Book of Mormon

[idea]

Yes but the problem with that is some people have there own interpretation of the standards of work. like for example - being with loved ones after death - he was saying it was in the Doctrine and Covenants, that only those in the Celestial Kingdom get to see there loved ones.

cutting and pasting from LDS.org so as not to get in trouble.

LDS.org - Ensign Article____

The greatest joys of true married life can be continued. The most beautiful relationships of parents and children can be made permanent. The holy association of families can be never-ending if husband and wife have been sealed in the holy bond of eternal matrimony. Their joys and progress will never end, but this will never fall into place of its own accord.

Ensign » 1974 » August Kimball, 1st Pres message, temples and eternal Marriage.

I'm still looking for who gets to see whom and under what circumstances / what the quality of the relashonship is. No agendas here, I would like to know for myself too. I'll post what I find.

more from the same article:
It will be remembered how the Lord answered the hypocritical Sadducees who, trying to trap him, propounded this difficult problem:
The husband died leaving no posterity, and the wife married his brother who also died without seed. She in turn married a third brother, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh all in accordance with the law of Moses, and then the woman of the seven husbands died also. Now the frustrating question is:
“In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.” (Mark 12:23.) ...

Dr. James E. Talmage writes: “The Lord’s meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman shall be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only. … In the resurrection, there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.” (Jesus the Christ, p. 548.)

Undoubtedly, the first husband married the woman for eternity by a ceremony which was not limited by time. She became a widow at his demise until she should also die and join her husband. Now, she married brother number two, “until death do you part,” and it definitely parted them even before posterity, and he went into the spirit world through the veil and with no wife, for their contract also had been terminated by death. And brothers number three and four and five and six and finally number seven in turn—all married her in temporary marriage, in which ceremonies were the limitations, “so long as you both shall live.” And death terminated what happiness they had had and their promise of future bliss.
How sad! How gloomy!
I knew of one young couple whose promising marriage was ended by a car crash one hour after the ceremony which included those perilous words, “till death do you part.”
Civil marriage is an earthly contract, completed in the death of either party.

I am a convert, I am not sealed to my parents etc... how sad, how gloomy indeed.

 

[Apex]

I find it offensive anytime someone tells other people that what is of importance to them is less because they don't believe in X or don't follow ritual Y. I'm a live and let live sort of person when it comes to belief and largely have regarded LDS as innocuous because they had their beliefs and but for the occassional doorstep missionary, largely left other people alone. I think my attention to Mormons has been heightened by the recent refusal of the Church to respect and honor that other people have differing values and beliefs. Perhaps that's part of why I'm bothered by all of this.

If your church harasses people predicated on its superstitions, then I'll call your church and its followers to account for their superstitions. If your church leaves people alone, then what they believe is none of my business. Does that make sense? From my perspective, if you have a problem with that, take it up with your church leadership and see how responsive they are to respecting others. It's karma in action.

The first half of your post makes no sense at all. The second half sounds like you are upset about a recent "unmentionable vote" and wish to take out your frustration on our Church. Did I miss anything?

 

[DeepShadow]

Polytheism is the worship of many gods, not the existence of many Gods. A more appropriate word would be Monolatrism (the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity).
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatrism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatrism[/URL]

Exellent point, idea!

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section130:22)

This source is from the central circle (A) and is therefore doctrine.

As far as exalted man:
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us. Here, then, is eternal life--to know that only wise and true God, and you have got to learn how to become Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you. .. God himself, the father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ."
- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 342-345, also quoted heavily by the church, see Gospel Principles.

Ah, but Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith is not in the A circle, nor the B circle, and only excerpts from it have been added to C--those quotes you talk about. Which leads us to:

Question: "Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"

Hinckley: "I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else."
- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1

President Hinkley is correct that this couplet is not CENTRAL doctrine. It's never been added to the standard works, nor to the missionary library. The latter half of the couplet can be supported by the Standard Works. The first half cannot.

 

[doppelganger]

The first half of your post makes no sense at all.

It makes no sense to you maybe . . .

The second half sounds like you are upset about a recent "unmentionable vote" and wish to take out your frustration on our Church. Did I miss anything?

No, the second part is that your church interjected its supersititions into public discourse and should expect me to call them on the flimsiness of the basis on which it is meddling in other peoples' lives.

 

[DeepShadow]

Yes but the problem with that is some people have there own interpretation of the standards of work. like for example - being with loved ones after death - he was saying it was in the Doctrine and Covenants, that only those in the Celestial Kingdom get to see there loved ones.

Yes! The question then becomes, "Do you feel the Spirit confirming this interpretation?" If not, then read it for yourself and follow the Spirit.

Listen to Nephi:

1 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do after ye have entered in by the way. But, behold, why do ye ponder these things in your hearts?
2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had areceived the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the btongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 aAngels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, bfeast upon the cwords of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will dtell you all things what ye should do.

Have you received the Gift of the Holy Ghost? Yes. Therefore, you can feast upon the Word of Christ (the Standard Works and the Official Proclamations) and have the Holy Spirit guide you as to their meaning. If someone in church says something that you don't understand or disagree with, ask them to find it in the Standard Works. If they point to a scripture, read the scripture and ask the Spirit to help you interpret it yourself. They may be misled or mistaken.

 

[Apex]

No, the second part is that your church interjected its supersititions into public discourse and should expect me to call them on the flimsiness of the basis on which it is meddling in other peoples' lives.

Ok, I was correct. That is all I wanted to know.

 

[idea]

I am not on the bandwagon for this one.

3 A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.
2 Nephi29:3

or is it... "the scriptures the scriptures there can be nothing else used but the scriptures and proc!"

...Have ye obtained (any of it) save it were by the Prophets? By Joseph Smith?
2 Nephi29:6

Ah, but Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith is not in the A circle, nor the B circle, and only excerpts from it have been added to C--those quotes you talk about.

the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints. They are manifestations of the ultimate source. The ultimate source of knowledge and authority for a Latter-day Saint is the living God. The communication of those gifts comes from God as living, vibrant, divine revelation.12

LDS.org - Liahona Article - “My Words … Never Cease”
Try putting "E" where "A" is and I will agree with the circles.

Personal revelation comes before any of it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LDS.org - Liahona Article - “My Words … Never Cease”
“We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”14

In declaring new scripture and continuing revelation, we pray we will never be arrogant or insensitive. But after a sacred vision in a now sacred grove answered in the affirmative the question “Does God exist?” what Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints force us to face is the next interrogative, which necessarily follows: “Does He speak?” We bring the good news that He does and that He has. With a love and affection born of our Christianity, we invite all to inquire into the wonder of what God has said since biblical times and is saying even now.

 

[Apex]

How about RA picks one subject and attempts to prove his view that it is a central teaching in our religion? We can then take this debate one topic at a time instead of the "shot gun" method, which is, throw a bunch of crap on the wall and hope some of it sticks.

 

[DeepShadow]

I am not on the bandwagon for this one.

The "bandwagon" comes from the Church.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

• 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.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

 

[idea]

The "bandwagon" comes from the Church.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

So... now the LDS newsroom comes before what Elder Jeffrey R. Holland Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles tells us in general conference?

I trust Holland "the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints. ... the ultimate source of knowledge is the living God. divine revelation.12

 

[DeepShadow]

Try putting "E" where "A" is and I will agree with the circles.

Personal revelation comes before any of it.

What we are talking about here is what is doctrinally binding FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH. Personal revelation--by definition--is personal, and we are commanded not to teach from it!

Listen to Alma:

It is given unto many to aknow the bmysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart conly according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

Imagine this scenario: a newcomer to the lands of the Book of Mormon meets one of the people of Ammon, and asks him what Christians believe. The man says, among other things, that Christians believe that they should never fight, even in self defense, but should lay down and die if someone tries to kill them.

Is this the proper thing to say? Of course not! This is a personal covenant with God, and is not binding upon all Christians. Likewise, personal revelation is not doctrinally binding upon the whole church.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

cutting and pasting from LDS.org so as not to get in trouble.

LDS.org - Ensign Article____

The greatest joys of true married life can be continued. The most beautiful relationships of parents and children can be made permanent. The holy association of families can be never-ending if husband and wife have been sealed in the holy bond of eternal matrimony. Their joys and progress will never end, but this will never fall into place of its own accord.

Ensign » 1974 » August Kimball, 1st Pres message, temples and eternal Marriage.

I'm still looking for who gets to see whom and under what circumstances / what the quality of the relashonship is. No agendas here, I would like to know for myself too. I'll post what I find.

more from the same article:
It will be remembered how the Lord answered the hypocritical Sadducees who, trying to trap him, propounded this difficult problem:
The husband died leaving no posterity, and the wife married his brother who also died without seed. She in turn married a third brother, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh all in accordance with the law of Moses, and then the woman of the seven husbands died also. Now the frustrating question is:
“In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.” (Mark 12:23.) ...

Dr. James E. Talmage writes: “The Lord’s meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman shall be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only. … In the resurrection, there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.” (Jesus the Christ, p. 548.)

Undoubtedly, the first husband married the woman for eternity by a ceremony which was not limited by time. She became a widow at his demise until she should also die and join her husband. Now, she married brother number two, “until death do you part,” and it definitely parted them even before posterity, and he went into the spirit world through the veil and with no wife, for their contract also had been terminated by death. And brothers number three and four and five and six and finally number seven in turn—all married her in temporary marriage, in which ceremonies were the limitations, “so long as you both shall live.” And death terminated what happiness they had had and their promise of future bliss.
How sad! How gloomy!
I knew of one young couple whose promising marriage was ended by a car crash one hour after the ceremony which included those perilous words, “till death do you part.”
Civil marriage is an earthly contract, completed in the death of either party.

I am a convert, I am not sealed to my parents etc... how sad, how gloomy indeed.

Yes, Yes.....now just turning this around for a moment, cant you see (as Dopp - at least I think it was Dopp) how for someone who isn't LDS, this could (from their perspective) be conceived as threatening ie unless you follow LDS teachings and get sealed....their relationship will end at death (in your own words: how sad, how gloomy)

 

[DeepShadow]

So... now the LDS newsroom comes before what Elder Jeffrey R. Holland Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles tells us in general conference?

This is an either-or fallacy; both statements are true. We are to recieve from the Spirit when our leaders speak, but what we recieve is not doctrinally binding upon the entire church.

 

[idea]

what we recieve is not doctrinally binding upon the entire church.

no borrowed light, testimonies cannot be shared. My point is the Spirit comes before the scriptures, before any of it - if you are going to start ranking which is most important.
You know the trouble with other (and with some of us) Christian churches? They all use the same Bible, but there are 38,000 different denoms? It is because everyone interprets it differently. It is not about just studying the words, studying the words will get you nowhere as evidenced by all the different denoms. The only way to gain any kind of real knowledge is through personal revelation. Without personal revelations, without being guided by the Spirit, none of it will be understood. The Spirit is the core for where to go for knowledge.

 

[DeepShadow]

My point is the Spirit comes before the scriptures, before any of it - if you are going to start ranking which is most important.

And on that I agree, but I was ranking BOOKS. If the Spirit had been a book, it would have been before A...but it's not. You might as well criticize Mendeleev because "intelligence" was not on the periodic table.

The Spirit would of course have to be present for any learning.

 

[idea]

Yes, Yes.....now just turning this around for a moment, cant you see (as Dopp - at least I think it was Dopp) how for someone who isn't LDS, this could (from their perspective) be conceived as threatening ie unless you follow LDS teachings and get sealed....their relationship will end at death (in your own words: how sad, how gloomy)

You can define "relashonship" on any number of levels. I can think about an ant for a split second somewhere miles away in the deserts of egypt. Some would say that means I have a relashonship with it. Sure, we will have some sort of a relashonship with everyone after we die, so to be nice, and make everyone feel good, people say things like "you will have a relashonship with them after you die, seal or not sealed" and they are saying a partial truth. Sure, without the sealing it is a relashonship, but what quality of relashonship? Certinaly not the depth of what one would hope for.

I fear too many people water things down in order to pacify / win popularity contests rather than just getting to the core of it and answering questions without trying to pretty it up. It is not all roses.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You can define "relashonship" on any number of levels. I can think about an ant for a split second somewhere miles away in the deserts of egypt. Some would say that means I have a relashonship with it. Sure, we will have some sort of a relashonship with everyone after we die, so to be nice, and make everyone feel good, people say things like "you will have a relashonship with them after you die, seal or not sealed" and they are saying a partial truth. Sure, without the sealing it is a relashonship, but what quality of relashonship? Certinaly not the depth of what one would hope for.

I fear too many people water things down in order to pacify / win popularity contests rather than just getting to the core of it and answering questions without trying to pretty it up. It is not all roses.

I cannot believe you have just compared a "relationship" with an ant in Egypt to a Mother-Daughter, Husband-Wife, Father-Son etc relationship! It isn't watered down at all - other Christian denominations believe that if you go to heaven you will be with your family. Simple.

 

[idea]

Iother Christian denominations believe that if you go to heaven you will be with your family. Simple.

:clap Good, they understand part of it.

LDS teach that you will not technically be "a family" unless you are sealed by the proper authority in a temple. Take it how you will, that is what we believe.
:run:

Just like some other church denoms believe that unless you are baptized you will not go to heaven. It is really no different than what others teach – certain specific ordinances given by God (by God, not the church) are required for things. For all of it, it has to be made known that we believe this stuff is not coming from “the church” it is coming from “God”.

It isn't watered down at all.

not you, what some of the other LDS people are saying seems a little watered down.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

:clap Good, they understand part of it.

LDS teach that you will not technically be "a family" unless you are sealed by the proper authority in a temple. Take it how you will, that is what we believe.
:run:

Just like some other church denoms believe that unless you are baptized you will not go to heaven. It is really no different than what others teach – certain specific ordinances given by God (by God, not the church) are required for things. For all of it, it has to be made known that we believe this stuff is not coming from “the church” it is coming from “God”.

Yes I know that is what you believe - maybe you don't realise this, but technically I am still part of the LDS Church - I haven't officially left yet! People understand what you believe, they just don't believe it themselves. You are viewing this from the point of view of you are right, they are wrong. I am viewing it from a neutral point and the LDS version is more threatening.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

not you, what some of the other LDS people are saying seems a little watered down.

Oh ok.......

Question - how long have you been a member?