Leaderboard

Stephen O. Smoot reviews the new Institute Manual on Church History, which includes Plural marriage, and many other issues of interest. It also has a section on handling one's doubts. Smoot's article can be read here at the MormonInterpreter. Teacher's manual is online here.

So we can assume that Mr. Wright wasn't.

Since this is "Parenting" and not "Relief Society", I will go ahead and throw in my two cents. The primary problem you're experiencing is one of viewpoint, not time management. You have already sensed this, and your sense is correct. The house will simply have to move down a notch in importance. You can clean up during her naptimes and other sleep times, but the days of you having hours to concentrate on a set of (non-child-rearing) tasks are behind you, and will not return for some years. My advice is to accept this gracefully, make sure your husband understands what your situation is (so he can help and so he doesn't get upset when the previously normal expectations are all out of whack), and then concentrate on learning how to enjoy mothering your beautiful daughter. Fwiw, she will not always be so needy; she might actually outgrow that neediness earlier than you prefer. But for now, she is your #1 concern and life project. That's one idea for your consideration.

From an Evangelical perspective here is a simplified definition. I'm assuming it might be different than the LDS view. I can post more on it later if you would like. from http://www.more-free-online-sermons.com/justification-and-sanctification.html

what you dont understand is that living in good standings as an LDS member require sacrifices and strict obedience. So much so that many avenues to obtaining lucrative careers and material wealth is out of our reach. For example my household income is half of what it could potentially be because my wife decided to stay at home and raise our kids for the past 12 years. But the lord has promised us that if we obey him he will prosper us in HIS WAY with material wealth AND eternal blessings. 01. The two bedroom apartment (with no yard) that I live in is waaay too small for my family of 5 but I have no debt, a comfortable savings, my kids love spending time with me, this two bedroom apt is in a safe neighborhood and is what I consider my "riches of the earth" I am truly a blessed man. I am not offended by the way you view the LDS church and its teachings because you dont understand it and to your defense there are many LDS faithful that dont understand fully some/most of our teachings and that is why we continually strive to learn and understand the gospel. Its a lifetime journey. A drug dealer is obedient to following the protocol of selling the drugs. A Lawyer had to be obedient through out his schooling to obtain a law degree. A business man had to be obedient to laws and regulations to run his business. Even winning slots at vegas require enough obedience to put the coin in the correct slot. -------------- To non-LDS folks material abundance has no relation to being obedient to God. I think we can all agree on that. LDS members like myself believe that God is the source of all material and eternal blessings in our lives. The fact that I was able to afford a soda and sushi for lunch this afternoon humbled me enough to thank God for that abundance and I would like to believe that the Lord appreciates my efforts of obedience to pray and recognize him in following his commandments daily. God wants us to recognize him in all things, thats all, I choose to, you choose not to. Your perspective and understanding is different. We simply need to agree to disagree. My soda and sushi lunch is an abundance of wealth and I attribute this abundance to my gospel obedience. Its false to you but true to me.

I think you know the answer to that one, Finrock.

PC, many thanks for sticking with me on this. Just a couple of clarifications, to round out the discussion: Prisonchaplain: I do not have much knowledge of the distinctions of the three heavens. As an outsider I assumed it was something like Bronze, Silver, Gold. In fairness, I think most Mormons think this way too; and I think the key difference in what these realms are like (from the Mormon perspective) is the degree of communion one has with each individual member of the Godhead. Thus, if there is a Telestial Kingdom (or even a section of Heaven) where he resides apart from the Father and Son, the I know enough that there is an infinite difference qualitatively between the Holy Spirit representing the Father and Son vs. the Father and Son actually being among us. I'll have to take your word for it, I suppose. But it strikes me that knowing that the Holy Spirit is not one and the same as the Father and the Son would be the only qualitative problem. If, for example, a Trinitarian went to the Terrestrial Kingdom never knowing that the doctrine of the Trinity was incorrect--I submit that he might easily assume that he had indeed received the highest plane of existence that God has to offer. You do highlight another difference. In the traditional concept of heaven, if Ann Frank never gave herself over to the Master, then there is no redemption--not even a Telestial reward. . . . I'm guessing that the Telestial residents will have learned this [about Christ] in the afterlife? Will these residents all be converted in spirit prison? I don't know that my thinking on this precisely matches LDS orthodoxy; but answering for myself: yes. I think that's where "every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ" comes in. I believe that perdition/outer darkness is reserved for those who will not accept Christ on any terms or under any circumstances, and would rather be utterly destroyed than be subject to/reconciled with Him.

My son got married this weekend. Of course, the folks at church who are his age have been married 10-15 years, but better late than never, I suppose. We had rain, but it stopped for the outdoor wedding and every time we had to do something, so that worked out (big shout out, HF!). Now for the grandkids!

The relief society brought homemade cookies in to our priesthood opening exercises, they were huge cookies. I took one and thought about my 3 daughters then took two more. After church I gave each one of them a cookie. It was special for me because their mother does not come with us to church so I feel like the mom and the dad on sundays.

From my favorite parenting guru: How to Keep Order in the House During Summer Break by John RosemondOnly Satan could think of something as diabolical as a three-month summer vacation. It's a misnomer anyway. Vacation derives from vacate, which means empty. Most parents, on the other hand, would agree that summer vacation is completely full of it. Full of squabbles with the kids, between the kids, over the kids, under the kids, and every which way but up the kids. Full of kids who want to stay up 'til midnight and sleep 'til noon and do nothing all day except complain of having nothing to do, but who don't want to do anything you suggest unless it's "Hey, kids, let's get in the car and go to Disney World!" No wonder that by August you're on the brink of complete cerebral meltdown and contemplating such things as locking the kids out of the house or putting tranquilizers in their breakfast cereal. Cheer up and read on. This could be your first summer of peace and quiet and calm, well-behaved children - all the things summer is supposed to be. Read more here

Hah! I'm as smart as a third grader! Yay me!

I remember in third grade. Miss Gardner was the mean teacher. Then she became Mrs. Wright and was even meaner. By the end of the year she was Miss Gardner again. We kids often speculated that maybe if there had been less mean and more smoochin', she might have stayed Mrs Wright.

When my kids were little, I and some other mothers, arranged play dates. We took turns watching each others kids so that we would have at least a couple of hours to ourselves to get some things done. We set up a schedule. I had every Tuesday morning from 9-11. I knew that each day I had 2 hours of free time to get things done.

I believe that if I follow God's commandments then I will maximize my individual potential to live a happy and prosperous life. This is not merely theoretical for me. I have actual experience in this area. I obey God and strive to keep His commandments because I lived in hell and was living in hell; I was in a dark abyss and was miserable; I begged God for mercy and in His kindness and grace He poured out mercy upon me; He saved me from hell and saved my life! I have great gratitude and love for the Lord because of what He has done for me! So, I am motivated by my love for Jesus Christ and because of His atonement. At this point in my life as I strive to keep God's commandments sincerely and with real intent, my life and the life of my family improves. Some of the improvements are material but the ones that matter are the spiritual improvements. However, I don't expect anything from God because of my righteous acts. -Finrock

The internet would be such a lonely place if people did this.

Lets see what Jesus has said shall we Matthew 23 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, ahypocrites! for ye pay btithe of mint and canise and cummin, and havedomitted the weightier matters of the law, ejudgment,fmercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow aacamel. 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of aextortion and bexcess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, acleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Huh interesting lets try some more Matthew 4 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, aSatan: for it is written, Thou shalt bworship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. That seems pretty harsh given that he is talking to Peter. Then there is John 8 44 Ye are of your father the adevil, and the blusts of your father ye will do. He was a cmurderer from the beginning, and abode not in the dtruth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a elie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a fliar, and the father of it. And then there is this doozy.. John 2 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of amoney sitting: 15 And when he had made a ascourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; Can we say owie? So Trumpetguy it seems to me that if you are going to try to Jesus-shame someone you would do well to understand all the bible has to say about the character of Jesus.

I haven't read the entire thread but the term abundance to me is subjective. Nor does the quote say anything about wealth. It says material abundance. Does that mean wealth or does it mean that there will, for example, always be extra food in the cupboard? Does it mean that there will always be enough to cover living expenses and a bit left over at the end of each payday? It could mean a lot of things. But I'm not sure it necessarily means wealth. I've known a lot of extremely spiritual people throughout my life but they haven't been wealthy. But they never seemed to lack for the basic necessities of life either.

There are many things that can determine material success. Place of birth and culture has more of an impact than anything I can think of. Many countries, the culture and laws are stacked against groups of people. Such as being female, the wrong caste or handicapped.In my own life, the male siblings in my family certainly had a leg up, that was not offered to me. Entirely because I'm not male.mthat is not a complaint, just how it was, and was based on my parent's culture.

PC, read Alma 36. Alma has a Near Death Experience, where he begins in Spirit Prison and moves to Paradise. You'll note that he is in God's presence, but from a distance, wishing he could be closer. Also note that in D&C 76, it states that those in higher kingdoms will descend to teach those in the lower kingdoms.

Justification/Sanctification isn't a one time thing. D&C 93 tells us that Christ went from grace to grace receiving grace for grace. So it is with us. We go from one level of sanctification to the next, reflected in the ordinances we receive. Through Justification and Sanctification, we are made sinless and holy. Both are required for us to first escape death and hell, but also to arise through the heavens and into God's presence. To the level we are sanctified/made holy, we are able to rise through the heavens. Mormon 9:3 tells us that the wicked would be more miserable in God's presence than with the damned souls in hell. This is not because God would make them miserable, but they are miserable in God's presence. In relating Alma 36 and Alma's conversion, he has a near death experience (NDE) in the spirit prison. He is miserable, hating the thought of being in God's presence. Why? Because, though he cannot see it, he IS in God's presence, as God's presence is felt everywhere. When he repents, he is suddenly justified through Christ's blood and made sinless. His misery becomes joy, as the darkness within him dispels and he is able to see and enjoy the light of God. Yet, he is not fully sanctified/made holy, and can only see God from a distance, wishing to be closer. You can see my discussion on Alma 36 in the BoM Sunday School lessons I did a few years ago at my blog, and here at LDS.net

Between age 13 to 19 i were an inactive member. I both distanced myself to members/friends/family, but also some members/friends would distance themself to me. If i would walk past anyone i knew, i would greet in passing, but some members would walk by like i did not exist. They were few though in comparison to those that always were open and friendly towards me. Those people, looking back, made a bigger difference than i thought they did at the time. I did not really give reason to my family or anyone either, it was more of a rebellion against everything. It was a pretty wild and dark time in my life. So when it came to being around other members, i just felt it would be better if i stayed away. Both because i could not deal with the pressure of people wanting me to return to church at that time, but also because i might have dragged others down. I were living quite recklessly, and somehow alcohol, drugs, and what comes with it.. it did not fit. What would we talk about? Another side of it was also, that whenever i looked at members, the missionaries and such, i felt so unhappy. Because i remembered the spirit and happiness, and every time i looked at them it reminded me of what i had left behind. Distancing myself made it easier to walk away. And it left me feeling guilty and judged to see them, even if i probably judged myself most. It was not just members - i remember once i saw the scriptures lying near me, and i just sat there staring at it and started sobbing. I threw it away eventually. I would also get angry when any family member talked to me about anything gospel related. Wanted so desperately to be accepted as who i was, rather than who they saw me for. It did not matter if i were acting true to who they thought i was or if i were acting like who i really was. I needed to be accepted for who i was at that moment, enough that i did not feel i had to change into what other people wanted me to be. Which from their perspective.. all of the lessons and promptings to repent or better my life was done out of love. But when in a place like that, it can seem like your person it getting critisized, which i did enough of myself. There is a golden midway though, where everyone can be true to themself and each other, without pushing apart from each other. But it is quite a balancing act at first. It took years before we perfected that (my family and i). Because of miscommunications i went off the radar a lot of times.. ending up around in different cities, being out for weeks partying and then coming home to crash for a day, and then repeat. At one point i ran away from home and i did not see my family for some months. The point with it is - that the miscommunication from both sides, made the easiest solution for me to just be abscent. Ofcourse, none of us was happy with that. But i could not see another solution. Mind you i could have been much better at dealing with... well, everything at that point. I just know of others that have felt the same when leaving the church or becoming inactive. To cut it short, i returned home one day - to church and family, and everything is very different now :) The moment i stopped feeling judged and unwelcomed, things bettered almost instantly. I stopped seeing simply church members and started seeing fellow humans, and they started looking at who i was and not through me to what i could be - i think we all started healing in my family from then on. That does not mean you can't be honest about your faith. It is when it is pushed onto another person, especially someone with anger towards it, that it can backfire. Just be a friend. It is mainly in the hands of the person who is leaving the church though. If you show them love, you will know you have done all that you can. But regardless if you do or don't, each person has their own free will to choose the road they wish to take. It can be hard to accept when it is someone you care for... all you can do is never to give up. You never know what the future holds. :)

Such a comment made to Vort fairly fully destroys any semblance of credibility you you may have...never mind. You had no credibility. Still, what a ridiculous comment.

I feel like it really comes down to that sentence there. Blue's point that God's blessings are primarily spiritual is spot on, it's just that you can't change the spiritual without also affecting the temporal. The commandments and principles that we have been given, when applied and internalized, will naturally bless us temporally also. Eternal truths and principles work everywhere - they are universal - so living the gospel in all aspects of our lives will also ultimately bless us in all aspects of our lives. And the fact that we even have those principles is a gift from God, so wouldn't the results of them be His gift to those who apply them? But the spiritual blessing is what Christ is more concerned about, as blue has said, so we shouldn't be surprised when God allows some of us, like Job, to go through economic or other trials as a means of helping us understand some of these eternal truths, regardless of our righteousness or wickedness. But if we trust Him, it works out in the long run even if that's not in this life for some. Blue, the talk you quoted from in the original post strikes me as having a message not all that different from these verses in Matthew 6. If we're doing what Christ wants us to be doing, He'll take care of us.

So you disbelieve the book of Job. Very well, that is your prerogative, but I hardly think disbelieving clear Biblical teachings is a point of pride. Nor did JAG say it was. Don't dodge the question; answer it. No, you misunderstood it. Given your subsequent reactions, your misunderstanding appears to be willlful. "The Cross"? Uh...can you say "non sequitur"? Abraham was saved by the grace of God, just like any other saved being. This is plain false doctrine, and demonstrates your lack of grasp of the most basic aspects of LDS doctrine. The Jews were never "meant to be saved by obedience to the law"; even you should be able to figure that out based on Paul's teachings. And yet, you say that the Jews were supposed to have been saved by their obedience to the law of Moses. Again, you have not the slightest understanding of LDS doctrine. You really should quit embarrassing yourself. Yes, Christ's covenant was available to all believers from Adam. And JAG very clearly explained that the quotes around "new" is because the covenant itself was not new at all, except to the knowledge of those Jews who didn't understand that it had been around since Adam. Since you have already freely admitted to disbelieving Job, I am surprised and entertained that you would now attempt to reference Job as somehow supporting your condemnation of your misstatement of LDS doctrine.

I don't quite understand your question. Spiritually, sure, they're wealthy. Materially, not always so. And, why? I suspect my explanation is the same as yours: first, God does, for His own purposes, send rain on both the just and the unjust; and second, God chooses not to meddle in the free will of those whose actions prevent the prosperity of the righteous. We're talking about general trends here, not absolute guarantees. Hmm. But the Bible clearly states that He can "rebuke the devourer" in order to preserve one's assets (a specific promise to those who tithe--see Malachi 3:11). How is that different? Let me give you an example: --I believe God gave me a commandment to not engage in sexual intercourse with people to whom I am not married. --I have not had sexual intercourse with any woman to whom I am not married. --I currently enjoy the "blessing" of not having to pay child support to any child of mine conceived out of wedlock--a benefit easily worth some $2500 or more per year. Now--have I been rewarded with extra wealth because of my supposed righteousness in this matter? If so--by whom? Not a bad run-down, but I think your summation of the effort required as being "paying tithing and fast offerings" and generally "work[ing] towards qualifying for prosperity" gives short shrift to what Larsen is actually saying we need to do: labor together equally, share with those in need, not set their heart on riches, and generally conform all aspects of their lives to the Lord's will. The idea that God loves and succors the poor spiritually (even if that poverty is self-inflicted)--and even did so before Christ's lifetime when, by your interpretation, we were still "under law"--is an enormous part of LDS theology generally. Larsen does not dwell on it explicitly, because that doesn't happen to be the focus of this particular sermon. But it is implicit in his warnings that the Church needs to remember the material needs of the poor (which is what fast offerings are for, by the way); and concern for the poor is a recurring theme in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants (as well as the Bible, of course). This statement is worth its own thread (maybe two or three threads). Suffice it to say--Mormons have a fundamentally different view of the relationship between God, man, Jesus, and "law", than what you seem to state above. We hold that Jesus' ministry was anticipated from the very beginning; and that He was the Mediator between God, man, and the law from the days of Adam onwards. Salvation never came through mere obedience. Living after the Spirit was always the ideal. Divine law has always been instituted as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; and that "New Covenant" was available to true believers throughout Old Testament times (Paul only called it "new" because, to the Jews in the Roman era, it was new--these concepts had been lost to them centuries earlier.) Jesus' resurrection did mark the lifting of a number of aspects of the Mosaic law that were either tailored to the circumstances in which they were given or specifically intended as precursors of Jesus' own life. However, none of this deprived God of the prerogative to insist on compliance with certain other commandments, or even to issue new requirements--and occasionally, to impose fearful penalties for disobedience. (Ananias and Sapphira, anyone?) So, no; in LDS teaching Jesus' life, death, and resurrection did not abrogate the notion of "law" and thereby convert mortality into some kind of amoral free-for-all for those lucky enough to have their birth year succeeded by an "anno domini". Nor did it negate long-standing notions of cause-and-effect. Generally speaking, obedience to--say--the Ten Commandments, breeds social stability; which in turn breeds economic prosperity.

Hi blueskye. If a community have all things common then that is a sign of the righteousness of all the individuals in that community. We will prosper in the land if we keep God's commandments because we will be blessed with peace, knowledge, health, strength, etc. If you strive to keep God's commandments, as a natural consequence, you will acquire and learn principles that, if put in to practice, will make you industrious and prosperous. However, your material wealth has no bearing on your personal righteousness. It is also true that God warns us on several occasions about seeking for riches and how being rich can be a very difficult temptation to overcome. -Finrock

I certainly believe that having your calling and election made sure is a factor in this discussion and what I stated was in part about that. However, it isn't all that I was thinking. Perhaps this scripture will help: 1 Cor. 13 Also, repetence is a choice. I believe that during our probationary period we never lose the opportunity to repent, we only choose to not repent. Its not so much about what we do than it is about who we are or who we, in all sincerity and desire, want to be. -Finrock

JAG, on the knowledge of heavens, the reality is that we will know. Our theologies are likely the same on this point--we will see as Jesus sees. So, even in the Terrestial Kingdom, if I were to find that I could never have full fellowship with the Father, I'd likely be sorely disappointed. Finally, concerning conversions to the Telestial Kingdom vs. outer darkness, C.S. Lewis wrote a book called The Great Divorce. I only read a synopsis, but he portrays a group from hell being given a tour of heaven, how the guides all but begged them to renounce their rebellion, but how the ultimate stuck to their decisions, because they would not give up their attitudes (rebellion, sarcasm, selfishness, etc.). Thank you, as well. I believe I have learned quite a bit from this string. Thank you Ram, too. :-) Oh...and The Folk Prophet, as well. In some ways, I probably gain the greatest insights from those who support the prophets, and find no need to justify their allegiance.

From D&C 130: So when we obey eternal laws and principles, we are blessed accordingly. As your quote says, when we are obedient to His direction, He blesses us, including with temporal blessings. Except when He doesn't. The trouble with trying to use something like level of wealth as a general sign for level of righteousness is that God doesn't deal with all His children in exactly the same way, because we're all different. Job was righteous and, perhaps in large part as a consequence of his righteousness, he became wealthy. And then his wealth (and health, family, etc.) were taken from him for a time. His friends took this as a sign of Job's wickedness, but they were unjustified in doing so. Eventually Job learned and grew from the experience, and his wealth was restored. This is just one example - many are called upon to actively sacrifice prosperity for righteousness. Some even give their lives for the gospel, and by extension they also sacrifice 100% of their material possessions. On the flip side, wickedness is often used as a means to obtain wealth. Think Pharisees, secret combinations from the Book of Mormon, etc. etc. Not to mention modern examples. Is this wealth sustainable? Of course not. But if we used wealth as a sign to discern righteousness, we would end up off base in judging a lot of people. My personal thoughts on D&C 130 and the quote you gave are something like this. Obedience to true principles of the gospel will, in general, lead to increased productivity and prosperity, both spiritually and temporally. But individual circumstance and trial can put a roadblock on this. Disobedience to true principles of the gospel will, in general, lead to spiritual and temporal ruin. But sometimes the illusion can be sustained for a time - maybe even a lifetime. God puts spiritual blessings first. He will prosper His righteous followers, but sometimes temporal prosperity needs to be sacrificed for greater spiritual blessings for the individual. The true blessings that come from obedience are the change within the person. That person then has greater capacity to produce wealth based on righteous principles, assuming he or she is not called upon to sacrifice that in one way or another through a trial, calling, or a requirement to direct their efforts elsewhere. Therefore: I feel like it's more about change from the inside, act rather than be acted upon, etc. And if God needs to teach us those eternal principles through a trial which involves poverty and which may last a lifetime, I don't think he'll hesitate, BUT that doesn't negate the eternal truthfulness of the promise. So it really isn't that useful as a "sign" in the sense of judging others or even ourselves based off of it. I do agree with Vort that a better place to see this "sign" in operation is by looking at larger groups and communities. True "Zion" communities, while rare, have always seemed to do pretty well temporally, haven't they? Even this can be deceptive though. Outward appearance of prosperity can be temporarily maintained even while the inner core that generates true wealth is decaying due to wickedness, even in a larger community or a nation. And sometimes an entire people needs to be tried, like the people of Alma who were briefly brought into bondage by the Lamanites and the people of Amulon. So, my opinion: obedience brings spiritual change within us, which gives us the qualities that naturally allow us to produce more material abundance - if God doesn't have something better in mind.

Okay, I'll bite. First, I agree with Vort that the statement is true as a general principle applying to communities. That said--there are enough exceptions that I wouldn't use wealth or poverty to judge the righteousness of either a community or an individual. Many, many factors can prevent otherwise righteous individuals or societies from becoming wealthy. Similarly, societies in decay may still enjoy great wealth left over from a period when they followed Divine principles closely than they do at present. How is material abundance related to obedience? I'm not convinced it's quite a situation of God looking at a nation, saying "You worship idols, so DOOM ON YOU!!!". Rather, I think certain activities just have natural consequences that will affect one's own and one's neighbors' economic well-being. Societies of self-centered individuals will not tend to do the sort of long-term planning or sacrifice across generations that leads to stable, prosperous nations over the long term. Violent societies will not enjoy sufficiently long periods of peace to allow commerce to thrive. Kleptocratic or dishonest societies will find that they can't establish a steady economy, because being a worker/economic producer is a sucker's game. Sexually promiscuous societies will get unstable family structures--with all the economic problems that entails--and find themselves saddled with a large number of unwanted children. Also, I'm going to issue a challenge to you: 1. Assume that Dean Larsen, rather than being an ogre or a shyster with dollar signs in his eyes, is actually a decent fellow who's trying to inspire people to be their best selves and live in a Christlike way. 2. Reread his talk. The whole talk. 3. Why do you think he said what he said?

Correct. No. You betcha. Wrong. My reply is that wealth is not a sign for sign-seekers such as yourself. I have addressed what it really says. You may keep trawling to see if someone else will say something you like better, but don't pretend the question you asked has not been answered. Helpful hint: When you want to find out what people believe, it's better to ask them what they believe than to tell them what they believe and then demand an explanation for what you said.

No, wealth is a sign of having a lot of money. True, when the people of the Lord live righteously, he prospers them -- as a people. But wealth is not any sort of sign of individual righteousness. Any such teaching is a pernicious lie, and shame on the person who claims it as LDS doctrine.

PC, you are right regarding the Terrestrial being a place for many Christians and others who are the "honorable men of the earth" (D&C 76). The average Christian (and probably Mormon Christian) will find himself there. Only the very worst, who struggle at repenting and only do so because they suffer pains of guilt in the Spirit Prison (or even here), will enter the Telestial Kingdom. And I agree that for us, it is all about repenting. That is exactly what King Anti-Nephi-Lehi said to his people, "all we can do is repent".

I'm here for discussion. If you think I must agree with everything said, or hold back my views, then maybe you should just have a conversation with yourself. I don't really care whether or not you approve of my interest in Mormonism, or movies, books or cars, for that matter. Believe who you're more comfortable believing.

Hi, I linked to an LDS article, which does not reference Catholic exegesis on Luke 18. I know, it's fun to change the subject, but the LDS article I referenced focuses on LDS exegesis of the Book of Mormon. Which clearly teaches, wealth is the result of righteousness.

It depends on the change expected I think. There is a time and a place, I think, even in a marriage to throw down a "knock it off or else" sort of line in the sand. For the most part though, forgiveness, understanding, long-suffering, etc., is the better way to a good marriage.

TFP, I think Finrock is hinting at whether you've had your calling & election made sure. That's an interesting aspect I hadn't really considered--assuming Joseph's and the scriptures' statements about David's losing his exaltation are accurate, are they accurate because David committed murder per se? Or are they accurate because David committed murder after having had his calling and election made sure (see, e.g., D&C 132:19, 26)? (And, do we even know that David did have his calling & election made sure? I rather suspect he didn't.)

Reading some of these responses, would it be fair to say any distancing on part of the one who left is indeed "nothing personal, I just need to sort out a few things"?

Totally agree; but then that begs the question of why we would bother raising this parable at all, if we both concede that it doesn't really speak to the ultimate point of this discussion--to wit, the prospect of exaltation for murderers. Frankly, given the OP, the question of whether a penitent murderer's inheritance would a partial or a full portion is precisely the question. Not a single person here has said that murderers will be utterly cast off. The question is whether the degree of acceptance in the family (which you choose to call a form of "inheritance") will be equal with the inheritances of all the others. It's not exaltation, which I thought was what we were all talking about. Have you been agreeing, this whole time, that murderers in fact will not be eligible for exaltation? If so, I have terribly misread you; and I owe you an apology.

In regards to the Prodigal Son, let's remember that parables are imperfect depictions of a teaching. Can one totally squander away the inheritance the Father offers us? Except for rejecting salvation or exaltation, can we not repent and still be eligible for these? God's inheritance is one that once given is not suddenly no longer available. It seems to be more like knowledge, it can be shared time and again without any loss. Otherwise, Christ would be the only one to inherit anything. Instead, we find that we are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans). We assume the prodigal son receives no inheritance. Yet, if he is brought back into the Father's house, given a party, and is not a servant, has he not received a form of inheritance (whether complete/full or not is beside the question). All we know is the Father is giving all he has to the older son - yet it seems he has enough and to spare in handing out inheritances. If a person spends his life in riotous living, and does not murder, then rejoins the Church a couple months before his death (or becomes active), has he lost his inheritance? Why come back to Church? If one "squanders away" the entire inheritance and then repents, how does one obtain the telestial kingdom? Is that not an inheritance, or at least a portion of one?

Oi vey, I must not be explaining myself very well. My apologies. Yes, the fact that the elder son initially wouldn't go in, illustrates his need for an attitude adjustment. However, once the Father has offered his correction, we simply don't know how the elder son received that counsel. Thus, I think it's misleading to suggest that the parable's ending with the elder son still out of the house, has any deep meaning with regard to the older son's ultimate fate--because, as I pointed out earlier, at the end of the parable the Father is also out of the house. What are we supposed to read from that--that God will at some point abandon His own throne? Or can we agree that when it comes to exegisis of scriptural parables, at some point we reach the level where a cigar is just a cigar? James, I wish you wouldn't use such loaded terms as "reject" or "anger" or "hatred". No one is saying the Father rejects anyone. What is being suggested is that a person's having ever been willing to commit certain extraordinary sins, is an indicator that that person cannot justly be entrusted with certain responsibilities; and therefore, said person--while remaining in the home, and part of the family--may never be entrusted with the specific role of supreme family leader. Frankly, there's pretty decent scriptural and prophetic evidence to this effect--including, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Father's affirming the elder son's status as sole remaining heir. That doesn't make God "angry" or "hateful", any more than I am angry or hateful when I deny my daughters' continued entreaties that I buy them each a pony after they let the family dog starve to death. No one's refusing to accept anyone--except insofar as the Church leadership continues to maintain a policy of denying baptism to confessed or convicted murderers without First Presidency approval. When an Apostle issues a conference talk specifically stating that murder's not such a big deal, or when the Church allows baptism for murderers with only Mission President approval, I will be only too happy to dismiss Messrs Smith, Young, McConkie, et. al., and join those who would excise D&C 42 and D&C 132 from the canon of scripture. But until then--frankly, I think we're pretty well stuck. And, I repeat my question from earlier: If exaltation for all is inevitable, why would God implement Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms in lieu of simply instituting a system of reincarnation where we come to earth repeatedly until we "get it right"? And if one can proceed from the Telestial to the Terrestrial and on to exaltation without multiple mortal probations, then why do we need even one mortal probation--why not just give us a body and send us straight to the Telestial Kingdom? And why are the scriptures so insistent that everything hinges on this life?

that would depend a lot on what one knew. In many places in africa and other places where strife and poverty has been seemingly endless, often people are taught to kill others from a young age, or to see others as less than themselves which could lead to that end. I would use the example of the lamanites that Ammon and his brethren taught. King david is an example of going from a place of glory into sin, while it seems the context of the op is asking if it is possible to go from a very dark place to a place of light and glory.

I think this pretty unlikely to happen. Like...never. There is no ability to communicate with "spirits", as in "ghosts", as in "dead people". If, and when, a dead spirit communicated with us, if it's a righteous cause then it's called an angel and it's not an ability, it's because the angel chose to communicate with us. It it's not a righteous cause then...beware.

I would say being clean is necessary but not sufficient. And indeed the atonement and gospel plan involve much more then simply cleansing. The Lord wants us to be people of strength and power, not just weak beings who must be continually cleansed. We must become holy.

. Euler's equation: e^(iπ) = -1 . Take square root of both sides: √[e^(iπ)] = √[-1] [e^(iπ)]^½= i . Reversing and simplifying: i = e^(iπ/2) . So, i^i = [e^(iπ/2)]^i . which simplifies to: i^i = e^(i²π/2) i^i = e^(-π/2)i^i = 1/[e^(π/2)] . This is easily calculated:i^i ≈ 1/4.810477 ≈ 0.20788 How about that? Though I am not seeing how including a factor of (1+4n) in the exponent is supposed to yield the same number. This would appear to be true for positions on the unit circle - you're essentially looking at the 90° point - but it is not obvious to me that there should be an expectation that this would generalize to all real numbers. My mathematical understanding is not deep enough to offer a firm opinion. As to how this applies to concepts such as the Trinity. I think of Kurt Gödel, who published his famous and utterly revolutionary Incompleteness Theorem along with his own ideas about how this philosophically applied to the human condition. I am not convinced that the human conditon is well-represented by number systems, though. So I am not at all convinced that the consequences that Gödel himself suggested are even applicable.

My concern and comments with Emma are unrelated to my view of her potential salvation, which is, indeed, between her and God. What concerns me in apologizing for her is those times where I have heard (directly) people use her as an example and an excuse for being less than stalwart.

After I got off my mission I worked for a year, then an opportunity came up for me to teach english in Japan on a 6 month contract. When I got there I quickly found the local ward, went to church and met the members and leaders. The second week at church they introduced me to my home teachers. The third week was the last time that I went to church as I slowly met non-member friends and found other things to do on sundays. The first, second, third, and fourth month I got no contact from my HT's. At this point I was inactive and not happy about certain choices I had made. I had a picture of Jesus Christ hanging on the wall and I would look at it everyday thinking about how much I loved him but was so sorry for my actions. It felt as though my apartment was dark and gloomy and I noticed that I had cause the spirit to withdraw itself, I remember one time even crying and feeling sad for myself. During the fifth month I was laying in my living room watching tv, the phone rang and I answered it, it was my hometeacher calling to schedule a visit, his voice carried the Holy Ghost and I felt it through the phone. He and his partner came over the next week and when they walked in they brought the spirit back into my apartment as it was also emanating within them. This experience was a clear testament to me that home teaching and visiting teaching is of the Lord, when we are on the Lord's errand he is also with us to bless the lives of our fellow saints. Its sad that us members get too caught up in thinking that it is an "assignment", an "assigned friend" or whatever. It really is a blessing and I didnt realize it until I experienced it first hand.

Just a thought from the non-LDS parent on the board--maybe you could agree with your mother to read a book co-authored by an Evangelical professor (with Baptist-like leanings) and one from Brigham Young University (LDS)? The book is: How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, by Blomberg and Robinson. The book covers major doctrines (salvation, scripture and revelation, the nature of God, etc.) and is pretty straight forward. The authors are learned, fair-minded, kind, but they do not brush differences under the rug. It should give you and your mother a better understanding of each other, without either of you having to read stuff that's mean-spirited and harsh. Amazon has it used for .01 ($4 delivered): http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0830819916/ref=sr_1_1_twi_1_pap_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1431999165&sr=8-1&keywords=how+wide+the+divide

I think it is the opposite. Satan tries to tell everyone that their is no differences, that men are equally adapt at doing x that women generally do and women are equally adapt at doing y that men generally do. For example, I just had a young woman, very bright, well nurtured working at a doctor's office say she didn't ever want to have kids. 50-100 years ago, raising children was one of the greatest things a woman could ever do in life. Now it's more desirable to have a good job, to be "equal to a man"-whatever that means; yet slowly but surely society in general is killing itself- the birth rate in the US is below re-population rate. Trying to eliminate the in-born tendencies that have been in humans for thousands of years is only leading to disaster. Nope, families are destroyed by saying men and women are the same. Families become complete by recognizing the differences and then taking the best of each and incorporating it into our lives.

I disagree. Most of the brain differences are scientifically recognized - natural, Satan is making nothing. So the fact the brains are different is not detrimental; rather, it's nature and our jobs to make relationships work. I'd sooner say Satan is behind the movement to fight the recognition of these differences.