition, so when you have an eschatology that is so continuous with this world (with so many details) it makes our Greek stomachs turn. Among Plato’s seven heavens, the closer you got to heaven, the further one got from the material. Mormonism fuses the concrete and the sacred, which I think brings it more in line with the ancient Semitic roots of Biblical religion, but further away from our Hellenistic roots.

For the most part, Mormon details of the after life are not trivial, they answer Scriptural questions and shed light on God’s justice and mercy (The only one’s who talk about God’s planet that I know of are church critics trying to make LDS beliefs look strange to an outside audience). In the end, a revelation of a hidden metaphysical reality is a revelation of a hidden metaphysical reality. Whether that involves a vague concept of Eternal damnation for lost souls, or a specific description of people being tormented psychologically by their misdeeds until they repent.

People recoil at LDS beliefs more than other supernatural beliefs as a result of their predispositions and prejudice, not critical analysis.

All the Best My Friend,

Jd1

RTC
building on Henry's excellent explanation,

and not to be sacreligious,

but

we James's are kind of like the Holy Trinity.

Three in one and One in Three.

luv

Henry, William and Betty

RTC

One of the ancestors of my Private Secretary was a Member of the Mormon Battalion

which, as I am sure you remember, was sent out to repel General Johnson's army when they came to beat the mormons into submission.

One of their tactics was to get up in the mountains when the army came into the canyon on their way to SLC, and run around firing from different locations so the Army would think the Mormons had more riflemen than they really did.

I am not saying that is what is happening with the James gang, but a word to the wise should be sufficient.

It is kind of analygous to the First Vision stories of our esteemed prophet. In the different versions, he said that different personages appeared to him. Once it was an angel, once just Jesus, once God and Jesus, etc. God and the James's work in mysterious ways. Farther along, you'll understand why.

MY OH MY!

Betty James, Henry James, Henry, William James???? Now, come on dear... Who ya gonna be today, pick one and then you can play!

4 in 1 is okay to play... we ALL know you are here:-)

But do love to see you Betty.

And by the way... JD's hair looks very nice at the current length. I promise.
rtc

RTC
thanks for both your kind and your critical words.

a few points:
1. I agree with you that the Christian Church, after it was founded (mainly by Paul, not at all by Jesus) became incresingly corrupt. It certainly progressively lost any moral authority it had as time went on.

It is the old stories of Empires and Power Structures. Power corrupts, and Absolute Power...

Also, as I said to JD, on the basis of the bible it makes more sense to me that God would have a body than not having a body.

You express your respect and esteem for Karen as a good Christian.

Do you have the same for me as a good Buddhist? Would it help if I were a Hindu? Or do I have to accept Jesus?

Luv you
Henry

JD
I happen to know that Henry himself just got a haircut,
and he is
Henry-thropomorphizing you

by saying YOU need one two

just like humans ascribe to God the characteristics they themselves have, like bodies and SUV's.

I think your hair is fine the way it is.

Karen,

I have appreciated your thoughts as you have expressed them to my dear friend Henry James. I have come to appreciate as well, the very thought out posts of this literary ghost on many occassions, but not this one.

I sense in you an open mind and a desire to learn truth as I have read your posts of late. I hope you don't mind if I am so bold and honest with you in my words. I apologize if so...

I want you to know that I can understand, from your perspective, how you might feel the way that you do, in thinking that perhaps, many of the doctrines that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints teaches, are new, and are not to be found in the Bible.

You also seem to feel that after the Savior was crucified, and his church was not directly led by him, that it was okay for the apostles to fade out because of apostasy, which is rejection from within by the members... thereby, then leading to the resulted loss of the keys of authority and the ultimate corruption of the true gospel of Jesus Christ over a period of a very short time.

You see Karen, this is exactly what did happen, and you are not alone in believing today that what is had by the world at large IS the original "Gospel of Jesus Christ" as the Savior himself taught it.

The Catholic Church claims to still maintain original keys and authority. Not even possible if you study the history of this church, and you believe in even the keeping of the Ten Commandments as being necessary prerequisites for those in authority to preside.

Most do not even realize that it was the conclusions of the greek philosophers of men, at a time of great religious confusion, that now directs the theology of christianity for today's world at large.

This great "Creed" that Constantine organized that should unite his people once and for all! This is the great spirit behind the doctrine of the trinity, etc.., because these uninspired men could not understand how the three members of the Godhead could actually be three separated individuals, and also be one in purpose. They refused to accept the words as recorded in Genesis that God created man in His own image, male and female... so we look like him... bodies! Not some nothingness that floats around and is everywhere, only appearing as Jesus on earth, and prays to some fake father for show????

How much sense does this make? Well these uninspired philosophers could not understand it, because they did not have the Gift of the Holy Ghost Karen, which come ONLY by the Laying on of Hands by one with proper authority... meaning Priesthood, given by God.

Unfortunately, those keys of priesthood authority had been rejected by the members after the crucifixion of the Savior and the death of his Apostles, until slowly the church had become corrupt. When there are not those upon the earth that are willing to RECEIVE his gospel, it is withheld. Please note what happened with his own people whom he loved so very much? They received him not.

This was the state of mankind for many centuries, through the dark ages, etc... If you will carefully read the Old Testament and even the New Testament, this period is clearly prophesied of, as well as that of a necessary RESTORATION and FULNESS OF TIMES in the last days.

This is the time prophesied and looked forward to by all the holy ancient prophets! And they knew that a restoration would be necessary! They foresaw the corruption to come...

This is that time spoken of... and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is the very same Church that Jesus organized when he was upon the earth himself. It has been completely restored in it's absolute fulness in order that the world will be prepared to usher in Jesus Christ at His Second Coming.

Karen- I sense your complete sincerity as a true disciple of Jesus Christ. On this thread it is impossible to truly find out what you are searching to know, IF that is your honest quest. I am intrigued that you have returned to this thread so many times. I do not believe that you are anti-mormon, but a very good christian.

I hope that maybe you will look into the LDS Church a little more, because IF you will, I can promise you that you will be most pleasantly surprised to find out that much of your concerns about what was not taught long ago and now, it is suddenly being taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints..... WAS in actuality taught and we can show you very easily and plainly that it was. Not only that, but for one who does believe in the spirit, the spirit will testify to you of the truthfulness of these things so that you will know for yourself, independent of what others may tell you.

What greater witness can you have than this?

I have chosen NOT to go into detail on these things here, but I assure you Karen, that these are things worth your time and I so hope that you will not allow negativity to overcome what I believe is an honest desire in you to know truth.

It is really as simple as that.
rtc

Since JD brought up theology, William has been brought in for reinforcements.
the two of us put together are ALMOST as smart as JD.

I agree with John that the concept of God having a body has always seemed more logical to me than the opposite. But of course, I grew up with that idea. Most everyone's childhood religious beliefs seem natural to them, and those of others seem unnatural. That human tendency has been a great aid to genocidal campaigns in human history.

The only sense in which we find Mormon theology more "irrational" than most other faiths is in the sense of "Accretion."

Mormons have SO MANY detailed specifications about the afterlife and preexistence, about WHERE God lives, etc
that when you ADD them all together, one tends to say

"how can a rational person believe ALL of these details that one can not possibly prove, and that no human being has ever witnessed in a verifiable way."

If we just say "my theology is that I believe in some kind of God,"
we are not subjecting ourselves to incredullity to the extent that we are when we say that we know how many times a month God has to get a haircut.

This is what John means when he says agnosticism is the most rational system, and we clearly agree.

John: you need a haircut.

Hi Karen,

I am not surprised that you find Mormon beliefs less rational than your own. I for one, find Mormon beliefs more rational than beliefs espoused by general Christendom. As Harold Bloom says, it comes down to “perspectivism.” I am sure the Orthodox Christianity I represent in my mind is a caricature of the Orthodox Christianity you hold in yours.

To claim superior rationality in your beliefs makes me wonder whether you are part of mainline Protestantism or of the Biblical literalist crowd? They both require leaps of faith where rationality and common sense must be selectively abandoned. For this reason I think agnosticism is the most rational cosmology, because it does not require one to make any metaphysical claim unverifiable via induction.

In any event, much is made of the Mormon concept of Deity. While many find an anthropomorphic God the Father abhorrent, I have not yet heard a very rational reason why it is irrational. If God the Son has a body and is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient, why couldn’t God the Father have the same. Any argument Christians level against the Anthropomorphic God the Father, end up mirroring arguments by Muslims against the Anthropomorphic God the Son.

So the question is the same as Stephen Robinson asked Evangelical Craig Bloomberg, “If God doesn’t have a body, how come God the Son has a body?” This type of reasoning has lead Bloomberg to concede that an embodied God the Father “is not theologically incorrect, per se.” The new evangelical “openness theology” actually leaves open the possibility of a corporal God the Father.

I find the idea of the Divine and the human being essentially of the same kind, one of the most enlivening and beautiful doctrines of the restoration. It answers the question of why God is so preoccupied with human affairs. We are literally His offspring. He looks over us with Paternal (and Maternal) love and interest, in the same way and *for the same reasons* human parents care for and love their children.

Terryl Givens said it best,

“That God has a body of flesh and bones is not the revolutionary teaching. God’s physical form is not the point. That God has a heart that beats in sympathy with ours is the truth that catalyzes millions—that he feels real sorrow, rejoices with real gladness, and weeps real tears. This, as Enoch learned, is an awful, terrible, yet infinitely comforting truth (see Moses 7).”

All the Best,

Jd1

Karen
You may also be interested to know that my private secretary, who types up these notes for me, grew up in a fifth generation Mormon home, descended from a man who was in the jail with the Prophet Joseph when the prophet was, as we mormons say, "assassinated."

My secretary's sensibility and experiences often get mixed up with my own, especially now that I am just a spirit.

He was rigorously schooled in Mormon doctrine for the first 19 years of his life, and being the descendant of polygamous forebears, has about 6,000 relatives in Utah, where both of his parents were born. He went on to study philosophy at a private new england college, though he was not a person of means, and also developed a puritanical respect for the truth, wherever he might find it.

And he is sittin on my lap right now. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Karen and others
two further notes:

Joseph Smith's scheme of heaven is highly plagiarized from a book by Swedenborg. My father was a religious scholar and follower of Swedenborg.

Regarding my brother William and religion, an interesting note:

Religious experiences and beliefs, in James's well-known words, should be judged "by their fruits . . . not by their roots."

In James's view, beliefs—like scientific hypotheses—are always conditional, fallible, and subject to experimental testing. This is true of religious beliefs no less than other beliefs. As James succinctly put it in the Preface to The Will to Believe (Dover 1959 [1897]: xi-xii),

If religious hypotheses about the universe be in order at all, then the active faiths of individuals in them, freely expressing themselves in life, are the experimental tests by which they are verified, and the only means by which their truth or falsehood can be wrought out. The truest scientific hypothesis is that which, as we say, "works" best; and it can be no otherwise with religious hypotheses.

Karen

Like my brother William, I was very interested in the motivation and nature of religious experiences, but I didn't believe in a theistic God. I was more of a deist like Jefferson.

William and I came out of our father's Swedenbourgian tradition, and he was more of a believer than I, but he had the intelligence to know that there were 4,000 varieties of religious experience, and that to consider JUST ONE to be the only valid way was the sheerest arrogance and delusion. And again, his book IS still the best ever written on religion.

I TOTALLY agree with your thoughts on revelation, esp when you say that if God wanted us to know these "modern" details, why didn't he tell us in the Bible, which is supposed to be THE word of God.

We should all pray (or meditate, same thing) every day that we are good agents of loving kindness towards our fellows, whether we believe in Jesus or Allah or Zeus or Shiva. I do. And I can tell that you do.

Light DOES shine through you and me and all of us if we let it. If we radiate loving kindness.

And I coimpletely agree that we should be known for food, shelter, health and equal rights for all, including closeted homosexuals like myself, though I am more concerned for my gay brothers and sisters, since I was never particulary interested in sexual expression for myself, being such a good repressed North Easterner.

It doesn't matter which God we do or don't believe in as long as we believe in those things you enumerated, and practice compassion and humanism, and cultivate an appreciation for beauty and truth.

Henry James:

Thank you very much for the very interesting replies.

Was the legendary Henry James an atheist? A skeptic? What about William James? The more I see him quoted the more I am interested in reading his book. I will also make sure to add your book on my to read list.

I grew up mainly reading french authors as well as other european authors translated into french (including the big russian authors) but had limited knowledge of american literature except for Hemingway, Steinbeck, Poe and Fitzgerald (all read in french at the time) . Since coming to the US 20 years ago, I have tried to read more american literature but I still have much ground to cover.

Just to clarify: I do not necessarily believe that all revelation has stopped. But for it to be credible in my eyes, and if it is supposed to be coming from the same God of the Bible, than the new revelation has to be consistent with old revelation. Hence if God wants us to know about all the different levels of heaven, that he is flesh and bones and living on some planet, why did He not tell us so before? Why did Jesus never talk about these things if they are so important. By the waym you are absolutely right. After reading your last post, I am still picking up my jaw from my lap.

Though I very much believe in God and in the Bible, I still wrestle with God and with understanding Him. I believe that post Jesus and pentecost, God no longer resides in a temple but in us when we ask him to come into our lives. Upon some recent readings and meditations, my main prayer everyday if for God to allow me to be a good agent for Him on this earth and in this life by letting His light shine through me. God knows I do not always succeed but that is my dearest wish. I am sick and tired of christians being known for what they are against. I pray that once again, we can be known for what we are for such as: food, shelter and health care for all, equal rights, protection of the weak etc. I am sure that you and I could agree on that much.

Karen: Continued response

I agree with the man who said that ALL religious beliefs are pretty unbelievable.
And I agree that the fact that the Mormon beliefs are so recent and so traceable IS a big problem for people taking the religion seriously. For instance, when we tell you that God lives on a Planet named Kolob in his Flesh and Bone body with no blood, you are likely to say "Whaaaaa?????"

But Virgin Births are pretty unbelievable too. And so are ascensions into the sky by resurrected crucificees. We are just more accustomed to those stories.

i believe, btw, that one should vote for or against Romney based on his politics, not his religion.

Regarding myself, the legendary Henry James. I am the greatest American Novelist, according to me, and was a prominent literary critic as well.

My brother was William, the famous psychologist who taught at Harvard, and who wrote the BEST book ever written about religion, "The Varieties of Religious Experience."

I did very well in Grammar in Junior High School. Of course, in my day, they taught it properly.

If you would like to read one of my novels, I'd suggest you start with Portrait of a Lady.

Best wishes to you my friend. Keep questing.

Hello Karen, so nice to see you again.
Not that MY critical opinion means anything, but a think you are a lovely soul and an admirably inquiring mind. You know we disagree on basic questions (like, Is there a God?) but I have complete respect for your spirit and for the way you apply the beliefs that you do have.

A couple of responses to your points:
On the need for MORE after the Bible: as a matter of theology and logic, I don't see that God has precluded Herself from giving us more revelations after the bible. For me this is theoretical, as I think the Bible is totally man-made and has no connection to any supernatural being.

It DOES however seem strange that She would wait 1800 years without a word. What was She doing? On vacation? And yes, why all these new EXTremely detailed descriptions of Heaven and Hell in the last 200 years? Didn't we need to know that in 200 AD also?

The Mormon God is a Moral Relativist. Polygamy is Good, unless the US makes a law against it, in which case it is NOT good. You are right, serious philosophical problem according to my brother William. And he should know.

The Mormon God's dicking around with Black people (first you are cursed, now I take off the curse) is despicable, you are correct. That alone would convince me that the Mormon God is No God I would want to follow.

I love the Concept of "God In Us". The divine human instincts, the better angels of our nature, as Lincoln said.

I do sympathize and agree that we do not need prophets with EVER CHANGING and CONFUSING revelations. And I *would* classify Smith's as such.

It is UNBELIEVABLE to say that it is too much for One Man to explain Mormon Theology. The Mormon prophet and ex PR man Gordon HINCkley should be able to, for instance. But he often says things like "I don't know that we teach that." (literal quote). If HE doesn't know, does God know?

(to be continued)

Wow, can't believe this thread is still going? By the way, did you all notice that Otterson has not posted a comment for the past 3 questions? Do you think that the LDS church has read our comments about wanting a theologian rather then a PR man and they are looking for a replacement?

On another note, to RTC: as a christian, I believe that God has revealed to us all that we needed to know about Him in the Bible. And your statement about continued revelation through your prophets does not make any sense to me. If God does not think that we humans, guided by His Holy Spirit, can understand and interpret His word on our own, I do not see that anywhere in scripture.
Furthermore, He would then have stayed silent from the apostolic age until the 1800 when He finally "spoke" to Joseph Smith? So for 1800 years, no need for new revelation and for the past 200 years, all sorts of new revelations about Heaven and Hell, about salvation, about the priesthood, the nature of God, etc. So what were we all to do for 1800 years? Remain apostates?
Finally, how can you believe that this whole idea of continued revelation from God through his prophets is defensible in the light of constantly changing revelation? First polygamy is the way of the Lord... until it's not. Then black people have the mark of Cain, are cursed and can't have the priesthood... until oops, they can. And so on and so forth.
God tells us in the Bible that he is never changing. The same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Jesus tells us that he is sending the Holy Spirit to guide us, the Holy Spirit is literally God in us. We do not need prophets with ever changing and confusing revelation. We only need God's Holy Spirit to guide us in our readings and in our prayers.
You have every right to believe whatever you want. But please, do not tells us that the christian church is somehow dead because it believes that God has given us the ability to think for ourselves.

Finally, did any of you catch a really interesting "To the Point" on NPR yesterday which mainly dealt with Romney's candidacy and whether americans in general and evangelicals in particular would vote for him despite the fact that he is mormon? The moderator asked several of the guests which included a mormon scholar whether Romney would be helped by more information coming out from him about what Mormons really believe. The mormon scholar did not really answer the question and said it was too much for one man to be able to explain mormon theology. (I certainly don't find it hard to explain my christian faith to others, it is really not that complicated, but I digress). But all the other guests said that it would actually make things worse for Romney if people really found out more about Mormon beliefs because, for the most part, they are so unbelievable. The more I read this thread and the more I have to agree with this last statement. One of the guests, who I think was atheist, said: you're in it for a dime, you're in it for a dollar, much about religion is unbelievable. But, he said, it is much harder to make truth claims about something that happened less then 200 years ago and have nothing to back up your claims, vs events that happened 2000 years ago.

Henry James: Can you tell me more about who you were when alive? Was William James your brother? I am currenly reading a book by a christian author that quotes William James the theologian several times and I was curious. My sincere apologies for not knowing more about your illustrious self. You are obviously well read and have excellent grammar and I believe you were a literary critic, is that correct? I always enjoy your posts though you and I disagree on many things, you never come across as shrill like so many others on both sides of these debates. And you are always very interesting to read.

RTC ~

You wrote, "12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

In this exchange then, the Savior clearly teaches the physical nature of the Father, as well as How He and the Father are One in Purpose through the Holy Ghost and that His disciples are to continue in this very same pattern."

RTC, I see nowhere in this scripture where the Holy Ghost is even mentioned, nor is his function in the Godhead mentioned.

Then you wrote,

"John 17:3
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Not only does the Savior testify that "knowing" the true nature of Deity is imperative to "eternal life", but He also testifies of the distinct and separate identities of the members of the Godhead.

There are no confusions is this beautiful intercessory prayer in John 17. In this, he clearly teaches the oneness of the godhead, as well as the clear individuality of each one of us, as he then invites us also to be one with "them", in the same way that they are "one" and yet they are distinctly, "separate" individuals!

Herein then, is the absolute perfect example of the relationship that the Father and the Son maintain through the Holy Ghost, and that they offer each one of us... in the very same way, we all can be one."

Again, how do you get that this one scripture is an example of the Holy Ghost maintaining a relationship with God and the Son, or that it invites us all to be one with them?? And how does it outline the clear individuality of each one of us?

I think your idea of "no confusions" and mine are entirely different.

Henry the Wag,

LOLOLOL.... Just thought I would see if you, the old cod, had a little sense of humor left in him:-) Gotcha!

Never should we take one's self too seriously my dear friend.

Just keep in mind, that I do so love to play on occassion.
Love ya,
rtc

Now, please comment on the content...

RTC

for your continuing literary edification,

read the plot of Wagner's Ring Cycle,
the greatest artistic achievment of the last 400 years.

The God, Wotan, established laws that he himself could not break. Led to his downfall. Interesting parable. Christ-like. take a look. Would be fun for you.

Luv you

Henry

SML -

There has been no doctrine revealed that states that the Holy Ghost is exempt from any laws of which you imply. His mission as the third member of the Godhead has not fully been revealed, in particular to His final destiny. To speak of such would only be speculation.

But, in D&C 1:38 the Savior tells us that concerning the content of the D&C, i.e. His commandments... that He excuses not even himself. We also know that although he was a sinless and perfect sacrifice that he submitted to Baptism to fulfill the law.

So you can take what you will from these passages and many others to understand and know the nature of God and what is required of Him by law, and feel most assured that as He has told us, He is no respecter of persons.

God cannot lie, or god would cease to be god. God is law.

I believe that although nothing has been revealed as to the final destiny of the Holy Ghost, that we can be assured that God cannot lie.
rtc

James the "Wag" -

What up HJ? lol

WAG, an acronym for "Wild-a** guess"

Which is exactly what it appears you have posted my friend.

Or maybe you belong to the "Wives and Girlfriends" club? Which is another well known "WAG" group, of which, by the way there are many.
I am suprised HJ, with your recent associations. I did not think you got out much these days???

Either way you look at it, not too intelligent folk to be hanging around with, for one such as yourself. Nor do I think you give yourself much credibility here either, not even when citing your evangelical friend's opinion with his Union Theological Seminary trained background.

As you should know by now, we LDS believe that a man must be called of God by the laying on of hands, by one with proper authority. Not by simply going to a school of man and receiving a piece of paper that says that now he is smarter than god.

These are the ways of the world, not God's ways. Baffling, is it not? God's ways are on a much higher level of communication than man can comprehend, thus the simple logic of the human mind.

Really, does this make sense? Think about it? To those who claim a belief in God and his holy word, they now deny His willingness and ability to give continued revelation and direct His Church by authority. Instead they accept that He has shut up the heavens and turned it over to common man to expound, interpret and thus to know more than God himself?

And who sold this bill? Unbelievable, truly! This cannot be a loving God. Not the one who is intimately concerned with each and every detail of His creations, and that knows even when a sparrow falls.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is a living Church. It's life is manifest through the gifts and power of the Holy Ghost, for it testifies of Jesus Christ, that this is His Church, with His authority to bring Salvation to All. Jesus Christ directs His living prophets here upon the earth in the administration of His Gospel unto man. Man does not act alone in ignorance or take unto himself authority.

It is the adversary who authors and sets forth the doctrine of separation, independence and lack of necessary faith.

As is the doctrine of an all powerful god without body, parts, etc... Truly this is what would be incomprehensible and remain a mystery to anyone who is to ever truly know Him.

And that is precisely the plan of the adversary in what he has presented to your friend in his big school of theology... a lie, which is intended to separate man from god.

John 14:8-12

Here is a very important key to the knowledge of God... and that is to come to a knowledge of His Son first and acknowledge Him as the only way...

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

In this exchange then, the Savior clearly teaches the physical nature of the Father, as well as How He and the Father are One in Purpose through the Holy Ghost and that His disciples are to continue in this very same pattern.

Again in the great Intercessory Prayer...

John 17:3

  3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Not only does the Savior testify that "knowing" the true nature of Deity is imperative to "eternal life", but He also testifies of the distinct and separate identities of the members of the Godhead.

There are no confusions is this beautiful intercessory prayer in John 17. In this, he clearly teaches the oneness of the godhead, as well as the clear individuality of each one of us, as he then invites us also to be one with "them", in the same way that they are "one" and yet they are distinctly, "separate" individuals!

Herein then, is the absolute perfect example of the relationship that the Father and the Son maintain through the Holy Ghost, and that they offer each one of us... in the very same way, we all can be one. This is a covenant relationship, known only to those who choose to follow Jesus Christ in all things.

And they were of one heart, and one mind, and they dwelt in righteousness...

ZION

The Beginning of Man began in Zion, as in the Garden of Eden... and his Destiny is to continue on through the Atonement in ZION, ONCE AGAIN, but COMPLETE, WHOLE, FINISHED, GLORIFIED!

But, this can only happen IF one RECEIVES Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the Laying on of Hands, by those with the proper authority.

I emphasize the word "RECEIVE". For it is much more than the outward act of the ordinance itself... Oh, there is so much more to be said.

CELESTIAL ZION

rtc

Thanks, my Henry. I definitely look forward to the learning experience it will be to be your wife and helpmeet through the Millenial reign of Jesus the Christ. I know I'll learn a lot from you. :)

SML my Future Wife in Paradise:

To turn a bit intellectual for a minute,

It seems that God is subject to
Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

which essentially states that in
any axiomatic system
(for example : God set up the universe according to his laws and even he has to abide by them)
there will always be at least ONE
Undecidable proposition.

For instance: if God is all-powerful, can HE make a rock so heavy that not even He can lift it?

Google Godel incompleteness to get a better explanation than I just gave: I am sure Phaedrus could explain it to us.

Henry ~

You're right. It's interesting to me to have people preach about how important the law is and how God must follow the law as well...that he's BOUND by the laws, but it seems there's always an example of the law not applying.

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmm...

SML

you wrote
"Why does the Holy Ghost not have to be subject to the law of receiveing a body of flesh and bone as Jesus and God had to?"

and while we're at it,
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

My Union Theological Seminary trained (by Tillich et al) minister friend
found it scandalous that Mormons (or anyone) would believe that God had a body of Flesh and Bone.

If by some small chance there IS a god, it won't be able to be comprehended by a neat scheme like the Mormon one.

The task of comprehending the mind of God is more like comprehending the nature of infinity or of quantum mechanics.

RTC ~

You wrote, "But IF your understanding of the nature of the Godhead is a correct one, then you are better able to understand HOW these principles and laws function. We believe that there are three separate and distinct individuals. Both the Father and the Son have Glorified bodies of flesh and bone. God is law, therefore he is subject to that law or God would cease to be God. Remember, No unclean thing can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven!"

Why does the Holy Ghost not have to be subject to the law of receiveing a body of flesh and bone as Jesus and God had to?

HJ:

Difference of opinions noted.

"BTW, the founder of christianity, Saul/Paul, had NO faith before he had his religious conversion experience on the road to Tarsus."

This is one of several rare exceptions mentioned in the scriptures. For most of us, the other scenario applies.

Happy Memorial Day!

Neal

hi neal
thanks for the insights, Spock.

i understand the nature of spiritual discernment vs scientific discernment. when i write my novels i am using spiritual discernment all the time.

and i totally believe that your spiritual experience is true FOR YOU: i just don't think one can say that your brand (Mormon) of spiritual experience can or should work for everyone, that everyone will see and believe its truth in the afterlife, for instance, let alone here on earth.

and that the nature of the Muslim's convicton of the truth of her experience is as strong and convinced as is yours. i myself don't call this "truth" - i call it spritual experience. my brother calls it The Varieties of Religious Experience.
s
BTW, the founder of christianity, Saul/Paul, had NO faith before he had his religious conversion experience on the road to Tarsus.

Cheers.

Henry

HJ:

Well, now you get back to the testimony thing and the spiritual discernment mentioned in 1 Corinthians 2. Again, speaking for myself, I approach these things from a position of faith. If the answers are not all there, to me that means they just haven't been revealed yet, not that those answers don't exist. My tesimony is not based on scientific discovery or on the intellectual musings of other men, whose theories change constantly like shifting sand. It is based on my own spiritual experiences (none of which I feel compelled to share on a forum such as this). These experiences are given to us AFTER we exercise faith - not before.

As it says in Isaiah "...for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid."

As I mentioned to P once, I wish I could do a Vulcan Mind Meld with you and let you experience some of the things I have had the privelege to experience. You would not be here arguing with me today if I could. But since this life is truly an individual test, I cannot have my wish.

Best to you, HJ

Neal

Creation

If there is a God, she certainly could have used evolution and the big bang as tools for her creation, I agree. Of course, the scheme works just as well without a God.

It is also interesting to me that there are about 3,000 other creation stories that have many similarities to Genesis, and allow for the same compatibility with evolution, but that no modern monotheistic relgion claims came from God.

It also seems that the Genesis stories are "generalizations" the same way the Greek story of Thor causing thunder was a "generalization." And I would expect that many Greeks had the same burning convictions about Thor that Mormons have about the angel Moroni.

We get to that danged old Truth problem: why should one believe the believer in Moroni, but not the believer in Thor? They both have the same kind and amount of evidence (i.e., none except the conviction that they are right).

HJ

I think the creation story(s) is a generalization. My personal interpretation (please note the PERSONAL) is that the creative periods were extremely long (if you're God, what's a few billion years, anyway?), and involved several processes. The first is environmental preparation (mentions of the land and the water being divided, the sun and the moon, seasons, etc.) which I think was extensive. The second was the process of seeding the planet with life (references to placing "seeds" and then "beasts" upon the land - notice which came first) and those life forms experiencing evolution (filling the measure of their creation). And ultimately, of course, man being placed here, who has the potential to become like God.

So I personally have no problem with "evolution" per se. I think its a natural occurance, but I think it was guided by a heavenly hand to prepare the earth for the brief Age of Man. Had these earlier life forms not existed, we wouldn't have the fuels and other resources that make our civilization possible.

I see the creation as an organizing/re-organizing event. JS said this world was made from other worlds. I see that as planet "recycling". Use a planet for primitive life forms - then wipe them out, then use it for more advanced (but giant) species like Dinos, then wipe them out. Then give higher animals and man a shot at it - that's where we are now...

Neal

SML -

Sorry it has taken a while to get back to you, but had to get through the rest of my crazy week. But my answer to your question regarding you and HJ is a hugh YES!

I say this simply because I cannot judge you, nor can anyone else here upon the earth know your true heart or that of HJ. By the way, did either one of you have your calling and election made sure? If not, I am pretty sure in making the statement that you will not be in outer *hell*. But since you never went to the temple, this surely did not happen. First baptism, temple endowment, sealing, etc... Nope. Safe call!

You must meet this requirement first to qualify for such an eternal punishment! I said the bar was high and I meant it. It is the plan of our Heavenly Father to see to it that all of His children, according to their desires are happy. To what extent that is, THEY may choose.

As stated before, HE HAS ENSURED EXALTATION FOR ALL OF THEM ALREADY, because of the sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ.

Only change in that is IF they choose to NOT adhere to LAWS that are unchangable, to even HIM, by accepting His son.

Jesus Christ made an atonement that would offer mercy and grace for all that would accept and Keep the Law (commandments/justice).

No unclean thing can enter into The Kingdom of Heaven...

(mercy and grace is that part that recognizes that we are a long long way from what God is. That we require the atonement in order to progress and overcome sin, weaknesses of the flesh, mind, generational afflictions, handicaps. that we must accept Christ' process of the constant need to repent and forgive in order to overcome the things of this world, but that these things ARE of this world ONLY)

So together through mercy AND justice we can return back into the presence of our Father in Heaven and His son Jesus Christ.

Both PARTS are required in the equation.

Can you see how the teachings of the world pit these two concepts against each other?

Do you see WHY the doctrine of the trinity would be such an advantage in causing confusion to the human mind? Pick one or the other, right? We pick grace! A much easier pill to swallow and fits any lifestyle.

Not so with law involved. Too strict. But IF your understanding of the nature of the Godhead is a correct one, then you are better able to understand HOW these principles and laws function. We believe that there are three separate and distinct individuals. Both the Father and the Son have Glorified bodies of flesh and bone. God is law, therefore he is subject to that law or God would cease to be God. Remember, No unclean thing can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven!

Jesus Christ made a covenant with us all that He would redeem each one of us from the Fall and atone for our sins, which He did. (make us clean) Those who willingly accept His sacrifice and prove this by keeping the commandments/law given by Him then qualify themselves to have Him NOW stand as their Judge INSTEAD of the God of Justice/or LAW.

This was the Plan from the beginning and was the Father's who is the God of Law, in this case, in order to have His children return to Him.

His Son who Loved the Father and All of us agreed by covenant to Do this for All mankind. He therefore becomes our judge after He made the required offering and sacrifice of Himself, that we might live again and return back into the presence of the Father. This somehow fulfilled the law of justification in our behalf.

Because Jesus Christ was a perfect sacrifice for sin, and was the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, He was able to overcome the world as He took upon Himself each one of our sins, etc... When an individual willingly accepts His sacrifice and the laws which He gives them to abide, they then qualify now for Him to become their judge.

He now stands in the place of God the Father by divine investiture and can apply to the law, grace and mercy, in order to take into consideration YOU, which of course is your heart:-), into the equation.

And only He knows your heart. He who loves you and knows you and gave His life for you and suffered for you, so that you might live again to have joy unspeakable, all that you are willing to receive from Him... even all that the Father Hath Given Him.... IF YOU CHOOSE IT... YOU MAY HAVE IT!

Once an individual understands these eternal truths, we must choose to repent in this life and turn to Him. The sooner we do so, the better. Once we have learned these truths and do understand them and reject them, that is when the telestial kindom or the terrestial kingdom come into play. It just depends on a persons choices in this life. A true apostate that would want to harm the teaching of these truths would obviously be considered an enemy to god, thus would separate themselves further.

But unless, as identified earlier as one who has even met the qualifications as a son of perdition, then the possibility does not even exist in most cases.

So now maybe you have a real reason to party:-)
rtc

Hi Neal

Interesting food for thought. thanks

do you think the creation story ( or stories, since there are two that are different) are literally true? Many do, so I am not trying to entrap you.

Many don't: i of course think the whole thing is a myth, and there is increasing question that Moses existed at all or that the Isralites were ever in Eggypt.

If one DOES believe it literally true (aside from the timing I presume)
than i agree that it is entirely possible Adam was not the ONLY man. the bible in general is so sketchy that virtually anything is possible. take it from a story teller.

P:

Couple of quick comments on your last post....

As far as dinosaurs, evolution and other pre-human creatures.

The scriptures do not preclude these, they simply don't include them. I think its remarkable how closely the creation story parallels evolutionary theory - starting at a planet void of life and moving up the ladder from simple to complex. In LDS theology this world is one of millions, and was patterned after other worlds. Who's to say it was not "seeded" with basic species who were left to "fill the measure of their creation"? LDS theology does not believe in the "6 day" creation. Rather, our scriptures refer to 6 creative "periods". No one knows how long a period is. Also, JS stated in his writings that this world was made from other worlds. Interesting and profound possibilities arise from that statement.

We also are told this world is going through a kind of "eternal progression", and will eventually become celestialized. We have no description of the other stages the earth has/will go through. We also have no idea of how many kinds of creatures exist in the universe. We're told they (intelligences) existed before the earth was formed and they were organized into spirits; and that God created all things "spiritually before they were naturally upon the face of the earth". These creatures - dinosars all the way to modern life forms - needed to have a mortal existance as well.

As far as Noah, Adam, etc. we only have a description of the biblical Noah, Adam, etc. That does not preclude there being other Adams or Noahs other places. We know Adam was the "first", but it does not say he was the "only". And when it says Adam was the first "man", what does that mean? Does it mean he was the first human, or does it mean something different? I've always found it interesting that Christ referred to himself most frequently as "the Son of Man". If MAN is one of Gods names, what does it then mean when they ask the question - "is MAN found on the earth?" Perhaps it refers to something more than just human beings.

Food for thought...

Neal

RTC ~

If I once truly had a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel that you espouse, but now I don't believe there is even a God, nor do I believe that Jesus was actually the son of God, do you STILL think I won't be in Outer Darkness for eternity?

I think this is why both Henry and I think we are bound for Outer Darkness if when we die, we suddenly find out that God really DID create this wacky Plan of Happiness for his children he claims to love.

Henry James,

I am so sorry that I am just now catching up on this thread. This is my final week for Seminary and things have been quite busy here on earth. I do see however, that my dear children have done a most fabulous job of answering to the remnants of which I left behind at my rude parting, of which I certainly knew there would clean up be required.

I am most assured that I shall get an ear full from them over this holiday weekend, as we shall celebrate their little one's first birthday at my home! What a delight:-) I can hardly wait to see them all...

But to clarify a bit on your comment of earlier this week. I find it ALWAYS interesting that as smart and thorough as I am sure that you are in most of your research, but for some odd reason, when it comes to your religious documentation you fail miserably I am afraid. I would have thought that by now you would have learned to fully research your subject BEFORE presenting your EVIDENCE.

Clearly you did NOT do this when you posted your council to my daughter and myself when you posted another person's ignorant comment. Very sloppy work indeed my friend.

"So the next time somebody tells you that the only Mormon “hell” is reserved for the sons of perdition who go to Outer Darkness, you can set them straight. But try to be more diplomatic about it than I was this morning, or you might end up eating a knuckle sandwich. Some people are so terrified of going to hell they like to pretend that there is no such thing, and that the worst that can happen is to end up in one of the three kingdoms of glory."

HJ - I shall NOW give you what the full definition of "Hell" is according to the LDS doctrine and which comes from the "True to the Faith" manual which YOU cited in YOUR original post of which the above quote WAS taken from in its TOTALITY. (which I prefer... don't you?)

36863, True to the Faith, Hell, 81
Latter-day revelations speak of "hell" in at least two ways. First, it is another name for spirit prison, a place in the postmortal spirit world for those who have “died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets” (D&C 138:32). This is a temporary state in which spirits will be taught the gospel and have the opportunity to repent and accept ordinances of salvation that are performed for them in temples (see D&C 138:30–35). Those who accept the gospel may dwell in paradise until the Resurrection. After they are resurrected and judged, they will receive the degree of glory of which they are worthy. Those who choose not to repent but who are not sons of perdition will remain in spirit prison until the end of the Millennium, when they will be freed from "hell" and punishment and be resurrected to a telestial glory (see D&C 76:81–85).

Second, the word "hell" is used to refer to outer darkness, which is the dwelling place of the devil, his angels, and the sons of perdition (see D&C 29:36–38; D&C 76:28–33). Sons of perdition are those who receive “no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame” (D&C 76:34–35; see also D&C 76:31–33, D&C 76:36–37). Such individuals will not inherit a place in any kingdom of glory; for them the conditions of hell remain (see D&C 76:38; D&C 88:24, D&C 88:32).

Now, HJ... can you SEE how this was used to NOT tell the entire truth about what the LDS doctrine of "hell" is? That is not fair, is it. And it is all in the book that you cited as a credible source. Thank you.

I am so glad we could clear this up and see that we "all" here, are going to be just fine, after the required repentance, forgiveness, and a very big group hug:-) lololol
rtc

JD1,
When you have a minute and if you are willing, please send me an e-mail- jim@systemconnection.com. I have a question I'd like to take offline....

Small Point of Agreement

One point I heartily agree with you Momrons about: the bible has many errors.

You mentioned a BIG one: the Bible portrays God as all powerful, but Mormons know that It isn't.

Anyone in this day and age who thinks the bible is inerrant is not doing their homework.

John:

Appreciate the response, in part because it provides a chance to clarify a statement in mine that was obviously unclear. When I say that religion attempted to explain everything at one time, the emphasis is on the "at one time," as opposed to the "everything."

The creation of what is now the Bible was compressed into an extremely narrow portion of the total history of human beings, much less the history of the cosmos. Therefore, we do not see references to things we now know definitively, contained in the biological and cosmological references in the Bible. There are far too many of these to provide a proper catalyst to discussion here, but as a couple of quickie examples: The Biblical authors did not know that there was a time prior to human existence in which other creatures did exist on the planet. Thus, no references to dinosaurs etc, while positing that man was creation's alpha being. Further, there was no knowledge at that time of the existence of Australia, so there is no reference to Noah's having made a swing "down under" to collect the marsupials prior to the rains. If the Bible were accurate, there would be no kangaroo etc. The Biblical accounts reflect the "knowledge" available in a primitive culture in a particular ecosystem at a particular period of history. We can expect no less from a man-made collection of writings, but we have every reason to expect much more from a divine being who created T-Rex s and kangaroos.

As far as the suffering of sentient beings who survive by consuming death itself goes, what possible reason would there be for such a system to have been created by a compassionate being who was capable of doing something quite different? You refer to my characterization as representing a "common sense" view of the divine, but I am simply working with what has been written and spoken and accepted as fact by believers in the literal truth and inerrancy of these writings. Mormons believe in the literal truth of the Bible do they not, "as long as it is translated correctly?" That is still an "article of faith," is it not? If so, the problem of evil must be confronted, as Henry so aptly suggests. Every attempt to handle this philosophical dilemma while remaining in theistic bounds, provides entertainment for those who like their acrobatics to be of the cognitive sort.

Some claim that it was actually Adam's "fall" that caused the world to swing from the paradisical to the hellish. But, who imposed the penalty in even this simplistic maneuver? The fact that creatures who had existed for millions of years maintained their lives by consuming other creatures they killed in amazingly painful ways, before ever being witnessed by a human being points very clearly to either the lack of a compassionate creator being, or the lack of any any whatsoever. I do not understand how any human being can watch a lion begin eating an impala while it is still kicking can then buy into the notion of a merciful god. What possible "good" could result from such a system? The answer is "none," because the concept of "good" exists within the human mind alone.

Now, by the moral standards of their time, which did not take into account in any meaningful way the ethics of compassion to all sentient beings, the Bible's authors did convey the moral code of their day and age. Again, this cries out for recognition of the human provenance of the holy books.

By claiming inerrancy of scripture, believers nail their foot to the floor and are unable to keep pace with the progression of human knowledge. They are then forced to either make wholesale adjustments, or contorted apologies as progressive learning leaves such beliefs behind, wailing warnings of damnation.

By the same token, in positing that the scriptures represent the very highest level of moral prescription, believers nail their other foot to the floor and are unable to keep up with the evolution of moral values. As such, they are left to either disavow the many moral outrages contained in the scriptures, quietly ignore some in favor of talking loudly about others, or drift into an immorality that the future exposes with ever-increasing clarity.

The horrors attendant to the believer's view of the afterlife, merely extend the "lone time and place" view of primitive tribesmen to another realm of "existence."

Thanks to all for this discussion. I will be away for the next ten days or so, and, thus unable to reply further. My best to each of you.

P.

my gosh JD, you are smart.

i completely agree that no one has solved EITHER the conundra of an all-powerful god and something out of nothing. they are the paradoxes you rightly remind us that one leading a spiritual life has to live with.
and the mormon doctrine of Limited Power has as many and as few problems as the Unlimited Power doctrine. the best approach as far as I am concerned is to meditate/pray about the problem. i think you agree.

a scientific note: our God Stephen Hawking is pretty convinced that there was a beginning of time, and of space-time. Whether there was or there wasn't, it brings up insolvable conceptual problems, whether you are a philosopher or a theologian.

I'll post the reference on Gould/Cox, and Alan Dershowitz was the third professor in the legendary course they all co taught.

James,

I must say, I have not followed the debate on this on first causes, or before there was anything hypotheticals. (Though anything by Stephen Jay Gould would be on my reading list, any suggestions?).

I know there are many unresolved problems, I don't pretend to have solved them. I just pointed out the approach of Mormonism to the problem of suffering is very different, and more satisfactory than was implied in your criticisms.

If Philosophers of Math haven't solved the problem "What is a number?" I don't think we should expect a solution to many theological problems any time soon.

Bible and Omnipotence: According to my understanding of LDS theology God is all powerful in that he has all power that it is possible to have. So the God that exists in a magical Universe where any possible combination of reality can be created out of nothing does not exist. Not because God is not powerful enough, but because the Universe just can't work that way. (I speak dogmatically, since I am articulating dogma). So the Omnipotence of the Biblical God is maintained, though the Universe in which that Omnipotent God exists is different.

As for the before anything question: do we have a reason to assume there was a time when there was nothing? I mean matter turns into energy, and energy turns into matter, and so it goes. Why must there be a First cause, why can't we just have an Eternal causal chain going back forever? I state that Eternal cause is implied in Mormon dogma, that is all. I guess there could be a place for a first cause in Mormon theology somewhere, so I am open to it. It seems to me that the before anything hypothetical is just that, hypothetical. I think that is the counter-argument for the first cause argument in favor of God's existence, is it not?

But I must admit significant ignorance in this arena. Disculpe. Perhaps you can teach me James?

I now must get to work. I find myself regretting the time I spend here, not because I do not like you all, but I neglect certain things when I spend time here that really need attention.

BTW, congratulations on your A! Not to toot my own horn, but I got an A in my gentile Ethics class too ;)

Thankful,

The articulate intelligence of your posts reminds me of why I married you. Love you sweetie.

All the best,

JD1

SML

a great classic is Alan Watts

"Buddhism" or
"This is IT"""
or The essential Alan Watts

or any series of his talks that your llibrary might have.

He's very engaging and brilliant and down to earth.

Thankful: a full and thoughtful reply. Gracias.

Since you're gone, a couple of comments from one ghost to another.

1. We all have our definition of Jealous. I think our God of the bible is pretty jealous in the dysfunctional sense, and Jack Miles in God a biography (pulitzer winner - great book) agrees.

2. We all agree (atheists and believers) that there are laws of the universe.
If God can't violate the laws, how did the sun stand still for Joshua. Or don't we Mormons believe that absurd myth.
Was the Seagull story a miracle? Did it violate eternal laws? If it didn't, what was the big deal?

3. I will google some measures on group social isolation for you, which you may do as well. i am sure pheadrus has some off the top of his head.
You don't doubt the conclusion, do you? It is a strength of Mormonism: cohesiveness.

4. I have read the story lately. Any lucid reading of the story shows that god was "hellbent" on killing innocents, and Abe had to talk him out of it. "We" don't need to crack the story again, tho it wouldn't hurt.

5. Re drowning my daughter: that is perfectly analagous to what God tells us he will do to us if we don't behave as he tells us to.
If you agree it is absurd for me to drown my daughter, you also agree that God's avowed intentions are absurd and dysfunctional. And the ultimate in Conditional abusive love.

5. Right, he doesn't control our sex lives. But he damn well tries. And he punishes me for every incidence of gay sex that I have, even though i am legally married in Massachusetts and it is NOT adultery.
BTW, I am perfectly happy with my married sex life, as you seem to be with yours.

6. As i stated earlier, i don't think the mormons are as bad in Fear-mongering Hell as many other religions are.
But Visiting rights to my son in the telestial kingdom is not a great consolation.
It is like the right to visit my son in prison.

Everyone has the opportunity to be bound together IF they accept the Gospel. I do NOT, and won't. So I don't have the chance. And mormon doctrine makes clear that there are many like me. But we did have the chance. God's way or the long long highway.

O Henry ~

I've never studied Buddhism. Do you recommend any good reading on the subject?

SML O Wise One

You describe EXACTLY the Buddhist Path

Through suffering to compassion and loving kindness.

and NO supernatural God.

Of course, all humans suffer, and all must persist.

Exclusivist religions have hindered the development of Loving kindness towards ALL of our brothers and sisters.

HJ,

Thanks for the Hitler retraction though I do agree that Yahweh portrayed in the OT is quite a hardliner. The Pearl of Great Price which covers some of the same OT gives a much expanded understanding of God's character that is loving, compassionate and pained by the poor choices of his children.

My last thoughts on the list

1. Jealous: God's use of jealous is in reference to those who have made a covenant with him only to break it -- a commitment perhaps most comparable to marriage in it's degree.

It is when they "run out on him" and sleep around so to speak worshiping other GOd's that references to jealousy are made.

2. Going to hell is like stepping off a 100 foot cliff?

As it seems you and JD1 are starting to go to task on -- LDS theology holds that there are eternal laws that govern the universe for which God works within. Laws of Justice and Mercy included. God does not arbitrarily make the laws at his whim. If he did, he certainly would have changed the one about offering Christ as his only begotten son to suffer and be crucified for our sakez not to mention the one were we all suffer in the proccess to become like him.

"Jesus affirmed that people WERE in fact going to go to Hell at the last judgment. You read what you want to read."

LDS theology does not axe out hell all together -- only that, with the exception of the outer darkness folks, hell hath an end.

"3. By any valid measure of social isolation and exclusiveness, Mormons rate very high compared to other religions, and God must want it that way or he would tell the Prophets to act differently."

I'd be curious to see some valid measures and discuss.

"4. God got pissed. Abraham said, “but you will kill innocent civilians.” God said, “So.” Abraham said, “that’s not moral."

Perhaps we need to crack out the bible again and check that story.

As I recall, Abraham keeps inquiring as to IF there are X number of righteous in the city will God spare it?

God says yes, in the hypothetical situation of X number of righteous, I will spare it.

However, the facts are that they aren't any number of righteous in the city which is what God knew all along. An interesting point of learning for Abraham.

"I told my daughter to behave 50 times, but she wouldn’t, so I drowned her in the bathtub. I am justified, aren’t I.?
That is absurd."

Yeah that is absurd.

5/ "God tells me I can’t be the homosexual I am, according to Hinckley. He tells everyone they can’t masturbate. He tells Mormon couples what kind of Sex is OK and what isn’t. He is VERY interested in our Sexual behavior, in what we can do and can’t do. If a parent acted the same way, I would consider that parent abusive. Mormons may disagree.

Maybe we rephrase: demands you not perform sexual activites that ARE natural for you and don’t hurt others. Controls our sex lives in inappropriate ways."

Again he doesn't control our sex lives, he gives us guidelines for the procreative powers we've been entrusted with.

As you know HJ, I am more than happy with my choices to follow those guidelines -- I would have never had my JD1 or my daughter.

"6. The Mormon afterlife is an elaborate system of Reward and Punishment. They soft pedal Hell/Outer darkness, which is nice though hypocritical, but the scheme is based on the EXTREME punishment of losing contact with your family if you don’t toe the line/hold on to the rod."

Again with the exception of outer darkness, loss of contact with your family would be an inacurate description of LDS theology. We hold that those of any higher degree of glory may visit a lesser degree.

A family unit bound together for eternity is of course an exclusive characteristic of the celestial kingdom which oppurtunity is equally available to everyone.

Learning Faith Through Suffering

It seems you are saying you are being made to suffer to learn faith in Jesus Christ, and you welcome such suffering.

You aren't saying you have faith that Jesus will end your suffering, or relieve it in any way.

So does that mean that you are learning to have faith that someday your patience during hard times will be rewarded by Jesus in the next life? If suffering compels us to seek out God, then are we seeking him out to beg him to end our suffering? Is that what he wants us to do? Or are we seeking him out to show him that we are enduring it well, and please note it on my report card?

Imagine showing patience, kindness, and faith that this too shall pass without any thoughts of God. I find that exemplary, because those people are living these admirable traits just because that's who they are, not because they fear God will be unhappy if they don't suffer through trials well.

Thankful writes, "the opposition and difficulty we experience in this life are the catalysts that further our growth, that help us learn the qualitative differences between good and evil and the impact of our choices. To also help us learn patience, wisdom and faith in Jesus Christ. To learn and have a chance to practice kindness, compassion and wisdom as well. To compel us to seek God out and to forge in our trials a close relationship with Him and with our families and friends and communities."

The thing is, you feel that when you endure difficulties and suffering, you thereby learn faith in Jesus Christ...meaning that you hope that someday your suffering will have MEANT something to Jesus and you will then be rewarded for enduring it with kindness and patience.

But don't you think that people who don't believe in God or Jesus also learn how to practice kindness, compassion, and wisdom through their suffering and trials? Of course they do. Jesus is not required for people to become stronger through trials. That's called experience and wisdom.

I can appreciate, however, that the idea of God and Jesus being there for you to give meaning to your suffering can be a comfort and an important thing to many.

Hi HJ,

To clarify, I was refering to all the house analogies when I said "I don’t think these illustrations accurately portray our theology.”

not

All of the various qoutes/scriptures on the terestrial kingdom and outer darkness. Of these I stated:

"I can see with the various qoutes how the telestial v. outerdarkness questions/confusions arise."

Not that HJ has to show his credentials to be believable. His knowledge of Mormon Doctrine is well documented here, and it is extensive and admirable.

One need not be actively attending church to know what is written and what is believed there.

Hi Pheadrus,

As JD1 has pointed out, your post seems to be critiqing the classic / traditional / orthodox understanding of God. This is also what Darwin was critiqing --

LDS of course have a much expanded theology beyond the bible. The LDS doctrine of the plan of salvation spans forward into the 3 degrees of glory as we have been discussing -- it also spans backwards into our lives to before we came and why we came.

My hubby's anthropology prof at the LSE who's spent considerable time studying LDS theology and culture, has stated repeatedly that one of the things she admires of the LDS faith is what she finds to be -- the most compelling explanation for suffering.

This is not to say that we are right, only reasonable to believe as we do.

I've addressed this question a bit before so here I cut and paste for times sake:

"How could a loving God allow people to suffer at all -- to experience and even be born with anything less than the ideal?

LDS teachings on this subject generally highlight that the opposition and difficulty we experience in this life are the catalysts that further our growth, that help us learn the qualitative differences between good and evil and the impact of our choices. To also help us learn patience, wisdom and faith in Jesus Christ. To learn and have a chance to practice kindness, compassion and wisdom as well. To compel us to seek God out and to forge in our trials a close relationship with Him and with our families and friends and communities.

I agree with these teachings -- that there is much to be gained in experiencing limitations that are less than ideal while naturally, most of us do not go asking for them or envy the difficulties that are experienced by others."

I'll add that LDS doctrine includes that in the premortal realm we each made the choice to come to earth so we could receive a body as well as have this oppurtunity to grow.

Our theology also holds that we could not further progress to become like God without this experience.

Hope that sheds a little more light

Thankful

JD
Profound apologies for the implication that you are a PR man. I know you are the farthest thing from that. I meant to say "the Mormon PR case," what with people accusing them of not being Christians and of demeaning the Bible, etc.

BTW, at 19 I was getting A's in Logic and Ethics at a first rate college, and have kept up on the doctrinal changes since then: God hasn't changed since I was 19, has he?

JD

You are committing Theology again.

First, I was aware that I was mixing Mormon beliefs about God with beliefs based on the Christian Bible. And I completely understand that there are differences.

The Mormon God is an Abusive Parent in His Own Ways, which are not EXACTLY the same ways that the Judeo-Christian God is Abusive.

Though there are loads of overlaps.

Theologically speaking, the mormon limited powers act presents ENORMOUS philosophical problems (so does its opposite, the Onmipotence theory).

No Omnipotence theorist has ever solved Phaedrus's Problem of Evil, widely acknowldedged to be SOME problem.

I gave you a preview of the limited powers problem. I am sure you know what they are.

If something can't be created out of nothing, what was there before there was something? Harvary Cox and Stephen Jay Gould used to teach a course around this unresolved problem at Harvard. They will be happy to hear that you have worked it out.

HJ,

1. I am not the PR man. I am not making a PR case.

2. Read the D&C, D&C 93 is a good place to start. I don't blame you for not understanding this, I didn't understand it at 19 (That's when you left right?).

3. Sterling M. was disciplined for his public opposition to church policies and founding stories of Mormonism. Not his perspective on qualified omnipotence.

B.H. Roberts makes the same case. Not excommunicated. This is actually Mormon theodicity 101 James.

4. You say I can not say for certain whether God did not create something out of nothing. Your right, I am only claiming that this is Mormon doctrine.

JD1

Wasn't McMurrin almost excommunicated for his heresy a number of times?

Careful JD - you may end up in love court if you keep talking like that.

lov
betty

John D
So you are saying the Mormons have disavowed the
God of Moses, and Jesus? I guess people are right: MOrmons AREN"t really Christians.

And the BoM is supreme over the Bible.

OK, I'll stipulate that for the moment, though I don't think it helps your PR case.

If HE can't create something out of nothing, was there always Something? And where did IT come from. Or is it Turtles all the way down?

Many Philosophers have demonstrated the quick absurdity you have just slipped into JOhn. Not that they have solved it.

BUT - YOU state with Certainty. God DID NOT create something out of NOTHING.

You can not POSSIBLY KNOW, just as No ONe, mormons included, can KNOW what happens after we die.

Hello all my 5th generation experts on Mormonism!!

I must say all of your arguments are directed towards the wrong God!! The crux of your grievances are based on a God of unqualified omnipotence, the absolute soverng, ex-nihilio creator of the Calvinist brand.

Indeed, the revelations of the restoration declare an all powerful God, but only within the constraints of reality. We know for example that he does not, and cannot create matter out of the nothing, or the essential substance of human souls out of nothing.

Sterling McMurrin has noted that this conception of qualified omnipotence solves the problem of evil in a way no other Abrahamic tradition can. If you’re going to critique the Mormon God, make sure you’re critiquing the Mormon God.

I am sure Karen has some good defenses of the Orthodox Christian God. I would sincerely like to hear how she responds to these objections.

Pheadrus,

You said,

“The reason that the concept of a loving God is impossible to, with validity, square with any basic knowledge of a world so red in tooth and claw, is because it is a fiction invented to explain literally everything at once, and at a time in our history marked by remarkable ignorance of actual cause and effect.”

You present here a common sense explanation of religion. It is very problematic for a few reasons:

1) Religion doesn’t explain everything at once, it only explains specific things, i.e. misfortune, and existential problems. Even the most primitive religions explain aspects of misfortune only accounted for by chance, fate or probability- Scientific explanations can fit quite nicely along side them.

2). Supernatural explanations introduce phenomena that are even more fantastic and would require more elaborate explanations than the phenomena they are meant to describe, thus confounding the intellectual problem. The supernatural, in short, increases intellectual problems rather than solving them. So “Desire to explain everything” doesn’t really work as an explanation of success of the religion “meme”, to use a Dawkinite term.

Best my friend,

JD1

Thankful and RTC: this is from a blog called The Iron Rod by an active conservative Mormon. The last sentence is about you:

"the word hell is used to refer to outer darkness, which is the dwelling place of the devil, his angels, and the sons of perdition (see D&C 29:36–38; D&C 76:28–33). Sons of perdition are those who receive “no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame” (D&C 76:34–35; see also D&C 76:31–33, D&C 76:36–37). Such individuals will not inherit a place in any kingdom of glory; for them the conditions of hell remain (see D&C 76:38; D&C 88:24, D&C 88:32).
This is from True to the Faith, the correlated book published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and copyrighted in 2004 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. and introduced by The First Presidency. This book is distributed by the priesthood to new members at or shortly after their baptism. And the doctrine in it is as pure and undefiled as anything in the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants.
So the next time somebody tells you that the only Mormon “hell” is reserved for the sons of perdition who go to Outer Darkness, you can set them straight. But try to be more diplomatic about it than I was this morning, or you might end up eating a knuckle sandwich. Some people are so terrified of going to hell they like to pretend that there is no such thing, and that the worst that can happen is to end up in one of the three kingdoms of glory."

But Daddy, MOST people will go to Heaven, won't they? Only the REALLY bad people like Henry James will go to Hell, right.

No, dear, I am afraid not. Let's read what the New Testament, the story of that nice Jesus, says. Looks like only a "chosen few" will go to heaven. But I am sure god unconditionally loves all those many he is condemning to eternal fire and gnashing of teeth. Here is what HIS word says:

How many will go to Hell?:
Every time it talks about how many will go to "Hell", the word "many" is used... 4 times!: "The gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt.7:13-14, in the Sermon of the Mount). "On that day many will say to me: Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name... (Matt.7:21-23). "many are invited, but few are chosen" (Matt.22:14). "Someone asked him: Lord, will only a few be saved?. He said to them: Strive to enter through the narrow door, for many will try to enter and will not be able... (Lk.13:23-29).

Thankful
you say "Christ suffered for all so they would not have to go to hell for their sins, this is the ultimate proof of unconditional love"

Here are a few quotes from Christ's new testament. Eternal Fire for my Brother Henry. That is sweet. If my child disobeys me, I am going to put her on the barbecue.

We have the mistaken belief that Jesus was all love and kisses. he is already to damn your butt to hell.

Matthew 25:41,46 - The wicked go to everlasting destruction, the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. Righteous people will receive eternal life.
- It will be total separation from God, Mat.25:41; 2Thes.1:9.
- A place of misery and pain, "place of torment", "tormented in this flame", "wailing and gnashing of teeth", Luke 16:23,24,28
- "fire", "everlasting fire", "furnace of fire", "the fire that never shall be quenched", Matt 5:22, 7:19, 13:40,42,50, 18:8,9, 25:41, Mark 9:43,44,45,46,47,48.
- Where only the wicked will reside, Matthew 25:28-30,41,46, Rev.20:10, 21:8.
- And it will be eternal: There will be no escape, "No Exit.", "eternal damnation", Mark 3:29, Matt 23:14, 33, Luke 20:47
- "everlasting punishment", Matt 25:46

Sorry for the double post. Seems like several of us are having this problem...

Wow, this thread is still going strong! Somehow I assumed it would be closed by now.
Just spent a moment reading the latest postings. All quite interesting, especially the last couple from Phaedrus and Henry James.
I am unfortunately too short on time this evening to get involved in the ongoing debate of the last couple of days. However, Phaedrus and HJ, I would like to recommend to you a small book that I am reading right now and that I am finding to be one of the most significant books I have read in a long time (and I am a voracious reader). It is called "Disappointment with God" by Philip Yancey. It is out in paperback for $5.99 so won't break the bank, or maybe you can check it out of your local library. The two of you strike me as interested in ideas, thoughtful dialogue and serious thinking. I am not trying to convert anybody here but I do think that some of your views of God and Heaven may have been so distorted by mormon theology that you mind find it interesting to consider a different yet meaningful perspective. I would also be interested in getting your thoughts as non theists on this book.
Why am I reading this book? Well, I am going through some trials and trebulations right now. Philip Yancey never sugarcoates things, and his writings have helped me clear my head before. He way exceeded my expectations in this book.
Again, not trying to convert anyone. As I have said before, only the Holy Spirit converts :) but would love to hear a review of the book from a non christian perspective.

Wow, this thread is still going strong! Somehow I assumed it would be closed by now.
Just spent a moment reading the latest postings. All quite interesting, especially the last couple from Phaedrus and Henry James.
I am unfortunately too short on time this evening to get involved in the ongoing debate of the last couple of days. However, Phaedrus and HJ, I would like to recommend to you a small book that I am reading right now and that I am finding to be one of the most significant books I have read in a long time (and I am a voracious reader). It is called "Disappointment with God" by Philip Yancey. It is out in paperback for $5.99 so won't break the bank, or maybe you can check it out of your local library. The two of you strike me as interested in ideas, thoughtful dialogue and serious thinking. I am not trying to convert anybody here but I do think that some of your views of God and Heaven may have been so distorted by mormon theology that you mind find it interesting to consider a different yet meaningful perspective. I would also be interested in getting your thoughts as non theists on this book.
Why am I reading this book? Well, I am going through some trials and trebulations right now. Philip Yancey never sugarcoates things, and his writings have helped me clear my head before. He way exceeded my expectations in this book.
Again, not trying to convert anyone. As I have said before, only the Holy Spirit converts :) but would love to hear a review of the book from a non christian perspective.

Hi SML Pheadrus and HJ,

I've had a chance to skim through your responses but I won't be able to reply until tommorrow.

Hope ya'll have a good night

Thankful

Thankful

First, apologies for the Yahweh/Hitler comment. It was tasteless, and I am sorry I got carried away. But we should remember that Yahweh seemed to have little compunction about killing those who displeased him, and Abraham had to talk him out of offing innocent civilians.

Re your comments on my list:

1. Jealous: The BoM only has God describe himself as jealous TWICE? Not much of a disclaimer. And isn’t God the same God who was in the bible? Do we read the bible selectively, just like we accept Joseph Smith’s prophecies and revelations selectively. If so, how do we select.

How about “I am the lord thy God, and thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” Sounds pretty Jealous to me. “I am your King, and you shall not love any king more than you love me.” Yassuh.

2. Going to hell is like stepping off a 100 foot cliff?
God has nothing to do with it? Didn’t God set up this whole system, including creating the cliffs? Is God all powerful except when he isn’t? I am getting a headache.

Jesus affirmed that people WERE in fact going to go to Hell at the last judgment. You read what you want to read.

3. By any valid measure of social isolation and exclusiveness, Mormons rate very high compared to other religions, and God must want it that way or he would tell the Prophets to act differently.

4. God got pissed. Abraham said, “but you will kill innocent civilians.” God said, “So.” Abraham said, “that’s not moral.”

The God of the Old testament lost his temper ALL THE TIME and did horribly violent things many times/ Have you read the Old Testament?

I told my daughter to behave 50 times, but she wouldn’t, so I drowned her in the bathtub. I am justified, aren’t I.?
That is absurd.

5/ God tells me I can’t be the homosexual I am, according to Hinckley. He tells everyone they can’t masturbate. He tells Mormon couples what kind of Sex is OK and what isn’t. He is VERY interested in our Sexual behavior, in what we can do and can’t do. If a parent acted the same way, I would consider that parent abusive. Mormons may disagree.

Maybe we rephrase: demands you not perform sexual activites that ARE natural for you and don’t hurt others. Controls our sex lives in inappropriate ways.

6. The Mormon afterlife is an elaborate system of Reward and Punishment. They soft pedal Hell/Outer darkness, which is nice though hypocritical, but the scheme is based on the EXTREME punishment of losing contact with your family if you don’t toe the line/hold on to the rod.

Thanks Thankful for your reply. This deals with your first reply:

You write: “I don’t think these illustrations accurately portray our theology.”

SML was quoting Word for Word from an Official Mormon publication that is given to investigators of the Church. Can’t they speak English.
The words are COMPLETELY clear. Lose testimony, go to Outer Darkness. Not “maybe”.

Jesus was nicer than Jahweh (so was Hitler). He was mostly a lovey guy. But he affirmed that those who didn’t believe in him would be damned at the last judgment. Burn in hell. Gnash teeth. Wince and boil. Nice guy. No one is perfect. And his unconditional love in dying for others was touching. BTW, I have never committed any odious sins. ☺.

You bring up boundaries. Boundaries are not inconsistent with unconditional love. I have unconditional love for my daughter, but I wouldn’t let her steal money from me, or hit me.

EVERY society has boundaries, without God’s help. No one needs the 10 commandments to tell us we should not steal, kill, or lie.

I tell my daughter she shouldn’t (though I hardly need to – she knows innately). But I don’t withdraw my love if she does.

And I do not do any of the other things the abusive God Father I described does either, and would not no matter what she did.

I might be very pained. But I would not withdraw the love.

It is fine for God and me to make rules and establish boundaries. All healthy parents do that. No healthy parents act the way I described in my list of abusive characteristics.

If there is no afterlife, then systems of stratification within it are not especially compelling to me. However, the concept of God's love for his creations (I include non humans here) is particularly interesting to me, in part for reasons that Thankful highlights.

For some time after reaching personal certainty as to the accuracy of natural selection, Darwin struggled to maintain his belief in the supreme being of his youthful years. It was his observations concerning the appalling cruelties within the natural world, where creatures survive by killing and devouring others in horrendous ways that ultimately served to convince him of the absence of any being that could or would devise and create such a system, while purporting to care for those who are doomed to suffer within it.

Were one a caring god, with such frightful power to create a world from nothingess, and possessed of limitless love and compassion, would one create this world in such fashion that the larvae of certain insects survive by burrowing into a living host and then proceeding to devour it from the inside? And, this, merely to sustain their own existence long enough to reproduce offspring who will do likewise to other hapless and co-created caterpillars? Not likely. The frightful amount and degree of pain and suffering concomitant to existence is the best evidence that this existence is not the creation of a merciful and just being.

Human sufferings are all the easier to identify, identify with, and therefore attribute to that from which they acutally arise, the forces of natural selection. These forces simultaneously lie outside of human morality, and give rise to it, by tending to favor the survival of individuals who are prone to cooperation and attachment to like groups. Like our Gods, morals are also the products of human evolution

The reason that the concept of a loving God is impossible to, with validity, square with any basic knowledge of a world so red in tooth and claw, is because it is a fiction invented to explain literally everything at once, and at a time in our history marked by remarkable ignorance of actual cause and effect. Efforts to perform this impossible feat all-too-often come off as another exercise in victim-blaming that any therapist recognizes. "You see, you have made me beat you again because of your _______ (fill in the blank with the "sin" of choice.)"

If there is no afterlife, then systems of stratification within it are not especially compelling. However, the concept of God's love for his creations (I include non humans here) is particularly interesting to me, in part for reasons that Thankful highlights. For some time after reaching personal certainty as to the accuracy of natural selection, Darwin struggled to maintain his belief in the supreme being of his youthful years. It was his observations concerning the appalling cruelties within the natural world, where creatures survive by killing and devouring others in horrendous ways that ultimately served to convince him of the absence of any being that could or would devise and create such a system, while purporting to care for those who are doomed to suffer within it. Were one a caring god, with such frightful power to create a world from nothingess, and possessed of limitless love and compassion, would one create this world in such fashion that the larvae of certain insects survive by burrowing into a living host and then proceeding to devour it from the inside? And, this, merely to sustain their own existence long enough to reproduce offspring who will do likewise to other hapless and co-created caterpillars? Not likely. The frightful amount and degree of pain and suffering concomitant to existence is the best evidence that this existence is not the creation of a merciful and just being.

Human sufferings are all the easier to identify, identify with, and therefore attribute to that from which they acutally arise, the forces of natural selection. These forces simultaneously lie outside of human morality, and give rise to it, by tending to favor the survival of individuals who are prone to cooperation and attachment to like groups. Like our Gods, morals are also the products of human evolution

The reason that the concept of a loving God is impossible to, with validity, square with any basic knowledge of a world so red in tooth and claw, is because it is a fiction invented to explain literally everything at once, and at a time in our history marked by remarkable ignorance of actual cause and effect. Efforts to perform this impossible feat all-too-often come off as another exercise in victim-blaming that any therapist recognizes. "You see, you have made me beat you again because of your _______ (fill in the blank with the "sin" of choice.)"

If there is no afterlife, then systems of stratification within it are not especially compelling. However, the concept of God's love for his creations (I include non humans here) is particularly interesting to me, in part for reasons that Thankful highlights. For some time after reaching personal certainty as to the accuracy of natural selection, Darwin struggled to maintain his belief in the supreme being of his youthful years. It was his observations concerning the appalling cruelties within the natural world, where creatures survive by killing and devouring others in horrendous ways that ultimately served to convince him of the absence of any being that could or would devise and create such a system, while purporting to care for those who are doomed to suffer within it. Were one a caring god, with such frightful power to create a world from nothingess, and possessed of limitless love and compassion, would one create this world in such fashion that the larvae of certain insects survive by burrowing into a living host and then proceeding to devour it from the inside? And, this, merely to sustain their own existence long enough to reproduce offspring who will do likewise to other hapless and co-created caterpillars? Not likely. The frightful amount and degree of pain and suffering concomitant to existence is the best evidence that this existence is not the creation of a merciful and just being.

Human sufferings are all the easier to identify, identify with, and therefore attribute to that from which they acutally arise, the forces of natural selection. These forces simultaneously lie outside of human morality, and give rise to it, by tending to favor the survival of individuals who are prone to cooperation and attachment to like groups. Like our Gods, morals are also the products of human evolution

The reason that the concept of a loving God is impossible to, with validity, square with any basic knowledge of a world so red in tooth and claw, is because it is a fiction invented to explain literally everything at once, and at a time in our history marked by remarkable ignorance of actual cause and effect. Efforts to perform this impossible feat all-too-often come off as another exercise in victim-blaming that any therapist recognizes. "You see, you have made me beat you again because of your _______ (fill in the blank with the "sin" of choice.)"

It is rather amusing to see an LDS person defend the rights of people to set boundaries for themselves. The church is so good at not respecting personal boundaries.

"Sister Jones was wearing short shorts while mowing her lawn! She didn't have garments on!!! She might need to be released from her calling. We'll discuss it in the next Ward Council."

*Knock knock knock* (I open my door) "Hi! We're Brother Smith and Brother Taylor from the High Priests Group. Do you mind if we come in and get to know your inactive family better?"

Bishop: "Can you honestly say you have paid a full tithe this year? Honestly?"

Bishop: "Do you, Mr. Non-Member, give your wife written permission to attend our temple? No? Oh, then I'm sorry, Sister. You may not attend."

"I was asked to tell you that you can't hand out towels by the font in the temple any more to the youth during youth baptisms for the dead. You may either wait in the chapel area and help out any kids who need you there, or you may help out in the dressing room, but you can't hand out towels with just a limited-use temple recommend."

"You've been summoned to a disciplinary council, or court of love, because we've discovered you keep a public BLOG where you actually say what you really feel about the church." Excommunication for you, with love.

Just some thoughts on your list HJ

1. Is jealous or possessive
“I am a jealous God”. “no other gods before me”

The word jealous to describe God never appears even once in the D&C.

Perhaps it is a law of Moses old testament kind of thing -- it appears twice in reference to God in the BOM in the book of Mosiah when Abinadi is teaching the Wicked King Noah who has used his position to exploit his own people to support him and his buddy’s in their lust for riches, alcoholism and various prostitutes while they were supposed to be his covenants people and spiritual leaders --

2. Tries to control you by being bossy and demanding
“if you don’t obey me, you go to hell”

When God says something to the effect of “if you don’t obey me, you go to hell” it is akin to describing gravity, he’s simply reminding you that if you choose to step off a 100 ft. cliff your gonna end up a paraplegic

Christ suffered for all so they would not have to go to hell for their sins, this is the ultimate proof of unconditional love but he can’t force anyone to repent/change i

3. Tries to isolate you
“only marry mormons, don’t get corrupted by gentiles”

Having shared values and goals is advocated by every Marriage and Family therapy practitioner. I think this is simply stating the obvious.

By following Christ’s teachings, one can become the kind of person others want to be around -- the opposite of isolation.

4. Is Violent and loses temper quickly
“Sodom” Noah’s flood. Many OT examples

Sodom was repeatedly spared and searched for any righteous before it was destroyed but there just wadn’t any.

The Pearl of Great Price teaches that the Flood occurred after a bizzillion attempts to invite the people to repent over generations of time.
God is absolutely heartsick over the fact that the people of Noah’ s time “hate” each other and reject the gospel that would bless them. He weeps for their suffering.

Such incidences are the opposites of quickly, and occur even under the strict Mosaic law.

5. Pressures you sexually, demands sexual activities you are not comfortable with.
“at times it seems all God cares about is your sexuality-HJ”

Now abstinance may be uncomfortable but it certainly doesn’t qualify as a sexual activity.
This is quite a low blow IMHO HJ but I can see why you might feel that way.

6. Extreme punishment for disobediance
"you go to hell and burn and writhe forever"

LDS concept of hell is one of last resort redemption -- those who ultimately do not repent utilizing Christ’s atonement may experience the necessary change of heart to inherit a kingdom of God via atoning/suffering for their own sins

ie. If you don’t accept Christ’s offer to pay for lunch when you’re outa’ doe, it seems you’ll be washing all the dishes before you leave the restaurant.

Hi HJ and all,

I've been reading along here. I can see with the various qoutes how the telestial v. outerdarkness questions/confusions arise.

I can also see how based upon some of the attempts to illustrate the LDS continuum of salvation, one may come to the conclusion that it is unjust or unmerciful however you want to put it.

I don't think these illustrations accurately portray our theology however or the complexity of coming to a righteous judgement.

While I too enjoyed and agree with Betty's discourse on unconditional love, I disagree with much of the analysis on God's love.

I think Christ has more than proven his unconditional love by suffering for each and every one of our odious sins to enable us to repent if we so choose. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink I guess.

It is interesting HJ that you have brought up what we often refer to in group therapy as red flags of abusive relationships.

I've been thinking for a while that this discussion in my opinion seems to be sorely missing an appreciation for the absolute essentialness of boundaries in addition to the essentialness of unconditional love.

Strangely, I have listened to many a young woman justify staying in relationships with such red flag characteristics of abuse based upon a false understanding of unconditional love or in otherwords a lack of understanding regarding the essentialness of personal boundaries.

The train of thought is something of
despite his abuse, I know he loves me and I love him no matter what therefore I am staying with him.

Truly such relationhips are unhealthy to remain in despite how much one cares for the other.

Boundaries and seperation become quite appropriate if not absolutely neccessary for the wellbeing of the abused despite whatever commitment there is of unconditoinal love. In such cases, proximity is sacrificed to preserve human dignity.

To remain in such relationships overtime devalues
the self and burdens the soul.

I see your list HJ as having a very different application than you propose.

I believe most certainly that when a God has himself excruciatingly suffered for OUR sins, has refrained from punishing us even when our poor or selfish choices continue to harm his other children and has offered us a lifetime plus to change/repent all to enable us to have the amazing life that he has and...

...we still never repent --

he has essentially taken our abuse and our abuse of his other children and our potential abuse in the future is clear, it is high time for a long overdue break up lest such abuse be eternally endured by both God and the innocent -- this does not fit anyone's idea of heaven. It is totally unjust and totally unmerciful to those who are harmed or potentially harmed.

Unconditional positive regard is essential to shaping and nurturing individuals in postive change but so too are boundaries.

I could not work a single productive momment in assisting individuals to change thier criminal thinking and behaviors if I did not strive to maintain Both positive regard and boundaries.

It is a combination of these charactistics that is consistently lacking in those who perpetrate and enable criminal acts.

It is a combination of these characteristics that motivates positive change and fosters healthy views of self, healthy relationships and safe communities.

I'm sure we will continue to disagree on what some of the boundaries / commandments that God requires for one to be considered righteous/good whatever but the general principle of boundaries is a fundamental neccesity to positive growth.

Even the eastern philosophies that have been cited subscribe to concepts such as charma and reencarnation connected to good or bad behavior.

This seems to me to fit quite well with the continuum concept.

God's Abusive, Dysfunctional Relationship with Man

A generic internet list of the characteristics of Abusive, Dysfunctional relationships is quite descriptive of God's relationship with man. here are the first few characteristics, with my comment.
(
God's the (Abusive) Father

1. Is jealous or possessive
“I am a jealous God”. “no other gods before me”
2. Tries to control you by being bossy and demanding
“if you don’t obey me, you go to hell”
3. Tries to isolate you
“only marry mormons, don’t get corrupted by gentiles”
4. Is Violent and loses temper quickly
“Sodom” Noah’s flood. Many OT examples
5. Pressures you sexually, demands sexual activities you are not comportable with.
“at times it seems all God cares about is your sexuality-HJ”
6. Extreme punishment for disobediance
"you go to hell and burn and writhe forever"

Not all religions posit this kind of God. But the main line of the Judeo-Christian tradition sure does. In this sense, Mormons certainly ARE Christians.

Mayan

Don't you know that threads tend to unravel over time?

Would you have us follow Otterson's questions to the letter?

BTW, I did commit suicide when I lost my virginity before I got married. Seemed like the right thing to do to me.

Luv ya

Betty

The Odious Afterlife Doctrines

The traditional (read: pre-medieval) religious schemes of Heaven and Hell are morally STILL odious, even though RTC has granted SML and myself a reprieve from outer darkness.

Two main reasons

1. It uses Fear, intimidation, superstition, and threat of retribution to gain control over people, in the process traumatizing children ("putting the fear of God" in them). And it's a LIE. A fantsty. There is no Hell that anyone has seen. And Jesus certainly didn't use this for control: he emphasized Love your neighbor.

2. It GETS IN THE WAY of True Morality. The Buddhists emphasize Loving Kindness towards ones neighbor. That helps humans develop their intrinsic sense of right and wrong and compassion.

Heaven/Hell systems motivate people to Avoid Hell. Extrinsic reward. God will punish me if I don't obey. It is the LOWEST stage of Moral reasoning.

Now Mormons are not as bad as Catholics and Fundamentalists in this regard.

But close: their big threat is: IF YOU leave the Church, you will be cast into outer darkness,MEANING you will NEVER see your MOther and Father again.

On earth, the Mormons are one of the hardest churches to leave. In that respect, they ARE like a cult. And the Outer Darkness Metaphor is a big part of that: if you HAD a testimony, and you lost it, it's curtains for you. Odious.

RTC
You are something!!
You remind me of Groucho Marx, who said
"Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes."

You are beyond self-righteous to say YOU understand Mormon doctrine and SML and I don't.

Especially when it is RIGHT in front of
EVERYONE's eyes.

Unless you are accusing those who sell the church of being like Oxycontin salesmen. They get people into the church by threatening Outer Darkness and then once they are in, they say, oh, we didn't really mean that?

This thread has gone completely happy days and jumped the shark. Maybe it has gone Happy Valley Days and jumped the Great Salt Lake Shark. But, who am I to not pile on when it is as derailed as this?

RTC, did I see you quote Mormon Doctrine? Did you? Really? McConkie the Donkey? You really quoted that guy?

I could be wrong, but I thought anytime someone referenced the great Mormon Doctrine author they had to include this little gem:

"Loss of virtue is too great a price to pay even for the preservation of ones life - better dead clean, than alive unclean. Many is the faithful Latter-day Saint parent who has sent a son or a daughter on a mission or otherwise out into the world with the direction: 'I would rather have you come back in a pine box with your virtue than return alive without it.'"
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (all editions), page 124.

Can you believe that nonsense?

I suppose one could conclude that 'many is the faithful Latter-day Saint parent' that is also a jerk. Or, the conclusion that I much prefer, that Bruce is just a liar and a nutcase. Despite the private scolding he got for writing 'Mormon Doctrine' the leaders have done nothing to refute this most heinous remark from Bruce. You can still buy Mormon Doctrine in any Mormon Bookstore.

Better off dead that unvirtuous? Unreal. Maybe someone should do a survey and ask many faithful Mormon parents if they would rather their children commit suicide as a virgin rather than fornicate (or anything like unto it) and live.

RTC ~

The Gospel Essentials book is so basic that even you should understand what HJ and I and everyone else understand. If you deny the Holy Ghost, after you have received him, then you are bound for Outer Darkness. It doesn't get much more plain than the quotes I quoted right out of the book I taught from for over three years. It means exactly what it says.

No amount of you trying to soften it by claiming that people like me or HJ or other apostate former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are actually bound for a kingdom of glory is going to change the actual teachings of the church on this subject.

Sorry to burst your bubble of righteous indignation on our behalf.

HJ-

No, I do not use the same book that sml used when she taught as an active member, she used a manual call "Gospel Essentials". This manual is used to teach individuals who are investigating the church OR new members. It is very basic.

I use cirriculum specifically prepared by the Church Educational System for the Seminary and Institute programs of the Church. I teach both Seminary for High School students and Adult Institute Classes. I use two different levels of manuals.

Thanks for asking.
rtc

HJ,

There mere fact that you are NOT familiar with this doctrine and claim long-term membership, is enough to tell me that you do not qualify sweetie.

We are talking about not just a belief that the church is true, or membership and the gift of the holy ghost.

We are talking about Full Knowlege by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. One who has received a SURE WITNESS and then denied it. One who KNOWS that the sun is shining and will look you straight in the eye and say "no, it is not, it is pitch black".

Then and only then, can one begin to qualify. Thus, Lucifer was cast out along with many others.

So I still say you gotta end the pity party:-)

More from sec 76...

25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,
26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.
27 And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!
28 And while we were yet in the Spirit, the Lord commanded us that we should write the vision; for we beheld Satan, that old serpent, even the devil, who rebelled against God, and sought to take the kingdom of our God and his Christ—
29 Wherefore, he maketh awar with the saints of God, and encompasseth them round about.
30 And we saw a vision of the sufferings of those with whom he made war and overcame, for thus came the voice of the Lord unto us:
31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—
32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;
33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;
34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—
35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.
36 These are they who shall go away into the alake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—
37 And the aonly ones on whom the second death shall have any power;
38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

Lucifer is Perdition. He became such by open rebellion against the truth, a rebellion in the face of light and knowledge. Although he knew God and had been taught the provisions of the plan of salvation, he defied the Lord and sought to enthrone himself with the Lord's power. (Moses 4:1-4.)

He thus committed the unpardonable sin. In rebellion with him were one-third of the spirit hosts of heaven. These all were thus followers (or in other words sons) of perdition. They were denied bodies, were cast out onto the earth, and thus came the devil and his angels -- a great host of sons of perdition.

Those in this life who gain a perfect knowledge of the divinity of the gospel cause, a knowledge that comes only by revelation from the Holy Ghost, and who then link themselves with Lucifer and come out in open rebellion, also become sons of perdition. Their destiny, following their resurrection, is to be cast out with the devil and his angels, to inherit the same kingdom in a state where "their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (D. & C. 76:32-49; 29:27-30; Heb. 6:4-8; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; 2 Ne. 9:14-16; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 47-49; vol. 2, pp. 218-225.)

Joseph Smith said: "All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. (Teachings, p. 358.)

Mormon Doctrine, p.746
Copyright by Bookcraft

Dearest Betty,

Although God's children by their own choices and actions separate themselves from Him... He is ALWAYS near them and His eyes will always be upon them.

It will only be the CHILD that will make this decision to NOT be with the FATHER, and this would ONLY be the case with complete KNOWLEDGE of the CHILD.

God has given to each of HIS children AGENCY, and He will respect the CHOICES that they make KNOWING that they are made with FULL KNOWLEDGE of the CONSEQUENCES.

It is ONLY in this way that HE and His children are assured HAPPINESS for ETERNITY.

EXALTATION FOR EVERY CHILD OF GOD IS FIXED AND IMMOVABLE. Through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ this is assured, If we follow the course to claim it.

THE ONLY THING THAT COULD CHANGE THIS IS THE CHOICES THAT HIS CHILDREN MAKE TO MOVE AWAY FROM THIS DESTINY.

(capitols for emphasis)
rtc

RTC

Don't you use the same seminary book that SML does?

According to this quote of who is in "outer darkness:
"These are they who had testimonies of Jesus through the Holy Ghost and knew the power of the Lord but allowed Satan to overcome them. They denied the truth and defied the power of the Lord. There is no forgiveness for them, for they denied the Holy Spirit after having received it. They will not have a kingdom of glory. They will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with Satan and his angels forever."

I would qualify.
Had a testimony.
Denied the truth, certainly defied the power of the Lord: There IS no Lord, so I guess I didn't, unless there is, in which case I just did.

So I am bringin my flashlight girlfriend.

But I don't pity myself. I think i will get material for a new book. Worked for Dante.

Peace, love, and high temperatures.
Henry

Jim A -

Well, it seems as though you just hit a very sensitive button with our dear friends here.

I truly believe that they judge themselves much too harshly. For surely the bar is raised very high for one to be considered a son of perdition and of such are the consequences of which they speak and lament for themselves!

So you see, they are giving themselves much to much credit in that they reveal no indication that they do qualify in any way for such great punishment of which they are howling and gnashing what teeth they may have over?

I suspect that perhaps they are merely having a moment of cyber-bonding? For IF they read that which has been previously posted from Section 76 of the D&C they will find that they do not qualify for that which they claim, but that of a kingdom of glory! Sorry guys, but the pity party is over.

God loves YOU:-)
rtc

Apology accepted, my future husband. You think you could take me to the George Carlin corner of Outer Darkness once we arrive there? Please? I think we could have some fun times over near that guy.

Sorry SML, my future wife,

for misreading.

It didn't sound like you. I should have been more careful

HJ ~

It wasn't me who said it, it was Jim A. I was repeating him. I think I know that God is full of conditional love, at least the God the Mormon religion promotes is.

SML: you got it backwards.

you wrote
"God gives us an eternity to learn unconditional love"

it isn't ME who needs to learn Unconditional Love.

It is God.

God's Unconditional Love in the Telestial Kingdom

We are all children of God. He loves us all. But if we go to the Telestial kingdom he will be too busy (playing golf?) to visit us, so he will send his Nanny, the Holy Ghost, to check in once in a while and give us a turkey at Thanksgiving.

I love my daughter unconditionally. I just never want to see her again.

Jim: this is absurd. What kind of God are we talking about?

Jim A

I qualify for Outer Darkness as one who once had a testimony and lost it. Gnashing of gums is my lot.

My friends think I am not a bad guy. But god is going to have me rot in darkness forever.

What was that about his Uncondidtional love again?

God gives us an eternity to learn unconditional love IF (a HUGE IF) you make it to the Celestial Kingdom. Otherwise, you are alone, my friend. I guess you could work on unconditionally loving YOURSELF in one of the lesser kingdoms.....

Betty,
Great comments on conditional love. Like SML, I see myself all too much in that description. I believe that God expects us to try but is also merciful and gives us an eternity to learn things such as unconditional love....

Betty ~

Thanks, sweetheart. I will take your wisdom to heart.

Henry ~ you made me laugh out loud. Thank Jeebus I'm alone.

You have forgotten one vital thing about the Outer Darkness experience! No God, no permission requirements! That rule stems from God himself, so I guess I don't have to worry about permission if I'm in Outer Darkness!

:) This could be fun. Tons of fun. Even if you have no teeth or gums.

oops,

i just checked,

and I don't have any gums left either.

Whew SML, that makes me feel better. Except that I don't have any more teeth - I'll have to gnash my gums.

And since I was never married, given my predilictions (another reason I am in outer darkness), perhaps you will take me as one of your plural husbands.

You won't have to get your husband's permission, will you?

I hear a woman is damned more thoroughly if she has lots of husbands.

SML
to be human is to have some of our love be conditional.

no one is perfect - except God is supposed to be, but not you and me.

You clearly approach people with Good Will and Good Love. You have wants and needs and triggers like all of us, even perfect mormons.

so don't be hard on yourself. you are a generous spirit, and my family used to say.

Betty ~

Oh, depression is me. I read your conditional love examples and saw myself. I've gotta go think hard on how I treat my hubby and kids.

I owe you one.

God's Conditional Love
SML mentioned we have humanized God, made HIM a parent. Here is one of his prime attributes:

Love (the bastardized version most of us give and receive): this is conditional love. I'll love you if you do this, or act that way, or perform in some way that meets my expectations. Most of us received conditional love as children. Most of us needed then to hide our hating, our sexuality, our tears and/or our vulnerabilities because those human qualities were not accepted by parents or society. So we put on a performance by denying those unapproved aspects of ourselves to get the maximum number of strokes. It was not real acceptance of ourselves we received as children, just an absence of condemnation of the aspects we hid. Conditional love is widespread today among adults in most relationships. We couldn't possibly love them if they do this, or they dislike us, or they have the wrong views, etc. If you don't act the way I think you should act, then I'll reject you. You are totally unacceptable to me if you lie, cheat, two-time me, hate me, treat my family wrong, don't agree with me on issues, etc. But if you do jump through my required hoops, then I'll love you (conditionally, obviously). Conditional love created many trauma knots in us as children which we then later as adults need to untie.

Sorry All, I couldn't help but be sarcastic,
but when someone damns me to hell for all time,
I get touchy.

totally seriously:

the Mormon Scheme of the afterlife is morally odious.
It is not alone. Many religions have similarly odious systems.

It induces a morality based on fear, retribution, obedience bred by terror, and leads to hate and resentment and the need to kill infidels and start religious wars.

When Hitchens says "Religion poisons everything," he may be overstating _a bit_, but it is this kind of odious thinking that is the poison he is talking about.

It has NOTHING to do with REAL morality, real justice, real spirituality, real Love.

HJ ~

Haven't you read my recent blogpost about my "aura" that seems to glow?? You'll know me from that alone, as I'll be shining forth like a beacon of love and acceptance there in Outer Darkness. All will be welcome in my presence.

We can weep, wail, and knash our teeth together for eternity!

SML
I guess I should say "thanks" for reminding me that I am headed for outer darkness.

Will you be there too? How will I recognize you? Better wear that hat that glows in the dark.

Here is a repeat of what is taught about the Telestial Kingdom and Outer Darkness in the lesson manual for investigators of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I copy word for word:

"Telestial
These people did not receive the gospel or the testimony of Jesus either on earth or in the spirit world. They will suffer for their own sins in hell until after the Millenium, when they will be resurrected. "These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and wh*remongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie." These people are as numerous as the stars in heaven and the sand on the seashore. They will be visited by the Holy Ghost but not by the Father and the Son.
[I substituted the O for a * just in case THAT'S why my comment gets blocked.]

Outer Darkness
These are they who had testimonies of Jesus through the Holy Ghost and knew the power of the Lord but allowed Satan to overcome them. They denied the truth and defied the power of the Lord. There is no forgiveness for them, for they denied the Holy Spirit after having received it. They will not have a kingdom of glory. They will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with Satan and his angels forever."

My idea of a parent who loves me isn't one who refuses to see me ever again if I've been bad in some way.

I imagine embracing this idea about God likely makes it a lot easier for some members of the church to find it acceptable to refuse to allow practicing homosexual children entry into their homes, or to assume that people who are poor are spiritually/morally bankrupt, since they have obviously become poor due to sin and corruption, and where they live proves it.

Thanks, Jim A. It seems to me that we have been given a very human view of God to work with. His reward system is very HUMAN, in my opinion, hardly worthy of my admiration and awe, you know?

It is easy for me to come to the conclusion that the teachings about God that I've been given my whole life are all man-made. I know that's not what you believe, and I fully respect your right to believe in God as you do, but looking at it the way I do, it makes much more sense to assume I have no clue what God's all about (if there IS a god) and to not assign human characteristics and reward systems to His methods as all the religions of earth seem to like to do.

Of course, fear of hell and damnation works quite nicely for these religions and it keeps them successful. More power to 'em.

Jim A
You are exactly right.

God's love for all his children
is a classic case
of Conditional Love.

(have you visited my George Carlin theology lesson yet?)

SML:
I enjoyed your house analogy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that separate kingdoms equate to God's unequal love for his children. I see it differently and believe that God desires us all to make it to the celestial kingdom and has made that possible. I believe that we underestimate the glory of even the telestial kingdom, and I see all kingdoms as evidence of God's love for all his children.

I like the thoughts of Bruno that you shared, HJ. Phaedrus, I also enjoy your thoughts about intellectuals and their thoughts on the nature of God.

Phaedrus

Personally, I have always found that the only way for me to approach what i call God (and it is certainly NOT supernatural) is through attention to nature, the cosmos, beauty, art (music usually).

My God is the energy of the universe.

As the heretic Giordano Bruno said, shortly before he was burned at the stake in 1600,
"God is no
fixed point or central government
but rather is poured in waves, through
all things: all things
move. "If God is not the soul itself,
he is the soul OF THE SOUL of the world."

from Heather McHugh's poem, What He Thought (google-able).

The Romney Edge

News today that Romney leads 30-18-17 over Rudy and McCain in Iowa.

I told you so. So did Henry.

Reason for his advantage

Romney: Great Hair. Giuliani: No Hair.
Romney: Looks 35 McCain: Acts 105
Romney: Lotsa money McCain: Half Mitt's Money
Romney: Double Guantanamo and torture
McCain: I didn't like being tortured

Henry and William:

Having recently read Issacson on Einstein, I can say that I thought this was one of the books merits; accounting for Einstein's reverence for the workings of nature. When he and Hawking and other scientists use quasi-religious language (e.g. "Knowing the mind of God") to describe what is clearly NOT a supernatural phenomenon, they are actually conveying this sense of reverence at what "is," in a demonstrable sense. It is unfortunate that so many then take these sorts of statements and use them as an indication of the "religiosity" of such men and women.

I have thought about how different it is to reach an understanding of the inner workings of the natural world, versus that of the "magic" world. In the natural world, coming to a deeper understanding of the complexities of cause and effect behind the apparent, tends to INCREASE one's appreciation of the whole thing. Contrast that with the realm of the supernatural, or "magic" realm, in which knowing how the "trick" is done tends to spoil the fun. I see this as part of the anti-intellectualism, and anti-materialism that is so common in theism, where "understanding the mind of God" is so often seen as an insulting attempt to reduce him to the merely mundane. The great scientific minds see the transcendant in the mundane.

Scientific and Religious Truth
Must be the Same

Today's NYT review of Einstein by Isaacson concludes with this:

"this book offers a taste of what Einstein called "the cosmic religious sense," a connectedness to universal truth that he considered the highest expressionof being human."

Doesn't that sum up your attitude, Phaedrus? I know that is how Henry feels (I know his heart).

This means that scientific and religious exploration of, for instance, the nature of time (and eternity), must be a unified quest. And the metaphoric meaning of Einstein's quest to understand the nature of light (which is always fleeing from us, not matter how fast we are going) is perhaps the best way for us to think about God and Truth. God is light, always 186,000 miles per second ahead of us.

Henry ~

Thanks for sharing that George Carlin. I haven't laughed that much in a while! Funny stuff. He makes some good points.

Thanks for the compliment on my post, guys.

You are too kind, my dear Phaedrus.

Your comment to SML above underlines that believers and non believers are operating out of very different paradigms, making it hard to talk across them or understand how the other can think as they do.

That said, I don't think we just leave it at that - agree to disagree, as it were.

You and I share this addiction to Truth-seeeking (I got it from William), and just as the paradigm that the world was created 6,000 years ago in 7 days can NOT be TRUE if there was a big bang 13 billion years ago and evolution in betweeen

it can not be true that
God Does Esst, and
God does not exist.

Though, come to think of it, God is "visible and invisible".

It CAN be true that a concept of God fits with one's intuitional understanding of the universe (and I am all for intuition as a novelist).

Joseph Campbell explains that very well. I am all for people reading scriptures, and great American Novels, metaphorically, and using that understanding as a guide to their moral and spiritual life.

What seems "un-believable" is that humans could believe that a scheme for the after life, sensible as the Mormon one may or may not be, is anything more than metaphorical, Dante-esque.

So I am willing to agree with you and Neal that in the paradigm of believing the Mormon system makes more sense than a dualistic system. However, Dante's scheme makes more sense than either. And it satisfies my Puritan desire for punishment and self-flagellation more completely. Ah, the perversions of a Puritan lifestyle.

SML, I also thought your post had great imagination and insight.

And all of you: LOOK AT the George Carlin clip on youtube that i mentioned above. it is VERY smart.

Decompoesedly yours,
Henry

SML:

I think that this is the best piece you have written, and points up why the concept of a loving God is so difficult to accept once you are outside of that mythos, given the eternal stratification arrangements he supposedly designed. One great scientist was asked what he would say if he died, met God, and was asked why he was an atheist; "I would tell God that he just had not supplied enough evidence," was his reply. The concept of "belief over works" has always been troubling to me. If I say hateful things about the poor, yet go out of my way to perform charitable works on their behalf, am I not behaving more morally than the person who believes the poor should be relieved of their suffering, but makes no effort to do so? And yet, in the version of divine crime and punishment we are encouraged to buy into, believing and not helping is rewarded more richly than the converse.

Anyway, great post my friend!

Neal:

I am inclined to agree with you as well, that the LDS version of the afterlife makes more sense than other religions, from the loving God perspective. So now that is 2 things we agree on; the coming election and this! If I were Henry I would say that the more you agree with me, the smarter you are. But, I am not a Henry James, and he is. And, I don't have his family connections either.

:)

SML:

"Outer Darkness
These are they who had testimonies of Jesus through the Holy Ghost and knew the power of the Lord but allowed Satan to overcome them. They denied the truth and defied the power of the Lord. There is no forgiveness for them, for they denied the Holy Spirit after having received it. They will not have a kingdom of glory. They will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with Satan and his angels forever."

I don't see the differnce in this comment and my earlier post. This says these people were overcome by Satan and DEFIED the Lord. That's not the same as losing your testimony. Or getting confused.

-----

OK. I have a "house" analogy too. Our view of the after life makes a lot more sense to me than that of many other religions, who have the heaven / hell "no inbetween" kind of view. (I'm a protestant convert, so I know a little bit about this) That view would read something like this:

I buy a new house, and I have two children. My house has only one room, with totally lavish decorations, the best money can buy. Large and comfortable couches, chairs, silks, lights everywhere, and a king sized bed. Solid gold fixtures and beauty abounds. Walk-in closets and plenty of light and space and beauty. Togetherness abounds.

Then I sit down and decide of my two children, which have been most obedient and followed to the letter all the things I outlined on my posted fridge chart of rules to live by, which vary, by the way, depending on which club they joined in school. Some clubs think bathing in my special pool and believing in my Special Ghost are required, so they would have to follow those rules if they joined that club. Others don't. There's a lot of bickering and disagreement between the clubs. Each club insists on their own rules, but hey, I'm just a parent and I don't really care anyway, right? If my child joined a club, then that's good enough for me. My first child joined a club, so he gets to live with me in my big room. We play, live, and have a good ol' time up there every day, all day.

My second child did not join a club. In fact, his school had no clubs at all. That means he must be following the Evil One and I can allow no forgiveness for him, for he never joined a club, even though there were none for him to join. Too bad!! The little heathen will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with the Evil One and his angels forever (roasting alive in flames, I might add).

And this is precisely how I want it to be for all of my children I love equally.

And now if only I could delete all my duplications we'd be back in business....sorry!

I think I discovered why my comment got blocked. I used the word "wh*remongers" straight from the Doctrine and Covenants. What a crack up! Let's try this again, in full...slightly edited to make that word acceptable:

Personally, I can respect the LDS belief system just fine, and am glad that many of you find comfort in the knowledge that you will enjoy having families and eternal glory in the Celestial Kingdom if/when you make it there. You have every right to believe this for yourself.

Here is why it can easily seem kind of strange to others. If I were to become a Goddess and follow God's example (as described in Mormon theology), here's what it would entail:

I buy a new house. I have four children, and the house has four bedrooms. Two of the bedrooms (one being the master bedroom) are located on the top floor of the house. I decorate my bedroom and the bedroom beside it in totally lavish decorations, the best money can buy. Large and comfortable couches, chairs, silks, lights everywhere, and a king sized bed for each of these rooms. Solid gold fixtures and beauty abounds. Walk-in closets and plenty of light and space and beauty. A special intercom connects the two rooms for constant communication, and I include a big double door that swings open to connect the two rooms whenever necessary. Togetherness abounds.

The third bedroom is found on the mail level, and I decorate it tastefully, but spend an eighth of what I spent on the bedroom upstairs when I decorate it. It is comfortable but not great. Single bed. Desk with one wooden chair. It is comfortably large but rather sparse in furnishings. No phone or intercom to connect to other parts of the house.

The fourth bedroom is in the basement, and the lighting is bad in there, but I don't mind. I spend about 1/20 of what I spend on the upstairs rooms, and I furnish it with a single bed but no desk, chair, or lamp. It is a small room, just large enough to fit the bed and dresser, but nothing else. I don't include any extra lamps for light, and the window is small and near the ceiling. No phone or intercom to connect to the other parts of the house.

Then I sit down and decide of my four children, which one has been most obedient and followed to the letter all the things I outlined on my posted fridge chart of rules to live by, including bathing in my special pool and believing in my Special Ghost. That one is the one who gets the nice room upstairs with me. We play, live, and have a good ol' time up there every day, all day.

My child who was also obedient, and honorable, and had a testimony of the truthfulness of my charted plan, but failed to be valiant that one time after having taken the required bath in my special pool...may only ever be visited by The Chosen Son but not by me. Ever. He will live separately and singly forever in the room on the main level. I have no intention of visiting him.

The third child is the one who did not receive the testimony of The Chosen Son at all, and who refused to even look at my posted fridge chart of rules to live by. This is he who is a liar, a sorcerer, an adulterer, a wh*remonger, and he who loves and makes a lie. He will only be visited by the Special Ghost I send, but never by The Chosen Son and never by me. He is grounded in the basement in semi-darkness alone for a thousand years, after which I will allow him to emerge, and only then will he be allowed a second chance.

The fourth child is the one who was once as obedient as the first child, but instead of constantly following the fridge chart rules, one day thought about it and decided that he didn't believe that a Special Ghost gave him the good feelings he felt sometimes. He felt them when he heard the national anthem, or when he watched Anne of Green Gables, or when he heard Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. I knew he must be following the Evil One when he told me this, and I can allow no forgiveness for him, for he denied the Special Ghost after having received it when he was eight. He will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with the Evil One and his angels forever.

And this is precisely how I want it to be for all of my children I love equally.

I think I discovered why my comment got blocked. I used the word "wh*remongers" straight from the Doctrine and Covenants. What a crack up! Let's try this again, in full...slightly edited to make that word acceptable:

Personally, I can respect the LDS belief system just fine, and am glad that many of you find comfort in the knowledge that you will enjoy having families and eternal glory in the Celestial Kingdom if/when you make it there. You have every right to believe this for yourself.

Here is why it can easily seem kind of strange to others. If I were to become a Goddess and follow God's example (as described in Mormon theology), here's what it would entail:

I buy a new house. I have four children, and the house has four bedrooms. Two of the bedrooms (one being the master bedroom) are located on the top floor of the house. I decorate my bedroom and the bedroom beside it in totally lavish decorations, the best money can buy. Large and comfortable couches, chairs, silks, lights everywhere, and a king sized bed for each of these rooms. Solid gold fixtures and beauty abounds. Walk-in closets and plenty of light and space and beauty. A special intercom connects the two rooms for constant communication, and I include a big double door that swings open to connect the two rooms whenever necessary. Togetherness abounds.

The third bedroom is found on the mail level, and I decorate it tastefully, but spend an eighth of what I spent on the bedroom upstairs when I decorate it. It is comfortable but not great. Single bed. Desk with one wooden chair. It is comfortably large but rather sparse in furnishings. No phone or intercom to connect to other parts of the house.

The fourth bedroom is in the basement, and the lighting is bad in there, but I don't mind. I spend about 1/20 of what I spend on the upstairs rooms, and I furnish it with a single bed but no desk, chair, or lamp. It is a small room, just large enough to fit the bed and dresser, but nothing else. I don't include any extra lamps for light, and the window is small and near the ceiling. No phone or intercom to connect to the other parts of the house.

Then I sit down and decide of my four children, which one has been most obedient and followed to the letter all the things I outlined on my posted fridge chart of rules to live by, including bathing in my special pool and believing in my Special Ghost. That one is the one who gets the nice room upstairs with me. We play, live, and have a good ol' time up there every day, all day.

My child who was also obedient, and honorable, and had a testimony of the truthfulness of my charted plan, but failed to be valiant that one time after having taken the required bath in my special pool...may only ever be visited by The Chosen Son but not by me. Ever. He will live separately and singly forever in the room on the main level. I have no intention of visiting him.

The third child is the one who did not receive the testimony of The Chosen Son at all, and who refused to even look at my posted fridge chart of rules to live by. This is he who is a liar, a sorcerer, an adulterer, a wh*remonger, and he who loves and makes a lie. He will only be visited by the Special Ghost I send, but never by The Chosen Son and never by me. He is grounded in the basement in semi-darkness alone for a thousand years, after which I will allow him to emerge, and only then will he be allowed a second chance.

The fourth child is the one who was once as obedient as the first child, but instead of constantly following the fridge chart rules, one day thought about it and decided that he didn't believe that a Special Ghost gave him the good feelings he felt sometimes. He felt them when he heard the national anthem, or when he watched Anne of Green Gables, or when he heard Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. I knew he must be following the Evil One when he told me this, and I can allow no forgiveness for him, for he denied the Special Ghost after having received it when he was eight. He will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with the Evil One and his angels forever.

And this is precisely how I want it to be for all of my children I love equally.

I'm highly disappointed that this forum won't let me post my complete comment in full. Sigh.

Neal, you wrote, "Hmmm. I don't think that's accurate. Here's a better description from the New Era: "The very most wicked, called the sons of perdition—those who continue to fight against Christ—will be sent to outer darkness, where there is no glory." Someone like you describe would be in the Terrestrial Kingdom, a good person having been been blinded by the world."

I took my references straight from the lesson manual called "Gospel Principles" used to teach the Gospel Essentials class (the class for investigators and newly baptized members). Here's what it states (Page 298):

Telestial
These people did not receive the gospel or the testimony of Jesus either on earth or in the spirit world. They will suffer for their own sins in hell until after the Millenium, when they will be resurrected. "These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and wh*remongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie." These people are as numerous as teh stars in heaven and the sand on the seashore. They will be visited by the Holy Ghost but not by the Father and the Son.
[I substituted the O for a * just in case THAT'S why my comment gets blocked.]

Outer Darkness
These are they who had testimonies of Jesus through the Holy Ghost and knew the power of the Lord but allowed Satan to overcome them. They denied the truth and defied the power of the Lord. There is no forgiveness for them, for they denied the Holy Spirit after having received it. They will not have a kingdom of glory. They will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with Satan and his angels forever.

Technical issues indeed. My post was hashed and out of order and missing parts here. I'll try to post it all at once, it's much better. I have a response for Neal as well....but must hit the soccer fields again!!

I'll be back soon.

:)

HJ:

No offense taken. We all find things others believe which we don't fantastic, in some way or another.

And I consider you neither crazy or dead! I don't have to agree with you to like you; and I do like you, (and P, and many others here). Please accept that with the sincerity it is given.

Neal

SML
your quote
"And this is precisely how I want it to be for all of my children I love equally."

reminds me of the George Carlin line

"God says 'i will make you burn in hell eternally if you don't follow my laws. But I LOVE you."

very smart piece on Youtube, the voice of the Devil (didn't Murdock buy it?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Neal
thanks for the reprints. though I hadn't read them for awhile, it was interesting to do so now.

I am NOT confused about the CK. I know people will have a chance to accept the Gospel in the hereafter, according to Mormon scripture.

I also know that some "honorable men", as LDS.org says, will NOT accept the Gospel, and will be in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

I have never been confused about these aspects of Mormon doctrine.

Gandhi, for example, may be one of the honorable men who do NOT accept the Gospel in the afterlife. Neither you nor I know. But according to Mormon doctrine, SOME honorable men won't.

One result of re-reading the scriptures was to confirm how un-believable they seem to me. And I must say, the Co-Vision with Sidney Rigdon makes it seem even more fantastical.

It reminds me of the "Big Lie" technique: if you are going to create a fiction, create a really big one, with lots of details and connections and impact.

It is hard to say what I just said without sounding disrespectful to believers. I weigh my desire to honestly tell you all how I feel against my saying hypocritically "isn't it nice that you believe that."

My smart OTHER brother believes it. And my smart mother did. You all are perfectly entitled to think that I believe crazy things.

I don't think I find the scheme un-believable just because I am an Anti-Mormon. I find the equally complicated schemes of other religions (Catholicismfor instance) just as unbelievable. And again, you are all free to consider me crazy, as well as dead.

SML

"I knew he must be following the Evil One when he told me this, and I can allow no forgiveness for him, for he denied the Special Ghost after having received it when he was eight. He will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with the Evil One and his angels forever. "

Hmmm. I don't think that's accurate. Here's a better description from the New Era:

"The very most wicked, called the sons of perdition—those who continue to fight against Christ—will be sent to outer darkness, where there is no glory."

Someone like you describe would be in the Terrestrial Kingdom, a good person having been been blinded by the world.

Neal

But Henry...

Aren't you yourself PROOF that we don't .really. Die?

Henry and William,

Thank you for your good natured replies. We've beat the CK subject to death now haven't we? If Otterson ever does a thread on the CK, we can just cut and paste.

Until next time my friend!

Pheadrus,

Thanks for your response. I don't really have much to add except that the church has taken steps to address the greivances of the Jews. They tell members of the church to only do Temple work for their own ancestors. All the best P!

Jim A.,

Don't be discouraged by those in the con-camp who have tried to belieger your comments here. I think you have done great. It's great to have more LDS here, especially someone who can be on the hot seat and maintain their cool.

All of us run the Otterson gauntlet every once and a while, though in my opinion, they *unwarrentedly* took more jabs at you than ussual. Maybe because you're new, I don't know. But I liked your comments. I hope you post again. As for the time this consums, I agree that it is quite time consuming, for this I too have tried to spend minimal time posting. I will now sign off.

All the best to you all,

JD1

Folks, I am also having technical issues here. And it appears that SML's latest has come in in pieces, out of correct order.

It has to be a conspiracy!

Folks, I am also having technical issues here. And it appears the SML's latest has come in in pieces, out of correct order.

It has to be a conspiracy!

SML
What a vivid picture! In my father's house are many mansions, indeed.

Your illustration reminds me of what I find rather tawdry and childlike about visions of Heaven. It is kind of like a religious version of Eliza's "Wouldn't it be Loverly", us poor humans aspiring to a better world in the hereafter. And our vision of it tends to include "solid gold fixtures." Is Elvis on the soundtrack? A cadillac to roll through the clouds?

A good life, a moral life, a loving life, is not based on rewards in heaven. It is based on the intrinsic goodness of practicing loving kindness and compassion to your fellow man. If you get a solid gold cadillac in some after life, good for you (or not). But to make that one's motivation for moral behavior here on earth seems tawdry to me. Maybe its all the Puritans around here.

I also think it is delusional, and a species of wish fulfilment on the part of humans that, among other things but most importantly, allows them to avoid REALLY dealing with the fact that they are going to Die, and to make sense of their life in light of actually confronting that disturbing fact. Much easier NOT to confront it, and say I am going to a heaven with solid gold fixtures.

The fourth child is the one who was once as obedient as the first child, but instead of constantly following the fridge chart rules, one day thought about it and decided that he didn't believe that a Special Ghost gave him the good feelings he felt sometimes. He felt them when he heard the national anthem, or when he watched Anne of Green Gables, or when he heard Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. I knew he must be following the Evil One when he told me this, and I can allow no forgiveness for him, for he denied the Special Ghost after having received it when he was eight. He will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with the Evil One and his angels forever.

And this is precisely how I want it to be for all of my children I love equally.

All:

Perhaps it might be helpful to read the descriptions of the 3 degrees of glory from the scriptures themselves.

This first set is a vision given to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon of the Eternal World, and we begin at the description of those inheriting the Celestial Kingdom. Please pay particular attention to the first part of verse 51.

Celestial Kingdom
D&C 76:
51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—
52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of cGod—
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
60 And they shall overcome all things.
61 Wherefore, let no man aglory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.
62 These shall adwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall acome in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.
64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.
65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.
66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.
67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.
68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.
69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new ccovenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own eblood.
70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

Terrestrial Kingdom *please note verse 74
D&C 76:
71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.
72 Behold, these are they who died awithout law;
73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;
74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.
75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.
76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.
77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.
78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.
79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.
80 And now this is the end of the vision which we saw of the terrestrial, that the Lord commanded us to write while we were yet in the Spirit.

Telestial Kingdom
D&C 76:
81 And again, we asaw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.
82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.
83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.
84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.
85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work.
86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;

I believe verse 74 is what has HJ and others confused. This is referring to those who have the opportunity to accept the Gospel in this life and reject it, then later accept it in the Spirit World.

Now I'll post a second set that provides some additional clarification. Vision of the Celestial Kingdom given to Joseph Smith (emphasis added):

D&C 137:

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, WHO WOULD HAVE RECIEVED IT if they had been permitted to tarry, SHALL BE HEIRS of the CELESTIAL KINGDOM of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will JUDGE all men according to their WORKS, according to the DESIRE OF THEIR HEARTS.
10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

Here we can plainly see that those who do not recieve the Gospel in this life CAN obtain the CK, and that God will take everything into account when he makes that judgement.

Please also note that D&C76:79 lists those who "are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus" as being assigned to the Terrestrial Kingdom. This is a direct reference to members of the Church who are not faithful. Just being a member is not a guarantee of the CK.

Neal

Part 2: Then I sit down and decide of my four children, which one has been most obedient and followed to the letter all the things I outlined on my posted fridge chart of rules to live by, including bathing in my special pool and believing in my Special Ghost. That one is the one who gets the nice room upstairs with me. We play, live, and have a good ol' time up there every day, all day.

My child who was also obedient, and honorable, and had a testimony of the truthfulness of my charted plan, but failed to be valiant that one time after having taken the required bath in my special pool...may only ever be visited by The Chosen Son but not by me. Ever. He will live separately and singly forever in the room on the main level. I have no intention of visiting him.

I'm enjoying the latest comments and interchange between you guys.

(And this is a test post, as I'm having trouble getting thru. Did I forget to pay my bill to OnFaith this month??)

Part 1:

Personally, I can respect the LDS belief system just fine, and am glad that many of you find comfort in the knowledge that you will enjoy having families and eternal glory in the Celestial Kingdom if/when you make it there. You have every right to believe this for yourself.

Here is why it can easily seem kind of strange to others. If I were to become a Goddess and follow God's example (as described in Mormon theology), here's what it would entail:

I buy a new house. I have four children, and the house has four bedrooms. Two of the bedrooms (one being the master bedroom) are located on the top floor of the house. I decorate my bedroom and the bedroom beside it in totally lavish decorations, the best money can buy. Large and comfortable couches, chairs, silks, lights everywhere, and a king sized bed for each of these rooms. Solid gold fixtures and beauty abounds. Walk-in closets and plenty of light and space and beauty. A special intercom connects the two rooms for constant communication, and I include a big double door that swings open to connect the two rooms whenever necessary. Togetherness abounds.

The third bedroom is found on the mail level, and I decorate it tastefully, but spend an eighth of what I spent on the bedroom upstairs when I decorate it. It is comfortable but not great. Single bed. Desk with one wooden chair. It is comfortably large but rather sparse in furnishings. No phone or intercom to connect to other parts of the house.

The fourth bedroom is in the basement, and the lighting is bad in there, but I don't mind. I spend about 1/20 of what I spend on the upstairs rooms, and I furnish it with a single bed but no desk, chair, or lamp. It is a small room, just large enough to fit the bed and dresser, but nothing else. I don't include any extra lamps for light, and the window is small and near the ceiling. No phone or intercom to connect to the other parts of the house.

Theology 602

Point 3: equal opportunity is good (no affirmative action for people like my brother?).

I was always taught that a major goal was *Eternal Progression*, where the most noble characters (who would all be men) would create new worlds and become Gods themselves.

Equal Opportunity doesn't mean everyone is going to become a Mozart. It means they have a chance.

The Mormon system is going to have a lot of Joe Schmoos becoming Gods and creating new worlds:
sort of like Cosmic Urban Sprawl, cuz Joe ain't gonna do much better than the Bush Administration did in Iraq, and the universe will be cluttered up with less than 1-star hotels.

Meanwhile, IF Gandhi DOESN"T agree with God, he loses his chance to create a world, which would be infinitely more just and heavenly than the one run by Joe from Idaho.

If I were a missionary, I would have to sell that Idea to my friend Gandhi. And If i were Gandhi, I would say to me, "you're kidding, right?"

JD1 and Neal,
Thank you for adding clarification.

For Henry and the others that were critical of my comments, I see where I failed to effectively communicate, and I apologize for this. As others have expressed, this can be a difficult medium to convey one's personal beliefs in a way that others will understand and respect. Hopefully in the future we can all seek a little more respect with fewer personal attacks.

Perhaps this has been more than adequately covered, but I'd like to try to clarify my beliefs from an LDS perspective:
1) We are all spirit children of God and lived with Him as spirits before this life.
2) He loves us all more than we can comprehend, and he has prepared a Way for all to return to live with him, and that is his only desire.
3) By design and by definition, the "bar" to attain exaltation is high. This bar, however, is not set by man but by God. He alone knows our hearts.

I cannot think of a more comprehensive or inclusive doctrine, and I am unaware of any other religion that attempts to extend exaltation in the same way to all mankind- past, present, and future.

Because of God's principle of agency, he cannot force anyone to exaltation, but he has made ample provision for us all to attain exaltation if that is our true desire. Perhaps we will be very surprised at whom is exalted and whom is not. We are all on this journey and ultimately decide our own fate. Even the glory of the telestial kingdom surpasses our understanding.

It is normal for us to focus on what is most proximate to us- this life. If we can try to adopt God's view and see things from an eternal perspective, these beliefs begin to make more sense.

Although some of the exchanges here have been very beneficial to me, I, too, have devoted too much time to trying to keep up with all of the comments. Again, I'm sure that I haven't adequately conveyed my or the LDS position on this topic. I had not read JD1's last posts when I wrote this but see that his has many of the same types of thoughts only expressed much better than I could.

I'll continue to participate but will most likely defer the LDS perspective to others with superior logic, knowledge, and command of the English language, for which I'm sure some here will be greatful.

Brother Henry alerted me that Theology was being played over here, so I rushed over.

Mr D (you aren't Death, are you?), I will respond to your points in the order you so lucidly presented them.

1. It seems the eschatological question here is: how will God differentiate in the afterlife.

If everyone there accepts the self-evident truth of God's Gospel, much as here on earth we all accept the self-evident superiority of Bach, then the differentiator would seem to be Earthly Behavior, in a Dante-esque scheme: torturers and Bush administration members at the lowest level, cat-killers in the middle, etc.

The effect this has here on earth is: when a Mormon imagines a Non-Mormon's qualia, he says to himself, he would believe as I believe if he just knew everything that I know (about God, the gospel).

2. Correct as far as you go. Reminds me of the Dylan song where God tell Abe to kill his son. When Abe says "you're kidding, right?" God says "YOu can do what you want Abe, but the next time you see me comin you better run."

Free Will is an admirable concept. It is being increasingly threatened by the neurologists (do you know Libet?) but I agree in the respect that the Mormon theology keeps it. You can choose: a) God and Optimal Salvation, or B) The lovely Terrestrial Hotel.

(to be continued, if you all are so lucky)

JD YOU have taken the missing Truman Madsen's place.

Now we are REALLY discussing theology. My brother William may even jump in.

A couple of random observations:

1. P underlines the point that should be interesting to you as an anthropologist, the US-Them, Chosen People phenomenon that happens almost universally with religious groups. God loves us best. It MAY be true, but of course all the different groups have competing claims: God CAN"l love EVERYBODY best.

2. As an atheist it makes no difference to me what anyone believes happens in the afterlife, only in so far as it affects their attitudes and behavior here on earth.

I think the "we are the only true religion" stance, Mormon or not, is an odious one (not that there aren't many good things about Mormonism and other religions as well)
and I would never subscribe to a belief system that had that as a fundamental part. But of course others have the right to.

I think the world my daughter lives in would be a better place if NOBODY had such a belief. But I am not Stalin, not wish to be, so I would not impose by position by waterboarding. I hope to by argument. But I may die first.

Peace and Love to YOu John. You a a good man.
And you run a nice hotel.

John D:

You do you usually sterling job of faithfully explaining LDS doctrine in the manner in which it will be least offensive to others outside of the faith, and you should receive credit for that. As an atheist, the segregating of the afterlife has no relevance for me, but I can see that it does for others, and have some idea why this would be the case.

Each of the mono-theisms espouse claims to exclusivity, though they differ in the manner and tone with which this is expressed. I find Islam to be the harshest in this regard, but that may be because I do not know a great many Muslims and come to my point of view based on their literature and the statements of those Muslims who attract media atention. This may be a very biased sample, I admit. It seems to me that the notion of exclusivity in the realm closest to god is a fairly standard claim made by each of these religions. Mormonism differs in some aspects of its tri-partite arrangement, but what of it? The Catholics equivocate on limbo, right?

But, it seems that it is the practice of proxy baptism for the dead that lends the most offensive element to the LDS dogma. I recall the reactions of Jewish groups when it was learned that the church had obtained holocaust-related information and was using it to baptize Jews who appeared on those records. I can understand this reaction from the point of view of one who holds deep religious and heritage-based convictions. It is as if someone is signifying that a loved one was wrong in their life as to their theological affiliations, beliefs, and practices, and therefore requires "outsiders" to step in with a remediative effort posthumously provided, without consent. This, while the living religious and familial kinsmen continue to hold these same Jewish beliefs, for which the Mormons are providing intercession with the almighty, as strongly as the Mormons believe that they must continue to provide this particular service. I trust you see the senstitivity of this issue.

As for the CK/TK dispute, you make a valid point about the Mormon inclusion of a higher plane of eternal existence as rather like a building project in which an extra floor is added to a pre-existing apartment building. It is not as if the individuals on the formerly top story are forced to move, or have their furniture stolen, or have their apartments made less comfortable in some fashion. However, they have just seen their real-estate devalued in that they are no longer on the top story. And there is an insult in that, if one is into living in multi-story buildings in which the "better classes" live higher up.

Enjoyed your thoughts John,

P.

Hello James,

Thank you for your response. Here is my response to a few things you have said:

"I agree that the Terrestrial Kingdom is a cushy place - I wish I could go there. And I agree that if we don't tell those non-mormons about the Celestial Kingdom, they won't miss it and will be hysterically happy for time and all eternity."

You are so agreeable!!!! One thing I want to reiterate is that the Terrestrial Kingdom is more than a “cushy place.” It IS the heaven that all other Abrahamic Religions hope for. It is the heaven that they dedicate their lives to their faiths for. So much so that Craig Bloomberg, an Evangelical scholar said,

“Why should I ever consider the risk of converting to Mormonism? If I stay as I am, and Mormonism is right, I will receive…eternal, resurrected happiness with my Savior Jesus, and perhaps even something much better” (see How Wide the Divide? P. 164).

But this isn’t about the justice of absolute conditions in eternity, it is about justice about relative conditions. Why should X person get more than Y person just because they happen to be a member of the right tradition? Especially when Y person appears to be more moral than X person. I see where the problem lies.

Let me give a few thoughts on this:

1). The assumption from a Mormon standpoint is that every person of outstanding morality WILL except the covenant when they see it for what it is. If they saw the Kingdom of God for what it was, what would keep them from making the covenant? Nothing but their own choice. It is completely just to allow people their own informed decision.

2).God cannot place people into the CK against their will. All the covenant is, is the acknowledgement that, “Yes I want to go there, and I will live the mores of that community.” It is completely just to not force someone to go where they do not want to go.

3). Everyone has to fulfill the same requirements to enter, whether you are a cultural hero, or some shmuck from Idaho. Everyone has the opportunity to do so. Equal standards and equal opportunities, which seems to me, just.

4). It seems to you that God is making a wacked-out judgment on moral character. God does not refuse people of high moral character access to the CK because they fault something. He can only do so if they do not want to be there. That brings us back to the assumption that, if they are good, they WILL want to be there. If they don’t, that’s okay, the CK is not for everyone.

All the best,

JD1

Hey JD

thanks for your ruminations.

i completely agree that today's Mormons are cordial and respectful to other traditions. I agree that the Terrestrial Kingdom is a cushy place - I wish I could go there. And I agree that if we don't tell those non-mormons about the Celestial Kingdom, they won't miss it and will be hysterically happy for time and all eternity.

My personal problem with the doctrine is this: how do I make sense of a God and a Universe where Joe Schmoo from Idaho goes to the CK and becomes a God because he got married in the temple, but Gandhi (for instance), if he sticks to his worldly beliefs (which some Gandhi's will, otherwise why have a Terrestrial Kingdom) can only hope to be the Franchise Manager of a Heavenly Starbucks.

My deep moral and spiritual sense told me that I couldn't go to my Jewish roommate, who was a much more God-Like soul already than 98% of the Mormons I know, and say
"hey, you really ought to forget the Law of Moses and come over to the Law of Joseph, because that way you and I can live with God and our families and even become Gods ourselves forever."

And it didn't make me think it made any more sense just because my Jewish Friend would be perfectly happy managing his Starbucks in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

It was a matter that a just and wise and moral God would not devise such a system, that Truth was of a different nature than that kind of system assumed.

So I don't think the Mormons are evil because they get the best after life goodies and others only get 3 STar hotels (which, no disrespect intended, seems like a lame explanation to me).

Thanks Neal
I grew up as a Mormon in a family that was 5th generation, so I am thoroughly familiar with all the stages of our existence. Pre. Present. Post.

LDS-org says good people who accept the Gospel (which in this world is called Mormonism) will live with God in the Celestial Kingdom.

LDS-org says those who are good people but DON"T accept the gospel will be in the Terrestrial Kingdom, ie. NOT with God. Not with the full chance for eternal progression in the plan for salvation.

Some (many?) people will NOT accept the Gospel, or why bother to have a Terrestrial Kingdom?

So, in summary, to live with God, one must believe in Heaven what the Mormons believe on earth. And some/many people won't. The Jews? The atheists?

Elitist is Jim's term, not mine.

And my major point is that, considering this world, Mormons believe that they have the only path to the highest heaven. If you are, and remain, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, secular humanist, you don't have a chance to live with God.

I don't care what adjective one uses to describe that belief: wondrous, exclusionary, sweet, preflititorius. But that IS the doctrine.

Dear James,

You said,

“Our continuing discovery of the neurological complications of such processes as moral decision making go far in explaining our paradoxical and contradictory impulses and beliefs, without the necessity of positing an ironic supreme being.”

There is some interesting stuff out there, like the whole idea of having two separate cognitive systems for making moral judgment. To me, our hodgepodge conceptual make-up helps me understand what God has to work with if he wants to reveal anything to us. Divine disclosures in terms of paradoxes make sense to me in because of our limited conceptual faculties. Not to say that God is himself is paradoxical, but OUR Universe must be until we become capable of understanding things in their totality.

You also said,

“But it is not paradoxical to say
"many people in the world have wisdom,
but the Mormons have wisdom and the Only Path to the Celestial Kingdom"“

Perhaps this is not paradoxical. Perhaps you see the inclusive side of Mormon theology as less significant and extensive than I do.

One thing I find interesting is that the Terrestrial Kingdom (the place where good people of all faiths go) is almost indistinguishable from the heaven most faiths posit as their final destination.

The LDS Celestial Kingdom primarily adds Godhood, procreation etc., stuff that most faiths don’t imagine or even want in the afterlife. In this sense at least, Mormon theology doesn’t take anything away from the soteriology and eschatology of other faiths.

If someone of another faith told me I would inherit the Celestial Kingdom as I understand it by remaining Mormon, but if I joined their faith I would receive another type of heaven that I have never conceived of, I would think that faith pretty inclusive.

Sacraments vs. Covenants

The Catholic understanding of sacraments from what I understand is kind of like an infusion of Grace. Mormons have a different understanding of sacred ceremonies. They are not infusions of grace, but unambiguous signifiers of covenants. These involve commitments to keep certain community standards. In the end I think this makes the whole thing less arbitrary than a sacrament plain and simple would. If one wants to be part of the community of the Celestial Kingdom, one must keep its statutes and mores of that Kingdom. Before entrance, one makes a commitment to do so via unambiguous ordinances. The Heavens are just an extension of the types of social orders we find here, just more Godly and glorious.

Right now, because of cultural and social barriers, there is not a match between moral status in the eyes of God and those who actually make these covenants on earth. In the after life, when cultural and social barriers are removed, there will be a perfect match.

All the best James,

JD1

Betty:

Thanks for your comments. I like you - where have you been all this time?

All the rest:

Well, looks like it was a busy afternoon!

I don't want to add any fuel to the fire, but I really think both sides are splitting hairs on the CK thing.

Look at it this way:

Mormons believe that we had a pre-existance, that we lived with God before as spirits. The Gospel and the Priesthood consitute the Kingdom of God on earth. In other words, this is an earthly extension of the Heavenly Order. So it is more than a "church". It is more than ritual. It is more than doctrine. It is Gods way of providing an earthly manifestation of His heavenly kingdom (although through mortal and imperfect humans). We believe that same order (including families) will exist in the next life, and so to us this is just a temporary extension of what we lived before and a reflection of the life to come.

To us, it is impossible to think that you'll have multiple groups of people who have different ideas of what truth is living with God in the highest Kingdom. Either they will accept truth and understand things as he does, or they won't.

So, if you want to consider that line of thinking that everyone who lives with God is going to understand the same things, and live by His rules, and have the same ordinances, etc. Then HJ is essentially correct. But trying to make that belief seem "elitiest" or exclusionary is wrong, because we really think most people will understand and accept the truth once they get there and see that Heaveny Order, which we believe we lived before and will live again. It will all be familiar to us. Since we believe it is God's truth, God's Order, God's way - we see it more as living as God lives and believing as God believes than as a group defined by the name of a temporary earthly structure called a "Church".

Neal

Yeah, Right Henry...

when you say
"literature is a much richer source of wisdom "

I bet you'd suggest we start with Portrait of a Lady.

Hello JD
I love paradox as much or more than you do.

But...

NICE that Bushman "graciously" allows that other religions have SOME truth. Duh...

And, that modest allowance seems hardly paradoxical at all combined with the belief that OUR priesthood and sacraments are necessary for your optimal salvation.

Mormons are smart people, and NOT to acknowledge the wisdom of Buddhism, for instance, would show profound ignorance in today's world.

But it is not paradoxical to say
"many people in the world have wisdom,
but the Mormons have wisdom and the Only Path to the Celestial Kingdom"

And the fact that Mormons (and other religionists) hold paradoxical beliefs says much more about the nature of human contradiction than it does with any contradiction at the level of metaphysical truth. Our continuing discovery of the neurological complications of such processes as moral decision making go far in explaining our paradoxical and contradictory impulses and beliefs, without the necessity of positing an ironic supreme being.

Finally, and self interestedly, literature is a much richer source of wisdom about the paradoxes and complications of human understanding, moral behavior, and how to make sense of existence than are the religious texts of the world.

Welcome back, JD1.

I didn't have a moment of "oneness" with RTC that I can tell, but she thinks we did, and she's fun to spar with, that much I know.

You wrote, "Both rest on the assumption that when all is known, the problems presented will be solved."

This feels to me a lot like the old standby "It'll all work itself out in the Millenium" so I won't worry about why it contradicts what I know to be right, or why I'm going through this sexist stuff right now at church.

Sorry for that disaster by the way.

May I offer a place for reconciliation between Jim A. and the rest.

I was listening to one of the Richard Bushman interviews on the Mormon Stories podcasts the other day, and he said something interesting about Mormon theology.

He said Mormons believe that all faiths have truth, and all faiths have access to the Holy Spirit. In that sense we are quite universalistic. The us vs. them is not reduced to light vs. darkness. At the same time we claim to be the only ones that has access to Apostolic authority, and the "Fullness of the Gospel." This presents a paradox. He mentioned that Terryl Givens is currently writing a book on Mormon theology which presents it as a group of satisfying paradoxes.

I always knew this, but I couldn't have articulated it that way before. It may sound strange to outsiders, but Mormons actually maintain an exclusive and inclusive view of their faith and the destiny of the human family.

This is not the only paradox in Mormon theology:
The Fall brought sin into the world, and enabled us to become like God; God excercises perfect justice and perfect mercy; We are both essentially sinful, carnal and Divine children of God.

I find a theology of paradoxes satisfying because it is much like life, which is full of paradoxes. Even the foundation of the scientific discipline: Physics, is one big paradox- quantum physics vs. Newtonian physics.

How do Mormons handle living in a theological world that is paradoxical? Mormon Anthropologist Steve Olsen explains:

"It is even possible, because of their belief in continuing revelation, for Mormons to live in religious universe that is ironic, dialectical, paradoxical, and even contradictory. For example, Mormons have no difficulty in holding simultaneously to the beliefs in special creation and the geologic age of the earth, in Mendelian genetics and the gender of specific identity of pre-mortal spirits, in democracy and theocracy, in charismatic and bureaucratic authority, in communal and individual salvation, and in spiritual and material imperatives, to name a few. On a more purely theological basis, Mormons hardly ever concern themselves with the question of whether faith or works is more essential to salvation, whether God’s foreknowledge limits man's agency, or of the dynamic interplay between justice and mercy, unless the discussion relates directly to a person's actions or attitudes vis-à-vis God."

http://www.aliveonline.com/ldspapers/StevesTalk.html

The belief in continuous revelation allows for Mormons to maintain these paradoxes in the same way the expansive nature of Science allows for both quantum and Newtonian physics to be maintained. Both rest on the assumption that when all is known, the problems presented will be solved.

All the best to you all,

JD1May I offer a place for reconciliation between Jim A. and the rest.

I was listening to one of the Richard Bushman interviews on the Mormon Stories podcasts the other day, and he said something interesting about Mormon theology.

He said Mormons believe that all faiths have truth, and all faiths have access to the Holy Spirit. In that sense we are quite universalistic. The us vs. them is not reduced to light vs. darkness. At the same time we claim to be the only ones that has access to Apostolic authority, and the "Fullness of the Gospel." This presents a paradox. He mentioned that Terryl Givens is currently writing a book on Mormon theology which presents it as a group of satisfying paradoxes.

I always knew this, but I couldn't have articulated it that way before. It may sound strange to outsiders, but Mormons actually maintain an exclusive and inclusive view of their faith and the destiny of the human family.

This is not the only paradox in Mormon theology:
The Fall brought sin into the world, and enabled us to become like God; God excercises perfect justice and perfect mercy; We are both essentially sinful, carnal and Divine children of God.

I find a theology of paradoxes satisfying because it is much like life, which is full of paradoxes. Even the foundation of the scientific discipline: Physics, is one big paradox- quantum physics vs. Newtonian physics.

How do Mormons handle living in a theological world that is paradoxical? Mormon Anthropologist Steve Olsen explains:

"It is even possible, because of their belief in continuing revelation, for Mormons to live in religious universe that is ironic, dialectical, paradoxical, and even contradictory. For example, Mormons have no difficulty in holding simultaneously to the beliefs in special creation and the geologic age of the earth, in Mendelian genetics and the gender of specific identity of pre-mortal spirits, in democracy and theocracy, in charismatic and bureaucratic authority, in communal and individual salvation, and in spiritual and material imperatives, to name a few. On a more purely theological basis, Mormons hardly ever concern themselves with the question of whether faith or works is more essential to salvation, whether God’s foreknowledge limits man's agency, or of the dynamic interplay between justice and mercy, unless the discussion relates directly to a person's actions or attitudes vis-à-vis God."

http://www.aliveonline.com/ldspapers/StevesTalk.html

The belief in continuous revelation allows for Mormons to maintain these paradoxes in the same way the expansive nature of Science allows for both quantum and Newtonian physics to be maintained. Both rest on the assumption that when all is known, the problems presented will be solved.

All the best to you all,

JD1

Pheadrus,

Perhaps your views of OC is different than mine as a Drug and Alcohol counselor who has worked with many who use heroine and OCs interchangably.

My goal was to address an unfair analogy not to be adhominem though I can see from your most recent post how one could perceive that I am so for that I apologize.

Regards,

Thankful

Jim A

Stay in this world for a moment. Forget for a moment about the next world.

The Mormon Church says
We are the ONLY way
We have the ONLY path

to the highest level of salvation.

AND, goody goody, you are free to join us.

Well, I am a Muslim. I am a Jew. I am a Jain. I am a Buddhist.

I have no interest in joining you Elitists.

I am perfectly happy with my religion. I am just as sure, have just as much burning in my bosom, as you Mormons do, that my Church is a good church, but I don't need to believe it is the ONLY way.

Now you, JIM A, with your peculiar logic, can say the Mormon posture is not Elitist. You may be right. Elitist is a weird and imprecise term.

But we can factually state: Mormons believe they have the ONLY true way. They may be right. Many of us non-mormons find the claim absurd, immoral, amazingly self-congratulatory, and exclusionary to the rest of us who don't and can't believe your doctrine with its extensive supernatural codicils.

The Quote: "They are there to create new members of the LDS church, much as the Perdue Pharma rep wants to create more Oxycontin presecription writers."

The clarification of 'The Quote':

"Although papering over or carefully skirting problematic elements of LDS history and doctrine does not rise to the level of eventual injury caused by these salespeople, the actual presentation of incomplete or misleading information by the missionaries who called upon my friend is similar in nature, if not consequence.

The response:

"I'll try to remember that the next time someone compares my sharing of the gospel to a dishonet heroine pusher.."

Note: There was no mention of you at all, but 2 missionaries who were less than forthright with my friend about Mormon history and actual LDS doctrine. Oxycontin is not heroin. Physicians are not illicit drug purchasers. I made the basis of my comparison very clear.

You have shared your testimony many times on these threads, without interference or castigation from me. I have consistently treated you, and your husband, with respect. (with the exception of one instance with John, several months ago. Afterwhich I went to some lengths, weeks later, to cite as an example of how he had responded to me with a courtesy that I had failed to show him).

There really is no reason that I can see for you to continue this ad hominem.

Heraclitus- sorry, but I stick with what I have said. There is nothing exclusionary about believing that ALL will have the chance to accept or reject the gospel.

Heraclitus- sorry, but I stick with what I have said. There is nothing exclusionary about believing that ALL will have the chance to accept or reject the gospel.

"Anyone can join us in the CK, as long as they believe EXACTLY as we do, and perform OUR sacraments"...

Here on these Otterson threads, it seems also that many Mormons feel that "anyone can be objective and engage in meaningful dialogue with us, as long as you only say that which we agree with." Otherwise, comments are quickly labeled not meaningful or non-objective.

Pheadruds,

I'll try to remember that the next time someone compares my sharing of the gospel to a dishonet heroine pusher..

peace

Jim A, or Logical Thinking? Pick One.

Jim A writes
"HJ's comments portray the LDS belief as exclusionary and elitest, while I believe that the LDS doctrine is anything but exclusionary."

Oh no, when Mormons say "we aren't exclusionary. Anyone can join us in the CK, as long as they believe EXACTLY as we do, and perform OUR sacraments" they aren't being exclusionary or elitist. They aren't saying Mormonism is the ONLY way, the only True Church. (Which they say millions of times every Sunday -that is what "the church is True" means). And if you can't accept Mormonism, now or later, because you happen to believe in, say, Judaism, or Islam, you are sh*t out of luck.

Jim A: leave the thinking to others who are better equipped. You are making a mess out of the meaning of words, and their logical connections.

Jim A

one more point in your absurd reply to me.

You write "To not give this full picture and merely say that only Mormons will be in the Celestial Kingdom is misleading in my opinion...."

So you, Jim, would have us say
"Only those who accept the Gospel as outlined by the Mormon Church and are baptised by the equivalent of Mormon Priesthood authority can enter the Celestial Kingdom"

and you contend that this is meaningfully different from saying "Only Mormons will be in the Celestial Kingdom."

This is what Karen is screaming about, and legitimately.

Tell the world clearly what you believe. Don't engage in ridiculous circumlocutions (look it up)
to soften the blows.

Jim A ~

A merciful God in my opinion is not one who would enable such requirements to exist in his "One True Church." It wasn't placed there to be my trial of faith. It was simply lame.

Jim A,

You're delusional. Or you don't understand the English language

YOu write
"If you say that Mormons believe that only "Mormons" will be in the Celestial Kingdom, I guess we have to define "Mormons."

As I posted earlier, I doubt that those in the next life that accept the gospel will view themselves as Mormons. This is a distinction that only we mortals make....

I believe, as someone stated earlier, there will be many in the Celestial Kingdom that during mortality belonged to one of many religions or had no religion at all and in the next life accepted the gospel."

You are contradicting the clear meaning of what is said on LDS.org. It says that the

"Terrestrial kingdom?—People who refuse to accept the Gospel"

Which gospel do YOU think LDS.org is talking about??? THE gospel. The Mormon gospel.

And people WILL refuse to accept it, according to LDS.org. And those people WILL NOT be in the Celestial Kingdom, BECAUSE they refuse to accept the Mormon Gospel. Come on, read your native language.

Thankful:

As Dylan once wrote: "Ive never been the kind of guy who likes to tresspass, but sometimes you just find yourself over the line." Whatever it was that I have written that crossed your line, I can only assure you that tresspassing was not a motivating factor.

As for the nature of the analogies I have used, the degree to which they were, or were not inflammatory is determined by the reader as much, or moreso, than the writer.

Pheadrus,

Thank you for taking the time to explicate your personal values regarding objectivity and discourse.

I read parts of it and I think I would like to have a conversation with that guy -- at the same time I am dually conscious that my subjective experience with you is that I often do not recognize your excercise of these values in your posts --

be it due to my personal weakness or yours or most likely some combination of both this is how I experience you.

I'm not sure if you care for that feedback but there it is none the less and I shall not pursue it any further at this point or perhaps ever.

At the same time, with what you have written, I will look harder for the fair minded Pheadrus and hopefully I will see more of what you espouse.

I think this would be easier for me if your comparisons were not so demonizing -- better to stick with the benign home appliance examples unless you really want to be inflamatory.

Regards,

Thankful

Wow SML. aint it wunnerful that God is not going to hold you accountable for being discriminated against by his church?

SML:
It may be of little comfort to you, but I believe that we underestimate God's mercy. God will not hold you accountable for a choice that you could not make.

Karen,

I appreciate your comments, and I agree. I think the misunderstanding is the "scope" of faith vs. doubt.

When I say that faith and doubt do not co-exist, I am talking in specific terms, at a given moment in time. Right now, I believe that God exists- he is real. I cannot at this same moment doubt his existence- either I believe he exists or I believe he doesn't exist. I cannot logically believe both at the same time. I can however believe that he exists and still not completely understand him- why certain things are the way they are, etc.- and in this sense you could say that I have doubts. But his existence is not the question for the believer.

Jim A ~

"...and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him..."

Except when she doesn't have written permission from her non-member husband.

Jim A: if you do not think that faith and doubt can coexist, please go back and read the psalms, all the psalms. Don't you see the doubts, the questions, the struggles from otherwise very strong believers? It is my belief that Psalms are specifically there to let us know that it is OK to wrestle with God, to doubt Him, to question His motives. God wants us to turn to Him in our doubt and in our struggles. Faith does not mean the absence of doubt. Even people with the deepest faith, great preachers and theologiians will still tell you that they have or have had their moments of doubt.

As my former Pastor said to me once: the longer I walk with the Lord, the less I doubt. Faith is a journey Jim A. Maybe you never doubt, but I can assure you the vast majority of believers of any faith do. And that does not mean that our faith is weak. It just means that we are humans, believing without seeing, and growing in our faith as we continue to pursue God.

SML:

My point is that HJ's comments portray the LDS belief as exclusionary and elitest, while I believe that the LDS doctrine is anything but exclusionary. It is by our own choices that we exclude ourselves, not any outside factor.

2 Nephi 26: 33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Jim A ~

You are splitting hairs when you say that "Mormons" are not the only ones to achieve exhaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.

If HJ is considering "Mormons" to be anyone who accepts the LDS Gospel as you know it, and accepts the ordinances required to attain celestial glory, then he is correct in stating that only Mormons will reach the Celestial Kingdom. Whether or not they are called "Mormons" in the afterlife is irrelevant. Would you prefer that he say, "Only those of Latter-day Saint status shall reach the Celestial Kingdom"?

Off Campus ~

You cracked me up good with your creative writing. You are funny.

Henry James:

If you say that Mormons believe that only "Mormons" will be in the Celestial Kingdom, I guess we have to define "Mormons."

As I posted earlier, I doubt that those in the next life that accept the gospel will view themselves as Mormons. This is a distinction that only we mortals make....

I believe, as someone stated earlier, there will be many in the Celestial Kingdom that during mortality belonged to one of many religions or had no religion at all and in the next life accepted the gospel.

To not give this full picture and merely say that only Mormons will be in the Celestial Kingdom is misleading in my opinion....

Jim A

to clarify,
when I wrote
"When statement of doctrine was NOT incorrect, not information. Yours is misinformation."

i meant to say

My statement of what Mormon doctrine is was Correct.
You are spreading misinformation when you say that I mischaracterized Mormon doctrine.

Off Campus,

Can you please provide us with a link to your source?

Henry,
I would not say that it is Mormons that enter the Celestial Kingdom. I would say that anyone that chooses to accept and follow God's plan and the principles and ordinances that he willingly and lovingly provides to all that will accept them can enter the Celestial Kingdom. I understand that this is based on my LDS perspective.

If, for example, one accepts the principles and ordinances of the gospel in the next life, they are "eligible" for the celestial kingdom. I don't think that those in the next life that accept the gospel would consider themselves "Mormon."

About doubt and faith, how can one believe in God and doubt God's existence at the same time? The two seem mutually exclusive to me....

Jim A - You got it WRONG

I did NOT retract my point that only Mormons can enter the Celestial Kingdom.

The LDS web site clearly states that. I recanted my statement that my FIRST quote was from LDS.org

When statement of doctrine was NOT incorrect, not information. Yours is misinformation.

Also,
virtually every sensitive person has had doubt co exist with faith. read the biographies. For you to say "Faith and doubt can not co-exist" is incredible. It denies the broadly attested to realities of people of faith everywhere.

Neal and Thankful,
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your contributions.

Phaedrus,
Thank you also for your insights. To reply, I agree to a certain extent that both the faithful LDS as well as those interested in knowing more about the LDS religion should have a good understanding of the history of the church. However, I do think that anyone seeking truth needs to be careful of the sources they use. In this thread alone, we find those attempting to "shed light" on Mormon doctrine that really only spread confusion and distortions of truth. For example, as I commented earlier, when one that is disaffected to the LDS church says that Mormons believe that John Doe cannot enter the celestial kingdom, that does not truthfully portray LDS beliefs. HJ, thank you for your retraction and repentance on this topic! The beautiful part to me is that ALL will have a chance to accept the gospel in its fulness, whether in this life or the next, and to receive the associated blessings.

Neal's comments about faith were perfect. Faith and doubt cannot co-exist. When one begins to believe in truth and acts on that belief, faith develops and continues to grow as long as one continues to accept and act on the truth that they are given. One can have questions, but when he/she begins to doubt the truth that they have received or one no longer acts on the truth that they have, faith then is halted, and doubt and disbelief begin to grow.

Although many would like it to be otherwise, religious truths cannot be scientifically proven. Instead, we gain truth "line upon line" by our choices and actions.

Although I may not know every detail of the Church's history and could not explain why certain events occurred as they did, to a great extent, these things are not that critical to me. In my opinion, in many cases, we do not have enough information to make a meaningful conclusion of historical events. But in the end, it's moot anyway, because I cannot deny the many, many spiritual experiences that I routinely encounter as I strive for light and understanding. I do not deny that many in other religions experience these same types of experiences as they pursue truth and live according to the light that they have.

BYU should consider shocking poor people for having poor thoughts.

Provo - "We hadn't used the machines since the mid-1990s," said program director Harland Abramson. "The Brethren let us know that they've been seeing an increase in personal problems among students and asked for suggestions. We felt prompted to take 'Old Sparky' and 'The Tickler' out of storage and put them back into use."

Reporters were quick to ask why the university was using a controversial therapy process that had been shown to have no effect on homosexual desires.

"Oh, no, it's nothing like that," said a suddenly indignant Abramson. "We aren't using the machines on homosexuals. We learned way back in the late 1970s that genital shocking was not an effective treatment, which is why we discontinued the practice in 1996."

Abramson explained that the new program deals with "those who are tossed about by the winds of doctrine" and who need a little spiritual enlightenment.

Religion Professor A. LeGrand Hendry explained the science behind the new practice. "These are students who have lost the light of the gospel. As we know, electricity shares some properties with light, so what we are doing is trying to shine the light of the gospel back into their lives through electrodes."

Hendry described the procedure.

"First we monitor students' actions in class, at church, and in any online forums. If there is evidence of doubting or questioning, the student is brought here to the Kimball Tower for evaluation."

Evaluation consists of a brief word-association exercise, said Hendry. "For example, if I say the word 'follow,' and they say 'your conscience,' I know they're good candidates for the program. If instead, they answer 'the prophet,' I am certain they are on the right path but will require further monitoring."

Students are then hooked up to the machine and exposed to various pictures and words. Negative words, such as "critical thinking," and negative pictures, such as a girl with teased hair, are accompanied by mild shocks to the genitals. When students see positive words, such as "obedience," and positive pictures, such as a group photo of the Quorum of the Twelve, soothing voices tell them how good it feels.

Tyler Hayes, a sophomore from Walnut Creek, California, expressed gratitude for the program. "At the beginning of the school year, I was really struggling. I'm so glad I told my bishop about my doubts. 4 months of therapy, and the doubt is gone. The only problem is that I get, um, kind of aroused every time I hear the words to "Called to Serve" or see a picture of James E. Faust. But it's worth it to be standing on solid gospel ground. And the scars have almost healed."

McKenzie Wilson of Rock Springs, Wyoming, told of her journey from rebellious feminist to iron-rod Mormon: "I'm not sure how it happened, but I lost sight of the important things in life. I was planning for a career in academia and had started volunteering for the ACLU. Once my poli-sci professor got wind of that, I was here at the Kimball Tower every week."

She paused, choking up. "Now I can say that I understand my true potential as a daughter of God. Before I started the program, I thought that being a tenured professor would help me feel fulfilled, but now I know that such a path brings only pain, searing genital pain. After months of seeing those images of happy babies, I know my destiny, and I'm so grateful for it."

If the program is successful, it may be expanded for use in local wards and stakes to combat outbreaks of independent thought.

Thankful:

If you take the position that once someone reaches an opinion of any given thing, they can no longer claim objectivity, then no, I am not objective regarding the LDS church. And, of course, none of the current LDS posters can make a valid claim to objectivity either. I would add that I have never, ever, claimed that I was objective. I have many opinions about the church's history, doctrines, leadership, and current practices, and these should be no mystery to anyone who has been reading these threads for any period of time. However, if you review the post in which I made the statement about "complicating" the missionary effort of the church, you will also see that I indicated that a person would do well to review the "entire" record on these threads, both pro and con, rather than rely on "either" the testimonies of the faithful OR the statements of the former Mormons. My allegiance is more to free and open inquiry in the pursuit of truth than to any single opinion I happen to hold about the truth or falseness at the heart of the LDS story. No one need fear excommunication from the Church of Phaedrus for reading and considering the merit of any bit of information from any source.

What I will claim for myself is this; My opinions are informed and have been arrived at carefully, after reviewing a great deal of information over the course of years. None of them are based upon what I "prefer" to believe for emotional comfort's sake. I try hard to be fair and include statements about the things that I find admirable about LDS culture, and the qualities of its membership, where appropriate. I am open to new information all of the time, and am willing to change any opinion that I hold given the presentation of sufficient evidence that my current position is invalid. And I try to seperate the individual from the issue whenever I comment on that issue. (I say try, because I sometimes lapse on this one, though not nearly as often as I once did).

As for the Oxycontin comparison, I did choose that deliberately, in that it is a matter of public record that their salespeople did not present the full array of facts when calling on physicians. Although papering over or carefully skirting problematic elements of LDS history and doctrine does not rise to the level of eventual injury caused by these salespeople, the actual presentation of incomplete or misleading information by the missionaries who called upon my friend is similar in nature, if not consequence.

I hope that this answers your question, and clarifies any issue pertaining to why I think what, and as, I do.

Best wishes,

P.

Faith and Neal

Neal I think your view and mine are BOTH right and completely compatible.

First, faith IS multi-dimensional. Psychologically speaking, it involves our conscious mind and MANY layers of our unconscious processes (our desire for safety, for reassurance, for connection with others and the universe, all of which are there whether we know it or not).

And definitely there are MANY roads to faith, many paths as we Buddhists say. For some it is through crisis, for some it is through methodical study. And of course, the OBJECT of faith varies widely. Martin Luther King had FAITH that if he worked for the HOly Grail of Racial Justice, he would get closer to it. "I have a dream that one day..."

You also quote
"by faith, the worlds are and were created ". Yes, faith is necessary for us to keep going towards that goal, because, to quote George Bush, "it's hard work."

One needs Faith that the goal is
1. worthwhile, and
2. attainable.

Peace (I have hope and faith we can achieve it in some SMALL measure)
Betty

Neal
I understand and agree with your point about people having a chance to accept the Gospel in the afterlife.

The point I am making is that they MUST accept the Gospel to enter the CK.

And clearly many people won't, because there IS a terrestrial kingdom for good people who are NOT mormons.

Again, my (limited) point is that Mormons believe you have to go through the Mormon sacraments to be in the CK (baptism, temple marriage).

The catholics feel the same about their sacraments.

Phaedrus: what you are saying makes so much sense, I can't understand why people would argue with it.

I work in medical researh. You always know that you need to check other sources of information aside from the drug's website and the references that drug reps give you. Then you can some sense of the true impact of the drug.

We live in country that is as sucessfull as it is in many ways (and despite its flaws) because of the free flow of ideas, because there are debates going on about everything and there is no thought control.

If somebody is exploring traditional christianity as a belief system I would think it wise for them to look at what believers and deniers have to say about it so that they have a clear idea of the arguments on both sides. We do not need any more brain washed believers in any church. I believe that Christianity stands up to all scrutinity and therefore I am a strong believer. Having said that, I have read extensively many authors in the existentialist, absurdist etc. fields. Sartre and Camus are among my favorite authors. There is much to gain and learn from reading their books despite the fact that they and I have a completely different spiritual perspective. I guess my point is that a broad perspective is exactly what we need and it should never suffice to stick to the "approved line".

Your friend's experience with missionaries was exactly mine and on more then one occasion. If you believe strongly in your faith, to the point of spending 2 years of your life in the mission field, again I say put it all out there, all of it, and let the hearers decide for themselves. After all, if mormons believe as I do that it is the spirit that converts and not us humans (or maybe they don't believe that, I don't know), then all the more confident they should be in letting the whole truth come out. I find the whole PR approach personally puzsling. Are we saying God needs a PR person to get His message out? Isn't ultimately Him who draws us near? Do we need to "package" the message in a special way to make it more "palatable"?

Pheadrus,

I can appreciate you trying to steer the discussion back to the "wine" -- for the most part I agree. However, perhaps you have missed the major point of my post which was that no one here can lay claim to objectivity, yourself included.

"They are there to create new members of the LDS church, much as the Perdue Pharma rep wants to create more Oxycontin presecription writers. "

Once again a very dark comparison -- have you not read of the most recent Perdue scandal in which they are now paying out loads of $ for lack of disclosure of OC's addictive nature? As a psychologist, I have to believe you've been aware of the problems of OC absent the scandal as I have as a social worker.

Mormon's are pushing the equivalent of prescription heroine -- you've got to be kidding me sir!

Perhaps unflattering comparisons are not your goal and yet they continue to be your card of choice.

For the record, are you claiming to be objective towards the church?

Phaedrus,

As is often the case, I jumbled words, letters, thoughts and nonsense and probably overanted a bit.

I do think that this forum has little effect on most people, meaning, most come here with a firm belief and stick to their positions. We get testimonies from some, we get insults from some, we get the harsh critics and the ardent defenders of all sides. Rarely does a forum like this do anything to move a reader to the right or the left, up or down. There is a lot that can be learned, that is true, I just question how it changes people. I certainly learned a bunch from the thread about women, that is fo damn sho. But again, I still wonder if that thread or any other does much to change someone.

I wonder how the conversations change the church? One has to wonder what prompted Otterson to issue a press release about the doctrine of the church. There had to have been a lot a lot a lot of pressure from somewhere to prompt something like that. Was there an uprising among the bishops? Did the bloggernacle plant a seed? Was it the non-mormon reaction to Oaks on The Mormons? Who knows?

Maybe Phaedrus is right that these conversations teach and help people, and I am just a cynic. For what it is worth, I havent changed. I was going to hell when I found this place and I am still going to hell, or the TK3, or whatever hell is called around here.

Betty,

Alma 32 gives a nice treatice on faith, in case you would like to read it.

Your explanation is one scenario, perhaps, of the way faith operates. But I think there is a principle of faith that your explanation leaves out. Not being a scholar, I don't have all the references in front of me, but I remember a quote that "by faith, the worlds are and were created ". This suggests faith has an operative principle beyond simple cause and effect. We also read faith can be a gift of God. So I see it as something multi-dimensional. I hope I'm making sense. (This is where it would be a nice place for one of those LDS scholars to jump in with the references I lack.)

Anyway, My faith came about not because of crisis or desperation, but because of my own study, prayer, and experiences. For others, a crisis did lead them to God.

Thanks for the comments.

Neal

HJ:

"HENRY again: this clearly states that only those who accept the gospel will be in the CK.
as it says, the Terrestrial is for Good people, like Gandhi, who do NOT accept the TRUE LDS Gospel"

Those answers on the LDS.ORG site are very abbreviated ones, and a look at some key scriptures and in-depth dialog on this subject by LDS authors and scholars would be helpful, if you have a mind.

I think the point others are trying to make is that you don't KNOW if Gandhi accepts it or not, since you're not dead, and these people are being taught the Gospel in the Spirit World. I don't know if my grandmother accepted the gospel on the other side. I hope she did, but I don't know for sure. The point is, you'll have an opportunity in this life or the next to accept or reject it. But you will have the opportuinity and choice. And if you accept it you may qualify for CK with HF. Therefore, many people who never even heard the name of Jesus Christ in this life will be in the CK. Please see my earlier reference to the JS vision of the CK and also the JFS vision of the redemption of the dead.

Neal.

Psst: I think Betty actually got her "Spiritual Journey" scheme from her brother William.

Faith

Neal: interesting thoughts about faith. In my fairly extensive study of spiritual journeys, the general progression is more like this:
1. Spiritual Crisis leading to search for answers (which often ends up being "God")
2. Recognition of a "Holy Grail", something to reach for and strive for. (the Gospel)
3. THEN, faith that the striving will be rewarded (you will be with your family forever if you follow the Gospel)
4. Faith ALWAYS wavers unless one is an automaton, so one needs
5. Persistence to "stay the course"
6. Salvation if you do 1-5.

In other words, in this scheme Faith really becomes operative when you fix on an Answer, a Holy Grail. You can not KNOW that your belief will be rewarded, you have to have faith.

That, in fact is probably why Mormons repeat every Sunday, "I KNOW the church is TRUE."

I Lied!! I Repent

I thought the above was the official lds web site, but I was wrong.

here is the official doctrine from lds.org

Celestial Kingdom Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ reside in the celestial kingdom. If you live according to the Gospel you will receive a place in this, the highest kingdom, where you will live in God’s presence and know complete joy.

Terrestrial Kingdom

The middle degree or kingdom of the three degrees of glory in heaven. In the scriptures, the glory of the terrestrial kingdom is compared to the glory of the moon. See also Celestial Kingdom, Telestial Kingdom.
Terrestrial kingdom?—People who refuse to accept the
Gospel

gospel of Jesus Christ but who live honorable lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom.
#
close window
Telestial Kingdom

The lowest of the three degrees or kingdoms of glory in heaven. The scriptures compare the glory of the telestial kingdom to the glory of the stars.

HENRY again: this clearly states that only those who accept the gospel will be in the CK.
as it says,
the Terrestrial is for Good people, like Gandhi, who do NOT accept the TRUE LDS Gospel

Celestial Kingdom Moratorium

A Proposal: i will stop talking all the time about the CK if all will stipulate to the following statement from the LDS official web site

"The LDS Church claims to be the "only true church" and the only church with the authority to act in God's name. They do not accept any other church's baptisms. According to their teachings, their baptism is the only one recognized by the Lord. This belief, coupled with their belief in the need for a Mormon temple marriage to gain eternal life, compels them to take their message to the world."

Only True Church.
Baptism/temple marraige needed for eternal life.

To all:

I think that we have drifted, at times, into a mode of exchange that is directed towards the "poster" as opposed to the "post." I compare this to a wine critic opining on the bottle rather than its contents, and I do not think that any of us are immune from doing that, nor are any of us well-served by that tendency.

I disagree with my friend Mayan that this forum is of little value aside from being a practice-field for the arguments made in earnest on other sites. I, myself, have either learned things directly from almost each of you who regularly post here, or have been pointed in fruitful directions by same. For this, please know that you are appreciated by this particular dead Greek.

P:

And I guess my point was that most of those investigating the Church are coming from the standpoint of faith.

Thanks for your thoughts - I respect your point of view; and the best to you as well.

Thandkful and others:

I still think HJ, P and SML are correct about sponsorship of this blog. At the least, Otterson should have guest theologians as was suggested. Whether or not the responses of the "nesters" is any different, I think Church scholars could articulate the doctrine far better than any of us can. Like Jim, it makes me a little nervous to be the one standing on the "front lines" when I make no claims to be a scriptorian, historian, or doctrinal expert. In other words, I don't have the authority to speak for the Church - I can just give my opinions.

Neal:

faith precedes the miracle, P. And if you cannot muster any up, for you it will always be "foolishness".

I appreciate your point of view, and, as I am sure that you will not be surprised to read, have heard this before. It is true that I follow a rather clinical course to belief, or more finely put, "belief in" any claims made by any "authority." When I compare this method to that of the way of "faith," I find that far fewer errors have resulted, and far fewer victims are created.

That said however, I have seen the benefits of "faith" every time I have witnessed a person show clinical improvement when given a "non-medication" in the physical form of a proper medication. This, as you know, is referred to as the placebo effect, and it is quite real. So, rest assured that I am respectful of the power of believing "in" something. Nonetheless, I am confident that the chemical makeup of the false medication was not miraculously changed prior to ingestion, and that the "magic" was entirely naturally occurring within the neurochemistry of the patient.

Of course, all of this is really beside the actual point I made in response to Jim; which is to say that a person owes it to themselves to sample the information of a wide range of sources before coming to a conclusion on the truth, or lack thereof, contained within Mormonism.

As always, my very best to you,

P.

P:

"As for Larson, if one is going to read Nibley on the same subject, I have every confidence that Larson will hold up well."

There are other commentaries that I think are better and certainly easier to read. As for Brodies work, try "No Ma'am, That's NOT History" and others.

"They do not pretend to scholarly discourse in their appointed rounds, as that is not their reason for making those rounds. They are there to create new members of the LDS church, much as the Perdue Pharma rep wants to create more Oxycontin presecription writers. But, it does show why broad reading on LDS history and doctrine, pro, con, and neither, is a wise course."

I've read a lot of history and commentary - pro and con - and haven't found anything that made me think differently about the Church. The young missionaries are certainly more sincere than a drug rep, and have motivations much more honorable. People can gain a testimony of the Gospel without dissecting it in a sterile operating room, as is your practice. What you lack as an atheist, P, is faith. And while I'm sure you have a scientific theory on how that occurs, the fact is that your approach precludes any other conclusions. One of my favorite scriptures:

I Corintians 2:

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That last verse is particularly telling. Its basically saying if you want to understand the things of God you have to meet Him on His terms. If you give no place for spiriitual discernment, then you shall have none.

I have put that to the test and found it to be true. But faith precedes the miracle, P. And if you cannot muster any up, for you it will always be "foolishness".

Neal

Thankful:

The point is not that any poster here is a Solzenitzen, nor that the LDS church is the Soviet Union. I think that this was clear enough. The point is that a Solzinitzen should not be seen as irrelevant if one hopes to gain a meaningful understanding of the former SU. I could also have given the more mundane advice that buying a particular car or appliance while relying only upon that product's sales literature is taking a bit of a chance. I think that this is a clear enough point as well.

Neal:

I have no problem with anyone reading any commentary they wish. Again, the point is that restricting the flow of info to only one point of view is unwise. And I don't think that I would be so quick to disregard Brodie, as "No Man Knows My History" is a highly regarded JS bio from a scholastic standpoint. As for Larson, if one is going to read Nibley on the same subject, I have every confidence that Larson will hold up well.

I received an e-mail just yesterday from a friend who is taking the discussions with a set of missionaries. So I know, in her case at least, that certain pieces of key information were left out, and some were glossed over. I do not claim that these two missionaries are representative of the whole or large portion thereof, I have no basis for saying that definitively, although I find it more likely than not. And, I do not actually blame them, as they have their own purposes. They do not pretend to scholarly discourse in their appointed rounds, as that is not their reason for making those rounds. They are there to create new members of the LDS church, much as the Perdue Pharma rep wants to create more Oxycontin presecription writers. But, it does show why broad reading on LDS history and doctrine, pro, con, and neither, is a wise course.

Mayan,

"Contrast these debates to the Semi annual General Conference. 10 hours of conference, twice a year. There is no conversation. No dialogue. It absolutely kills me with laughter to hear requests for meaningful dialogue on here. Imagine, someone comes on here and wants meaningful dialogue with an angry ranting former mormon, or a witty literary critic, or a sociologist, and yet, they have never ever ever had such dialogue with the leaders of their church. Do the church leaders give any biowaste? Yeah, they care about the members and the community. They care just enough to send the PR director over here. Hysterical."

This is such bunk! Just another example of your lack of objectivity and distortion. In a Church with MILLIONS of members, do you expect The 15 to be able to sit down with each member and have a one-on-one? That's exactly what Bishops and Stake Presidents are for. Any member can have dialog with a leader about anything they want to discuss. When the Church was small, GAs attended EVERY local conference of the Church - it was incredibly hands-on. As the Church has grown, more responsibility and authority for the hands-on you speak of has been handed off to Stake Presidents and Bishops. We have Stake Conference twice each year, and there is a General Authority present at one of them, at least. There is always one or more sessions of those conferneces where the GA has a very personal, interactive dialog with the adult membership. Sometimes these are instructional on particular topics, but always interactive. Other times they are more casual. I've see Apostles and other GAs just open the floor up for discussion. Q&A.

And if you want to communicate directly with The 15, you can send them a letter. I've done it myself, and got a personal response. Considering their schedules (which are MORE than busy) and the number of letters they probably recieve, I think that shows they care a great deal.

WHACK! WHACK! WHACK!

Neal

Sister Mary Lisa,

"Thankful claims that Phaedrus of all people writes without objectivity. Are you serious?"

Yes I am dead serious.

Please refer to his most recent post for a serious example.

Jim A:

Thanks for commenting on HJs misrepresentations of CK. I tried to set the record straight earlier, but it didn't seem to sink in (or its a bone he feels he must continually pick.)

P:

As to your advice that an investigator should read Brodie or Larson along with the scriptures - that's a slick little trick, isn't it?! You give examples of objective study on secular issues, and then turn around and suggest something completely non-objective in relation to investigating the Church. You're asking someone to read LDS scripture, and then telling them to read ONLY NEGATIVE COMMENTARY on that scripture! To be objective, they would need to read both negative AND positive commentary, and there are plenty of rebuttals to Brodie and Larson. So much for YOUR objectivity.

And Jim, I don't blame you for being gun shy. Mayan made it perfectly clear in his post that they goal here is NOT to allow meaningful dialog. Only negative.

This blog reminds me of that old arcade game - "Whack-A-Mole". When the mole pops up, you WHACK it with a club. This is "Whack-A-Mormon" - when a Mormon pops in to make a comment - WHACK!

WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! WHACK!

Neal

Thankful claims that Phaedrus of all people writes without objectivity. Are you serious? He's one of the most objective and fair writers on these threads, bar none.

I would say that we are all trying to be as open as possible in portraying our particular points of view. RTC complained above that she wishes we (former Mormons) would engage in meaningful dialog here on these threads. What did you mean by meaningful, RTC? It feels kind of like you only find it meaningful if everyone agrees with what you say, and you dismiss differing points of view as meaningless.

Otterson,

Tell us about the Oath of Vengeance taken out of the temple in the early 1900s:

"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."

My Former Comrade Pheadrus,

Former Mormons are to the LDS Church as Solzenitzen is to the Soviet Union?

Does anyone else see this comparison as a little self serving?

Pros and cons are fine but let's not pretend to objectivity -- fair enough?

Otterson is a Putz,

Now, why don't you tell us what you really think?

Come on now don't be so shy

"Yet Jesus paid also taxes and advised the people to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” "

Ottie (you don't mind if I call you that, do you?),

To translate your blog entry, "obey your church leaders and do not question ANYTHING they do." Right? Can you imagine if Mormons thought for themselves what would happen to your little theocracy? Thinking is dangerous for your little, pinched, morgbots isn't it?

Jim A:

As I wrote in an earlier post, a person investigating any belief system would be ill-served by focusing exclusively on either side of a divided opinion set. To restrict ones information to the "pro" side of any topic is akin to attempting to understand life in the Soviet Union without consulting Alexander Solzenitzen, to understand the British Raj from a data set that excluded Gandhi or Nehru, to derive an opinion as to the justification for the British Stamp Act without regard to the point of view of a Franklin or Paine, or to disregard the opinion of a Martin Luther as to the Papacy's selling of indulgences.

The former LDS on these threads provide a meaningful source of information regarding either facets of Mormonism that are not presented in official church communications, or elements of history and doctrine that are given rather short shrift. These individuals did not arrive at their current opinions of all things LDS for no reason. Anyone investigating the church ignores these expreriences and thoughts to their own detriment.

I see nothing wrong with advising that people read Larson on the Book of Abraham, or Brodie on Joseph Smith, in addition to the Standard Works.

Best wishes,

Phaedrus.

HJ,

I think I've come to appreciate that the CK topic continues to be of great concern to you.

From the outside looking in this continues to be a tragedy to me.

I really wish you might consider, Jim's post regarding this matter as what LDS generally beleive. It is similar to what I and others have attempted to better explain in times past -- perhaps not very well:(

It is well rooted in BOok of Mormon & LDS revealed doctrine which is so liberal and extensive when it comes to salvation in extending mercy and opppurtunity to the individual despite our varied circumstances.

I hope it is not too bold to say that when you die someday, if still as a "disaffected Mormon", there will probably be some Mormon family member of yours who will eventually do your temple work hoping you have reconsidered things in the spirit world -- knowing of the good that you have done while in life and beleiving that only God can really know and judge your individual circumstances and heart.

This is really what we believe -- that all of our stories will continue beyond that grave -- the great author may in fact continue to write!

I really hope at some point that resonates more to you.

Kind Regards,

Thankful

HI JIM,

I really appreciated your post -- especially your words concerning the scenario of Karen's brother. I'm also glad you are posting despite your worries -- it's a good example to myself and others

Thanks

I agree with Thankful- whomever is chosen to represent the LDS Church at this site, the result would be the same. Much of the discussion on any of these threads evolves (digresses) to the same types of comments and often has little relevance to the original topic anyway.

This quote from a BYU professor that commented on the PBS documentary offers good advice for all of us: "Krister Stendall, former Dean of Religion at Harvard University and Episcopal bishop of Stockholm, Sweden, has stated 3 rules which guide his participation on interfaith discussion and exploration of other religions. The first two are: 1) “If you’re going to ask the question as to what others believe, ask them – not their critics, not their enemies because what one tradition says of another is usually a breach of the 9th commandment – “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” It is important that we do not picture the other person’s faith in a manner they do not recognize as true;
2) “If you’re going to compare, don’t compare your bests with their worsts. Most think of their own tradition as it is at its best and they use caricatures of the others.” In the case of your program, it was not so much one religious view opposing another, it was the slick and sophisticated portrayal of the “intellectual and dissident” view verses the “un-intellectual and blindly obedient” Mormon mainstream and leadership – an unfortunate and mistaken dichotomy."

While this comment was made in reference to the documentary, I believe it has application here too. Hopefully those interested in knowing more of the LDS faith will accept doctrinal proclamations by disaffected or "non" members with great caution. I am even hesitant to post here and consider myself a devout member of the LDS faith but worry about saying something that could be misunderstood, unclear, etc.

Several posts back, HJ, said:
"So Karen, if you brother is a saint, the most moral and intelligent and loving and poor-helping person who ever lived
and NOT a mormon
he has no chance of getting to the highest level of heaven."

I disagree with that statement and do not believe that it adequately portrays the LDS doctrine. I would say that Karen's brother, as well as all of us, will have opportunity for continued progression. Only Christ, our real judge, can know the true intents of our heart. All will have an equal chance to hear and accept the gospel in its fullness, whether in this life or the next. It all comes down to our desires and what we do with the light that we are given.

RTC
let me give you an analogy.

I have a friend who used to be a Catholic Priest and was once Chaplain at Harvard.

He and I talk about Catholic doctrine and practice from time to time.

Though he is a believing Catholic, he has lots of shadings on traditional C beliefs, and has NO compunction about criticising the "Brethren" - you remember the recent Sexual abuse horrors.

I tell him what I like and don't like about Catholic belief and practice, and we have lovely descussions.

If he were a PR guy for the church, he might pretend to be interested in having an open dialog, but his first duty would be to defend the Church.

And our discussions would be worthless as far as I am concerned.

So let it be with Otterson. He generates discussion because he shows us what the LDS hierarchy want us to think, but he is not engaging in dialog, or wrestling with difficult questions in an manner entirely devoted to truth-seeking.

Mayan,

You know, I can picture you on your throne... and I quite like the visual. I am assuming that you learned something new?

Your comment regarding the fact that we as members are left to field Otterson's statements once made... You stated that you feel our responses are a disgrace, including your own, compared to other threads.

I also take from your post that because in your opinion Otterson is just a lowly PR guy, that you lack respect for him and so this grants you the right to take pot shots at him? Which you do.

Do you really think that it would be very long, before you would do the same to someone like Madsen? Come on?

You are kidding yourselves... all of you!

Sorry Neal and BHJ. I too would love to have Madsen here for the same reasons as the rest, but trust me on this one. No matter what they are saying, it would not be long (two minutes) and he would use one wrong word, and it would be curtains!

No one is exempt.

But Mayan, I will give it to you on the fielding of comments. Not that I agree with you that the mormon dialogue is a disgrace, because I do not. (yours sometimes:-)

It would be very nice in his comments, if he would teach our doctrine or apply the correct principle to the posted question. In this way, there would be much better direction for all those who post. But for members, it would send a clear signal as to how we could support, as well as not leave us to get led off in places that are not intended. Maybe, maybe not?
rtc

Mayan,

Fair enough

Well Thankful, after that story, my senses are exhausted, if you knowhatimean.

My stories are not nearly as inspiring. After the cucumbers to pickles story last month, I feel very inadequate in the story/metaphor competition. Though, I will say that the dizzysin is a doozy that deserves frequent references. It is right up there with the licked cupcakes, dogdizzy brownies and ABC gum.

Mayan,

Why so pithy -- I thought you'd have a good story for me???

Karen
In teaching a course called "Searching for God in Classical Music" i identified the following elements of spirituality, all of which i _try_ to practice.

Elements of Spirituality
• A sense of the meaning of life (and death)
• A sense of relation to something greater than yourself (nature, the universe, God, gods)
• An inner moral sense of right action towards others and towards nature
• Sympathy for the lives, and suffering, of other living beings, (and for yourself!).
• A reverence for creation, both natural and human, and a nurturing of the creative imagination
• Comprehensive self-knowledge and understanding.
• A developed, cultivated and broad-based
appreciation of beauty (an understanding beyond your own prejudices and experience)
• Rich experiences outside the realm of the senses
(e.g. dreams, imagination)
• A sense of the “One-ness” of all things

Thankful, that comment stinks.

With the way our conversations so often quickly digress, I don't know if it matters who the LDS panelist is?

I love how Givvens or Madsen explicate and expound LDS theology with such beauty and insight and yet the LDS have a tradition of letting the average members like me, all take our turns to give the sunday "sermon" instead of a "true theologian" -- I like that egualitarianism in the church -- you all know how much I like to express myself :)

So maybe what we really need is for Otterson to pass the tourch weekly to someone else?

As my both former and current Mormons can vouch for, this passing of the tourch equally to all members can be both inspiring and at times down right...well...uh...ur...I guess you can all fill in the blank...

This way Madsen will get a turn and so will that guy in my ward who once gave an agalogy on how when he was 3 he got lost and did a dizzy in his pants and eventually was found by a police officer who could smell his stench but put him on her lap anyway and eventually got him home to his parents -- yeah and then compared the load in his drars to sin and that cop to the Savior.

With stuff like that, we'd probably get a lot more traffic on this thread don't ya think???

Henry James: Thank you so much for your response! You are going to put my christian humility to the test :)! It seems to me that you and I could have some very meaningful theological conversations. Maybe we would not convince each other of anything, but we would have a good time debating.

From what I gather reading this thread, leaving the mormon church must be gut wrenching because it dictates so much of your life and because of the likely reaction of family and friends within the church.

I too get discouraged sometimes by the behavior of fellow christians but I have to remember that my faith is in Christ and not in other christians. While the latter might disappoint, He saves.

YOu say: "I could not believe in a God who would favor Mormons over Jews or Catholics or Hindus or Atheists. My deep moral sense told me that a just God would not create such a system".
I agree with much of what you say in this sentence. I believe in Jesus because by his actions and his death on the cross, he reconciled me with God. Without Him, I would be under the law. With Him I am assured of my salvation. I did not come to faith in Christ out of fearr or to conform with family expectations etc but because Christ drew me to Him by his unconditional love for me and by his compassion and patience with me and my shortcomings. He told me to put my burdens on Him. When I share my faith with others (always with respect and only if I am welcome to do so), it is because I would like them to bask in God's love and forgiveness as I do. It is never to add numbers to "the church", it is never with the threat or fear of Hell.

YOu say that you are very engaged in spiritual practice. What do you mean by that? I am curious as to how a non Deist/Theist (?) who eskews any specific faith tradition expresses his/her spiritual needs.

Karen
You continue to enrich us with your honesty and your good will.

When I left the Mormon Church, my main reason was that I could not accept the Mormon Claim that it was the ONLY WAY to the highest eternal progression (what Christians might call Optimum Salvation).

I could not believe in a God who would favor Mormons over Jews or Catholics or Hindus or Atheists. My deep moral sense told me that a just God would not create such a system.

The same sense led me to reject the proposition that ANY religion was the ONLY true way led me to conclude that, though Christ was a great moral teacher, so was Buddha and Confucious and Gandhi.

So while I admire Christians like you who follow the best of Christian teachings, I can't subscribe to the "official religion."

I am very engaged in spiritual practice and thought that is not associated with any particular religion, but is open to the wisdom and love in all traditions.

Again, thanks for your lovely thoughts. And your faith in a commitment to Truth, wherever it leads.

Phaedrus: Amen to what you said in your last post!!! As a christian, I will say with the Apostle Paul "I am not ashamed of the Gospel". When asked about my beliefs, I put it all out there to the best of my ability. I do not convert people, the Holy Spirit does. If I believe in a spirit of truth, I can do no less then present it and let the sunshine on it. People can totally disagree with what I present, ridicule my faith or laugh at my gullibility, but it is my fervent desire to never lead someone to Christ based on deception.

Mayan Elephant, excellent point too. To some degree, I think that too much emphasis in any church can be put on unity and comformity. Dialogue. questionning, doubting, wondering are all part of a healthy and vibrant faith. Nothing good can ever come out from squelching dissent and strit enforcement of rules. That is called legalism and Christ warned us all against falling into that trap. Look at the Psalms: their writers are there doubting God, fighting with God, arguing with God, questionning His motives and His timing. The Psalms are in the Bible because God wants us to know that He would have us wrestle with Him rather then turn away when we are hurt or confused. Maybe if the Mormon church allowed more wrestling, doubting and questionning, there would not be so many ex mormons on this site that have not only left the church but left God altogether.

I think that the salient point regarding Mr. Otterson's representation on the forum is not that he lacks proper grounding in doctrinal issues, but that he also has within his intellectual arsenal, public relations expertise. Again, I find it not conclusive by any means, but 'suggestive' evidence of the church's continuing stage management of its outreach efforts. I think that Karen's most recent post contains the worthy admonition to simply place before the world an unvarnished and complete representation of the church's history, doctrine, and current activities in the social/political domain. Sunlight is an excellent disinfectant, should one be necessary, and does no harm if not.

Wow. Thanks Neal.

As the criminal in this debate, I would add to that Neal. Because he is just a PR guy there is no hesitation to attack and disect his words. I would compare it to the PR person for any corporation, especially a large Fortune 100 size company. In the corporate world, the PR director would be subject to harsh questioning by short sellers. When those questions are unanswered or ignored, the short sellers and buyers tend to fill in the blanks. The same is happening here. Unfortunately, the PR department for the church does not have an issue leaving those questions for the members to field.

On Faith is NOT the right venue for this. It is not. The mormon dialogue here, including my contributions, are very much a disgrace compared to other threads at On Faith.

But, it is the only active venue for these conversations at this time. The believing Mormons have their blogs and websites where they ban critical posters. The exmormons have the same thing where they ban believing members. The dialogue between the groups is rare, believe it or not, and rarely productive when it happens.

I will cycle out of here eventually and someone else will cycle in. Then the topics and conversations will repeat again, and over again, and then again, with little progress between the people posting, but, each will feel something for having stated their case.

People come here to practice their arguments. As another poster told me recently, it feels good to finally say all the crap that was held inside during the years of activity. That comment highlights why it is shameful to have a PR person on here. Because, the topics can, and should be meaningful to current and former mormons and it would benefit many to have the leadership reading and contributing.

Contrast these debates to the Semi annual General Conference. 10 hours of conference, twice a year. There is no conversation. No dialogue. It absolutely kills me with laughter to hear requests for meaningful dialogue on here. Imagine, someone comes on here and wants meaningful dialogue with an angry ranting former mormon, or a witty literary critic, or a sociologist, and yet, they have never ever ever had such dialogue with the leaders of their church. Do the church leaders give any biowaste? Yeah, they care about the members and the community. They care just enough to send the PR director over here. Hysterical.

HJ:

I vote for Madsen!

RTC

I must disagree with you here. HJ is right. I think Otterson's writings and musings can't hold a candle to someone like Madsen. And I think the PR job title disqualifies Otterson right off the bat from being taken seriously in any theological discussion. Its like being a politician. Whatever you say, even if you're sincere, is going to be taken with skepticism.

Neal

"And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne"

Sitting on the throne will never be the same.

RTC

As a literary critic, I can see pretty clearly when Otterson is using PR techniques to make the church look good, as he is hired to do.

Madsen's first commitment is to the truth. He believes in the truths of the Mormon Church in general, but on points of debate, like what the theological issues are in looking at homosexuality, there is hope that he would have a more broad ranging, comprehensively considered view on that and other subjects.

We see a difference with other posters on this site who are Professors, as Madsen is, rather than PR guys, as we get from other faiths as well from time to time.

I have had many interesting and respectful debates with my Catholic friends about theology, as long as we were both seeking truth rather than trying to sell a product. Otterson is selling a product. I would hope Madsen wouldn't be.

Mayan,

Silly Brother. You really should go back to the quorum. He is STILL an Elder and that was all the priesthood authority that was necessary to qualify for my discussion in the post you refer to.

And do you know why? Go ahead Mayan ask me? Okay, I will tell you.

As I did not know his bio, I did know that of course he is an Elder. And that is all that I needed to know to make my point.

I was full aware that he may also hold the office of a High Priest, nonetheless my friend, he is STILL an Elder and will ALWAY be an Elder.

The office of an ELDER is the ONLY office that WILL continue throughout ETERNITY.

Excerpts from:

Only An Elder
Bruce R. McConkie
1973

...Only an elder! Only the office which enables a man to enter the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and to have his wife and children bound to him with an everlasting tie; only the office which prepares a man to be a natural patriarch to his posterity and to hold dominion in the house of Israel forever; only the office required for the receipt of the fulness of the blessings in the house of the Lord; only the office which opens the door to eternal exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world, where man becomes as God is.

What is an elder? An elder is a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ. He holds the holy Melchizedek Priesthood. He is commissioned to stand in the place and stead of his Master—who is the Chief Elder—in ministering to his fellowmen.

He is the Lord’s agent. His appointment is to preach the gospel and perfect the Saints.

Let us now, however, return to our theme, which is: “Brethren, what think ye of the office of an elder?” Only an elder!

Only the office held by apostles and prophets in this life; only the office that they will have when they come forth in immortal glory and enter into their exaltation; only the open door to peace in this life and a crown of glory in the life to come.

Only an elder! Only an elder in time and in eternity! What are we to understand by the four and twenty elders, spoken of by John? The revealed answer:

“We are to understand that these elders whom John saw, were elders who had been faithful in the work of the ministry and were dead” (D&C 77:5).

Now, let us hear the words which John wrote relative to those who were faithful elders while in this life and who are exalted elders in the realms ahead:

“Behold, a door was opened in heaven: … “And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

“And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold” (Rev. 4:1–2, 4).

rtc - hope this clarifies:-)

HJ,

Funny, but I did not see your post until after I posted last. Sorry HJ, but I still believe this. Madsen is a warm and wonderful man, but when it comes right down to it, he is still a Mormon.

He may be able to say things in the most eloquent ways, and of course this would be appealing to one such as yourself.

I myself would probably rather listen to his voice and read his works than almost any other in the church. But that does not take away from the fact that this man is a true-blue member of the LDS faith, doctrinally and all.

Talk about PR, yes, he would be the epitomy of a PR guy for the church. No doubt about it. Who said that? lol

So how is wrapping things up nicely and making it pretty going to change things for you?
rtc

RTC:

Silly Sister. Otterson is not an Elder, he is a High Priest, which, in the Mormon Church is a position even Elephant's have been ordained to, imagine effing that. Can ya?

Nobody needs to be reminded that Hinckley was/is a PR hack, though, 'I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it, any more.'

Again, slam Phaedrus all you want for your perception of his intentions, but there is nothing nothing nothing he has said that serves his recently declared purpose more than the god honest truth, when told from the faithful, does for his purpose. He is wise to step aside and not derail this train.

RTC, you are absolutely right about Otterson being as qualified as anyone to be an Apostle. It is true. And people should know that he is as qualified as anyone that has ever had the position, with perhaps one exception, N. Eldon Tanner. Now that dude does not get nearly enough respect for what he did to save this institution. And oh great irony that Hinckley was added as a third counselor in the First Presidency only when Tanner's and Romney's health failed. Now look. He is the King, the emporer, the prophet. And it all began with with public relations.

Hinckley also wrote Truth Restored. Remember that? It is a correlated pack of crap. It is the new Mormon Doctrine, just waiting for Hinckley to die so it can be discarded for the correlated simplicity that it is.

RTC, do you really want dialogue? There is an entire Bloggernacle out there waiting for your contributions. Do you know why they don't post here? It is a mystery. I suspect the lack of censorship power is a big part of it, though I dont really know. They dont do well when they cant block people like HJ and Phaedrus from their conversation. Go ask them to come over here and join you. Let us know what they say.

Ciao.

Neal,

Don't kid yourself on this one. Even "if" Truman Madsen were making statements for the church, these guys would not be any happier.

They would just have a different angle for their arguement and be critical that we put an "apologist" instead of someone else.

Trust me, it is never ending twister here. Otterson was doomed with this group from the beginning and so would Madsen, Givens, or anybody.

The jugular or nothing, for all!
rtc

PR

RTC: Phaedrus and I (and JD as I remember) would think the Church much better represented by someone like Truman Madsen, who tru-man-ly is a theologian and could be more "dialogic" rather than
more PRish, as Otterson clearly is.

Church can do whatever they want of course, but PR is PR, and having dialog with a PR man is kind of like kissing a Paid Escort. Not that i've ever had the experience.

P:

"Personally, I think it is telling that, rather than having an actual Mormon "theologian," represented here, the church sends its PR person instead."

Otterson has a lot of Church experience, including being a Stake Pres. twice, so I would imagine he's pretty well versed in LDS theology and history. But I would really like to see someone who is a true LDS "theologian" here. I'm happy to answer questions and make comments as best I can, but I certainly don't rank myself as an expert.

Neal

hmmmmm, so the pipeline to prophethood runs thru the pr dept.

makes sense.

Mayan A.K.A. anony,

WH@@A! = A LITTLE TONGUE AND CHEEKY FUN SWEETIE PIE HONEYBUNCH:-) I JUST LOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE IT WHEN I GET U:-)

LIKE Mortisha when she Speaks FRENCH! LOL
rtc LOLOLOLOL

Neal - these guys also loooooooooooove to do that to anyone who tries to take a break, bc they are really trying to say they are :-( U are L --EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE--VING & THEY don't NO ? 2 tel-U.

So instead, they see if you want to go fishing? Guess who's the BAIT?

They do it to my son-in-law all the thyme.... he is a sukka. lol

I just lololol. Have a nice break:-)
rtc

In regards to Michael Otterson being a PR guy and his representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints and him NOT being considered in the same class as others who post for their faiths at ON FAITH.

I can assure you that Bro. Otterson is as qualified to speak for the LDS Church, as is any of the others on any other thread.

Brother Otterson could be called on tomorrow to serve in any position, such as a Bishop, Stake President, Area Authority, Seventy, or EVEN an Apostle! He has these qualifications to do what he is doing.

Brother Otterson is an Elder in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. This is an office of the Priesthood and has the same power and the necessary authority to qualify him for each of the above positions, IF the Lord saw fit to call him at any given time.

Those currently serving in those positions are very busy ministering to their wards, stakes, etc... as well as their full-time jobs. Their services is given as a sacrifice.

Bro. Otterson is doing this full-time for the church as his job, having the same qualifications, but NOT ministering in the same way.

Such as directing the affairs of a congregation, giving blessing, administering saving ordinances, interviewing those who desire temple recomends, or baptism, where worthiness is determined, etc...

The calling of those who preside and hold these keys is a sacred calling and would not be placed upon one who would do the work of one as Bro. Otterson is doing. No keys are necessary to do the work of PR. Those who preside hold keys, and are much too busy ministering and administering with those necessary keys, to the Saints.

You can be sure that great confidence is given to Brother Otterson in what he is doing on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

Need I remind again, that Gordon B. Hinckley for many, many years also was the PR for The Church.

I hope this helps some...
rtc

Wh@@a = Waaaaa! Crying or whining, I assume.

Whoa = Whoa, Nelly! How do we stop this horse??

Woe = deep sorrow

ALL:

OK people, I was ONLY addressing RTC here!! Geesh, can't you give a man some privacy!?!? :D

"It's difficult, when one places so much of one's identity in an organization such as the Mormon church, to not feel it's personal when others criticize that religion."

This isn't about my personal feelings. I'm pretty thick skinned.

"Neal's farewell would remind you of Nixon's upon losing the California Governor's race"

Farewell?? Hmmmm. Not sure why you thought this was a farewell. I just can't keep spending as much time here as I have the past couple of weeks. I'm spending WAY too much on blogging and not enough on other, more important things. I have several web sites I run, plus my regular job, plus a retail store on the side, plus Church, plus...well, you get the drift.

"Writers such as Phaedrus have been balanced in their praise and criticism of the Mormon Church."

I will give P a lot of credit. and HJ on occasion. Not others.

"I sympathize with Neal: it is hard to see your church criticised."

Thanks HJ. Although that seems a little hollow coming from the critic.

Neal

Phaedrus,

Not too long ago you did a fairly good job at convincing me that your intentions on this thread were of a scholarly nature. Therefore, not of the apostate, critical or defensive, but that of an objective student.

You now have obviously come to "the" conclusion of your school days and join yourself among the biased disaffected-apostate-anti-posters, and proudly proclaim so. Yes? No need to respond, as it is obvious.

It appears by your discourses these days that your education on the fast-track has given you a Phd. as to what you THINK you know? I find you place yourself quite high on your bench after so short a course.

If one did not choose to believe that your prior disclosure of intent was an honest one, they "might" consider that you are not disclosing still now your true intent, and that you are and have always been the "same" as everyone else here.

You do not appear as anything different any longer, as you are as common glass.

You know the type? When you open the dishwasher and take it out, you cock your head as you hold it up to the light and still... you just can NOT see through it, and yet, it IS glass?
rtc

Neal,

I hear you loud and clear and agree with your thoughts completely.

Distance is very important so that one may remain clear when engaging here, versus becoming reactive to the continuous incursions that seems to present themselves.

Regardless of the attempts of which you mention to actually engage in meaningful dialogue, I too have met with minimal success, at best.

It is interesting to note also, that even upon the blatant asking many to engage upon specifics, or in asking them to point out that of which they accuse... they ignore the request. Hence, one is not able to defend the specific allegation.

Weenies I say! lol Again, bad form. But once again, I am reminded that the only point for most is to be right, not to be friends.

Sometimes I must remind myself of this cruel reality out here in the blogosphere. For I am always hopeful that someday, someone here, will decide to be my friend. Silly huh?

Well, I do hope to see you around the block soon, cuz I sure don't like to play all by myself. Especially when there are so many bullies:-)

Oh, Wh@@a is me!
rtc

If you were as old as I am
Neal's farewell would remind you of Nixon's upon losing the California Governor's race

"Gentlemen, I feel sorry for you. You won't have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore."

Writers such as Phaedrus have been balanced in their praise and criticism of the Mormon Church.

I sympathize with Neal: it is hard to see your church criticised.

That is, however, the price of an Open Forum.

Phaedrus: "I will continue to provide a voice that is likely to complicate, in some very small way admittedly, the ongoing missionary effort of the LDS church."

Neal: "Clearly the goal of this "nest" is to discredit our Church 'BY ANY AND EVERY MEANS POSSIBLE.' Period." (emphasis added)

Definition of 'distort': "to twist out of the true meaning or proportion" (Websters New Collegiate, 1974)

It's difficult, when one places so much of one's identity in an organization such as the Mormon church, to not feel it's personal when others criticize that religion.

The Mormon church does just fine discrediting itself, without needing the "nest" of people who see this and comment on it openly.

RTC,

(I will now speak only to you) :)

Thanks for your thoughts and advice. I said I find it HARD to identify anything worthwhile. Not IMPOSSIBLE! :)

I found P's comments, which were in part a response to mine, very interesting. Clearly the goal of this "nest" is to discredit our Church by any and every means possible. Period. I experimented a little trying to get some meaingful dialog going on a few issues, but they are either very carefully ignored or steered instantly to the argument box. Real and meaningful dialog is not on the agenda here.

That in and of itself is not a surprise. I also see the need for people to be present representing both sides of the issues. I'm OK with that - I don't mind speaking up.
I'm not saying I won't post here any more, but I need to give myself a little more distance. Its also taking up large amounts of my time, which I really can't afford at the moment.

Thanks again for your concern and support.

Neal

Karen:

Here is the direct statement of the CI according to Kant:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

In practical terms, this is akin to asking yourself; "If every person committed the act that I am contemplating, would it have a beneficial effect on the world?"

Phaedrus: thank you for your affirmative response. Could you please elaborate more on Kant's categorical imperative?

Karen:

You write:
"Present the whole faith clearly to the world and let us all decide whether it makes sense to us."

I so agree with this statement that you could substitute almost 'anything' for the word "faith," and I'd still support your contention. In my view, this satisfies Kant's categorical imperative, one of the stiffest of ethical tests.

Phaedrus: I found your comments very interesting. I too have wondered about the presence of a PR person on this thread vs a biblical scholar or an ordained minister, or a priest etc on all the other threads. It seems pretty clear from reading the other threads that the panelists either speak for themselves and not as representatives of their respective faith (or lack thereof for the atheist panelists), or they speak as experts in their religion's theology. This is the only thread where we have a professional PR person.

I agree that it goes hand in hand with the LDS church presenting itself in a different light to the rest of the world by giving us a more "sanitized" or "mainstream version" of its beliefs. I have encountered the same thing with Mormon missionaries. They tell me that they are christians like me and have the same general beliefs as me. I say fine, then please do not waste your time witnessing to me. Well, there are some finer points that I shoudl really consider... But the more I read this thread, the more I realize that the differences in belief and theology are major, definitely not minor points. If mormons are confidentin their beliefs, there should be no need for sanitizing them. Present the whole faith clearly to the world and let us all decide whether it makes sense to us.

Henry James: thank you very much for your kind response. And thank you for clarifying further mormon belief re: heaven.

Mayan Elephant: thank you for your comeback re: Neal's response to me. That is actually one of my frustrations with all of these threads. If we point out something that we find objectionable about Mormonism (or another religion), the immediate response is: well this other religion also does it and worse. So does that make the first objectionale item less objectionable? I wish that we could all discuss the issues on their merit, not in comparison to what the others do. As I said before, two wrongs don't make a right. That is why I hardly ever post anymore. Few of these threads seem intersted in actual intelligent debate vs attacks and propaganda. I ended up posting again last night after a long absence because the whole "jews have damned themselves and jews are Christ Killers" comments really got me riled up. As a Christian, I believe that the jews are theologically wrong to reject Jesus as the Messiah. But they have every right to do that without being slandered and attacked. If there is anything we have learned from much of our sorry history as humans, it is how quickly hateful words can evolve into hateful actions.

Mayan and SML:

Trying to keep up with you brainiacs is having an adverse effect on my career, but I also struggle to remain relevant. :)

HJ:

Had you written the post, it would have been 1. more concise, and 2. a helluva lot wittier.

Back to work, best to all,

P.

Phaedrus,

Genious. You are a damn fine writer. We know you are very generous and skilled in your career.

Your last comment was very well written. Though, it may have scared off some of the other people that are also countering the missionary effort - the real Mormons.

Damn You Phaedrus

i was going to write exactly what you did in your last missive! Now I should just say Amen. Silencing a literary critic, eh? You will burn in literary hell for this.

Love,
Henry

(ps: know the George Carlin routine: "God is going to damn you to eternal hellfire if you disobey his rules. But he LOVES you!)

Neal,

You low-expectation havin' MoFo. (pop culture reference there, look it up)

You are absolutely right, there is a lot of stuff that Mormons do not do - because they aint supposed to do it. Ya aint supposed to tell people they are going to hell, you dont also get a cookie for not telling someone they are going to hell. Karen asks about Mormon beliefs and gets the - well, the Catholics did it too-oooo, waaaa waaaa. Neal, Elder Merle J. Haggard, from the Finest Quorum of the Fifth has made a short list of things things that we do not do, I see you have appreciated his counsel.

We don't smoke marijuana in Salt Lake City;
We don't take our trips on LSD
We don't burn our draft cards down on Main Street (Plaza);
We like livin' right, and bein' free

We don't believe you have the priesthood;
we think some of your teachings are incorrect;
we're not going to tell you you're going to burn in hell.

We don't hold seminars targeted at misinformation;
We don't persecute children for their beliefs;
We don't tell you you're not a Christian;

We don't make a party out of lovin';
We like holdin' hands and pitchin' woo;
We don't let our hair grow long and shaggy,
Like the [homos] out in San Francisco do.

G'night Y'all. Sorry, that was our last song. You have been a great audience.

One body are those who believe in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Romans 12
3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

4For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

5So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1 Corinthians 12:
11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Many of us have wondered why the LDS church would take the step of having its PR Director represented on this panel. Personally, I think it is telling that, rather than having an actual Mormon "theologian," represented here, the church sends its PR person instead. Not surprising, but telling in my view. The church has been trying to present itself as less "weird and cultlike" for decades, and, as I and others have said elsewhere, LDS beliefs are no less qualitatively strange than any other theistic belief set. Mormons have been persecuted for more than a century and a half for believing things no less strange than what most churchgoers hear every Sunday, when one concerns onseself with taking a close look at generally accepted religious beliefs.

It is conceivable, some would say evident, that the church looked upon this as another opportunity to continue its missionary effort in a new format. One certainly cannot blame them for that, and there are a fair number of posters who have made such appeals to readers. The church may not have anticipated that there would be as many critics as there have been, nor that they would have been as persistent and informed, as they evidently are, of the finer points of LDS doctrine and practice. This is an emotional issue for many, and we see that on both sides, equally I think.

When religious thought content is removed from its usual context; the many familiar rituals, the soothing and inspirational music, the ambiance of the sanctuary, the welcoming handshakes of the smiling faithful, etc. and enters a largely sterile intellectual environment, it can be expected to suffer somewhat. Some will find that telling, others overly reductionistic, many objectionable. I happen to find it clarifying.

As far as the plain unadulterated facts go, these threads have provided a pretty fair examination of some of the benefits and problems contained within Mormonism. Its founder was a complicated man, with an "interesting" developmental phase during an "intetresting" period of American history, an obvious gift for both inspiring and enraging people, an imaginative capacity that seems beyond question, a sensual appetite equally beyond question, tremendous confidence that led, on occassion, to destructive overreaching (See origin of Book of Abraham for instance), and also great personal courage and resilience. His followers were possessed of the same mettle.

As for the leaders since then, well, they have been complicated as well, permitting of spirited debate as to their actual beliefs, personal proclivities, and claim to divine guidance. There is nothing innaprorpiate in subjecting these men to the full light of historical examination. Of the modern leadership we can safely say that they are more than a bit secretive, highly intelligent and successful, strategic in approach, poltically active and influential, and intolerant of efforts to widen the parameters of acceptable behavior within which members in good standing must comport themselves. This results in official doctrines and practices that many people find, or have found, sexist, racist, heterosexist, and anti-intellectual. The criticism one finds on these threads is not new, it is just more widely accessible to others now.

I think that the church is experiencing the expansion of the information-age in much the same manner in which other religious groups are. Making a wealth of knowledge of the inner workings of previously insular cultures available to all, is inherently threatening to heirarchical organizations who have closely controlled information of that sort in the past. No group will be able to do that again, and I argue that this is a good thing for those who are investigating such groups with an eye towards possible alliance with them. It might even be good for LDS themselves, as their doctrine evolves to maintain relevance with changing times.

To those Mormons who decry the efforts of those who openly question, bring to fore uncomfortable facts, openly speculate on motives of your leaders, or even point an accusatory finger, I would simply say; those are the times in which we live, and we will all have to get used to defending our points of view with intellectual rigor should we decide to participate in these kinds of forums.

I remain persuaded that anyone who is investigating Mormonism would be well-served by going back and reading every one of these threads in their entirety. They will learn more than any discussion with a set of missionaries or a couple of us FOMOS.

And, speaking for myself alone, I will continue to provide a voice that is likely to complicate, in some very small way admittedly, the ongoing missionary effort of the LDS church. I feel that I owe this to those who are ill-served by its activities. I will try to do that respectfully, though I am prone to sarcasm at times, but my own principles demand that I do so.

Karen, Neal, Mormons, and Hell

Once again, Neal is telling you only part of the truth.

Mormons do NOT believe non-mormons will go to hell.

BUT
they do believe
ONLY Mormons can go to the highest level of heaven.
Or those who accept the Mormon faith in the afterlife.

So Karen, if you brother is a saint, the most moral and intelligent and loving and poor-helping person who ever lived
and NOT a mormon
he has no chance of getting to the highest level of heaven.

Karen

You are the kind of Christian I love. Thank you for your wisdom and spirit.

i don't believe in God in the traditional theistic sense, but the kind of God you believe in makes sense to me.

Bless you.

Henry

Karen:

You are correct, we do believe other religions are apostate. The Catholics, by the way, think all protestant religions are apostate as well, but for different reasons. We don't believe you have the priesthood, and we think some of your teachings are incorrect. That doesn't mean we think they're all incorrect, or that there are no good works in your churches. My family are converts to the Church from two different protestant faiths (my Dad believed in one church, my Mom in another), so I know quite a bit about what is taught and what is done by those churches and our church. Much good is done on both sides of the fence , so to speak.

I guess my point was, we're not going to tell you you're going to burn in hell. We don't hold seminars targeted at misinformation about other religions. We don't persecute children for their beliefs. We don't tell you you're not a Christian.

Thanks for your thoughts. I can tell you're a person of conscience, and I respect your beliefs, even if I don't agree with them.

Neal

Neal, thank you for your response.
Mormons accuse christians of being apostate, fundamentalist christians say to mormons that they will burn in hell... Rather then answering my point about the very real fact that mormonism believes it is the one true restored church and all of the rest of us are wrong, you give me an example of intolerance in the south. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I do believe that mormon theology is wrong based on studying that theology, on reading parts of the book of mormon and on discussions with mormon missionaries. Having said that, people are free to believe whatever they want. And I would certainly not ever take it upon myself to claim to know that so and so is going to Hell. God knows all things, He is fair and just and I trust in His judgement as to where others are headed in eternity.

The Mormon approach to helping the poor addresses all aspects of poverty, both internal and external. You could say it seeks to take the people out of the slum and the slum out of the people. This has been a constant theme since the beginning of the church. As far as I can tell, this is the only approach that actually works. By teaching people the gospel of Jesus Christ, by organizing them in service to one another, by teaching principles of healthy families, healthy living & resourcefulness, by encouraging education and literacy, by providing actual financial help and supplies when needed and appropriate, by providing disaster assistance in the form of supplies and donated labor, by organizing employment training and coaching, by teaching the principle of tithing, by organizing countless service projects for individuals and the community, by training the youth in these principles in their formative years, by operating an outstanding welfare system of farms, ranches, canneries, and distribution centers operated by volunteer labor, by humanitarian outreach all over the world. etc. There is much more to say than time allows.

JIHADIST,

I too find your logic most interesting as well. I delight in your humor mixed with what you are attempting to speak in your post.

It is a most creative way to get around the block and have a bit of fun as you go.

You tend to travel much smoother than I, with very little trouble along the way.

I will hope that I have conveyed to you that which is positive from the LDS perspective, as that is most certainly my experience :-)
rtc

RTC

Frankly, I find your discourse in this thread on LDS most interesting. I like to read what adherents of any given faith speaks on their own faiths and beliefs.

Best regards:)

Karen:

"It is reprehensible after pogroms, the inquisition and the centuries of persecution of the Jews to continue to accuse them of being Christ killers. For those of us who believe, we should recognize that we are all Christ killers because he died to reconcile us with God. Enough finger pointing, enough anti-semitism."

Good points. Christ knew he would be killed - it was part of the plan. It had been prophesied.

"The harshest things that Jesus ever said were about the self righteous, the overly pious in public, the ones who obeyed the letter of the law but forgot about its spirit. He ate with tax collectors, showed compassion for sinners, the poor and the meek. Based on much of the postings on this thread, it seems to be that the mormons would be taking strict disciplinary action against the people that Jesus himself embraced."

Don't make the mistake of believing the distortions others on this blog make about our Church. If you want to learn about it, check it out for yourself.

"I for one, fail to see mormon love when they tell all of us non mormon christians that we are all apostate. Many mormons on this thread get upset about being told that they are not christians... Well considering what Joseph Smith and his followers since have had to say about christians, I would say if anybody should be offended, it would be us."

You should visit the South where I live and go to one of the frequent seminars where evangelical preachers rant and scream nothing but intolerance of Mormons and tear down my Church and its beliefs for days on end. We're all going to burn in hell, by the way. We're satanic devil worshipers with horns sprouting out of our heads (no wonder I have such bad luck with hats!) Or perhaps you should talk to the Mormon kid (this happened somewhere in Tennessee)who won the Athlete of the Year award from the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. When they found out he was LDS, they took back the award.

"The only opinion that matters here is God's."

On that we totally agree.

Neal

JIHADIST,

This is the land of the free, at least for now. And so you should definitely take advantage and enjoy your opportunity to flatten some faces for sure.

As for my face, I myself have a lovely face, which looks quite good as it shines towards the sun.

So I will not convert. Hope you don't mind, but do wish you and my gray friend much luck in the dark.

Although it shall be quite the job to squash him, if you know what I mean?

But don't be discouraged, because afterall, LOVE conquers all...
rtc

SML-

They both will come back. I am sure of it. But needless to say, they too needed a bit of a break, as I, and took for about a month. Although not consciously, as they, but nonetheless good for me.

In discussing the blog with them yesterday they did say that they both were already enjoying the much needed relief from the constant exchange, yet never the ability to find understanding with the same individuals, nor the same issues. Hopefully I do not get shot by either of them in expressing frustrations.

Mind you, all hearts are good. I will tell him, but I imagine that he will peak in and see your post. Although I think the two of them may have a pact not to blog for a while? Not sure.

I did tell them about our "moment" of oneness and we all had a good laugh. Of course they were very surprised as you might imagine?

Neal, is a good man as well, and I hope he comes back too.

rtc:-)

RTC

Thanks. We are starting the High Church of Flat Earth. Needs to have a Council of Flat Earthers first to come up with agreed dogmas, and then to go forth and propogate our beliefs as the TRUTH.

All new converts will be flattened with earth face down to be in this new faith.

Have not appointed a leader or hierachical arrangemnts as yet, or memberhip fees and such for that matter. Still working on the theological basis for Flat Earth.

Regards

RTC ~

Please bring your son-in-law back. He's a good man too.

Who killed Jesus? I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus died because of our sins and for all of us. Jesus on the cross, asked the Father to forgive his slayers "for they know not what they do". Jesus also said that nobody could lay a hand on Him if He did not allow it. He said He laid down his life for us by choice. It is reprehensible after pogroms, the inquisition and the centuries of persecution of the Jews to continue to accuse them of being Christ killers. For those of us who believe, we should recognize that we are all Christ killers because he died to reconcile us with God. Enough finger pointing, enough anti-semitism.

The harshest things that Jesus ever said were about the self righteous, the overly pious in public, the ones who obeyed the letter of the law but forgot about its spirit. He ate with tax collectors, showed compassion for sinners, the poor and the meek. Based on much of the postings on this thread, it seems to be that the mormons would be taking strict disciplinary action against the people that Jesus himself embraced.

When asked about the most important law of all Jesus said: love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Maybe RTC and others show their love only to fellow mormons and derision to the rest of us. I am afraid that she may be a good apologist for her religion's teaching but not a good missionary. Anybody reading her postings would run for the hills if encountering a mormon missionary. So much judgement, so little love.

I for one, fail to see mormon love when they tell all of us non mormon christians that we are all apostate. Many mormons on this thread get upset about being told that they are not christians... Well considering what Joseph Smith and his followers since have had to say about christians, I would say if anybody should be offended, it would be us. I for one do not care what others call me. The only opinion that matters here is God's.

Neal,

(I will now speak only to you)

"So I have to ask myself what people are really trying to accomplish here, and I find it hard to identify anything worthwhile."

Now that your eyes are completely opened, you will search to know for yourself, the answer to that question?

But honestly Neal, there are only a handful of us who have hung in here at ON FAITH since it's inception. My son-in-law started here in the very beginning, brought in his wife, and then begged me to come on board right after Christmas, as he felt that female voices were critical in needing to be heard.

We have discussed many times the "whys" as to the decision of the church to proceed in agreeing to have Otterson participate in this arrangement. Surely this decision was not made lightly.

I think that this is what keeps us going. We also see the ins and outs of so many members as they are literally blasted by this group that nests here. So you are most appreciated more than you realize.

You of course know that participation of the church here was highlighted between conferences on the Church Report? Is that how you became aware of things over here? They are currently linking from the church newsroom at lds.org.

And of course, The Mormons documentary brought much traffic the last few weeks. Now things have settled down to those who have been here from early beginnings. And obviously, the many who did come and hang for a while have chosen not to stay involved.

Remember Neal, that there are many who read these threads that will NEVER have the courage to post. Newsweek and Washington Post have enormous online traffic. The LDS Church is in the public right now as never before. It is the intent of some here to discredit anything and everything about the church.

They will do it with or without us here. This is a perch. You decide IF a fly by is a good idea or not. You see how they speak of the Lord's prophets? Neal, have you read any of the other threads? That is nothing compared to what has been posted before. This is a childish tantrum compared to what they have said and this is more than unacceptable.

You are a good man with a great testimony. You know the doctrine and are willing to speak it, teach it and expound upon it. You have your own mind and will. You are respected here. You do a good work.

From my selfish perspective, I hope you will continue to add your comments. Whether you engage with particular individuals or not does not really matter. But your thoughts, opinions, testimony are powerful and very much needed, more than you realize.

But whatever you decide, DO NOT let these folks get to you and cause you to feel that your words have been wasted. That is the biggest lie of all!

I absolutely LOVE this scripture!

D&C 62: 3
3 Nevertheless, ye are blessed, for the testimony which ye have borne is recorded in heaven for the angels to look upon; and they rejoice over you, and your sins are forgiven you.

Thank you for what I have seen and felt as very worthwhile and appreciated. And I am only one of many to be SURE:-)
rtc

Mayan (a.k.a. FES)

Looks as though you have found somebody to love? eh?

And please stop throwing tantrums, lest you attract more...

We need to be somewhat civilized here, as most of us are human:-)
rtc

That last "anonymous" was me..

RTC:

"For myself, and I would imagine Neal (correct me if I be off base here) we scratch our heads, knowing full well that we HAVE NOT said that which you INSIST that we have"

This scripture sums it up:

Luke 11:

53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:

54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

As I contrast the negativity and dissent on this blog with the enlightenment, Spirit, love and peace I witnessed this past Sunday in my Ward; it is ever more clear to me why I love this Church, the Gospel, and the Savior. My own real life experiences in the Church - in many callings and situations - fly in the face of the mass unhappiness, misery, opression and corruption I find trumpeted here. The mean portrayals of Church leaders as greedy, ignorant, manipulative fakers who care nothing for others are particularly offensive; when I know personally of their integrity, dedication, faith, love, and untiring service to the Church and beyond. The list of distortions is endless.

So I have to ask myself what people are really trying to accomplish here, and I find it hard to identify anything worthwhile.

Neal

JIHADIST,

It appears as though you have finally found someone who speaks your language. I am so happy for you both. And to think that I had something to do with bringing you two together?

Maybe things here have not been in vain afterall:-)

What could I have been thinking?
rtc

Flat Earth Society

I believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

My Flat Earth tenets is as follows:

- The earth is flat and not round or like a ball

- Never go to the edge, you may fall over into nothingness once you reached the limit of flat earth

- The truth is in finding out whether the flat earth is oblong or a square

i know that yu "Rounders" make terrible FUN of us Flat Earthers all the TIME. Yu like to hang out HERE and throw POLEMIC TEMPER TANTRAMS, at what we KNOW is the TRUTH. yu may believe that the earth is not as flat as the LORD made it, but well goshdarnit, it IS. IF it was not, even a elephant would FALL OFF of it. Yu all just cum on here and rip our arguments to pisces, and yu think that yu have actualy done somehting, and YOU HAVE NOT. mark these words, EVERY knee shall bow on this flat earth, the jews, the antis, and the homosexuals TOO.

Well, it doesn't take much to get under the skin of an elephant, now does it?

When one considers just how thick his skin appears, you would think an elephant could manage rubbing up against that which might seem uncomfortable to most, but this assumption would be most incorrect.

I have heard it said that the memory of an elephant is most unusual. The record recently revealed by Mayan is evidence to support this belief, as surely he keeps a journal and waits in the bush for the perfect time to make his accounting known.

And for what purpose? Did not the mouse remove the thorn well enough early on? Or doth we still fester?

Mayan and others - I cannot speak for Neal, or any others who blog here at On Faith, only myself. But I would imagine their intentions are very similar to that of mine.

Which is to dialogue with those who seek understanding of the lds faith. In doing this here, it is obvious that most are disaffected from the church. Why has this become the situation?

Because you nest here and intimidate most average members of the lds faith. At least that is my opinion. You chew them up and spit them out. lol Honestly, for the most part they do not stand a chance with most of you.

Neal is right when he wonders WHY waste the time with those who do not listen to a word that is ACTUALLY said, when it boils down to the summary of an ELEPHANT? Or a game of TWISTER?

From my ongoing experience, this is a normal occurrence on these threads, unfortunately. One must assume, that those of you who remain, only do so to be validated by one another as you summarize each thread, those things "only" you THINK were said, thus, your interpretation.

For myself, and I would imagine Neal (correct me if I be off base here) we scratch our heads, knowing full well that we HAVE NOT said that which you INSIST that we have.

As much as we enjoy associating with many of you, on occasion it would be nice to think that we have been able to help in some way in your better understanding those things that have maybe given you heartache or caused you to hit bumps in the road.

Therefore, we question the time spent here, as we have many choices as to what we can do with our free time, as do you. The fact that you do spend so much time compels myself to feel that you are strongly connected still, at least in some way. Therefore, my feeling to stay connected.

Maybe we are suckers? Honest suckers nonetheless:-)

But in response to the elephant and his summary... he be way off base by such a polemic tantrum. Bad form my friend. You can do way better than this at your age.
rtc

Phaedrus ~

You wrote, "Gays, trans, feminists, scholars, etc. have to choose all the time, the "best course" to follow in trying to be themselves, while still maintaining their connections to the church."

It's very difficult when these people are repeatedly given the "best course" to follow by lessons and leaders at church, which can be a path so far removed from being true to themselves or which so very effectively causes them to not feel valid as a worthy human being with something good to offer others.

It's very sad, really.

Mayan:

If the people whom you or I feel are ill-served by the discriminatory practices of the church could or would simply avoid it, I for one, would not feel the need to spend any portion of my time pressuring for internal changes of the church power structure. Although I might prefer this was not the case, people with these sorts of issues find other aspects of church doctrine and practice to have personal value, and are then caught up in a painful conflict. Gays, trans, feminists, scholars, etc. have to choose all the time, the "best course" to follow in trying to be themselves, while still maintaining their connections to the church. I thought that the link you provided to the Allred situation was a moving example of this painful conflict.

Wherever there is any quiet dissent, or willingness even to think beyond the "brethren," there is hope for changes that will better enable these uncomfortable LDS fellow-travelers to either free themselves up completely, or work from within to create little pockets of enlightenment. I find relevance in that.

Phaedrus,

about the above post, I just want to add a few things, as I think they are very relevent.

Firstish, a;ipoi and paioupoi qpeka poipurq ,,qpiu paiou ameypaoiem,, qpioeyappoiua mepqyapoiu eclati apaoisdufq[w my ;adfsiopue in thpaoewipa mypieq jpiupaeruipfei

Further, apvdi8uap nqpeoiwopu7avp fdiapeip apoivpap eqpienq epqoia9vupqeka;ldf jp piou ;qe9 piu qpoieurasp-897c -13pa 8098qa7fq a080a 089q31

Lest you disagree, p09ivvvu-09 1poi4314 Neal pa89v-08913 and RTC pa089089 -q1 41p4 and Otterson -90-132poip2349087f-q0n;qenfdsamdspi

Finally, pq89v098 my p9-0897 dying p0810 arse.

Mayan ~

You bust my finely prepared biowaste up. You really do. Ha.

Neal ~

It's true that there are many fine women depressed as hell on Mother's Day within the Mormon church. I was one of them. Not to mention the numerous Sundays when I was taught about the ideal family, gays, temple endowments, celestial kingdom, and perfection...

Phaedrus,

It is my understanding that a transgendered individual is not eligible for baptism and that a member may be subject to a disciplinary council, meaning, excommunicated, if they have have an operation to become transgendered.

I dont have the referrences handy, I am simply drawing from what I recall reading when I had access to those manuals. In fact, I cannot recall whether that was specifically detailed or not in the CHI (Church Handbook of Instructions)

Honestly. I don't think this topic is very relevent. I would hope, given the lack of tolerance, that a transgendered individual would not subject themselves to the rhetoric within the church. It is in the best interest of the individual to not get involved in the church. The only scenario where I think this topic is relevant is in cases where a Mormon may take on the opinions of Mormon leaders which may negatively effect their relationships with their own family or friends. But, again, in the case of the transgendered folks, they are better off keeping a safe distance and the guidelines for local leaders may actually be a benefit to the individual.

Neal,

Perhaps, just maybe, I should have said 'many, some, one' instead of thousands. who knows? Though, I think you exclaimed my point in your fast dismissal of the comment with the subtle suggestion that it is not true or that it does not deserve consideration. The leaders could not give two finely prepared biowastes about the Mothers that are intimidated or depressed. There is a greater willingness and faster response to express dismay at the suggestion rather than acknowledge the existence of Women with concerns or imperfect conditions. Is that what you have done?

Neal:

Thanks for looking, although I suspected the position would be along the lines Farah describes in the Blade article. It would be tantamount to stating "God made a mistake in the pre-existence on these people," to accept transgenderism.

I am not exactly looking for that announcement any time soon.

best to you,

P.

P:

"I asked Neal at one point on the last thread what the LDS Church's position is on transgendered people. I am still looking for that info, although I suspect I will not be surprised by what I find in the end. "

Sorry to keep you waiting, but I haven't found much either. The word "transgendered" doesn't find any hits on LDS.ORG. I'm finding quotes like this:

"Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has taught that our creation as male and female children of God “was done spiritually in your premortal existence when you lived in the presence of your Father in Heaven. Your gender existed before you came to earth.”

I'm coming up quite empty handed on this one...

Neal

Neal ~

Do you disagree that the LDS faithful come onto the Otterson threads here and say the things that Mayan outlined?

And I can guarantee you there are many, many women heartbroken just as Mayan described. Because they are told over and over again how little they or their children resemble the Mormon ideal.

SML

M:

"Well, so far, including all of Otterson's threads, we have seen the LDS faithful come on here and share their judgments of the following: Jews (damned for killing the Messiah), Catholics (abomidable church and creators of the Apostacy), Poor People (lacking light/spirit/morals), Women (they are meant to have babies and not gifted with leadership), Homosexuals (they may be born that way, but it's unlikely, and they should not be gay), former Mormons (always anti this and anti that and they turned their back on truth), the media (soundbites vs. official source)."

I see those fairytale distortions creeping back into the gross generalizations you're making here..

"I doubt that all Mormons harbor the same harsh judgments."

Harsh?? I think you and the other critics here have brought the meaning of that word to a whole different level!

"For example, there were probably thousands of Mormon Women crying in the restrooms on Mother's Day because their children were not at church, their son was not going on a mission, their teenage daughter is pregnant, the woman is not married in the Mormon Temple and on and on and on."

Gimmee a break! Did Fred lend you his crystal ball for this one? I told him to take that dang thing back for a refund!

" I do not expect them to all come onto various internet boards or blogs to express themselves. I am sure they have better things to do."

That's an understatement. Actually, I'm glad you reminded me what a total waste of my time this blog actually is...

Neal

I did find this in Washington Blade, Sept 2006 Edition:

"Kim Farah, a spokesperson for the Mormon Church’s headquarters in Utah, said LDS doctrine teaches that people are created as spiritual beings before they are born. She said gender is part of a person’s “eternal identity,” and necessary to enter heaven. She also said that church members who have gender reassignment surgery are “subject to church discipline.”

HJ:

"If you believe the Gospels were written 40-70 years after the fact by men who were often Anti-Jewish (they were Selling an Anti-Jewish religion)
then you will interpret the verses differently."

Interesting fact - all of the Apostles were Jews themselves. And yes, Jesus was also a Jew. I would not call them anti-jewish. Their teaching was that the Law of Moses had been fulfilled, and the Messiah had come. This represents a completion of hebrew prophecy - not a rejection; and a transition from pre to post-messianic law and tradition. I think its more accurate to say that Christianity became a threat to the establishment - be they Jewish, Roman, or otherwise.

Neal

Newsweek has an article this week on transgendered individuals. I encourage you to take a look, and try to determine at which point in such a person's life, their "free agency" kicks in and triggers their "choice" to be someone whose genitalia does not match up with their sense of "who they really are."

I asked Neal at one point on the last thread what the LDS Church's position is on transgendered people. I am still looking for that info, although I suspect I will not be surprised by what I find in the end.

Of course, my larger question is when will people stop denigrating and discriminating against other people because they are simply different, just because they believe Jesus would want that?

I think that for many people, God and Jesus are just another Rorschach card, upon which to project their distrust and petty hatreds, and call it, literally, "good."

Mayan, HJ, SML:

Enjoying your comments folks. Keep up the "good" work.

Blaming the Jews: The New Testament Version

Anonymous's quote of Matthew 27 shows the New Testament version: according to the NT, it IS the Jew's fault.

If you believe God inspired or wrote the New Testament, you will take that as Gospel.

If you believe the Gospels were written 40-70 years after the fact by men who were often Anti-Jewish (they were Selling an Anti-Jewish religion)
then you will interpret the verses differently.

As you will if you know anything about the Roman rule of Jerusulem, and Pilate's *actual* history, and who made decisions about such matters.

If is altogether fitting that a coward calling itself "anonymous" gives us this quote, isn't it.

A Good Day for Romney

After his 60 Minutes stint, my left wing Jewish girlfriend said: "he's going to be a strong candidate."

He does present quite well on TV. He is NOT a wacko like Guiliani is. Or 100 years old and senile like McCain. He has lots of money, and is disciplined.

His handling of the Mormon questions were good. For him, if not for the Mormons. Polygamy was "awful." He has recently descried the racism of the black priesthood ban. These statements don't make the church look great, but they are good political statements.

Once again, I say, people should vote for him as a candidate with positions and history, not on whether he is a Mormon or not.

Matthew 27:
24When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

25Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children

SML,

Aint broke? hmmmmmmm???? I suppose I agree. It aint broke for them.

Though, it will leave the members (or presidential candidates) to explain the answers to a few questions, including: "What were you doing when your leaders were behaving in X way and what did you do to express your opinion or dissent?"

The Mormons, The Unitarians, and Jesus

The Pachyderm gave a scorecard on Mormon (GA) attitudes towards a number of groups. It led me to do the following comparison with the attitudes of my Unitarian friends up the street. The results

Attitude towards:
Jews: Damned for Killing Jesus (Mormons)
Read Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves (Unitarians)
Homosexuals: Damned if they have sex. Sinners (Mormon)
Humans with sexuality that should be morally expressed according to golden rule (Unitarians)
Women: Important child bearers but able to lead church or wards. Opposed (defeated?) ERA (Mormon)
Equal opportunity to play any role in Church. Fight for equal rights and justice for all (Unit)
The Poor: If the change from the inside out they will be uplifted (Mormons)
First duty of moral person is to help poor (Unit)
Catholics: Apostacy Church, lost authority (Mormons)
A community of people with a spiritual practice(Unit)
Former Members: Angry, retributive, Anti. Lost the one True Path (Mormons)
Wish them best luck. Many paths (Unitarians).

In reading this over, I could title it
"Why I am not a Mormon".
My Unitarian friends are AT LEAST as spiritual and moral as my Mormon friends. And if you include justice and charity in the comparision...

Mayan ~

I'm afraid that the 15 at the top have no desire or intention of hearing from the members about improvements that we think should be made.

It's a corporation.

The CEOs have no need of the little people in their financial operation, beyond what they can contribute tithing-wise.

Furthermore, the CEOs are all older men of the previous generation(s), who grew up in the 50s or earlier, when women simply did not work outside the home, or have a say in anything, but were wholly dependent upon their men for how their lives were to be. Homosexuality wasn't accepted or even spoken of back then, racism against blacks was prevalent, and the world at large was largely anti-semitic as these CEOs grew up.

So our current CEO, Gordon B. Hinckley, was born on June 23, 1910. He was groomed to be in leadership in the church, and became an apostle in 1961, when he was already past age 50. He was groomed by leaders who were even older than he was...meaning they grew up with even older ideas of how it should be.

These men now have a thriving corporation to maintain, and it's no wonder to me that we haven't had real "revelation" in ages. It's simply that these old guys are so intent upon keeping the corporation thriving, that such things as women's equality, gay rights, and poverty are simply secondary. It's worked for them so far, so why fix it if it ain't broke?

Neal - point well taken. I guess my history with Mormons has been much worse growing up in Utah than with them in other parts of the world.

HJ:

""The Jews have damned themselves" is an awful thing to either say OR think or feel."

The only "damn" I would ever connect to my several Jewish friends is to say they are DAMN FINE people!

Neal

Well, so far, including all of Otterson's threads, we have seen the LDS faithful come on here and share their judgments of the following: Jews (damned for killing the Messiah), Catholics (abomidable church and creators of the Apostacy), Poor People (lacking light/spirit/morals), Women (they are meant to have babies and not gifted with leadership), Homosexuals (they may be born that way, but it's unlikely, and they should not be gay), former Mormons (always anti this and anti that and they turned their back on truth), the media (soundbites vs. official source).

There are a few of the LDS posters that stand out as a bit different, D Parker and JD the First come to mind, I am sure there are more. I doubt that all Mormons harbor the same harsh judgments. But, it is ironic to me that there is not more of an outcry among the Mormons on all of those topics. I do not expect them to all come onto various internet boards or blogs to express themselves. I am sure they have better things to do. However, it is alarming to think there are so many millions of members in that church, with a leadership so insulated and plagued with nepotism and chronyism, and that there is no space or forum for the real contributors to express themselves more publicly.

I do not think all mormons are homosexist, misogynist, sexist, racist, anti-semitic, critical of catholics, harshly critical of the poor, etc. But, I do think that all of the big 15 are all of that, and will be until they die. Otterson is part of that group as an employee. While I cringe at much of his work, I respect that it is his job, and he is getting paid to work for those 15 men. He is obliged to do what is best for the leaders first and also the institution. He has no more of an obligation to society or the members than me, Ali G, or Dorothy's Auntie Em. I have to remind myself of that, but I do believe it.

I have been accused of labeling others as blind followers. I may have used that term, but any instance of it is not coming to mind. The reality is, I do not believe that the members are blindly obedient, if they were, they would die of fatigue and panic attacks.

Mormons cannot do all they are told to do. There is not enough time in a day, a week, a year to do it all. And more, success in the church/faith is overly dependent on what other people do. For example, there were probably thousands of Mormon Women crying in the restrooms on Mother's Day because their children were not at church, their son was not going on a mission, their teenage daughter is pregnant, the woman is not married in the Mormon Temple and on and on and on. These women and others know they can not do it all. Everyone in the church knows it.

The issue is - nobody can stand up in the church and call BooSheet on the dudes that are saying the stuff that makes these women cry on Mother's Day. Where can one do that within the Mormon Church? Somebody, please show me the venue where people like Neal can publicly say the position on Gays being tempted is an outrage?

The same is true about the Welfare policy of the church. Sure, Otterson comes on here and says cute and simple stuff about being nice to people. But, where the hell does one go to have any input on the use of resources with regards to charity and welfare? Where? Somebody tell me. I know the answer, so it is rhetorical, but still, give it your best shot. Try and do it and explain how men and women have equal input on the welfare program. Good Luck.

I think the Welfare program, including its institutionalized message that the poor and immoral people need the ghost before they need bread, is a perfect snapshot of the Church heirarchy. Maybe it is a true principle and maybe not, regardless, the big 15 are not taking a significant amount of input from the masses, after all, the masses are not prophets.

The problem with the Mormons is their hypocrisy. They vote overwhelmingly for Republicans, who have never met a government program that helps the poor that they didn't want to dismantle. Instead of voting for the party of the rich and powerful, why don't they vote for the party that at least tries to help those less fortunate and most in need in this country as well as in others? Of course not all government programs work as intended, but thats not a reason to cancel them all and let the poor fend for themselves. Furthermore, instead of spending money all over the world trying to convert people who already have a religion, why don't they help the poor in this country.

The Damned An Addendum

And no matter HOW MUCH contextualizing one does,
i agree with Neal

to use the phrase
"The Jews have dameed themselves"

is an awful thing to either say OR think or feel.

The New Testament and Anti-Semitism
Did the Jews Kill Jesus?

I asked my spiritual advisor, my Rabbi, about Neal's statement, and she said:

"You shouldn't get so angry at that Christian who insisted that the Jews killed Jesus. Your outrage is being directed at the wrong source. Your accuser was simply taking his New Testament literally. The Christian scriptures are quite clear about the subject of who is responsible for Jesus' death.

Moreover, in the fourth Gospel, which is considered by many to be the most anti-Semitic of all, John has Jesus completely
exonerating the Romans for the crucifixion while placing the complete blame for Jesus' death on the head of the Jews."

My conclusion: it is VERY dangerous to say "The Jews" killed Jesus.
WHICH Jews? all of them?
All by themselves? What was the Roman role?
What was John's prejudice?

In other words, Neal and RTC, I think one needs to do a LOT of contextualizing before wading into this thicket.

I would advise you consider taking the official line of the Catholic or the Episcopal Church on this one, if you bring it up at all, which I personally would advise against, though of course you don't need my advice.

Roy:

"Eeeew, he's drunk," the people clucked. "A drunk, passed out, right here on our street in broad daylight," they said disgustedly as they stepped around him. "How terrible, a gentile".

I don't know why your message reminded me of this, Mr. Otterson, but I suspect it has something to do with the so called religious being selective about who is worthy of their help. As for your quote,
"It’s easy to pick passages from the New Testament to prove that.......", I agree - it is too easy to pick passages to prove anything a church wants to prove."

Roy,

The events you describe here happen everywhere (unfortunately) and are not limited to Ogden Utah, Mormons, or any particular religion, social class, political party, etc.

Ignorance, fear, bigotry and intolerance exist everywhere the human race is found. Thankfully, their opposites may also be found.

Neal

I have a story about Ogden, Utah, that comes to mind in regard to judging rather than helping people there who were different from the majority. When I was 17, I was walking in the "bad" part of town (it really wasn't all that "bad" compared to other places but it was "bad" for Ogden because there were bars on South 25th Street). There was a man, in a fairly nice suit lying on the ground, passed out.

"Eeeew, he's drunk," the people clucked. "A drunk, passed out, right here on our street in broad daylight," they said disgustedly as they stepped around him. "How terrible, a gentile".

Having had some Army ROTC first aid training, I reached down to see if he was breathing and to feel for a pulse. Underneath his loosened tie, I saw a shiny chain. I unbuttoned his shirt, pulled it out, noticed his temple garments in the process, and found his diabetic medical alert tag. He was in insulin shock and there was no smell of alcohol on his breath. "Call an ambulance!," I demanded of the stupefied onlookers.

I don't know why your message reminded me of this, Mr. Otterson, but I suspect it has something to do with the so called religious being selective about who is worthy of their help. As for your quote,
"It’s easy to pick passages from the New Testament to prove that.......", I agree - it is too easy to pick passages to prove anything a church wants to prove.

HJ, RTC

"DO NOT use phrases like "the Jews have damned themselves "

Pardon me, I know you are sensitive to this comment, but it is *offensive* to the Jewish people, and to people like me who abhor religious triumphalism, to say that members of a sect are "damned"."

HJ, well said. RTC - we use the word "damned" in a difference sense than most other people, so I would personally drop that word from my religious vocabulary on these blogs.

And just so we get our facts straight, it was the Jewish religious elite - the power mongers of their day - who killed Christ. They were threatened by the large number of people who were starting to believe in him - all of whom, ironically, were Jews!

Neal

More christians and humans need to start changing the United States and its Middle East Policies if they are truly for fairness and justice.

SEEE

http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0902.html

BHJ,

That was a very gracious apology, of which I do appreciate. But I will take responsibility for my comments, although not in any way meaning to be offensive, although from my perspective, merely factual.

In return, my apologies for offending any.

With that said, in my speaking of the Jews being damned, I also believe that they will come to know that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. There is no question in my mind or any member of the LDS faith that the Jews are beloved of the Savior.

I would go out on a limb and say that there is not another Christian denomination that understands the history of The House of Israel better that the LDS people.

We believe in the promises made to Abraham and take very serious what we covenant at baptism. We believe in the literal gathering as prophesied, thus our vast missionary program.

It was of the greatest heartaches that the Messiah was rejected of His own. His hand is still stretched out to receive His chosen people...
rtc

SML:

"Neal says his lessons in church today were on forgiveness. What about our Heavenly Mother or the divine role of women as mothers? Interesting that that isn't taught on Mother's Day of all days..."

Actually, ALL the Sacrament Meeting talks were on mothers, we had mothers give talks, and yes, HM was discussed, and we sang "O My Father" specifically because it mentions HM.

Priesthood/RS lesson was on forgiveness. Gospel Doctrine class too.

Neal

Thanks HJ.

I am so sick of that crappy line about the damnation of the Jews. Thanks for chiming in on that one.

I dont even know where to start on describing how offensive it is. You did a great job.

Suggest you go back and re-read Revelation, Daniel and Ezekial. Heck - re-read the whole bible and take notes this time.

Either you believe the prophecies and are christian, or you are not. Sounds like you're in the not camp.

Neal says his lessons in church today were on forgiveness. What about our Heavenly Mother or the divine role of women as mothers? Interesting that that isn't taught on Mother's Day of all days...

RTC

apologies: the phrase "the jews rejected jesus " IS in common usage, and you use comports with that fact.

I still think it implies the Christianity is the Correct and Dominant and Default religion and that anyone who is NOT Christian has Rejected it.

But your usage is a common one, and I can't blame you for using it.

RTC: as one who lives with a Jewish person and feels very Jewish myself, I say unto you

DO NOT use phrases like

"the Jews have damned themselves "

Pardon me, I know you are sensitive to this comment, but it is *offensive* to the Jewish people, and to people like me who abhor religious triumphalism, to say that members of a sect are "damned".

"The Mormons have damned themselves by breaking away from the Catholic Church" would be equally offensive.

I think the concept of damnation is barbaric, but even if I didn't, I would have the same opinion abouut your usage.

Not QUITE as offensive, but close, is your remark
"The Jews rejected Jesus Christ as well as that which he taught."

I'd advise you not to discuss the Jewish people if this is your level of sensitivity.

C. Richardson, Todd O

C.R. made a really good point. Our lessons in Church today were on forgiveness. Its one of those things we all need to apply more liberally in our lives.

Some references of note:

Matthew 6:

14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

D&C 64:
9. Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

Mark 11:
25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Luke 6:

37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Neal

Todd O's commentary was compelling. Just how many young men have been driven away from the Church by autocratic and offensive types who do not follow the priesthood requirements of meekness and long-suffering. Hopefully there are still fair-minded "Judges" ssee to righting these kinds of wrongs.
There is a distinct difference between a calling and a job. I too have witnessed some, who when given the chance to serve in presidencies, have not seen their callings as opportunities to learn, teach and progress. I know how damaging it can be to see someone who has been given authority, use it thoughtlessly or without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Todd, please don't let the actions of a few shake what seems to be your wonderful spirit of charity. We need you in these oh-so trying times. Never forget who you are or where you came from. As offensive as what you had to experience was, it's about forgiveness and the Atonement. Please think about it.

God is not a bully? What a f*#*#ing laugh.

BJH,

Jesus taught this principle in many ways and has continued in those who held keys then and currently.

Thus the absolute necessity for living oracles. And the reason the Jews have damned themselves in their ability to understand that which is before them.

The Jews rejected Jesus Christ as well as that which he taught. At The Sermon on the Mount, he carefully added upon the lesser law to those who were willing to receive His word. He said, "It has been said", and then he would say, "But I say unto you...".

The Jews knew full well that Messiah would come to fulfill the law. They did not expect the way in which he came and how he taught them to fight their battles. They were looking for a bully! That is NOT the way God works.

He did take detailed time to teach a very moral law to all who chose to follow Him UP to the mount. A way in which each one of us could overcome, just as he would and did through the atonement. Just as he continues to teach today.

And then, even as now, those who have ears to hear will do so.

When he comes again, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus, is the Christ.

Then, ALL will KNOW.

The beauty of the gospel is that Christ invites us all to follow him, individually, and hopefully in the process we become more like Him and achieve some sense of unity and are able to lift others as he lifts us.

RTC
Jesus used fewer words than Phaedrus because he was making a simpler point, or perhaps giving the headline without explaining the rationale.

Most people don't understand that they are doing the two things Phaedrus described. And Jesus's wise admonition doesn't explain it to them.

As far as Jesus being Jehovah- tell that to my Jewish Friends. Or to me.

And if you believe it WAS Jesus, then Jesus was adding nothing to our cultural moral reasoning by giving us the 10 Commandments.

luv
henry

Phaedrus,

Jesus used considerably fewer words than yourself to make the point. The humble teacher that he is. He taught us to not judge unrighteously.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged".

Thus confirming the very reason for the necessity that ALL are required to contribute to the whole, that there be a ONE-NESS.

"IF ye are not ONE, YE are NOT mine".
rtc

Daniel, "DPM"

Sorry, I fat-fingered you initials on that last post.

DMH:

Thanks for your comments.

"I will of course let Neal speak for himself, but I doubt he would dispute that poverty limits ones choices, moral and otherwise."

I think I agree with that, but I'd like to discuss what moral choices you think are being limited. For example, someone brought up the dilema of "do I steal so my kids can eat". My question would be, is that REALLY the only alternative you have? Is there NOWHERE you can go to get the food you need? no charity? no agency? no Church? no friends? no family? I think its easy to oversimplify. If you have absolutely no where to turn for help and your kids are starving, that may be your only choice. I don't think anyone would sit back and let their kids starve if there was something they could do about it. On the other hand, if your kids are starving and you steal because its just easier and quicker than bothering with those agencies, then that's truly another issue. Would spiritual teaching make a difference here? I think so - certainly wouldn't hurt.

Quick example - my sister is involved with an inner-city Kindergarten program providing snacks for the kids' snack times. My sister makes sure she provides a wide variety of healthy snack foods, because for some of these kids its about all they get to eat. So, each day the teacher loads their little backpacks up with food for them to take home with them - especially on the weekends. Why is this so? Its not because their parents can't get enough food, or that there aren't programs that would help feed these children; its because their parents spend all their money on drugs. They're constantly drunk and/or stoned, and the children are left to feed and care for themselves. Some are left alone for an entire weekend with no supervision. Are these kids moral choices being limited? Yes, I would say they are.

And what about the parents? Well, that's not so clear cut, is it? Did they choose to get involved with drugs? Are they doing anything about it? Do they realize the effects of their neglect? Do they even care? We get down to a case by case basis here.

If we gave those parents a bunch of money, would they use it to break the out of their poverty? Probably not. Would it ever benefit their children? Doubtful. And the kids would still go hungry and need my Sister's program to keep them even paritally fed. If the family went to Church and were learning correct principles, being exposed to those who might serve as role models, etc. would it improve their chances of breaking out of poverty later on? And for the parents - dealing with their addictions as well? I think so. That's where I'm coming from on all this. We can talk about theories all day, but what I see happening in the real world tells me that anything positive we can give people in these circumstances improves the odds that they will one day overcome them. Money is only one part of it. Education (both spiritual and secular) and a leg up (like Habiat for Humanity) are others.

Neal

Phaedrus ~

I like your reasonableness. Is that a word?

WHAT!

Nobody corrected me in saying that it was the Beatitudes when it was at The Sermon on the Mount?

Well, all I can say is YOU had your chance, and to think I was certain during breakfast, that someone had surely nailed me? lol

Well... someone would have, "when" they caught it. With pleasure to be sure:-)
rtc

I do not have much to contribute to this dialogue by way of time or content, but I thought I might add the following to the group's deliberations on the attributions made regarding the underlying causes of poverty.

There are two ubiquitous cognitive biases that adversely affect meaningful causal attribution; the "self-serving" and "just-world" biases. Both are examples of extremely sloppy thinking.

It is emprically established that people habitually attribute negative outcomes in the lives of others, to something bad about that individual in and of themselves, whereas they attribute negative outcomes in their own lives to external forces, such as contextual elements like peer pressure etc. This is referred to as the "self-serving bias." It is a mechanism by which one can sustain a feeling of justification when one commits a "bad act," while also bolstering a sense of superiority when others commit the same, or a similar act. Thus, others poverty is due to something bad about them, while my own is because of something bad about the system.

Equally common is the "just world" bias, by whch a person tacitly accepts that the universe is inherently just, and will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior. One of the more obvious downsides to such a belief is the "blaming the victim" mentality one sees so frequently in cases of rape and other assaults. This helps us to shield ourselves from the reality that painful things frequently occur because of events that are completely out of our hands. We can then con ourselves into believing that as long as we are "good," we are safe, and if someone else was NOT safe, it was because they were NOT good.

I see evidence of both of these biases in this thread.

BJH-

I wish we could talk more, but

Erst kommt die Essen, dann kommt die Moral

first comes food, then morals, is absolutely CORRECT!

lesser law = ten commandments (moses desired to give higher, but they were not ready!)

higher law = temple covenants

talk later..

Neal - maybe you can pick this up:-)

BHJ-

Real quick cuz I gotta go, but-

Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament.

Jehovah is Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law.

God is LAW

JEWS are apostate Christians, as they were unwilling to accept Jesus Christ when He came.

Beatitudes of the New Testament taught a higher law that NOW should be acceptable to ALL Christians.

Will talk later:-)
rtc

Dear Henry ~

Nice German wisdom. I love it.

Translating Henry

Henry often thinks he's in Germany.

"Erst kommt..."
First one has to have food on the table,
then one becomes moral.

SML,

Now I am smiling on this merry of a Mother's Day. For you and I actually agree on this logic. lol

And you must take note that Fred is the Village Idiot, in that I was only responding back to the name that he gave himself.

I was not calling him a village idiot, unlike he did call me. But I will admit that I find it fits just find and I do not object:-) So I had no problem using it.

I will do just fine today and I will think of our moment of oneness with fondness.

Speaking of that, the fam has got breakfast about ready, the shower is calling my name, so gotta run. Will check back a bit later.

Have a great day all! Be good to your mothers and do CALL HOME!

RTC and the 10 Commandments

a couple of notes

-the 10 Commandments were JEWISH law, adopted by the Christians

_the 10 commandments say NOTHING NEW ABOUT MORALITY

only 5 of them are about morality at all,
and the moral "precepts" it reveals were already thousands of years old when they were written.

And God Himself IMMMEDIATELY violated them by commanding the israelites to commit genocide against the Canaanites, women and children included.

Finally, as every thinking and moral person knows,
Erst kommt die Essen, dann kommt die Moral.

Mayan ~

How can you believe as you do if you also believe in GOD??? If you believe in God then surely you will have to agree with all RTC says.

If you don't then that explains everything. You screwed up individual, you. :) Said with love, of course.

Mayan-

You obviously were laughing so hard that you did not finish reading my post. How rude!

You missed mentioning the best part..

"That is not to say, that unfortunate things do not happen to all, but it definately lessens their frequency. And there is a great peace when WE do not bring them about because of our actions."

So to my frollicking taxidermic Mayan friend, let me take this humble opportunity to roll around in the dust myself before you and confess that I, have not been, of the fortunate elite, of which you speak of, that has escaped the chastisements of God.

NO, and I have tried to keep the commandments, although not perfect, but nonetheless, apparently and according to your calculations, am not of the elite! Whoa is me!

Thank heaven, that is NOT the doctrine that is taught or most would most likely defect! Whew!

RTC ~

I picture you sitting in church later, partaking of your sacrament in utter righteousness, thinking about Jesus in reverence, while completely ignoring the fact that you just called someone "Village Idiot" and VI over and over and over.

I can't quit smiling.

Fred has it right. Poverty may lead people to do things they don't want to do, but must, in an effort to survive. Shame on you, RTC, for calling people of poverty immoral.

Mayan -

Who screwed you up so bad sweetie? Why so synical about every darn thing? Go CALL YOUR MOTHER!

Is that the only thing you can blast me on after everything I have said in ALL of my post? I suppose I should feel fortunate, eh?

Mayan, I realize that you are not active in the church? Actually, I don't even recall if you have membership any longer or not.

But what I don't recall you EVER saying is that you do NOT believe in God, or the Bible. So, please set me straight on this one.

The Bible does contain the Ten Commandments. As well as it teaches the Law of the Harvest. That is what I was presenting. That is it. What is your problem with that IF you at least accept that as a Christian?

If you do not, then I hear ya. At least from a non-believer's perspective.
rtc

Village Idiot

Are you a reformed gang banger or something? That is the only explanation for your comment. If not, then you certainly are choosing to be critical and take the offense simply because of our faith. I think the second.

Let us look at reality. Where do you live? I live in So. Cal, where if you go to L.A. for the day, you will see gangs and much poverty. In fact, you really don't need to go all the way into L.A. to find this as you well know.

As a matter of fact, we really don't even need to use gangs as our example, do we VI? Because many of our youth today, whether in poverty or NOT, are lacking moral upbringing, and that is a FACT!

Or worse VI, they are turning away from it because of what they see on the T.V. and are exposed to at school, movies, media, etc... it rings louder than what their goodly parents voices have taught them!

Now, add to that the poverty that we have in this country. You do the math VI?

So, IF you choose to ignore and be offended by the explosive combination of lack of morals, poverty and the cyclic concern that needs to be addressed, then so be it.

This has nothing to do with prideful religious thinking. This should be of a major concern to all. Have you not read the papers lately?

There have been pleas to all religious and community organizations to reach out and help to get involved, as something has got to happen. This is getting out of hand.

In the Pacific Islands it is a mess and they believe a connection to the states. Wake up!

When people KNOW better, they DO better. Jesus Christ was a teacher, as are His disciples.
rtc

RTC,

you have completely lost it.

"Also, don't forget to NOTICE the blessings that you DO have in your life that have come BECAUSE you have kept the commandments."

This logic is so ridiculous I can hardly keep from laughing. This is the hammered instructions that is given to missionaries every damn day. I can just see a General Authority lording over a bunch of missionaries and saying, "The baptisms in this mission are too low because you missionaries are not worthy of the blessings of the Spirit and the Lord." unreal. Then, a few missionaries will fall into a deeper cycle of depression as they try to be perfect, without any success. And others will silently laugh and realize that there is almost no correlation between obedience and baptisms. In fact, sometimes the best missionaries are the most heretical.

If obedience to the mormon gospel is the THE factor in all blessings and success, then it must be that there is only a fraction of one percent of the population that is eligible for blessings. And, taking the history of the world into consideration, there is an even smaller percentage of the population that can have blessings. The logic, paired with the elitism, is astounding.

But, this logic makes mormons feel good about themselves. This is a religion after all, that is working to have the most mansions for the most wives in the highest level of the top kingdom, and unless someone joins their church and obeys, they are uninvited.

In speaking about changing individuals "from the inside out versus from the outside in", a personal choice to follow the Savior by keeping His commandments is precisely ON topic.

The results of which can be discussed are of a multitude as you can see. Poverty is more than the physical needs of an individual. Just look at the varied effects of poor decision making and the power that choice could produce if education were provided.
rtc

RTC:

Neal said:

"The cycle of poverty is a vicious one, and tends to be passed down from one generation to the next. This is promulgated to a large degree by the spiritual/moral banruptcy many impoverished people experience along with their financial banruptcy."

This sentence needs no further comment: It is self-explaining and entails the question: "Was your grandfather morally bancrupt?" Neal, or whoever, you cannot escape the trap you set for yourself with your "cycle". But keep missioning.

The village idiot

Anonymous,

So lets here them?

Fred,

My definition of bondage goes a bit like this -

Being tossed to and fro with the doctrines of man.

The consequences of Sin i.e., adultery, homosexuality, fornication, drug abuse, alcoholism, debt, stealing, dishonesty, abortion, etc...

Do your own thing, live your own life, make your own decisions as it is YOUR life!

It is not hurting anyone else, why should it matter to them?

Deductive reasoning - lack of faith.

If it is true, I will find it is a "book".

RTC - Will somebody PLEASE let me out, because to ME this would be a life of sheer H*E*L*L*!

The CHOICE to LIVE THE Gospel of Jesus Christ from the outside looking in, may LOOK restraining at first, BUT it is the most FREEING from ALL of those chains that many of the world unfortunately find themselves ultimately bound by.

I would challenge ALL to self-analyze their current condition of life and see IF any of these circumstances just might have been avoided HAD they CHOSEN to simply KEPT THE COMMANDMENTS of God.

That is not to say, that unfortunate things do not happen to all, but it definately lessens their frequency. And there is a great peace when WE do not bring them about because of our actions.

Also, don't forget to NOTICE the blessings that you DO have in your life that have come BECAUSE you have kept the commandments.

Fred - where do you get off insinuating that those who follow the Savior do not think for themselves outside of these parameters?
rtc

Since I lived in Henry James's house for a while,
let me jump in here.
I am also the immortal author of the phrase "benign neglect," so am eminently qualified to represent the power structure.

I will of course let Neal speak for himself, but I doubt he would dispute that poverty limits ones choices, moral and otherwise.

As to whether religion "helps" people in poverty: I am not familiar with the research (are you, Neal and Fred?) but anecdotally, religion does give people hope (usually false hope, IMHO, but falso hope can be useful in certain situations), and *can* make the misery of poverty more tolerable.

It is true that if one works really hard, and is Quite Lucky, one has a better chance of escaping poverty.

"Cycle of Poverty" is a controversial phrase, more for its connotations than its denotations. It is undeniably true that one is much more likely to be poor if one's parents are poor than if one's parents are rich. And providing opportunities and support to escape that probabilistic fate is what Jesus would have us do.

More words from the village idiot.

Fred,

Excuse me for jumping in here, but I imagine Neal has early church meetings and mine are not until later. So I hope he does not mind my commenting a bit in the interim.

I think you are way off base with your conclusive remarks to how Neal or any member of the Mormon faith feels toward the less fortunate. The fact that we follow the teachings of the Savior to lift others does not in any way, as you so rudely imply, intend to insinuate the prideful position of many rich individuals that you obviously have encountered, for which I am very sorry.

Your comments about not knowing what it is like to go hungry, etc... I know all about that, thus my exact reasons for my passionate feelings on this issue.

That being said, you have not read with any objectivity neither his post, mine or any other reasonable members on this blog in relation to lifting the poor and the intention thereof.

Therefore, your words are meaningless, as in a bag of hot air. Go back and read what has been said with true intent. Then IF, and only IF you have something of VALUE to add....

Try again sir... and niceness is not required, just intelligence.
rtc

Dear Neal,

My freedom to crawl back under my rock and crawl out of it again whenever I feel like it is infinitely more valuable to me than the mental prison you and your fellow believers voluntarily put yourself and others into! For an outsider, the discussion about permission to visit the temple is amusing, if not frightening! If there ever is a god, the most valuable present he bestowed upon humans is the ability to think, not to believe. To worship him is by honest thinking, not wishful believing! (“credo quia absurdum”, what a sin!)

Your “poverty cycle” is nothing more than the elegant and sly circumscription of the “poverty accountability” depravity you proclaim, even if not as such, verbally, of course. I think I know the REAL difference between your definition of “poverty cycle” and poverty itself much better than you! Poverty reduced to a “behavioral” question by the rich? An old trick by the irresponsible greedy: It is the poor's own fault, why don’t they behave to get rich! And you quote Jesus? And you call me self-righteous?

To comment what you actually said: You turn the cause and effect relation on its head: Of course, agreed, poverty diminishes the “morality” of people: They have less choice (your “poverty cycle”, what a fraud!). I think even you would steal a piece of bread, a drop of water before starving. Your biology would force you to do it. Your “behaviour” would follow your situation. Ever felt what REAL hunger is? What REAL despair is not to know how to feed your crying children?

Do you think your unctious missioning about the “piety” of people would change such a situation one bit, would enable people to escape their destiny for which they may not be responsible? On the contrary: Any human being with some sense of dignity left in their misery would kick you out of their house, their shack, their tent.

No, I am not nice.

HJ,

I shall take that as a compliment my friend. Although I hope that ball of fire can be thought of as the spirit with my priesthood leaders and not a volcano? lol Doctrinally most men presume to know it all and would prefer to keep it that way. I unfortunately am not so polite and am happy to teach any opportunity I am afforded:-)

Neal,

I appreciate your most humble response. For years I had been familiar with the Haun's Mill Incident and what a tragedy that had been in the history of the church.

Not until recently was it that I learned that Jacob Haun had gone alone and inquired of Joseph Smith for his counsel regarding settling out away from the rest of the Saints during this time of persecutions.

Joseph counseled him to come into town where he could protect all of them because he did not feel good about them being separate. Jacob said he felt it was fine and they could manage. Joseph basically told him that of course it was his choice.

He returned to the mill telling not a person of the counsel the prophet had given him.

The point here is, that many do not realize that when members are given counsel in conference, or by their Stake President, or Bishop, they always have a choice.

But, the choice to NOT listen to those who are called to preach, teach and expound is a choice to put one's self in harms way.

Now, in particular, those who preside and have particular stewardship for us personally such as our Bishops and Stake Presidents and of course our living prophet... we absolutely do not want to be in opposition to these men.

And Neal, I respect a person that is able to submit to these keys, because I know full well how difficult this can be. This is not about the men as individuals, or unrighteous dominion.

This is recognizing who is at the head of this church and acknowledging that authority. I believe that it is a true test of our discipleship.

It is very difficult when going through something like this, but the blessings of coming out the other side are tremendous. I know from my own experiences in the church, it has strengthened my testimony of the inspiration that is received by those given this priesthood key to preside.

This is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. We are governed by His Priesthood authority through living prophets. That is an amazing statement.

Because of this truth, we are blessed to have active, personal and inspired revelation for our lives through our leaders, as well as receive it for ourselves.

Either way it comes, we may have it confirmed by the spirit. That is the promise. It is real. It has to be or this would never work. No way!

RTC:

"Remeber keys?

In fact, Neal told of an experience a few post earlier where he did not follow the counsel of his Bishop. In general, that is a huge no no."

You are correct. Not to construe that what I did is the "norm". It is rather the exception, and in fact the only time I have EVER felt prompted not to follow counsel. There have been other times when I had a hard time with the counsel that was given to me - even argued about it. But I indeed felt the Spirit in those meetings, so I followed it anyway. It turned out that I had been wrong - very, very wrong. Some of the most meaningful experiences of my life would never have been had I not followed that counsel.

Neal

Neal

Thanks for clarifying what YOU actually said and think about poverty, and sorry some of the rest of us didn't read you accurately. And thanks as well for your understanding comment to SML

RTC: some Priesthood members are intimidated by you? I don't blame them. You are a ball of fire, and a maniac, in the postitive sense of that word. There is NO doubt that you think for yourself and speak up.

Night all.

Henry in Heaven

Mayan-

Bingo! You just hit a nerve of mine. It looks like you and I have something in common my friend. You said,

"There are two favorite excuses used by the Mormon Apologists: 1) He (referring to any Prophet or authority) said that as a man, not as a prophet, 2) Everybody knew that, it is not new."

I don't like the game the apologists play when it comes to the prophets. Let me just say that. In other words, what they really meant was... blah, blah, blah!

Personally, that is crossing the line. A prophet does not need some uninspired guy to interpret for him, nor do I.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a lot of the work that they are doing, but correcting the prophets is NOT one of them.

That being said, are you assuming my take on both the seer stone translating and the dark skin comments by Brigham Young? Don't, because I have said nothing on any of these threads regarding either at this point.

I don't want to work for FARMS Mayan. It is much better and more rewarding to be a volunteer Seminary and Institute teacher. I can sleep with a clear conscious every night. I love what I do, because I do what I love.

I am not sure what the word to use is Mayan, but I am no brainless follower, and you can bet on that. You might be surprised to find out that I am considered the type of woman my priesthood leaders are a bit intimidated by. lol I challenge them a bit and I need to be careful with this at times. I am NOT blind to what women deal with such as HJ's sister or sml.

Don,'t run tooo far with that guys. I realize it is very tempting.

ONE thing that has not been discussed on these threads and could complicate the discussion some, but in order to understand the LDS faith and why we as members do willingly follow the counsel of our Priesthood leaders has everything to do with KEYS.

Remeber keys?

In fact, Neal told of an experience a few post earlier where he did not follow the counsel of his Bishop. In general, that is a huge no no.

Does Jacob Haun ring a bell?

rtc

Thanks, Neal. I appreciate that very much.

SML:

"I just brought it up as an example to refute the charge that we all have freedom of choice within the church in all things."

I stand refuted.

"Too damn bad it's not set up where I can go because I'm treated as an adult who has proven herself worthy to be in the temple, rather than a child whom, after proving her worthiness, ALSO needs permission by either her bishop or her husband first."

Essentially I agree. I don't know all the reasons for that policy but I understand your objection to it.

Neal

Oh, and one more thing concerning "If I had been your bishop, I'd have let you go".....

Too damn bad it's not set up where I can go because I'm treated as an adult who has proven herself worthy to be in the temple, rather than a child whom, after proving her worthiness, ALSO needs permission by either her bishop or her husband first.

Neal ~

Thanks for saying you'd have let me go. I think, however, that my bishop was simply following the guidelines in an effort to follow the gospel as outlined in his book of rules. I also think, if you had been my bishop, you'd have felt compelled as mine did to get my husband in there, and tried to convince him to give permission. If you'd been unable to convince him, would you still have let me go? Doubtful, as that would mean you'd be overstepping my husband's divine rule over me, and you'd have respected the "order of the family," even if it meant SML would not be able to receive the ordinances required by the Gospel for my eternal salvation. And had my bishop said yes, would I have made it past the stake presidency recommend interview without said permission slip in hand?

Anyway, a moot point, since this isn't the topic of the day...I just brought it up as an example to refute the charge that we all have freedom of choice within the church in all things.

Fred ~

Sometimes I seem to others on here as "not nice." But I like your blunt honesty.

SML

"So you knew about this rule, huh Neal?"

Not really. I know they try to respect the order of the family as we see it and discuss callings, etc. for wives with husbands (and vice-versa). I wasn't aware of the written permission thing. No surprise I guess, since I'm not married.

"At the time (I'm not sure if this rule still applies, as it happened 5 years ago or so) it was only WOMEN who had to have permission from their non-LDS husbands. Men married to non-LDS wives didn't have to get written permission from their wives.

Sexist. Wrong. Puke. So much for "women in the church are treated equal" and so much for "every member has agency to choose" whether or not to follow the dictates of the men who created this rule that affected me personally."

I see your point. If I had been your Bishop, I would have let you go. :-)

Neal

Fred:

"If someone thinks my comment is offensive: True, I am not nice."

That's an understatement.

"Neal and the other apologists of sagas, fairy tales and superstitions, did you ever read a book or even an article about development psychology, about social history, about history in general?"

Yes, Mr. Self-righteous. Many.

"Instead you try to thinly disguise the long ago discredited lie that people are fully responsible if they are rich or poor, plus the slick implication that if they are rich they are blessed by god, morally superior as shown by their wealth. What sort of a "loving" god is this? And then, like Ottenson and his ilk, you find some sophistically interpretable quotations in your or Smith's bible. Give me five minutes and I can prove anything, and its contrary along with it, with these intellectual "biblical" sophisms.

It seems Sister Mary Lisa and very few others have retained a stance of social justice and responsibility that is not safely tucked away in some doubtful afterlife, where nobody really ever has written a firsthand report from. So everything resembling an institutional right of a human being on a decent living, a right to human dignity, even if my father was not a millionaire (not held above water through compassionate "tithes" by the mercy of people like you!) is instantly called a communist, a word which gives you so much pleasure that you don't even feel the sea of hypocrisy it conveys in order to defend your greed and overbearance."

You obviously didn't even read my post, which you and others here insist on adding your own "fairytale" statements to. Please SHOW ME where I said any of the following:

1.) Poverty is a choice.
2.) Wealth indicates moral superiority and favor with God.
3.) Any reference to communism.
4.) Any reference to the rich.
5.) Any reference that education wasn't important
6.) Any statement that all poor people are immoral

Please also produce the crytal ball you used to determine that the word "communism" gives me pleasure. You need to take it back for a refund.

The topic I was addressing was whether or not spiritual teaching was valuable in breaking the cycle of poverty. Not whether the rich were morally/spiritually bankrupt. Not on the value of secular education. Not on the reasons one may find themselves in poverty. Not on ANY of these other topics you and others insist on MAGICALLY inserting into the conversation and taking offense on.

Here's what I did say:

1.) The cycle of poverty (and if you don't know the difference between this and just "poverty", they you obviously haven't done much reading) is difficult to break.
2.) Poverty can be demeaning/degrading and can have an negative effect on moral/spiritual behavior.
3.) The struggle for resources and time strain many families that are impoverished, and can lead to further deterioration.
4.) Spiritual teaching can help break the cycle of poverty by teaching correct principles, encouraging appropriate behavior, and providing a positive social structure.

If you want to comment on any of the things I ACTUALLY SAID, then by all means, share your knoledge. If not, please crawl back under the rock from whence you came.

Neal

Fred - How DARE you tell the Truth!
and don't you know how dangerous it is to do so?

the current highlighted column on this site has this quote:
"Bishop Hélder Câmara of Brazil used to say, “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”"

The conventional explanation is that people are poor because they lack the MORAL CHARACTER that we good Mormons and Christians possess.

Fred: I am afraid your explanation is closer to the truth.

When I was a WAR on Poverty Soldier working with poor black folks in N Carolina, i saw about the same range in moral character as i saw in my privilieged private college.

But i saw a lot less money.

Someone said recently that
"one political group seems to think that giving more money to the rich through tax breaks improves and ennobles their character,
but to channel more money and wealth to poor people would corrupt their character."

So Fred, that's ENOUGH honesty out of you. Be nice to those people with all the money.

In 1970, CEO's made 30 times what the everage worker made. Today the make 200 times what the average worker makes. That is a failing of moral character on the part of our country to allow that.

Neal ~

You wrote, "I'm truly sorry you didn't get that opportunity. I know a number of women married to non-lds husbands who went to the temple. I don't know all the circumstances, so I don't know how they compare with yours or why your situation is different, but they were able to go. Why did your husband deny you that request?"

He denied the request because the church gave him the power to deny it. I would bet that those women you know had non-LDS husbands who granted their written permission, or they had attended the temple already before they married.

But I fight against the written permission requirement itself, not against the fact that I was denied said permission. (That is between my husband and me). So you knew about this rule, huh Neal? Did you never think the written permission idea was sexist or wrong? Because it is. At the time (I'm not sure if this rule still applies, as it happened 5 years ago or so) it was only WOMEN who had to have permission from their non-LDS husbands. Men married to non-LDS wives didn't have to get written permission from their wives.

Sexist. Wrong. Puke. So much for "women in the church are treated equal" and so much for "every member has agency to choose" whether or not to follow the dictates of the men who created this rule that affected me personally.

And, just so you know, I'm personally very glad that I never went through the temple. But that doesn't make what happened any easier to stomach.

Neal and the other apologists of sagas, fairy tales and superstitions, did you ever read a book or even an article about development psychology, about social history, about history in general? Ever had the slightest thought about education (this word, as I observe, doesn't even exist in these threads of advanced infantilism), its conditions and financial implications? Of the age-old problem of hereditary and environmental factors of human existence and development?

Instead you try to thinly disguise the long ago discredited lie that people are fully responsible if they are rich or poor, plus the slick implication that if they are rich they are blessed by god, morally superior as shown by their wealth. What sort of a "loving" god is this? And then, like Ottenson and his ilk, you find some sophistically interpretable quotations in your or Smith's bible. Give me five minutes and I can prove anything, and its contrary along with it, with these intellectual "biblical" sophisms.

It seems Sister Mary Lisa and very few others have retained a stance of social justice and responsibility that is not safely tucked away in some doubtful afterlife, where nobody really ever has written a firsthand report from. So everything resembling an institutional right of a human being on a decent living, a right to human dignity, even if my father was not a millionaire (not held above water through compassionate "tithes" by the mercy of people like you!) is instantly called a communist, a word which gives you so much pleasure that you don't even feel the sea of hypocrisy it conveys in order to defend your greed and overbearance.

Sometimes I feel like being time-travelled into the social neandertal age when reading some of these statements. The fact that the financial balance seems to be a secret in Mormonia reminds me of the disappeared billions in Iraq.

If someone thinks my comment is offensive: True, I am not nice. I had to scream with laughter when someone said Brigham Young's subhuman assessment of other races were "as a man, not as a prophet". Do we really live in the 21st century?

M:

"brainwashed zombies", "dumb sheep" - you were implying BLIND obedience.

"And for that, it is worthwhile to discredit and identify the so-called prophets for what they are, opinionating men."

And that is where we differ, my fine pachyderm friend. You do not believe in their prophetic calling - I do. You see their stance on these issues as "evidence" they are not inspired - I don't. You think their position is "out of date", "bad advice", etc. I disagree.

"Again, what is insulting about that? It does not mean you are not a good dude. Simply, I am pointing out that being able to obey is irrelevent to determining the harm or good in these dudes advice."

The insult is the insinuation that intelligent people who come to different conclusions than you are therefore "blindly" following the Church.

"Well, that argument compares to the rhetoric in any given church on any given day about the spirit/light/wholesomeness of a lesbian or gay person. And, that judgment greatly influences public policy. Neal points out his interaction with Mormon leaders regarding the sin/not-sin of same sex attraction. Mormon leaders have used the sinfulness of Homosexuality to justify entering the public debate on the topic. And, the only justification for doing so is their "inspiration" they claim to have as prophets."

And again, we have been over the argument of the "harm or good", "sin or no sin" to the point of exhaustion. I have an appointment to go to, or I would probably expound further. Needless to say, I think this IS a thread hijack!!

Neal

Neal,

hmmmmmm. What just happened here? Yeah, that was a jab on my part to tag the obedience thing. I still think it is a valid point, and one I was using more as it relates to Romney and public accountability than to you individually. Simply because one can be obedient to something, often because of our circumstance, does not justify silence or endorsement. I said nothing about zombies.

I used gay marriage for a very specific reason - you and I agree on more than less as it relates to gays and lesbians. And, while you and I are likely equally obedient to the words of the dudes, we do arrive at different conclusions about the church's leaders counsel. What is so insulting about that? The issue is not HOW one figures out the counsel is out of date or wrong, it is recognizing the reach of that bad advice. In the case of the Mormons that reach has proven to be well beyond the chapel doors. Granted, I have equal angst about the counsel and how it affects people that I like that are inside the walls. And I have just as much annoyance with the reach on the outside (Prop 22). And for that, it is worthwhile to discredit and identify the so-called prophets for what they are, opinionating men.

Again, what is insulting about that? It does not mean you are not a good dude. Simply, I am pointing out that being able to obey is irrelevent to determining the harm or good in these dudes advice.

Others on here may disagree with whether this topic is a threadjack. I think it is not a threadjack at all.

We started out debating the offensiveness/beauty in judging the light in a slumdweller. Well, that argument compares to the rhetoric in any given church on any given day about the spirit/light/wholesomeness of a lesbian or gay person. And, that judgment greatly influences public policy. Neal points out his interaction with Mormon leaders regarding the sin/not-sin of same sex attraction. Mormon leaders have used the sinfulness of Homosexuality to justify entering the public debate on the topic. And, the only justification for doing so is their "inspiration" they claim to have as prophets.

M:

"For others, myself included, I hear the SAHM counsel and think that what that guy said may not apply to me, or it may, but it damn sure is going to apply to a lot of people that hear it, and it may suck for them to hear it. And more, the person that just waxed eloquent about SAHM doesnt know jack squat and pretty much everything he said is strange to somebody. So, using common sense and human decency as my guide, it is safe to say that the person running at the mouth about SAHM is probably just speaking as an A****** and not an Apostle."

"Regarding Homosexuality. That one is easy. The church is on the wrong side of Civil Rights, again."

So what is your point? That I can't have a different opinion than yours? Don't insinuate that I have no common sense or "decency", or that I'm not aware of and sensitive to the feelings and needs of others. I told you how I make decisions about the counsel coming from the Church. Its up to you to decide how you respond to the same counsel, and how you reach your own conclusions. We've been through the whole argument about gay marriage, etc, ad nauseum. You know why I feel the way I do, and it is NOT just because it came from Salt Lake.

"I do get your little nuance though Neal. You are splitting a hair with amazing precision. In the mormon church, obedience is everything. And, in the case of Gay marriage - it doesnt apply to you - you dont need to worry about it because you are in line, obeying the Prophet, obeying the Prophet, obeying the Prophet, dont go a astray (remember that line RTC? I think I used that one over here already. But, shhhhhh, it is really supposed to be Follow the Prophet, repeated three times.)"

"Well, if you refuse to kick against the pricks when you should, you are essentially endorsing the prophet too."

Stop insulting my intelligence. If I follow the Brethren its because I choose to, not because I'm a brainwashed zombie.

You've hit a new low here, M.

Neal

The are ALL Speaking as MEN, NOT as Prophets

Always have been.

SML Hits Fundamental Moral Mark

SML's point that she did NOT have the agency to make a decision in her temple experience, that the Priesthood Member had the agency for her,

makes a fundamental moral point.

A person does not have Moral Responsibility for her actions if she has no choice.

This is the Mormon doctrine of Free Will.

It is often ambiguous as to whether a person REALLY has choice or not. How Mentally Ill does one have to be before his act of homocide is not a moral choice?

SML's case was NOT ambiguous. She did not have the power to choose differently.

Black Slaves in this country went through 250 years of being in that same situation.

And poor people are often faced with Choices that are not really choices.

The complicated social goal is to get people in a situation where they CAN make a moral choice.

This is part of what Jesus meant when he emphasized, over and over, that we should be concerned for the poor. Just like the rest of us, there are choices the poor will not be in a position to make unless others help them get into that position.

SML,

I'm truly sorry you didn't get that opportunity.

I know a number of women married to non-lds husbands who went to the temple. I don't know all the circumstances, so I don't know how they compare with yours or why your situation is different, but they were able to go. Why did your husband deny you that request?

Neal

D,

I wrote a big huge response last night and that GDSOBMF Microsoft ate it. I swear that is true. I hate that. And then that screen came up that asked me if wanted to send an error report to Microsoft. As if. Sure, have Billy call me and apologize in person. So aggravating. Anyways. I'll come back to it. The short answer is, "I dont know what to do."

Neal,

This specific debate gets to a core issue with the boards and with the relationship between members and former members of the church. And, in my opinion, it will be similar to the public debate about Romney and public office.

you said, "As far as rejecting counsel, there may be times when counsel doesn't apply. For example, if I'm a single mother the counsel to stay at home with the kids doesn't apply. There's no one else to support my family. As a homosexual, counsel relating to marriage does not apply to me. I don't have to pray about that."

Often on these boards we read a response that says, "*I* am happy as a Mormon Woman," or "*YOU* were not victimized by X so how can you claim to be a victim?" or "Why do you, a straight white male, always try and represent yourself as a victim of everything ever said in the church?"

I am paraphrasing Neal, but do you get the drifty wifty and aint it nifty?

So, when you hear the counsel to the SAHM and just figure it doesnt apply, so you dont need the ghost to help you, you seem to be done there. For others, myself included, I hear the SAHM counsel and think that what that guy said may not apply to me, or it may, but it damn sure is going to apply to a lot of people that hear it, and it may suck for them to hear it. And more, the person that just waxed eloquent about SAHM doesnt know jack squat and pretty much everything he said is strange to somebody. So, using common sense and human decency as my guide, it is safe to say that the person running at the mouth about SAHM is probably just speaking as an A****** and not an Apostle.

Regarding Homosexuality. That one is easy. The church is on the wrong side of Civil Rights, again. It does apply to me, regardless of my orientation just as it applies to you regardless of yours. Most people prefer to live in a world with equal rights, apparently, Some white men with really big churches are an exception to that. There really is no need for a ghost on that one either. Granted, it is easier to dismiss the words of a guy when he is speaking as a Bigot rather than speaking as a so-called Prophet.

I do get your little nuance though Neal. You are splitting a hair with amazing precision. In the mormon church, obedience is everything. And, in the case of Gay marriage - it doesnt apply to you - you dont need to worry about it because you are in line, obeying the Prophet, obeying the Prophet, obeying the Prophet, dont go a astray (remember that line RTC? I think I used that one over here already. But, shhhhhh, it is really supposed to be Follow the Prophet, repeated three times.)

Well, if you refuse to kick against the pricks when you should, you are essentially endorsing the prophet too. And that, is what will bite that Romney right in the buttocks. Not polygamy, but his refusal to have fought the constant Bigotry and Misogyny. And, quite frankly, his ass deserves it. As do all of us for having followed a prophet on too much for too long.

The Apololgist's Credo Destroys Basis for Church

Just as it is clear that people pick and choose Bible Scriptures that support their beliefs -
and one can ALWAYS find one, and then interpret it to your satisfaction,

Thus Mormon Apologists CAN always say "He was speaking as a Man not a prophet"
unless it is in the Standard Works.

I NEVER in 19 years heard ANYTHING but the URIM and Thummim translation story
and now we are told it was NEVER really church doctrine.

If we can interpret any saying as "not really saying what it appears to be saying"
then it can be saying anything we want it to.

I happen to believe that is pretty accurate.
But apologists fool themselves into thinking the have THE ONLY TRUTH when they have the Mormon Gospel: "The Church is True".

My friend Oliver Wendall Holmes said that you can take any principle of the law and use it to argue either side of any case.

Seems the same with Church history and scripture.

Neal ~

You wrote, "In our scripture it says, referring to mankind, "wherefore, they are agents unto themselves". In my mind that places the burden of responsibility on us as individuals. The Church exists as a vehicle - a framework through which the Priesthood (power of God) operates, and as an institution of spiritual teaching. Ultimately we must apply (or not apply) those teachings to our own lives based on our own agency, thought and intelligence. The tools we apply to make those decisions are, ultimately, our own choice as well."

I'd like to note that there are instances where agency is not given...especially to the women. As in the case where I wanted to attend the temple to take out my endowments, but was not afforded the agency to choose this for myself, rather my non-member husband was given the ability to choose for me (or not) because the church said so.

No amount of choosing to think this was them "speaking as a man" or whatever gave me the ability to do it anyway. So your comment 'wherefore, they are agents unto themselves' may apply to men in the church, but women are agents unto the higher power of the priesthood.

M:
"You seem to think that such selection can be made based on the spirit/ghost. I get that, but I would also add that in cases where common sense, logic, integrity, manners, science and just plain being normal or superdy duperdy cool is all that is required to dismiss or incorporate the opinions of these 15 old dudes, canonized or not, that it really doesnt need a ghostly affirmation.

Do you think it would be easier to be a writer for the church than it would be to be a Arnold Palmer's caddy at the Masters?"

To answer your first question I think clearly there are times one does not need a "confirmation" to accept/reject counsel. For example, admonitions to render service or care for the poor. Exhortations to seek knowledge, to pray, to do genealogy work. Counsel to be good citizens, to vote, to spend time with family. As far as rejecting counsel, there may be times when counsel doesn't apply. For example, if I'm a single mother the counsel to stay at home with the kids doesn't apply. There's no one else to support my family. As a homosexual, counsel relating to marriage does not apply to me. I don't have to pray about that. And oviously, if a leader asked me to do something really immoral - like drink cyanide-laced koolaid, I wouldn't need to get on my knees to reject counsel like that!!!

In our scripture it says, referring to mankind, "wherefore, they are agents unto themselves". In my mind that places the burden of responsibility on us as individuals. The Church exists as a vehicle - a framework through which the Priesthood (power of God) operates, and as an institution of spiritual teaching. Ultimately we must apply (or not apply) those teachings to our own lives based on our own agency, thought and intelligence. The tools we apply to make those decisions are, ultimately, our own choice as well.

Second question - I have no idea. I wouldn't want to be a writer for the Church OR a golf caddy!!

Neal

DP asks a sustantive, albeit loaded, question; what to do about our welfare system? A few thoughts; First, can we all assume that wlefare, in all its forms, is a necessary thing in a country such as ours? There will always be a need to provide the necessities to people who are legitimately in need, and not merely seeking to soak the system for the rest of their lives. so, the problem, in my mind at least, comes down to these items:

1. How to create and maintain a "culture of capability," in which as few people as possible will ever require public assistance.
2. How to determine legitimate need, and safeguard against abusive practices?
3. How to provide services within the welfare system that aid users of that system in ultimately attaining self-sustaining capabilities.
4. How to find the balance point, economically, between providing just enough to maintain, vs providing more than that so as to deaden motivation to acheive.

I am not going to have time this weekend for a long and well-thought out piece on this, so I thought I might help to frame the questions that underlie DP's query.

For now though, I have this thought; Any person who tells an African-American child who shows initiative and potential in the classroom that they are "acting white," has committed an infinitely greater offense against all races than Don Imus ever did. The fact that we, as a nation, pay so much more attention to "hurt feelings" than we do to "crippled futures" says something is quite amiss in our cultural values.

I argue that the 'ultimate' solution to our poverty problem 'begins' in education, "life-long" education. Tom Friedman makes this point again and again in "The World is Flat," a great book in this writer's opinion, though I usually like to leave these sorts of things to our resident literary critic.

I will likely have more to say on this at some point, but responsibilities demand my presence otherwise at the moment.

Thanks for the question Mr. Parker, good-on-ya mate.

RTC,

There are two favorite excuses used by the Mormon Apologists: 1) He (referring to any Prophet or authority) said that as a man, not as a prophet, 2) Everybody knew that, it is not new.

For example, Joseph Smith did not use the plates to translate, he looked at rocks in a hat.
Mormon Apologist: That is not new. Everybody knew that. And, if they didnt, they were slothful for not knowing it.

Brigham Young said that the flat nose and dark skin of some humans was a curse from god. Mormon Apologist response - He said that as a man, not as a prophet.

You should get on the FARMS payroll. You have it down and more, after all, you just came up with the best of all - 'Everyone knew that the dudes say stuff as men, not as prophets.' Excellent.

Neal,

yours is also a good point. If I was a more better writerer, I would have said, "I have not seen anything from the Church, in my lifetime, that offers real comfort and relief as much as [a license to selectively incorporate all, none or some of what is] said by these opinionated men.

You seem to think that such selection can be made based on the spirit/ghost. I get that, but I would also add that in cases where common sense, logic, integrity, manners, science and just plain being normal or superdy duperdy cool is all that is required to dismiss or incorporate the opinions of these 15 old dudes, canonized or not, that it really doesnt need a ghostly affirmation.

Do you think it would be easier to be a writer for the church than it would be to be a Arnold Palmer's caddy at the Masters?

Phaedrus, Henry James, Mayan Elephant, Sister Mary Lisa:
Greetings. Hey, I'm interested in you folks' opinion about how the welfare system in the U.S. should be handled. I respect your intelligence and deep thought, so since I enjoy reading about such things if you have an opinion I'd love to read it sometime. Some of the earlier writing about the "slums" (above) seemed to indicate the people who live in what others might call "slums" are very content living there, and may be offended by the use of the term "slum". So should the government say "laissez-faire" because everyone has what they want in the life-style they have made for themselves and where they live?

I'm going to write-in the Geico Neandertal as a candidate...

Neal

My Boy Mitt

Though I am a notorious Anti-Mormon, a large part of me feels more like what I suspect you active members feel about the Romney news.

Bottom Line first: I do not think people should vote either FOR or AGAINST Romney because he is a Mormon.

that said

it will be very interesting how Romney's distancing himself from Polygamy, and is essence descrying that discrimination in the Black Priesthood history, will affect public views on the Mormon Church in general.

People still are confused about the difference between fundie polygamist "Mormons" and don't understand completely that they are "not REAL Mormons." So Romney's criticism of the polygamous history of his own Church is going to further cement people's image of Mormons as those Strange Polygamists, fair or not.

And while most of the public has forgotten or never knew about the Black Priesthood thing, the Campaign will educate them, and it will be another significant taint on the public image of the LDS church.

In short, Romney's criticisms of LDS history in order to "normalize" himself will have the effect of making the Mormons look "weird" again.

Since I grew up defending the Church against these criticisms, my reflex is to continue doing so, though I don't think I ever defended the Black Priesthood policy (i often idealize myself in my memory, so don 't trust me on this).

"You make a wonderful point here. I wonder if the church ever changes its stance on homosexuals and sin, what some of the members who are staunch defenders of the policy will say or do or feel."

Won't know til it happens. See comments above. :-)

Neal

M:

"Before you blow a gasket, hear me out as to why."

Gaskets still in place. I see where you're coming from.

Although we both agree on the quality of the writing (or lack thereof), we don't agree on the interpretation or the significance. But I truly see your point and understand why you feel this is "BIG".

"I have not seen anything from the Church, in my lifetime, that offers real comfort and relief as much as a release from incorporating EVERYTHING said by these opinionated men."

Somehow, I've never felt compulsed to agree with everything they say. I think I do agree, but I've always believed in independant thought and my agreement is of my own volition. One of the comments that stuck with me early on in my Church experience was a statement by one of the Church Presidents (escapes my memory as to which) that said something in General Confernce like: "You should not take my word on what was just said. You should go home, pray about it, and get your own testimony of it." I've always taken that to heart.

The only time I have rejected counsel from Church leaders was with a former Bishop. I love this man, respect him, and we are great friends to this day. I had always felt the Spirit when we counseled together, and I went to him frequently when I was going through some particularly trying times. On this particular occasion, he gave me some advice that I absolutely knew was not correct as soon as it came out of his mouth. I felt a total absence of the Spirit - so much so that it was unsettling. I went home and prayed about it, and the feeling was the same. So I met with him again and flat out rejected his counsel, and I explained why. He was fine with it, and that was that! I did follow all the rest of his counsel, and I felt good about everything else he advised me to do - it truly WAS inspired, and I was blessed by following it. But that one item was out of place. Remember, these people are still people - you have to sort out opinion from inspiration.

Now, don't take what I just said to mean I'm on the verge of becoming a detractor, or of having my name removed from Church rolls! :) I'm as staunch a member as anyone I know. But I've NEVER felt threatened to express my ideas or challenge the veracity of counsel given to me. And I express my ideas quite often, as you might guess. I'm ususally pretty polite about it, so maybe that makes a difference?

Anyway, I think we do agree that Otterson's statement is a significant one, and that it does have repercussions for all of us - whether we feel threatened or not - on the way members and non-members will view statements made outside official channels. Stay tuned...

Neal

Mayan ~

You make a wonderful point here. I wonder if the church ever changes its stance on homosexuals and sin, what some of the members who are staunch defenders of the policy will say or do or feel.

Dont worry. After seeing any amount of concensus between Neal and Phaedrus, albeit limited, small and insignificant, the Elephant is shocked into a coma and may not be mentally fit to vote.

Seeing Otterson come on here and agree with Phaedrus would be the only thing to shock me more, though, that would have been fatal.

Neal,

I agree agree agree agree and wholeheartedly agree with every fiber of my being that the press release from Otterson was poorly written. It begs to be disected and blasted to pieces at nearly every syllable.

Though, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I still see huge progress and value in the press release. In fact, I have suggested that this press release is significantly bigger than the reversal of the race ban in 1978. Before you blow a gasket, hear me out as to why.

The reversal of the ban that prohibited blacks from participating at all levels of the church was historic. But, it failed to appreciate or comfort those members that publicly defended the church in its heinous ban. So, while a few black members benefitted which is a great thing, more members were left to apologize for their loyalty to a racist ban. Make sense?

The good thing I see in this poorly phrased press release is that it comforts many informed members and relieves them of the guilt or embarrassment of defending current advice or counsel from the big 15. If a member with similar opinions to yours regarding homosexuality reads that press release, they may find comfort in simply saying, "the homosexuality comments from Oaks are his opinion, and not binding for me or my children."

That, to me, is a big plus. And, it benefits some good people that are warming the benches on any given Sunday. I have not seen anything from the Church, in my lifetime, that offers real comfort and relief as much as a release from incorporating EVERYTHING said by these opinionated men.

P:

They would be better off nominating the Geico Neandertal!

My vote, and I'm sure the votes of most other Americans with a brain, will not be wasted on republican incompetence. The disaster of the Bush regime should make people of conscience flee in terror at the sight of anything with an elephant stamped on it (except for Mayan!).

Neal

HJ, Mayan et al:

Romney will have to make any number of Kennedyesque statements ( i.e. I will not allow my religious affiliation to dictate my actions as President) over the entire run-up to primary season, and there will still be millions wondering if there has been some sort of "nod and wink session" between the Big 15 and the candidate. I would imagine that he will be given a longer leash than any other Mormon, ever, because the 15 will not want to take issue with anything he says in his attempt to become as palatable as possible to the evangelical base of his party. I look forward to watching that, and the "worst thing ever" comment regarding polygamy is only the start.

He will, as we all know, tack right in the primary, and should he be nominated or receive a VP offer, he will move back in a slight centrist veer, just like any other candidate on the republican side. And, the Dem nominee will be doing likewise in the opposite direction (possibly with the exception of Obama, who will have to stay more centrist to keep from scaring the whites in his own party.) But Mitt is going to have a tougher go of it just because he IS Mormon, and I think this alone will cost him the nomination. Take away that political albatross, and the guy is golden to moderate Republicans and centrist Dems. The truly "red" right wing religious fundies will never accept him though. They will hold their nose and go for Rudy or McCain, or sit this one out, unless maybe a Sam Brownback were to get the Veep nod. (Now, Sam is one scary guy! What the hell IS the matter with Kansas anyway?)

This is all going to be wonderfully interesting to watch for political junkies and culture warriors alike. I am looking forward to seeing how much W. has set back the progress of the religious right on the national scene. I just have this sense that the evangelical, faith-based initiative, neo-con folks are going to have, as therapists say, a "corrective emotional experience."

Phaedrus,

Go to lds.org and search a topic you are interested to know the doctrine on. There you will see just how much wiggle room you are talking about.

What they are talking about is "law of witnesses".

Or try this one... "no man is an island" theory?

If you ran a company, would you not have a system that would ensure that a loose canon did not emerge, or someone's personal opinion was not taken out of context on a big business deal?

Get real. We are talking about serious information that MUST be guarded here. Do you not see this?

They are NOT protecting themselves. They are protecting the sheep from being taught false doctrine.

NOT the teacher, but the students. This is the mark of a good shepherd.

Doctrine will always be taught in a very natural order... like rain. So you will naturally find it as it trickles down over time.

As it does, more and more, it will be available and widely known. Suddenly, without a big storm, it is readily known by all and easily verified.

In the early days of the church, the flood gates were wide open. It is only occassionally where a gate might swing open briefly, and shut very quick.
rtc

HJ,

I hate to agree with you on the Romney thing, but it is getting crazy out there for him.

There is a definite (and I know how much you all hate this term, but I am going to use it because it is the truth) anti-mormon movement that is bent on saying just about anything to scare the heck out of the public to keep him from being elected.

Unfortunately, I think they will succeed. I also believe you are right that the rest of us will also feel the fallout.

Mitt is a good guy and for conservative republicans I do believe he is the best candidate.

What the real issue that we should all be most concerned about is the fact that religion is being allowed to play such a heavy hand in our politics. Not good for any of us.

The Godly or the Humanist... we both should be somewhat fearful of this scenario. Afterall, don't we both pledge allegiance to the same Republic?

rtc

Regarding Otterson's statement to the newsmedia regarding what constitutes the "official doctrines" of the LDS church...

There were at least a dozen little blue links included with that article. Why? For people like me and YOU.

If you are truly interested in gaining a full understanding of the doctrines of the LDS Church, then you must also understand HOW they are developed and in which ways they are taught to the members at large, where they are accepted as credible.

In other words, we have our foundational doctrines, our policies and then the teachings and understandings of these things that evolve as more light and understanding are given.

Doctrines are eternal and come from God - they do not change. The principles and teachings that grow out of these doctrines will be firm, regardless of circumstances or time. But policies can change, as well as added understanding of the doctrines and principles. But doctrines will not contradict themselves.

The overarching eternal Plan of Salvation is the soil of which all the doctrines that eternal truth take root from. The four standard works will always testify of the Plan of Salvation. The Plan of Salvation can always be verified in the standard works.

The great test of any doctrine taught is NOT can I find the specific words that a prophet has said in it... or why does he have to say it again? But, is he teaching an inspired and TRUE PRINCIPLE that is supported in the standard works, and is it in HARMONY with The Plan of Salvation?

IF it is NOT, then we may REJECT that doctrine.

Thus, it is imperative that especially members of the church (and those interested) click on and read carefully those little blue links, IF they truly desire to understand the doctrines of the LDS faith and where, how and what they are.

Remember, this is a living church and so you just can't go to some library, find some dusty old book on the shelf, blow off the dust, go to the index and bingo, there is your answer!

Nope... we are on the move receiving continually and it rocks:-) As in revelation!

ALL truth will be circumscribed into one great WHOLE.

And by the way, what Otterson wrote is nothing new. I taught that lesson months ago to my students. It has always been just the way things are... He just summarized for the media, so THEY would understand. I am sorry if it has confused so many. I am sure that was NOT the intention at all.

Just MHO.
rtc

RTC ~

You enjoy Naked Twister too??? I guess we have something in common after all!

;)

Someone was quoted in the paper as saying,
in relation to Romney's "evolving" position on abortion,

"I just want to make sure he has a moral compass."

I wanted to ShOUT:

"He's a Politician, you idiot!"

Church men are Politicians

First and foremost.

Not just Mormons, any established Church leader.

that is why Jesus was an Anti-establishment type.

Politicians' first motivation is to stay in power, which means they need the wiggle room to steady the ship when hard winds blow.

P ~

"Wiggle room" indeed. You nailed it.

Pardon please, last comment was mine.

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

Bright men, writing poorly on purpose, to create wiggle room for future use.

Romney: "Polygamy was 'Awful'"

in an article reprinted on Yahoo News
Romney said the above.

He is being forced to dance quite vigorously
about
the Black Priesthood Issue
and
The Polygamy Issue

Methinks this is just the beginning
of the gunshots to his feet

that will ripple out to the Church in general.

Mark this date in your calendar

Mayan:

Let's look at the whole paragraph:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

Now let's extract a key sentence or two you may be overlooking:

"A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church."

Notice the emphasis on single here.

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. "

Please note the reference to official Church publications. Please note that they counsel together with divine inspiration. This is talking about interpretation of scripture and establishment of doctrine. The next sentence essentially establishes what the cannon of the Church is. And the cannon is the basis for doctrine. I think this whole paragraph is just poorly architected.

What is proclaimed, then, in "official Church publications" are not excluded as doctrinal statements, as far as I can tell. At the least, such statements have been "cleared" as doctrinally sound. Examples would be General Conference addresses.

Where I find this article lacking is it does not really define what official Church publications are (Ensign, Church Web Site, manuals, etc.) and it fails to mention the official letters the First Presidency sends to Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc. which are clearly OFFICIAL clarifications or statements on policy and doctrine.

So my conclusion is that this rather poorly worded article was trying to address statements made by individual GAs that are being misconstrued as doctrine or taken out of context. If GBH got up in General Conference and made some declaration of doctrine, how could anyone consider that not official? He just said it to the whole world!

As for the Oaks article - yes, I think a lot of it was personal opinion but there were clearly doctrinal statements, as I mentioned previously. That idea that homosexuals would have an opportunity for Exhaltation has been made four times now to my knowledge by GAs. Two were Apostles. One was in General Conference. That's more than a "single instance". Also, an Official Letter was sent to Bishops and SPs about 18 months ago that said many of the things Oaks said in that interview (i.e. homosexuality is not a choice, etc.,) I never got to see it but my Bishop told me about it.

More importantly, I think the Oaks article and recent comments by GAs and articles in the Ensign represent an effort to dispel some of the myths about homosexuality in the Church. I welcome any effort in that regard! This is the one issue where I think many members forget their Christianity.

As for what's coming up? we'll have to wait and see how its presented. I really don't have any details.

Neal

Sharpton should leave the church and leave the church alone.

Thread Diversion Alert

In a Willful Violation of Thread Continuity

has anyone noted the SHARPTON - RONMEY Wars

Al and Mitt have been going back and forth on whether the Mormon Church is Racist.

Don't know how big it will get,
but we can ask Don Imus whether Al has any impact.

Romney's campaign is NOT taking off except in money terms, so maybe a fight with Sharpton will HELP him. His Sister Souljah moment.

We are talking about different things. Sorry. I was referring to this:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

it includes this quote:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. "

This statement, imho, reduces the interview that you refer to (Oaks/Wickman/Otterson) to nothing but a few dudes' opinions. Which, in my opinion, is huge progress for all people. The statement you refer to, unless it is canonized, is NOT doctrine.

Also, as we have discussed in other threads, Oaks stated that the contents of the interview were not inspired and not qualified. You can find those references in the Salt Lake Tribune interview.

I am not making these references to derail this topic to something about homosexuality. Rather, given the fantastic statement on lds.org regarding doctrine, how do you see the changes you suggest that are coming? And, if they are not part of a proclamation, will any change really matter?

"While it was a contradiction to its own announced definition of doctrine, do you consider the recent press release from the church to be part of that change?"

Trial balloon, IMHO. Hence the informal "interview" sytle. Although I do think it contains official doctrine - much more than some people want to allow. For example, this statement:

"If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course."

Other general authorities have made similar statements in public settings recently, such as the Evergreen conference.

That interview was scripted and its contents were approved by the First Presidency, you can be sure. The fact that its on the official Church web site in a section devoted to the press should serve as an indication of validity. I don't think something casual would find its way in there.

Neal

sml-

left hand on green circle...

If we are able to raise these people up out of the slums to our higher level, (these people who harbor expectations to be taken care of) and give them self-reliance, then we should pat ourselves on the back for creating more contributing members of society.

Is that what you're saying, RTC?

My My My,

This is quite the game of twister you are all having with my words.

To imply, by my original post, that those who are poor are inferior, immoral and spiritually deficient, compared to those who are not poor is absolutely the epitomy in the contorting of what I was attempting to convey.

This could not be any further from what I was saying than is Kolob from planet earth!

My goodness, what an example of seeing the worst and only what you WANT to see!

Did you NOT also realize that as a child, I was POOR? I consider my worth, as mentioned in my post, inherent. Worth has NOTHING to do with MONEY or CLASS.

On the other hand, feelings of confidence, the ability to move forward and care for your own, to give to others and contribute, to rise above whatever challenges and difficult circumstances you may be in... this brings esteem to any individual, regardless of class.

So be it in the church or in society, I will support those programs that encourage self-reliance. I oppose any programs that would, on a continuous basis enable and encourage the ongoing support of the expectation to be taken care of... as if an individual is not able to do for themselves.

This, to me, is bondage of another human-being, and if we were to do this to one of our own children, we would be, or should be, considered incompetent parents.

I have often visited with mothers terribly upset to see their children leave home because the kid wasn't sad at all? This really bothers especially the moms.... dads are like, whoopee! I always remind them that this is exactly how it should be. This is an indicator that they have done their job well. I often get a funny look? I then explain that it has to do with their child's level of confidence.

We would worry if our children left home and were upset, crying and unsure of themselves.... not wanting to leave. We would probably be sick and nervous about them the entire time they were away.

But when they leave with full confidence in their ability to manage themselves, we should pat ourselves on the back and know that most likely we are sending a contributing member out into society.

Or that eventually, they most likely will be.

Neal,

While it was a contradiction to its own announced definition of doctrine, do you consider the recent press release from the church to be part of that change?

HJ:

"When I describe myself as "Anti-Mormon," I mean to tweak the reflexive apologists for the LDS Church who say that anyone who criticises the Church, however valid the criticism, is an "Anti-Mormon."

It is a feeble-minded defense. I am being Ironic when I describe myself thusly.

Intelligent and perceptive reader that you are, I am sure you understand my Irony."

Irony is my middle name :-)

And I have to agree with you here. That "anti" label gets applied much too reflexively whenever a sniffle of dissent is heard. Criticism has its place in all organizations. I like the story of Emma Smith, who got completely disgusted at the tobacco juice the Brethren (who evidently weren't too good at hitting the spitoon) were getting on her clean floors. She complained to the Prohpet about it, who took the matter up with God, and wallah! We have the Word of Wisdom.

I would love to see the Brethren correct or cease publication of outdated Church materials on homosexuality. All of them contain the notion that people choose to be homosexuals. This is certainly not the case, and the Church now acknowledges that fact, so why keep materials that contain erroneous information? It just perpetuates the general ignorance of the membership. I've sent letters to the Brethren asking for more education and dialogue on this subject, and for a balanced approach in official Church curriculum; which often mentions homosexual behavior as sinful, but does nothing to explain that homosexual attraction is not. And that it is NOT a choice.

Responses indicate a change is coming...

Love ya!
Neal

Responding.

I can’t speak for everyone else but I am here to learn 2 things. One gain a better understanding of other takes on religion and spirituality. Two learn how to communicate my thoughts and opinions in a more effective way on these very emotional and personal topics.

Starting my own church would be awesome but I don’t think I am ready for that yet ( or anyone one else for that matter!) Besides there are already enough churches. I would just be happy if we could all live our spirituality of choice more in the day to day decisions and actions we take, myself included. That probably applies to these posts as well.

I’m not trying to be better than anyone else, just better than I was yesterday.

It’s all a work in progress.

Uh oh.

Mitt Romney's interview with Mike Wallace has been leaked to the Drudge Report.

I dont think Wallace is asking about welfare.

I like to beat up otterson and the church sometimes. but, in this case, i hope the church, romney, otterson and the entire planet lines up to beat the snot out of wallace for asking ms. romney if they had premarital sex. unbeleivable. you would think wallace was a mormon bishop or something. Ms. Romney should have poured hot coffee on Wallace.

Wallace needs to go to hell or the Telestial Kingdom or somewhere. Arse.

"One word on hiding finances... transparency. More transparency equals more honesty. That goes for all entities not just the Mormon Church"

Rob: I agree 100%. Personally, I would NEVER donate to ANY non-profit that did not have transparent financial records no matter how much I believed in the cause. Especially we are talking about 10% of my income.

If nothing else, secrecy leads to suspicion. Why not be transparent if there is nothing to hide? At my church, we know how much comes in and what the money is used for. If any church I attended was secretive and I knew it, I wouldn't give them a penny, not ever, plain and simple. I've never heard of a non-profit, especially a religious non-profit, keeping that kind of info so tightly veiled.

Semantics people! "you said, he said, she said"
"wah, wah, wah" "Show me, show me, show me, show me, show me, show me, .... that's what I thought."
Is this all you people have? "Where's the money?" And insinuating that people may more or less be affected spiritually by their environment?" "But that's offensive." Get off your stinkin computer and go clothe the naked, feed the hungry, or start up your own church where you can have your own web-site to publish your financial records. All of you who say you're only here because you are fighting the cause of wrong and right are lying to yourselves big time.

Neal My Friend,

When I describe myself as "Anti-Mormon," I mean to tweak the reflexive apologists for the LDS Church who say that anyone who criticises the Church, however valid the criticism, is an "Anti-Mormon."

It is a feeble-minded defense. I am being Ironic when I describe myself thusly.

Intelligent and perceptive reader that you are, I am sure you understand my Irony.

Now if you could just remedy your Moral and Spiritual inferiority we could have a real conversation.

Love and Peace
Henry

Neal,

I did not accuse you of sophistry but I do criticize you for accusing Sister Mary Lisa of sophistry while Mr. Otterson, RTC, and other posters continue to argue that the poor are morally inferior to the rich. That is the opposite of what Jesus taught about the merit of the rich and poor.

Advocating that the slums have to be taken out of the poor is arrogant self-righteous mumbo jumbo contradicting the Savior. It might be conservative ideology but it's not the gospel. Proclaiming it as a Christian principle is sophistry.

Of course, people are entitled to their own opinions but if we call ourselves Christians then we have to take the words of Christ seriously.

Saying that the poor are less ethical than we are may be the gospel of Scrooge. It cannot be the gospel of Jesus Christ because Jesus said the opposite. If we are Christians then we should respect his words rather then twisting them until they fit our political agendas.

I also like Habitat, especially its generosity. The Perpetual Education Fund is somewhat of a racket. Only the interest on contributions goes to the poor. I guess that's better than nothing but I rather give to organizations, which give my entire contribution minus minimal overhead to the poor. That way, my sacrifice is more effective rather than building another endowment for a billion dollar corporation.

Mayan Elephant:

" if you are going to insult people you have to include me too."

If I nicknamed you "Dumbo" would that be a start?

:-D

S:
" I never speculated on where the money goes, only that the leadership do not want the funding mechanism (the members) to know where the money goes, or how much of it there actually is. If they wanted anyone to know, they would tell them. They do not, and apparently never have. There is a reason for that, or it would not be so."

Yes, obviously there is a reason they don't disclose it. You have to decide for yourself how sinister that is (or is not).

Mayan:

"So, that said, why dont you start off the merger of these opposing opinions? I actually think you have it in you and could start with the prisons and parolees you have studied. Maybe you could give a chronology for individual changes without assigning any light/spirit/god to such changes. Can you do it?"

I'm running out of time today, but would be happy to discuss more later on. I think drug use is definitely a huge contributory issue (and I include alcohol here) and one of the most difficult to address. Lack of family structure next. Gangs are next. Overworked parent(s) rank way up there (when are they going to raise minimum wage so people don't have to work 4 jobs? I go crazy over that one!). Promiscuity and teen pregnancy is way up there. Child hunger. Housing (I would bull-doze every "project" in America if it were up to me. People need to live in homes and have property - it makes them responsible. I love Habitat for Humanity and Jimmy Carter!). I would also like to discuss microloans, if anyone has gotten involved. I'm experimenting with Kiva right now.

Anyway, gotta go...

Neal

One word on hiding finances... transparency.

More transparency equals more honesty. That goes for all entities not just the Mormon Church.

Transparency does not mean shout to the roof tops look what I do for others. Transparency is someone inquiries, I show them as I have nothing to hide. The truth can stand the light of day.

This idea also meets a philosophy I learned in some of my spiritual readings. Does it serve your purpose? By that we mean real purpose. If you want to arouse suspicion and possibly create false perceptions in order to protect something then this may be the proper approach. If you want people to see the good or righteousness or benefits of your religion and grow your congregation then this might not serve your ultimate purpose. They throw the baby out with the bath water and don’t hear your message because of one issue.

Secrecy can also lead to abuse. Man has proven that time and again. I don’t mean to imply that there is abuse in this case, just that this has proven not to be a best practice.

You’re always going to get drilled by someone for whatever you do. You are secret and you get hammered on that. You are transparent and they will say you pay the people of the church too much or you don’t give enough away. If you are going to get judged it might as well be on what/who you really are.

SML

"I feel that it was wrong for Otterson's prophet to quote what he did about taking the slums out of the people. The wording of the quote implies to me that those who don't live in slums are better then those who do. Then when RTC and Neal gave their statements in support of the prophet's quote about this, it was even more apparent that correlations are being made between people's morals and poverty status. This is not right.

I have absolutely nothing against a religion, ANY religion, sharing its message to the people of the world. This does in fact improve many people's lives, in that it brings them happiness and hope for a nice reward in the next life. But to claim that people need to end their "moral/spiritual bankruptcy" that causes them to live in a slum is what I take offense to."

I agree with you to a large extent. But I think you're applying my comments universally, when they were never presented as universally applicable (and I made that disclaimer in my first post). I was discussing a MAJOR cause of the cycle of poverty (the mechainism that traps people in poverty)- not poverty itself. Admittedly what I described applies primarily to what I have experienced in inner cities here in the US. But I think you have blinders on if you think many people in those situations are not in need of spiritual help. Clearly there is a crisis in this regard in these communities. And in many instances, those who are trapped in the "clycle" are the third or fourth generation to find themselves there. If I gave the impression of "sitting in judgement" of these people, then I gave the wrong impression. My message was that spiritually uplifiting people in these circumstances can be beneficial in helping them escape this cycle. There's nothing snobby about that - its just a fact. I've seen it happen. That does not mean there aren't many good people in slums that have morals, christian ethics, etc. as you mentioned. There are. I go to Church with some of them. It also does not mean people in slums have no morals and people with money do. But I wasn't addressing the "rich people" side of the argument.

The issue in Africa is altogether different. Obviously these people have no way to even eke out an existance. As you say, self reliance is a mute point if there is nothing available to survive with! They need basic resources just to sustain life.

I appreciate your ideas and comments. I would like to hear more ideas about solutions to these problems, if you have them.

Neal

Stanton is correct.

There is absolutely no refuting the fact that the leadership does not want the finances disclosed. They want the records kept secret and treated as sacred by the faithful. Too sacred to touch, see or discuss. Sorta like their Heavenly Mother. Much too sacred. Cant live without money, but Mormon Money is too sacred to talk about.

Many can speculate on where the money goes. But there is no ignoring that the big 15 want it to end at speculation as there will never be any amount of public returning and reporting the finances of the 2007th year, or any other year for that matter.

Unfortunately, many 'testimonies' are built on knowing that the tithing is used appropriately, as if God himself was writing the checks. I disagree with Stanton that it is to hide donations, I think the secrecy is to perpetuate these 'testimonies' of people that know where the money is spent, even though they dont know. We have examples of that on this board, imagine the conviction of faithful people that are unwilling to debate the topic.

Neal;

There you go again, assuming facts not in evidence. I never speculated on where the money goes, only that the leadership do not want the funding mechanism (the members) to know where the money goes, or how much of it there actually is. If they wanted anyone to know, they would tell them. They do not, and apparently never have. There is a reason for that, or it would not be so. You can try to argue your way out of that however you like, but there it is for all to see.

As for your taking exception to my saying that you point the ad hominem finger at anyone who pins you down, you can take it however you wish. When you cannot argue the facts, you argue against those who espouse them. Things are true or false or some combination of the two no matter what anyone's motive might be for saying so. Same goes for you, things are not true or false just because Neal or the Mormons says they are, and I don't see anyone taking that course. Facts are just facts.

Personally, I think that the biggest reason that the Mormon church does not release financial info is because they fund a number of political/social measures which they do not want to be completely open about. But, who really knows what goes on behind those coffee-less office doors? Certainly not the compliant faithful.

Neal Neal Neal,

what are you doing? For the love of whatever you love, if you are going to insult people you have to include me too. Dont say something nice about me while jumping on other people. I work hard to be the bad guy, the offender and the victim all rolled up in one nasty gray epidermis.

I think there is a huge difference between being offended, and identifying something that is offensive. That applies to all sides here, including the Mormons, anti-mormons like HJ and the un-Mormons like myself. And more, one can identify offensive stuff without having been offended. I know Elder Bednar would disagree, but that is just his opinion and he is drunk on pickle juice and doesnt always have great opinions.

So, that said, why dont you start off the merger of these opposing opinions? I actually think you have it in you and could start with the prisons and parolees you have studied. Maybe you could give a chronology for individual changes without assigning any light/spirit/god to such changes. Can you do it?

Matt 6: 1-4 as per Professor John Dominic Crossan, an On Faith panelist, in his book, The Historical Jesus and also http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb398.html

Item: 398
Stratum: III (80-120 CE)
Attestation: Single
Historicity: not said by the historical Jesus but a later addition to embellish the story line.

Rob:

"Perhaps as a race we are doing too much talking the talk and not enough walking the walk. I know I am guilty. The poor lose hope and the rich get complacent, we don’t live our spirituality and we get the world we live in.

Jesus (and other religious figures) were trying to attack the root cause. Grow the spirit and you will figure out the best ways to live life on this planet."

Thanks for those beautiful comments! I agree we all need to re-examine our discipleship in these regards. Our materialistic society can easily shift the focus of the best of us.

Neal

HJ:

"But you'd expext me to say that, as America's Foremost Anti-Mormon literary Critic."

You are correct.

I really have no apologies for my comments here. If you don't think poverty has moral/spiritual repercussions then I think you're the ones smokin' crack! You might change your mind the next time you get mugged.

What I find offensive is the eagerness of this group to take offense! Whether you agree with my ideas or not, what I see time and again is not a meaningful discussion of the issue - which by the way none of you have afforded here except perhaps Mayan, who shared experiences and examples - I'm waiting for your ideas and all I get are a bunch of whines! Which sadly illustrates the only real reason most of you are here, which is just to bash Mormons. Period.

YOCKEL:

"It might make us feel good to be absolved from sharing with the poor but it ain't the gospel.

That's the real sophistry, Neal, the willy nilly dismissal of the words of the Savior about the merit of the rich and the poor for the benefit of self-serving ultra-conservative rhetoric.

As Mr. Scrooge eventually got it, I suppose that there is hope for the rest of us."

I don't recall dismissing the words of the Savior. Since when do I not give to the poor? Or other Church members? The Church has never taught we are "absolved" from caring for the poor, and they prove that every day. But sharing with the poor is only part of the solution. Uplifting spritually, teaching princilples of self reliance, and education are the other necessary components. The current government welfare system is ample evidence to me that hand-outs are not a long-term solution. Aside from the programs of the Church I've already mentioned, programs such as Habitat for Humanity, the LDS Perpetual Education Fund, and Kiva (microloans)- all of which help break the cycle of poverty - are the way to go, IMHO. And yes, we still have to make sure people don't go hungry while they're trying to break out of this cycle. Scrooge?? Really now, your're getting quite nasty aren't you?

Neal

Mathew 6:1-4

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Neal, I wouldn't ever in a million years be happy to let YOU out at one end of your local ghetto and have paramedics waiting on the other end to collect your body. I'm sorry you feel badly toward me right now. That was never my intention.

You wanted me to postulate my own ideas. I thought that was what I'd been doing here all along already. But here you go...

I feel that it was wrong for Otterson's prophet to quote what he did about taking the slums out of the people. The wording of the quote implies to me that those who don't live in slums are better then those who do. Then when RTC and Neal gave their statements in support of the prophet's quote about this, it was even more apparent that correlations are being made between people's morals and poverty status. This is not right.

I have absolutely nothing against a religion, ANY religion, sharing its message to the people of the world. This does in fact improve many people's lives, in that it brings them happiness and hope for a nice reward in the next life. But to claim that people need to end their "moral/spiritual bankruptcy" that causes them to live in a slum is what I take offense to.

I believe that almost each one of us in this world live in the best place we can afford. If the best thing I can afford is an apartment in a slum, then I would appreciate you not judging me as being morally and spiritually bankrupt, just because I'm living in poverty. I have lived in poverty in my lifetime, and it's not because I chose it or because I needed to improve my morals or spirituality. I find it sad that people with money can sit here in judgement on all those morally/spiritually bankrupt people. Many of them are only children who are born to poor parents. Many of them work hard and also teach values to their children that are similar to yours. Many of them are aware of spiritual and moral values, and live them daily.

I'm also thinking of all those people in Africa and other third-world countries who have suffered drought, who live in poverty, slums even, for their entire lives. How exactly will teaching them how to be self-reliant help them most? No amount of belief in God or teaching them how to care for themselves will help these people as has been suggested, since there is no food source or job to be found. When RTC says "For those who are in need of assistance of any kind, they are asked in return to give of themselves as an offering. Why should this seem unacceptable to anyone?" and I think of those thousands of starving people in the slums of Africa, and I think, what the hell?

Neal said “the cycle of poverty is fueled in part(most, some - you pick) by spiritual/moral bankruptcy.”. I lost track of who thought what on this but we can’t pin this totally on one class of individuals as the statement is true of both the rich and the poor.

If Christians want to help the poor they will have job security. I am not saying they shouldn’t, it is exactly what we should be doing. But they are missing a step.

Where I fault PORTIONS of the Christian establishment is in not opposing the class system we have both at the individual and country level(3rd world countries). They attack hot button issues like abortion and gays rights which affect a minority of the population. Where as poverty, and starvation affects and kills far more people.

By providing assistance to the poor we are treating the symptom, not the root cause. The root cause is the fallacy of need ( I need more stuff) and the class system that has resulted over thousands of years makes it tougher on the poor. We can not ‘cure’ the poor, that is raise everyone one up to an appropriate standard of living, until we get both the upper and lower classes change their attitudes.

I would suggest that the lack of spiritual awareness in a poor person may make it easier for them to fall into habits that would be detrimental to the world. (drugs, crime, hopelessness so they are more content to sit on welfare for instance).

For the rich the lack of spiritual awareness may make it easier for them to fall into habits that would be detrimental to the world; drugs, excesses, greed, crime ( I need to get even more ).

Perhaps as a race we are doing too much talking the talk and not enough walking the walk. I know I am guilty. The poor lose hope and the rich get complacent, we don’t live our spirituality and we get the world we live in.

Jesus (and other religious figures) were trying to attack the root cause. Grow the spirit and you will figure out the best ways to live life on this planet.

Drugs, Money, and Morality

Joy and Neal and SML

I believe that there are many people with lots of money who have significant problems with drugs - poor lindsay lohan, the head of HBO.

I do also think, regardless of personalities, to say or imply that people's poverty is due
to deficiencies in their Moral and Spiritual Natures

is a pretty offensive comment, almost regardless of how one qualifies it.

This is nothing against the Mormons, who I think are as good or better than most christina churches in regard to helping the poor.

So, I guess I'd agree that the reason SML finds the comment offensive is that it is offensive.

Regardless of how many other offensive things there are in the world that SML has the temerity to point out. I must say, in my experience she hasn't mislabe3ed anything yet.

But you'd expext me to say that, as America's Foremost Anti-Mormon literary Critic.

Amen, Henry James.

As for Mr. Otterson and his defenders, they remind me of the malevolent characters in Charles Dickens' novels. This sermon about the poor's slough and sinfulness would have mightily pleased Mr. Scrooge.

It might make us feel good to be absolved from sharing with the poor but it ain't the gospel.

That's the real sophistry, Neal, the willy nilly dismissal of the words of the Savior about the merit of the rich and the poor for the benefit of self-serving ultra-conservative rhetoric.

As Mr. Scrooge eventually got it, I suppose that there is hope for the rest of us.

Having been a real life soldier in the War on Poverty,
I can definitively tell you

that the best way to avoid being poor
is to be born rich.

Everything else is pretty chancy, random.

Escaping poverty seems to me to be a mysterious and unpredictable combination of luck, pluck, and not getting f&*ked.

As Ecclesiates says
"And I awoke to find upon the earth, that the race is not always to the swift, but that chance and fate happeneth to us all."

The woman from the South that was featured on 'The Mormons' is another example of someone escaping despair and benefitting from involvement in the LDS church. It happens and there are success stories. Many of us have seen them. I would say the same about many of the Nigerian Student Union Leaders that escaped prisons and death sentences in Nigeria, arrived in Western Europe and joined the Church. There are these examples, no doubt.

I was there with Todd O. as his mission companion and can tell you there were some rare and extraordinary success stories along with the heartache and frustrations which often overwhelmed us.

I think there remains a harsh amount of classism as it relates to welfare programs, especially faith based programs. And, to me, the sad undertone of that is that 'slumming' or poverty is a result of not having that bright light or spirit. With that as a starting point and basis on the part of the upper class and self-proclaimed spiritual people, much opportunity is lost.

I am not limiting my assignment of loss just to those that are poor as it relates to nicer houses, healthcare and wealth. There is also much lost as we fail to appreciate their contributions and real lives. Look at the great contributions from the South alone. If you do not know about the Quilts of Gees Bend, the Blues artists of Como, Mississippi, the first female millionaire in the US, Gospel Music and much much more, you are missing out. Most of this had its roots in poverty, suppression and despair. And yet, it has produced some of the brightest and most uplifting aspects of our society.

SML is right. There is no basis for assigning a lack of spirit to those that are in different circmstances. Nor is there any reason to credit their advancements to a ghost when their own fortitude and having changed a few things is what makes the greatest difference.

Judging others Light is a terrible way to approach what is a global and very difficult problem.

Stanton:

"The fact that the original source of that income, the members, do not feel entitled to this information says a lot about blind and mindless faith."

Not blind or mindless. I have extensive experience with the Church financial system. And I find no evidence that there is some "Jim and Tammy Faye" style scandal going on in the Church. No Church leaders have been seen installing solid gold bath fixtures in their homes. The Church is not building them multi-million dollar mansions to live in. No one has caught them on a private Yacht called "Monkey Business" spending tithing dollars to excess. My experience in the Church teaches me that these are honest men of incredible faith, devotion , and integrity. If I did not believe this then I would indeed have a reason to be skeptical, but I do not. Do you have evidence of such excesses? Please, bring them forward.

"then members of the group leap for the "just saying that because you dislike/hate/don't understand us." Looks like Neal has learned this one well."

I take exception to that. I address questions quite thoroughly, and do not shy away from the fight, so to speak. But after posting here long enough its quite easy to see what the agenda is for many.

SML:

"I am not opposed to the church in this thread, I'm opposed to the idea that people who live in slums are morally/spiritually bankrupt as you asserted more than once."

And once more you have distorted what I said. I said the cycle of poverty is fueled in part(most, some - you pick) by spritual/moral bankruptcy. Again we see clear evidence of the sophistry you employ to put a negative spin on anything an LDS person says here. Are you saying there is no one living in slums that is morally/spiritually bankrupt? Let me take you to a jail so you can experience what that is first hand. I'll be happy to let you out at one end of our local ghetto and have paramedics waiting on the other end to collect your body. And never mind the fact that you haven't given us what your theories are on the subject, which happens to be the value of spiritual teaching to break the cycle of poverty. Rather than nit-pick on the tiniest details of my comments, why don't you postulate your own ideas or worth for discussion? We can do the he-said, she-said thing all day long.

Manyan:

"Really? Is this true? So, a Ward in Federal Heights, with generous contributors, spends all its money within the boundaries? And, a Branch in Louisiana can only spend what they collect from their own members?"

No, that is not how it works. If a Ward does not use the fast offering money it goes to the Stake. If the Stake doesn't use it it goes to the general fund, which is used to cover expenditures in units that did not collect enough fast offerings to do so. A Branch in Louisiana can spend whatever it needs and it will be covered either by the Stake or the general fund. And I live in a poor Ward, so all our money is spent locally.

Neal

Dear Joy ~

I think that the illegal drug use is what was morally/spiritually deficient in the man you talk about, not the fact he lived in the slums. Is that right? Improving that bad habit is what brought his new brightness and happiness, not his poverty status. Right?

m. stanton,

Neal was basing his comments about the finances of the LDS church based on his owe experiences dealing with money in the local area where he lived. I don't see any blind or mindless faith there.

Sister mary lisa,

I have to agree with Neal. You seem to find something to be offended about no matter what the subject.

Mayan,
I must stand by my statement about the church's unheralded acts of charity throughout the world. For as many as are heralded, there are many more that you never hear about.

Regardless - Christ taught to care for the temporal as well as the spiritual well being of our fellow man.

I knew a man years ago who was deep in the slums of society. He was also involved in illegal drugs. I watched as the missionaries taught him the gospel of Jesus Christ and his entire countenance changed from dark and wild (scary really) to bright and happy. I believe that the slums were taken out of this man's heart. I watched it happen. It is what Christ would have wanted and what Christ would have done had he been here personally.

So that is what I strive for - to serve my fellow man both with money as well as with gospel light.

Mr/Ms? Elephant:

You are too charitable. There is always a reason that organizations do not want their financial statements released to their contributors, if not the general public. (I gather from your comments that this is a long-lived practice in the Mormon Church?) And that reason is because the leadership does not WANT anyone to know how much money they have, and what they do with it. The fact that the original source of that income, the members, do not feel entitled to this information says a lot about blind and mindless faith.

I also find it interesting that, just like on other threads, when someone criticizes a religious group in a manner in which some pretzel-logic response is temporarily unavailable, then members of the group leap for the "just saying that because you dislike/hate/don't understand us." Looks like Neal has learned this one well.

Neal ~

Considering the fact that your comments ARE offensive, it's not any surprise that any person would find your comments offensive.

I am not opposed to the church in this thread, I'm opposed to the idea that people who live in slums are morally/spiritually bankrupt as you asserted more than once.

Can anyone dispute that the LDS Church does very, very much to help the poor? Why would anyone care to have access to the detailed financial records of the Church? What would that actually accomplish?

If those that contribute generously to the Church are satisfied that those funds are used wisely and are not concerned to see financial records, why would someone who does not contribute care to see the records? I am assuming that contributors are not concerned about the records but believe that would be the case.

GHOSTBUSTER

That is not exactly what anyone is saying.

The mormon church does not provide "any" financial reports to "anybody."

I'm not sure I am following this.

I think some of you are saying that the mormon church does not have an open book policy that provides detailed financial reports to contributors or to the public.

???

" I know every dime I give in fast offerings goes to the poor in my Ward. "

Really? Is this true? So, a Ward in Federal Heights, with generous contributors, spends all its money within the boundaries? And, a Branch in Louisiana can only spend what they collect from their own members?

I think it is not true. Again, this is a crazy rumor that should be corrected with adequate disclosure and audits. It is crazy that people are giving money away and believing things are done with it, that are not true.

I know bishops and Stake Presidents that work more than a full-time equivalent for the Church. I think it is a damn shame they are not paid where the bossmen are paid. That is just me. I think Bishops should all be compensated appropriately. And with that - trained.

Tanner was an outlier. In fact, he is not appreciated enough. Tanner is very much responsible for restructuring the finances of the church and making it the fortune 100 company that it is today. He deserves enormous respect. I speculate that he would be very much in favor of releasing a public audit, paying the best people to work for the church and building it even bigger. He truly did have energy, and not just the Oil kind of energy. Great Dude. One of my favorites actually. His is one of the most impressive biographies in the post-manifesto church. He was bold with the money. Practical too.

I remember exactly where I was when I learned of Tanners death. And I remember watching the full-time janitor of our chapel lower the flag when he died. I really liked that Tanner dude.

SML:

"Exactly, Neal. I can just picture you asking them, "Are you living in a cycle of poverty because you're morally/spiritually bankrupt?"

It is offensive."

Considering the fact that you take offense at everthing we say, and that your purpose here is to oppose the Church, should anyone be surprised?

Neal,

Mayan,

I don't think anyone has any delusions of the lay ministry. It is, of course, true. Bishops, Stake Presidents, and other local leaders are not paid. In the case of those who are paid, this is of course necessary if they devote full time to the Church. I don' think this is some hidden secret in the Church. I've always known the Brethren are paid so they can live.

But I don't think they are paid anything excessive. Some of the GAs became wealthy before they were called and never accept ANY funds from the Church. I know N. Eldon Tanner never took a dime. He was a multi-millionaire from his oil business in Canada. Spencer Kimball, on the other hand, had an insurance business before becoming a GA. He lived in a tiny tract home in SLC and drove a Maverick! (until he became too ill) I personally know 2 mission presidents who never took a dime for the whole 3 years they served. Mission homes are big because they have large groups of missionaries they must house as they come and go from their missions. In addition, the mission presidents whole family must live there.

As to why the Church does not disclose its figures publicly? I can't speak for the Church. I'm sure they have very valid reasons, but unlike you, I think their motivations are honorable. I have no fears that the money I donate is being used inappropriately. I know every dime I give in fast offerings goes to the poor in my Ward. I have no fear that my tithing monies are spent unwisely. I see plenty of evidence that my Church is involved in a number of humanitarian and charitable causes. If you want to fret about it, that's really your problem..

Neal

Exactly, Neal. I can just picture you asking them, "Are you living in a cycle of poverty because you're morally/spiritually bankrupt?"

It is offensive.

"Using the words "to a large degree" and "many" tells me you are not just saying "some.""

Well I think you missed what I was describing as "promulgated by". That was the "cycle of poverty", not "poverty". There's a difference.

And I think if you took a survey on the subject you would find that its closer to "many" than to "some". But that's my subjective opinion based on my own observations. I won't be volunteering to take that survey in the ghetto in my city, because I wouldn't come out alive.

Neal

Neal,

Yes, I was dismissive. Simply because you had an answer loaded with speculation that was not one bit quantifiable. It is not a subjective question.

I am not asking for relative numbers. My complaints are not at all related to the spending of any other institution. How much money does the Church have? What is their revenue/income and what are the expenses and donations made by the church?

I could care less what other charities spend relative to the church.

True. This church's primary mission is not welfare, it is church. I get that. But, it is a bit amusing to hear things like this: "by and large the majority of the work done for others by the welfare department to relieve suffering around the world is unheralded and unacknowledged by the world in general."

Sidenote, unheralded is the furthest thing from the truth. Should we go through and count all the press releases otterson has written about church welfare?

My expenses and spending are not relevent to this conversation because I did not take YOUR money. It is not a contest here, neal. It is a question of accountability. If it is Jesus Christ's church and everything is done as he would do it, what is to hide? Why the secrets? There are plenty of institutions with full disclosure. Why not this one - the limited edition one true church?

This goes back to the urban legend issues from other threads. There are too many members giving too much to the church and thinking that there is a lay clergy and that the church is using the money to help the poor and needy. The church has been paying for hinckleys groceries his entire adult life. The church pays salaries to all the general authorities and pays a ton to keep some mission presidents living in fancy houses for three years. That is all fine. I wish they were all paid more.

Why not disclose it? Is there a scandal? Is there fraud? Or, as I suspect, the books are clean and people are honest, but, it would burst the bubble of the perfect image that many people have that the church is perfect in all things, including finances. And, it would destroy a few more rumors - lay ministry and generous welfare.

Its bad enough that otterson had to put out a press release that reduced all the doctrine to the scriptures and proclamations last week. It would be too much to also disclose the finances in the same decade, maybe.

Also, Neal, I note I did distort your word "bankruptcy" to "deficiency." Bankruptcy means NOT HAVING ANY of a certain resource, while deficient means inadequate, lacking part of.

That is a distortion in your favor. Should I take it back?

Neal ~

I quoted your comments. I did not distort them. You made a pretty specific comment: "This [poverty] is promulgated to a large degree by the spiritual/moral banruptcy many impoverished people experience along with their financial banruptcy."

Using the words "to a large degree" and "many" tells me you are not just saying "some."

SML

"Does nobody else find it absolutely offensive when people consider physical poverty a spiritual/moral deficiency?"

Please don't distort my comments. I clearly stated they were general in nature, and I certainly never made that equivocation. Of course there are poor who are not spiritually or morally deficient, just as there are rich who ARE; but poverty is certainly a contributing factor in many instances. And the opposite is also true - spiritual/moral bankruptcy can lead to poverty. I see these cause and effect scenarios played out constantly in jails and prisons (and yes, my work takes me inside these insitutions on a frequent basis).

Neal

I wonder how many slum-dwellers' lives could be transformed with $2 Billion.....

Junk? That's simply dismissive. More like your ALWAYS negative opinion, I would say.

And the reports are right there, if you care to look at them. There are two - one for the general Church and one for a specific Welfare arm.

Your complaints are only valid if you can show that other Churches do not have the same costs of overhead and give substantially higher percentages to the poor.

And the last time I checked, the primary mission of the Church is not to be a welfare agency, although they have a welfare program admired and copied the world over. Responsibility for the poor is a universal one.

And tell us what percentage of YOUR income goes directly to the poor? Provide us with your income statements, please, because we certainly can't take your word on it.

Neal

Neal writes, "The cycle of poverty is a vicious one, and tends to be passed down from one generation to the next. This is promulgated to a large degree by the spiritual/moral banruptcy many impoverished people experience along with their financial banruptcy."

Does nobody else find it absolutely offensive when people consider physical poverty a spiritual/moral deficiency?

Neal,

Nice Try. your answer is all a bunch of junk.

How much money do they bring in and where do the spend it?

Its not a hard question, really.

Neal, disbursements to the Red Cross and other organizations would still show up as charitable activities in the reports that the LDS Church has to file with the British Charity Commission.

The fact is that the LDS Church does very little for the poor in Britain.

Phouchg:

"The British government requires that all charities provide detailed financial reports about their income and expenditures. You may wish to go to charitycommission.gov.uk and look up Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (GREAT BRITAIN) and (WELFARE) to see how little of their substatial income is used for actual charitable purposes such as helping the poor. Less than 4% of their income (by my calculations)."

As anonymous stated, the Church primarily uses other agencies to distribute money and resources to the needy in foreign countries. Specifically the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Catholic Charities. You would not see an accurate accounting in those statistics. That probably reflects the fast offerings of local members.

The Church uses a hybrid centralized/decentralized model for distribution of monies. Tithes are sent to Church Headquarters and then redistributed as needed throughout the globe. Fast offerings (for the poor) are distributed locally, first by the Bishop. If he does not use all of those funds, then they go to the Stake.

Neal

I haven't been to church in over 25 years, and I have no intentions of going, either. If people are going to run around making pithy speeches about the sanctity of the Church, then they'd better be ready to back up their institutional support with some cold, hard facts, like being able to account for all monies recieved in the name of their institution. If you've read the news for about the last 4 years or so, you see that public accountability is a pretty big blind spot for a lot of these outfits, and the mormons are no exception. In God we trust, all others pay cash...

Thankful & JD1:

I couldn't agree with you more. It just seems like the same arguments and circular reasoning are brought up all the time on every blog. Very annoying.

I don't know how the same people can blog so much of their day. What do all these heavy bloggers do? Do they work? How can they possibly get anything done blogging so often????? Oh well......

I'll be signign off for quite some time as well...... hope everyone gets along........

Just to throw a few comments into the ring:

I think Otterson's comment on taking slums out of people, etc. is actually quite on the spot.

The cycle of poverty is a vicious one, and tends to be passed down from one generation to the next. This is promulgated to a large degree by the spiritual/moral banruptcy many impoverished people experience along with their financial banruptcy. Poverty is degrading. Its depressing. There is a direct cause and effect between these two statuses (and lets establish right now that I'm speaking in general terms). A poor person is focused on basic survival and little else. Many times spiritual and family matters recieve scant time or attention because of this focus. As a result, children often are raised more by their siblings or their friends on the street than by their absentee parent(s); with the attendant increase in delinquency and truancy. So, an even higher risk of moral/spiritual bankruptcy for the rising generation is realized. Delinquent behaviors lead to more ignorance, violence, teen pregnancy, illeteracy, gangs and other crime. The rising generation is then even more incompetent to find meaningful employment and even less likely to be effective parents. The cycle continues to spiral downward. Have you ever noticed that most of the crime is occuring in these poor areas?

Restoring the spiritual / moral component to those in poverty can have a striking effect on this cycle. These people are taught to love, not hate. They are taught to give of themselves, not steal. They are taught responsibility and self reliance. They are given a moral code of conduct that restores dignity and a sense of worth. They form associations with people of character and integrity, instead of resorting to gangs for a sense of community and belonging. In short, they become better people, and are therefore better able to break out of this vicious cycle.

May I point out that Christ admonished us to care for the poor, but he also commanded us to "take the Gospel to every creature". By so doing, we make all men and women everwhere better people.

And may I also add that I find the constant attacks on Church finances tiresome. Is this sour grapes or what??! I think you'll find most Churches don't publish their financial stats, so why are we unique here? And you people are ignorant of much of the work the Church does in regard to welfare. I attended an inner-city Ward for several years, and the Church built that building in an area that normally would not have qualified. It was a poor area - it had few members, yet they built a beautiful Chapel there. They often opened that Chapel up so the local people could play basketball. I had the privelege of working with many of the indigent in that area. I was in the Bishopric, so I know what went on, and the aid given - not just to Church members, but to individuals in community - was substantial. And Church members in the surrounding Wards made large contributions to help these people - some even donated automobiles so people could have transportation to work. These things don't get tallied up on some balance sheet somewhere - these gifts are often quietly given. Just as the Savior would have done. So please stop your whining about Church contributions. I was a Stake Financial Clerk and auditor for five years and I know how the Church handles its money. There is no conspiracy of greed to write home about. Maybe you should concentrate more on what YOU are doing to help the poor? Do you give ALL you have to the poor? (that's what Jesus told the rich man to do, right)? How about 10%? Less?

Matt. 7: 3-5
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

When you can clearly best the contributions of the Church and its members, then you may have some room to criticize. Until you can prove that, why don't you focus on something that isn't speculative?

Neal

Mormonism will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Christianity and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist. Associating the Singularity with these mythical assistants and opponents mocks the concept of God the Almighty.

The Good Words were articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!

RTC, SML and anyone who gives a durn,

JD1 and I have decided we need to stay out of the blogosphere for a while -- it's all getting a little too close to home and it's been quite a distraction from other important matters for some time to which we really must attend.

Kind regards and thanks to all,

JD1 and Thankful

Thankful,

Tell my son in law that majority rules and NOT to be such a stick in the mud! lol
rtc

And, IF he has something intelligent to say, then SAY IT!

that is because the british are all socialist and into control. I would take a guess that the mormon church is very aware of this and so they funnel their assets much differently in the U.K. your calculations will not give an accurate story as it is designed this way to be certain. the church is way smarter with their finances than that. beside, they don't need the money of the church over there. they have enough social programs to take care of everything and then some. hip hip hooray for the british!

The British government requires that all charities provide detailed financial reports about their income and expenditures. You may wish to go to charitycommission.gov.uk and look up Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (GREAT BRITAIN) and (WELFARE) to see how little of their substatial income is used for actual charitable purposes such as helping the poor. Less than 4% of their income (by my calculations).

See for yourself.

And then ask yourself why such reports aren't given voluntarily in the USA.

Thankful,

Are you my daughter? lol Would that mean JD1 would be my son-in-law? Do I have any grandchildren by you two? I need to know... as I will start xmas shopping soon guys.

That's a story I just can't recall? And if Joy is my Sister, then maybe she knows my daddy?

Law - when I spoke of the Law of Consecration, I believe I stated so. Otherwise I was referring to the basic laws of the gospel as we make at baptism... Mosiah 18:8...

SLUM:
Natural Man - Mosiah 3:19 (I believe that is the reference) For the natural man is an enemy unto God and has been from the beginning and will be forever and ever unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy spirit and becometh a Saint through the atonement of Christ and becometh as a child....( I am paraphrasing here)

He goes on to list the qualities of a child... patient, meek, humble, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the father seeth fit to inflict upon him, etc..

Here we learn that we are "all" in the slums, until we come unto Christ through baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost, which changes us and as we become something different... as here described, we come up out of the slums.

Cool, huh? But SML, you probably remember this from teaching gospel essentials, right?

JD1 says we're all lame!

He says this is Otterson's thread and we're all acting like it's our own little breakfast club!

Sister Mary Lisa:
Hey JD1 ~

I certainly hope you don't find "Who should I marry" a mundane task!

:) sml

Posted May 9, 2007 3:13 PM

John D the First:
Yeah I should have have put a footnote there!!

I hope my wife doesn't read this!

Posted May 9, 2007 3:20 PM

Thankful:
JD1 my Love,

Please bring flowers as penance when you come home tonight and I'll be expecting a massage as well!

SML,

Thank you for rebuking my hubby :)

Posted May 9, 2007 3:27 PM

Sister Mary Lisa:
Thankful ~

I never knew you and JD1 were married! Did I miss that somewhere?! You are lucky to have each other.

Enjoy that massage!

:)

Posted May 9, 2007 3:30 PM

John D the First:
Thankful you outed us without even consulting me!!!

Now no one will take it seriously when I come to your defense!!!

Posted May 9, 2007 3:30 PM

Sister Mary Lisa:
JD1 ~

I'm afraid there was NO WAY she could resist saying what she did about the flowers etc. You owe her bigtime. I'm on her side on this one. You totally set yourself up, dude.

Posted May 9, 2007 3:39 PM

Thankful:
John D the First,

Sorry my dearest, split second decision in the momment -- kind of like that mundane comment. lol

I guess I owe you a massage now too!

Posted May 9, 2007 3:41 PM

Thankful:
SML,

No you didn't miss anything, JD1 and I have been "undercover" about our eternal association with one up until now.

I find him utterly Brilliant and his uncommon sincerity and sensitivity a huge part of my initial and ongoing attraction to him but sometimes, you know, he reminds me he is still a man. lol lol lol

Posted May 9, 2007 3:50 PM

Thankful:
Should read eternal association with one another...

Posted May 9, 2007 3:51 PM

John D the First:
Okay, okay ladies,

By the word mundane I was looking at the root of the word, that is, "of this world", or "temporal." Not trivial or banal as it is typically understood. I thought it didn't really match the other examples, but I thought it would be important to include because all are familiar with revelation motivated marriage in Mormon culture.

Now that's a poor excuse, so Thankful, you owe me no massage. I will make sure to put on my sackcloth and ashes before I come home and provide whatever penance you require :)

Love You,

JD1

Posted May 9, 2007 3:59 PM

Sister Mary Lisa:
Thankful ~

Did you read that "Little Factory" thing I linked from Boyd K. Packer? Can you believe that? I'd have died if I had been given a talk like that as a young woman. Ha.

Posted May 9, 2007 4:02 PM

Sister Mary Lisa:
T ~

Don't be too hasty in thinking up a penance for him!! We should confer and discuss before you decide.....it's not often a chance like this comes along! Oh, the POWER coursing through your veins!!! :D

sml

Posted May 9, 2007 4:05 PM

Thankful:
Hi SML,

Perhaps I'll get some time to read it later but right now I gotta dash

thanks for a fun little exchange :)

Posted May 9, 2007 4:08 PM

RTC:
To The Happy Couple!

JD1 & Thankful... What a most brilliant couple:-) Congratulations to the both of you for binding such a fine eternal companionship.

You are a wonderful example of the gospel in action.

As I consider many of the post the both of you have blogged on many topics of conversation, I am truly touched in the ways you have applied the many principles of the gospel into your lives.

I hope others realize this and understand just how broad The Gospel of Jesus Christ extends within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

Thank you Thankful and JD1 for willingly sharing your lives so honestly here, and now sharing your decision to make your marriage known.

I suspect that this will now create the possibility of many new conversations in the dialogue around here. Both of you are very thoughtful individuals. I personally enjoy very much reading and learning from you, and will continue to do so.
rtc

JD1 - Lovely testimony and follow-up thoughts. Joseph Smith opened new doors in the ways men and women are able to communicate with Deity. It is much more than the epiphany/ transcendent type of experience that is mentioned by many. I appreciate the dialogue that you have engaged in as you have attempted to explain this difference.

Posted May 9, 2007 4:25 PM

Mayan Elephant:
JD1 and Thankful,

good stuff. ya know, a family that posts together, stays together.

my wife has posts on here too, but, i dont talk about her because she is too sacred and people may take her name in vain. i dont mind the profanity and so i take all the glory without acknowledging her or her work.

Well SML, the “truth” is that Otterson's my hero, RTC's my conscious and Joy is the little angel on my shoulder.

Hi Thankful -

I shall see IF I can clarify each of the points you extracted. Thanks for asking.

1. Thankful's Interpretation:

Help the poor by taking care of their needs BUT with the goal to ultimately facilitate them to be able to take care of their needs on their own.

RTC - If we apply this in the society, that should definitely be the goal and it can work this way. In the spiritual sense, coming to a oneness where we learn to work together to benefit the whole and become one is considered Zion. These qualities should be sought out and developed by those who desire to become like Christ.

2. Thankful's Interpretation:

I also hear her saying that this issue is personal for her and that this is what she believes helped her come out of "the slums"

RTC - Actually, as a child, although I knew we were not from the upper class, and because I took on a positive attitude, as I never really allowed myself to acknowledge that condition about myself, until later in adulthood. The advantage of the experience, is the perspective and compassion it has given me, to see things with what I feel is a nice balance of clarity.

But taking on a positive attitude in general, for all challenges, because of that growing up experience, has helped in many situations in my life. Application is generally wide.

3. Thankful's Interpretation: I also hear her saying that she's not for socialized medicine and that she questions -- even objects to additional taxation for this.

RTC - Actually in choosing to use the entire analogy of "medicine" as applied to this "plague" of spiritual disease or lack of health was probably not a good idea on this thread to be honest. Religion and politics should not be mixed. I was strictly speaking from a spiritual point of view only... period.

Or maybe it would be better to say, that when I do speak in the future, I best always remember that these things will ALWAYS be tied together on these threads. As you can tell, I am rusty from taking the month off. lol

Particularly in this post though, that was my only intention. Ask the question outside that post. lol

4. Thankful's Interpretation: I also hear her saying we need to do more than donate money -- we need to give of our time and energy and talents to uplift others.

RTC - What I am saying is that IF an individual is coming to the church for assistance, THEN, they must be willing to play the game basically, or in other words, keep the law. The criticism that I had read thus far on the thread was that individuals were required to DO something to GET something. As IF that was WRONG?

My intent was to attempt to explain HOW through our covenant membership this oneness is to come about, as each individual makes a CHOICE to contribute willingly whatever they have to offer, and receive whatever it is that they need... as they develop into a more complete individual.

5. Thankful's Interpretation: I also hear her saying she thinks change starts with the individual wanting to change.

RTC: Yes. In the spiritual sense, it is a desire to put off the natural man and become a Saint through the atonement of Christ... At-One-ment. So this covenant membership then is a becoming process for those who choose to participate in becoming like Christ.

I hope this helps a bit.
rtc

So if you Thankful and John D the First are married, are there any other associations we aren't aware of here? Is RTC Thankful's mother? Is she Mike Otterson's wife? Is Mayan my cousin? Is Joy Thankful's sister? Inquiring minds want to know!

RTC,

by "law" you mean law of consecration?

What does the natural man who needs to change into a Saint have to do with someone coming out of the slums?

Hi Thankful -

I shall see IF I can clarify each of the points you extracted. Thanks for asking.

1. Thankful's Interpretation:

Help the poor by taking care of their needs BUT with the goal to ultimately facilitate them to be able to take care of their needs on their own.

RTC - If we apply this in the society, that should definitely be the goal and it can work this way. In the spiritual sense, coming to a oneness where we learn to work together to benefit the whole and become one is considered Zion. These qualities should be sought out and developed by those who desire to become like Christ.

2. Thankful's Interpretation:

I also hear her saying that this issue is personal for her and that this is what she believes helped her come out of "the slums"

RTC - Actually, as a child, although I knew we were not from the upper class, and because I took on a positive attitude, as I never really allowed myself to acknowledge that condition about myself, until later in adulthood. The advantage of the experience, is the perspective and compassion it has given me, to see things with what I feel is a nice balance of clarity.

But taking on a positive attitude in general, for all challenges, because of that growing up experience, has helped in many situations in my life. Application is generally wide.

3. Thankful's Interpretation: I also hear her saying that she's not for socialized medicine and that she questions -- even objects to additional taxation for this.

RTC - Actually in choosing to use the entire analogy of "medicine" as applied to this "plague" of spiritual disease or lack of health was probably not a good idea on this thread to be honest. Religion and politics should not be mixed. I was strictly speaking from a spiritual point of view only... period.

Or maybe it would be better to say, that when I do speak in the future, I best always remember that these things will ALWAYS be tied together on these threads. As you can tell, I am rusty from taking the month off. lol

Particularly in this post though, that was my only intention. Ask the question outside that post. lol

4. Thankful's Interpretation: I also hear her saying we need to do more than donate money -- we need to give of our time and energy and talents to uplift others.

RTC - What I am saying is that IF an individual is coming to the church for assistance, THEN, they must be willing to play the game basically, or in other words, keep the law. The criticism that I had read thus far on the thread was that individuals were required to DO something to GET something. As IF that was WRONG?

My intent was to attempt to explain HOW through our covenant membership this oneness is to come about, as each individual makes a CHOICE to contribute willingly whatever they have to offer, and receive whatever it is that they need... as they develop into a more complete individual.

5. Thankful's Interpretation: I also hear her saying she thinks change starts with the individual wanting to change.

RTC: Yes. In the spiritual sense, it is a desire to put off the natural man and become a Saint through the atonement of Christ... At-One-ment. So this covenant membership then is a becoming process for those who choose to participate in becoming like Christ.

I hope this helps a bit.
rtc

RTC,

Can you give us yur thoughts on this one last time? It seems me and SML are reading different posts or something? obviously we each have are bias so spell it out real slow for us would ya?

PS. JD1 and I are coming up on our 4 year anniversary

Thankful ~

RTC hardly needs you to run interference for her. She's taken me and our favorite Elephant on quite handily herself many times. I appreciate you, however, for trying to be a peacemaker.

It seems to me that RTC is saying people in slums have a sense of "entitlement" about being taken care of, and that they need to learn to take care of themselves. She sees this "entitlement" as the "great plague of our society." Not a very Christlike attitude.

Her comment on taxpayer money is referring to welfare dollars, I'm certain ~ food stamps and Medicaid. I don't think she was thinking socialized medicine, or she'd have said socialized medicine. That's why she mentions how we drop money in an envelope instead of giving of our time and energy, which feeds their sense of entitlement, when instead we should be empowering them to be able to get the things they need themselves versus just receiving aid.

Throughout it all she seems to be implying that people who live in slums are not self-reliant and have worse values than she does.

I maintain that there are MANY people who happen to live in slums who have values, know about "provident living" all on their own, who work hard to support their families in love. I am very thankful we live in a country where some of my tax dollars go to help people who sincerely need it, and I'm also happy to help when I can as Phaedrus did.

I even feed the missionaries in my ward when they go hungry too. I wonder if RTC thinks I should instead teach them how to budget their money more wisely.....

I love stories. Wanna hear another one?

I was at the zoo. Hogle Zoo. It is very close to where Brigham Young rose from his bed to say this is the place. At the zoo. The Cougars were mating. Seriously. PDA, right there in Hogle Zoo of Zion. And my dad said, "Hey, look, BYU Cougars."

Animals were seen. Laughter was heard. Tears, were not shed. Us like Jesus was became.

See, I love stories. I just think its OK to laugh at the Mormons who cant have a testimony without a story and a story without a testimony. Does anyone have a problem with that?

Now who is still offended? raise your hand.

OK here's what I hear RTC saying

Help the poor by taking care of thier needs BUT with the goal to ultimately facilitate them to be able to take care of thier needs on thier own.

I also hear her saying that this issus is personal for her and that this is what she beleives helped her come out of "the slums"

I also hear her saying that she's not for socialized medicine and that she questions -- even objects to additional taxation for this.

I also hear her saying we need to do more than donate money -- we need to give of our time and energy and talents to uplift others.

I also hear her saying she thinks change starts with the individual wanting to change.

RTC do I read you?

Did I miss the part where you say you look down on the poor?

Thankful,

Congrats on the wedding! How long?

Believe it or not, I came sooo close to posting anonymously for the reasons you stated, but that is not my style.... ever. Although I have been accused of it many, many times as you well know. lol

Very tempting. I still say he needs a cookie or two. Me too.

If I get bored sometime during the Summer months, I shall go and cut and paste all of Mayan's sad stories and post them. Then we shall see who is the best story teller of them all. I think he wins hands down.

No one is as clever as the Mayan when it comes to words! And the swearing thing... that would ruin it. I know he would feel better and all, but seriously.... no!

Oh, and by the way.... was that a "story" Phaedrus was telling in his post? Why did not Mayan pounce on him with his big old trunk? lol
rtc