Leaderboard

This is a fair point. Trinitarians bristle at the Muslim/Jewish understanding of our faith. We are not polytheists. However, I understand their opposition and do not expect to convince them that the Trinity is monotheistic. Likewise, you explain your understanding of monotheism, state that the church affirms this is their belief, and likely expect my respectful disagreement. This is the crux of it right here. Honestly, I suspect we all have gained a little bit clearer understanding of our own doctrine and of each others. Thank you!

Thank you for chiming in (Serious). Your statement helps to establish my initial point which is that I will tell you all day long I am Monotheistic, but if you reject my claim to that title, I really don't give a crap as long as I am certain that what I believe is true. As long as I am comfortable with my monotheism, one's lack of acceptance is irrelevant. Just as the word 'trinity' is extra-biblical, but is a term coined to represent an ideology believed to be based on scripture, so too is the Restored understanding of the Godhead. The simple fact that we can reasonably use the same source material as evidence of opposing principles is evidence that earthly definitions are ultimately irrelevant. What is truth is truth, and what is false is false. In order to come to agreement on what form of religious 'ism' one is, we would have to agree on the source definition. It seems to me that there are sufficient detractors to the source definition, which ultimately leads the discussion to futility. The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that we are a monotheistic faith founded on our belief in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God. Members of the Church should embrace this teaching and focus more on understanding the emulatable nature of the unity between the members of the Godhead that identifies them as one God and enables us to become one with Them and one another, as opposed to trying to find singular earthly terms that work to define the complexity that is the nature of God.

Good points, all. As always, it's difficult to summarize into words on the internet what is in one's mind. If, for the sake of argument, there are others who are "peers" to God, whether in this universe or any other, and whether or not I might one day meet them, they will never be "God" to me. Thus, I have only one God. While I said "worship-able", I suppose I should also have added that bit. They may be "God" to someone else, but they can never be "God" to me - even if I wanted them to be, can't happen. That fact seems to me to exclude me from "henotheist". It seems to me that "henotheist" implies the possibility that I can (or at least believe I can) "switch sides". In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there isn't the remotest possibility of switching sides or adding additional entities to what constitutes "God". (At least, nothing I've ever heard says that, and I disagree with @anatess2's notion of others joining the Godhead - being at one with them (and still subject to), sure, but never one of them (which implies, to me, no-longer-subject).)

It comes down to how you define ONE. Jews, Muslims and other non Christians... Look at Christian's 3 in 1 and say nope that is not One God that is Three Gods. And declare that Christians are not Monotheists. Christians insist otherwise. Trinity of one substance Christians say that it is One God while pointing to the Trinity of Sociability Christians as worshiping Three Gods and declare that they are not Monotheists. Trinity of sociability Christians insist otherwise. Everyone insist that they have the logical, and/or divinely defined definition of ONE. And we all disagree with the others.

Maybe I missed it, I haven't really been reading everything, but the thing I haven't seen is this: Henotheism (if I understand correctly) is a belief that there are multiple gods who are all worship-able, but I'm just going to worship this one that I prefer. Monotheism says there is only one worship-able God. And that is why we are monotheists and not henotheists. No matter whether we become gods or not, we will always have exactly one worship-able God. No matter whether there are other gods who are currently "peers" with our God (whether in this universe or their own other universes), they will never be worship-able for us. They cannot bless us, save us, exalt us, redeem us, condemn us, or buy us an ice cream - they are not and can never be ours.

But in the origin of the word - Greek pantheon - a Greek could worship any number of "gods", no? Isn't that the idea - that the others are viable gods for the person to choose from? At least, I never got the impression that a person from one of these religions was required to choose only one, nor prevented from switching to another. Maybe I just don't understand the word. One thing I know for absolute certain - I have one God, and only one God (and when I use that word, I mean God the Father, FYI). IMO, this is a mortal perspective because we are so used to everything being finite. If I have all the peanuts, you get none - because there's only a finite number. Some things, however, are not reduced when shared - if I love someone, that doesn't mean you can't, nor do we have to divide a finite amount of "love for that person" so that it always adds up to a finite amount. We can both love the person and thereby double the amount of love without any reduction in love - on the contrary, we increase it. IMO, the things of eternity are all this way - sharing them increases them, it doesn't dilute them. NOTE: I do comprehend the reasoning / thinking behind the idea that if there are two omniscient or omnipotent people, that neither really is, I just don't find that reasoning convincing - I don't believe the word needs to be exclusive, nor that everyone else needs to be empty-headed (literally, have no knowledge, sentience, understanding at all) nor utterly powerless in order for God to be omniscient and omnipotent.

And the idea of peers inherently contains the idea of division. Which is inherently in opposition of Oneness. After all would you really say that Christ is a peer of the Father? Or would you say that Christ is One with the Father.

My thoughts come more from my experiences being a parent. There are times I absolutely know what my kid is going to do. I know this because I know my kid and I know the situation and I can predict how my kid will respond to that situation. Does my knowledge rob my kid of agency? No. Does my knowledge limit my kid's choices? No. Does this knowledge give me power and the ablity to change things? Yes... yes it does. Can my actions limit my kid's choices or options? Yes it can. Can my actions rob my kid of their agency? Depends on how forceful the action is... usually not. With this knowledge and power am I responsible for the actions I take or do not take? Yes absolutely. Does this make me responsible for the actions of my child? Only if my action was of the forceful variety that took their agency. (Or they are not yet accountable and I have not taught them properly). Unlike my limits as a flawed person and parent.. God always acts in our best interest (as he sees it) and is the best supporter of our agency anywhere, while knowing and planning for what we will do.

The Scriptures and Modern Prophets are clear that one should not procrastinate the day of our repentance. Anything (true or not) that would encourage us to procrastinate and disobey should be avoided. The idea of progression between kingdoms is exactly this kind of idea. Thinking we have forever to work out our salvation and exaltation is a trap we are forewarned about in the scriptures. If there is no progression between kingdoms then this warning makes all kinds of sense. If there is progression between the kingdoms then there must be another reason for the warning. (The best guess I have for another reason would be that it is so much easier to make changes in mortality.) Either way it makes this a topic we should be very careful on how we share our speculations and reasons

There are some very wrong ways to worship. Cain discovered this. The Canaanites discovered it. The Israelite soldier who rushed to prop up the falling Ark of the Covenant discovered it. Certainly, the prophets of Baal found this out. It is true that some religions that I might consider "false," can prepare souls for the gospel. There are reports of Muslims seeing Jesus in visions/dreams, telling them He is the Son of God. Since Islam teaches that Jesus is a prophet they listen. Once they understand, some convert. Had they not been taught that Jesus is a prophet they may not have. So, yes, some wrong ways of worship can still help prepare...but of themselves, they are still wrong. I am thankful for God's mercy, and try hard to be slow to speak and quick to listen. Also, I suspect we all do our best missionary work when we lift up Jesus and our faith rather than try to tear others' beliefs down. Still...I cannot say there is no wrong way to worship.

If one has as a foundational belief in creation ex-nihilo, then the Calvinistic belief in predestination/determinism is the only logical conclusion. This is not limited to Christian based faiths. If one believes that a single deity is the creator from nothing of all things in existence, then said creator can only be relinquished of responsibility of the actions of its creations if the deity is not omniscient. In Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, God is understood to be an omniscient being; this means that if He created (from nothing) our intelligence, personality, and individuality, being omniscient, He would be responsible for our actions. How? Because having all knowledge in advance of something over which He has complete control, makes him responsible for the outcome; He could have made us with a different personality, to where we would use our gift of agency to make the right choice 100% of the time. Likewise, our agency would not truly be real because, being the creator of all aspects of our sentience would indicate that not only did God create us knowing every action we would ever take, but also could have created us differently, which would have resulted in our 'choices' being different. The belief in the eternal identity of man, as is taught in the Restored Gospel, in conjunction with belief in creation ex-materia, is the only way one can logically establish the reality of the individual free agency of man. My perspective.

I'm no expert on henotheism, but my sense it that they do not worship the other gods, nor have any expectation of doing so. Rather, they simply admit other gods exist. Their devotion is to one god. My difficulty is that if God has peers does he not become god? If there are peers to the Almighty does he not cease to be Almighty? @anatess2 seems to have solved that problem. However, traditionalists will still struggle with the idea of any created being (remember our belief in creation-from-nothing) becoming the Godhead.

For now, this is pretty much the model I use. I think it's deficient, but I'm not sure exactly how it's deficient, and it works better than any other model I know of or that I have ever come up with. Consider it the Ptolemaic epicycle model of God's omniscience.

My thinking is influenced by Joseph Smith’s teaching that all things before God are “one eternal now”. God knows the future, not necessarily because He determines it in every circumstance, but because He is is merely watching it unfold in (to Him) real time. The fact that He sees me dying on (say) January 1, 2060 doesn’t mean He’s making me die on January 1, 2060; any more than the fact that I see my daughter stealing a cookie from the cookie jar right now means that I’m making her steal the cookie right now. Individual agency still governs; God just happens to be watching our past and present and future choices unfold with a perfect and eternal vision.

(not sure why my link preview shows the chemical formula for diabetes)

I think everyone here admits that, person0. The specific point under discussion is whether the word "monotheism" or the word "henotheism" better describes the doctrine of the Restored Gospel. Some insist that "henotheism" is somehow more accurate, but many (most?) insist that that is false, and that "monotheism" is the only term of the two that reasonably described LDS beliefs.

Victims of various forms of Baal worship would probably agree.

As the title suggests, I'm frequently saddened that individuals think of themselves as having very little to no outward 'beauty'. It also saddens me to see individuals who, for whatever reason, feel that their looks or social awkwardness make them undesirable to the opposite sex, unable to find someone to date or sometimes ultimately lose hope of ever being married at some point. I recently read an AskGramps question, which unfortunately is echoed fairly often: I thought Gramps did a great job with the response. I hope, if anything, that individuals who find themselves in this train of thought can some how/some way realize that Our Father in Heaven has provided a multitude of individuals on Earth who can: 1. See the beauty they have 2. Would be thrilled to date them 3. Would happily consider them marriage material I recently stumbled upon this heart warming show: Adorable Dates from the Undateables

Fixed that for you 🙂

There is no truth in Calvinism-specific doctrines. The view of God they propose is the exact same plan Lucifer was cast out for except two features. Lucifer planed to save all people, and Calvinism view only saves some, the rest he created (because they weren't pre-existent ) to be doomed. There is no growth under such a regime, no becoming like God, no real love, just forced prison for all (whether that's a nice prison or a burning one). That is the temptation for Lucifer's and Calvin's ideas: we'll take care of everything for you- nothing is your fault, no responsibility. It is tempting, hence a third of Heaven's host following Lucifer/Satan before this life and others falling to that temptation. Bingo As to how God can be sure of what will happen: He knows His children. He knows what they will choose to do. He doesn't need to program them or force them, He just knows them and truly loves them.

To be clear: Things that did not actually happen in their lifetimes. All of the ordinances including baptism and marital sealings must in actual fact take place, in this case by proxy. After these proxy ordinances have been completed, the dead who repent and who willingly accept those ordinances are then as if they had made the ordinances in the flesh. (mord did go on to say exactly this, but I thought I'd point it out in case anyone missed it.)

So I saw A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood - the Mr. Rogers show. If you only go see one movie this year, that should be the one. What a touching, tender treatment of the man! What an impactful and powerful story of the healing power of repentance and forgiveness! Having a hard time believing this thing came out of hollywood. It was truly beautiful. Take kleenex. And all the people important in your life.

In relation to @zil's comment (welcome back zil, nice to hear your thoughts, hope creative writing is superb) I would first specify the thought you provided gives credence to zil's comment. For example, if a person chooses to study choices and decisions the Lord has made then that person is showing the Lord where his treasure's are -- on the Lord and knowing him. I would also say that the given thought is one of the most important ways we come to know the character of God. We know Christ was perfect, and a perfect man took a whip and rushed everyone out of the temple for making it a den of thieves. If we saw an owner of a building removing people from his building with a whip how many of us would consider that action without sin? Yet, our Savior was without sin! We know from scripture that the Lord gave a promise to Mosiah regarding his sons. That promise of protection was fulfilled when Ammon was out cold and someone tried to kill him. The Lord protected Ammon by causing the other person to give up the Holy Ghost. And yes, that is the point of revelation, personal revelation and the spirit of prophecy, to reveal truths that are not black and white (on paper). To show the hidden things that can only be spiritually discerned. I would specify, the only way to come to know the character of God is through the spirit of prophecy and revelation and allowing the Lord to show us "hidden" things that people without the Spirit would never comprehend because it is spiritually discerned. I would also add, that we should be cautious in revealing things that are hidden. I am not sure that line, but I have had experience like Nephi where the Spirit stopped my utterance and I understood I was about to share/reveal something that wasn't mine to reveal.

This is a great example of why such speculation is dangerous. If Elder Faust's nephew was wrong, either because he was lying or because he misunderstood his uncle, then what he said is worse than useless. On the other hand, if Elder Faust's nephew was right, and this really was a true doctrine that should not have been revealed because it's dangerous, then for sure what he said is worse than useless. See the common theme between the two possible answers? You think that those who forfeit their exaltation because of their love of the flesh are eternally worthless beings that God himself doesn't care about? That perfect people in a position of superiority would never condescend (real, original meaning) to minister to those beneath them? On the contrary, acting in that manner is the Godly thing to do, not some sign of eventual exaltation being extended to those served. I minister to my dog. That doesn't mean I think she'll grow up to be my child some day. She is what she is, and that is not going to change. That the heavens minister to us on earth says far more about the heavens than about us. I am guaranteed nothing merely by the fact that God offers me his gifts. The operative condition is whether I accept his gifts. And we are told that this life—not the eternities, but right now—is the time for us to prepare to meet God. We are told that after this day, the night comes wherein no work can be performed. The doctrine of "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and it shall be well with us" is from the evil one. Don't just take my word for it. This has all been laid out very clearly in scripture and by our leaders. For all those with eyes to see and ears to hear, it is trumpeted from the walls. Whispering about "kingdom progression" is vain and very foolish. Let us denounce it for the false doctrine that it is and move on to greater things.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and any other people in the Plan of Salvation including prophets seers and revelators and even angels are not current members of the Godhead because they have not attained Godhood as far as is revealed. Judgement Day has not yet come to pass. In the revealed gospel, there are 3 Persons in the Godhead - The Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. God did not see fit to talk about Heavenly Mother. We simply assume by inference she is a person in the Godhead as we assume the Father and Mother are eternal companions. When we pray, we specifically pray to the person that is The Father in the Godhead in the name of His Son Jesus Christ. For scripture reference: John 17:11

If you're talking about runway or print Models, they are not hired for "attractiveness". Models are hired to compliment the clothes or accessory. Basically, you don't want a model whose face detracts from the item they're modeling. Designers do not make their clothes fit the model. Rather, the designers hire a model that fit the clothes. That's why in a runway, models are all twiggy and tall but not too tall. Male models have square jaws and female models have small breasts. They all have the same size feet, etc. They all have that quality that they can make a potato sack look good.

I am friends with James E. Faust nephew and he has always told me that Bruce R. McConkie said that there was progression between kingdoms and that in an old priesthood manual or Sunday school manual that it used to say that. But the church removed it and my friend asked why and Bruce r McMonkie said that it shouldn't have been revealed just yet. There's something in the doctrine and covenants that supports progression between kingdoms and I can't remember where it's at but roughly it says that celestial beings will minister to the lower kingdoms. Now the question is is why are they ministering unto the lower kingdoms if their fate is sealed? if they're ministering to the lower kingdoms they're probably teaching them something. And if they are learning something they're progressing. Progressing where? The logical conclusion would be progressing to the the celestial kingdom. You can only go up in degrees when you are learning. I think this is interesting that you bring this up. I was wondering if my friend was misinformed.

The scriptures and modern revelations are clear in there declaration of One True God that we worship. Of the man created theisms Monotheism fits that best. But then scriptures and modern revelation throw us a "Mystery of Godliness" that One True God is the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. As a mystery we do not fully understand it, and we should not be surprised that something we do not understand we can not define very well. While we can acknowledge that it pushes the definition of Monotheism... all the other theism destroy the plain and simple truth of Oneness and as such they are even worse and more misleading then Monotheism... That leaves Monotheism as still the best answer. The other theism all require a division among the Gods in question. The scriptures and modern revelations are clear God is not divided. When such scriptures talk about the differences it is always in the context of how it all works together. Both Hentotheism and Polytheism suggest/require divisions that are contrary to the revealed word of God on the matter and are therefore more incorrect then Monotheism. Now the Restored Church of Christ takes it even farther then the rest of Christianity with the ideas of Exaltation and Heavenly Mother. However no doctrine supports the idea of anyone being able to achieve such a status without first becoming One with the Father and Son. With that oneness there is no division. Thus we have a very clear line. Either they are One with God (no matter the number or role) or they are false Gods. And that still fits Monotheism best.

Hi @prisonchaplain I've only read bits and pieces of this thread so perhaps your question has already been answered, but I think the best and simples statement of official doctrine on this topic is our first Article of Faith - We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost (Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:1) I would be a little surprised if someone hadn't mentioned it already.

I'll send you a copy of my book on @MormonGator's life when I finish writing it.

0) The whole super-bright-aurora-borealis-caused-by-a-nearby-supernova thing. You gotta admit, that one really rocks.

Scott, I know that sometimes I come across in this forum as scolding or severe, or even petulant. But I usually don't mean to be that way. I admit that this particular subject matter bothers me, like discussions on Kolob or how women actually already hold the Priesthood or other such irritants. But I don't mean to put that on you. It's the ideas I find irritating, not the people discussing them. I'm not aware that I've been unkind in this particular series of exchanges, but if I have, I sincerely apologize. That has not been my intent. Now, to your point: "Henotheism" is a technical term. It was coined for a particular discussion and in reference to a particular belief set, which is described as "worshiping one god but believing in the existence of other gods." BUT THAT IS AN OVERSIMPLIFIED DESCRIPTION. It's a "shorthand" description. The word does indeed refer to people who worship only one god but believe in the existence of others—in a specific context. And that context is that of ancient Greeks and the evolution of their pantheon. Like many or most other ancient peoples, the ancient Greeks believed in all sorts of gods, some local, some more general. There was a god of fire, and a god of water, and a god of the hearth, and a god of the doorsill, and a god of hunting, and a god of growing grain, and a god of growing turnips, and a god of love, and a god of carnality, and a god of fertility, and a god of alcoholic beverages, and a god of conducting business, and a god of trees, and a god of clouds, and a god of thunder, and a god of stones, and a god of metal, and a god of woodworking, and so on and so forth ad nauseam. The Greeks were so afraid of leaving out some minor god and incurring his wrath that they built a special temple to "the unknown god", so that any overlooked god might assume that the temple was built for him. That way, the god of bad breath wouldn't curse the people for forgetting to worship him. Some of the very ancient Greek tribes (and others) worshiped what they thought was the most powerful god, or maybe the one they were most likely to get favors from. They did not deny the existence of all the other gods; they simply concentrated on the one they devoted themselves to. That is the meaning of "henotheism". LDS religious understanding is utterly alien to this. We believe in the Father, the Creator of all things including, in some sense, our very selves. We believe in the Son as being, in essence, the Father's hands in creation and government. We believe that the Son was called to be our Savior, and that he wrought an act of reconciliation between us and the Father, something we call "Christ's atonement". We don't understand the mechanics of the atonement, not at all, not even a little*. But that doesn't matter. We believe in the Holy Ghost, literally a spirit from God, a divine being who can dwell within us and reveal the Father and the Son to us, whose influence on us can cleanse us and make us worthy, able, and eager to stand in the very presence of God and bathe his feet with our tears of gratitude and love. And these beings are God, each of them and all of them. We also believe we have a Mother who is fitted for and equal to our Father, and to whom we therefore assign qualities like "perfection" and "omniscience" and "omnipotence". But we don't really understand what we're saying. Mostly, these are just words, and we use them because they are all we have. But if we have the Spirit, then the words might be revealed to us, and we have some actual understanding, not just words but real knowledge. *(I am convinced we never will understand the mechanics of it until far in our future, after our resurrection, both because it is so far beyond our comprehension of how spiritual mechanics work that we literally have no context to understand, and because the mechanics of the atonement are as irrelevant as the chemical mechanics of how we digest our food. The important point is that the thing works, not that we understand how it works.) So now, are we really going to use a word that was invented to describe an evolutionary state of primitive religion among ancient peoples three thousand years ago as a modern description of latter-day revealed truths? What possible sense does it make to say that Latter-day Saints are "henotheists"? Does it increase anyone's understanding of eternal principles, even a little tiny bit? Does it bring anyone to Christ? Does it create in the minds of people, Latter-day Saints or otherwise, an accurate picture of what it is to be a member of the kingdom of God? I submit it does none of these things. It does the opposite. It creates confusion and ambiguity. It adds needless complexity and obfuscates what it is supposed to illuminate, all for the sake of using a ten-dollar word. We are not "henotheists". Period. No way. I agree that the correct worldly term to describe us and our belief system does not exist, unless that word is "reality". But saying that we are "reality people" doesn't help anyone come to Christ. So if we're going to describe ourselves in the most truthful way possible using the inaccurate terms at our disposal, "henotheism" is the wrong choice. "Monotheism" is, without a shadow of doubt, the best available term. Whatever it lacks in nuance, it more than makes up for in creating an overall accurate and reasonable picture in the minds of the hearers. We are not henotheists or polytheists. We are monotheists.

I assure you, I am not being disingenuous, nor am I attempting to be clever or cute. This is fundamental to what it means to worship God. I don't pretend to have anything like a perfect understanding, but I know enough to know that we believe in One God. Not many gods (or Gods), but One. I am utterly unpersuaded by "space doctrine" that insists on a childishly naive interpretation of some of Joseph Smith's teachings and weaves out of it a heaven crammed full of Gods who managed to graduate from Earth University with their PhD in God. Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. I am perfectly well aware of the seminary-student-aged model of Daddy and Mommy God leading their unnaughty children to exaltation and coolness. I think there is some real truth in that model, perhaps even profound truth. But it is a vastly oversimplified model. It gives a badly distorted view of reality. And it is not justified by saying that we don't have any other model that's better, so we should go ahead and stick with it. We should not. If we want a model of truth, we should go before the Father and plead for our hearts to be softened and our minds opened, rather than cling to a model that softens the head and befuddles the heart. Those who insist on bringing so-called "heavenly Mother" into every discussion are very often the selfsame people who love to prattle on endlessly about the wonders of "deification". They would love discussing how many Gods there are, and many would say things about how cool it will be when we get our own planet. And they would probably think they were discussing things of spiritual solidity and depth. I blush even writing such absurdities, yet some of our fellow Saints actually think and talk like that. And not just the teenagers. Consider that when you think about whether this discussion, or others like it, provide any value.

So I’ve been told but I have been doing genealogy for a long time and the worst thing I have found was an ancestor hunting monkeys for sport. 😛 I want to find some real juicy dirt... but nothing yet 😕

Very strong aurora borealis caused by the intense radiation from an immense supernova 40-100 light-years away that reached the earth at the moment of Jesus' birth. It was new. The Nephites and Lamanites had better vision that those in the Old World. Who says they didn't? Argument from silence is an especially weak basis from which to propound. "Jesus could not have had a beard, because the Bible doesn't say he had a beard! Jesus did not have two arms, because the Bible doesn't say Jesus had two arms! Jesus could not have had a wife, because the Bible doesn't say Jesus had a wife! Jesus must never have eaten quail, because the Bible never says that Jesus ate quail!" That the Bible doesn't mention anyone besides the wise men seeing the new star doesn't mean, or imply, or even suggest that no one else saw it. It means only that those who wrote the Biblical account saw fit to mention that the wise men saw the star, for whom it had deep meaning, and didn't see fit to mention that, by the way, any other human being with decent eyesight could also have seen the star if he looked.

As with pretty much all miracles, we don't know the scientific "how" of this. It's a new star. It has the same effect in both the eastern and western hemispheres-- same in the Middle East as the Americas. The Nephites and Lamanites weren't going off of the New Testament's records (they didn't have them), but rather their own communications and experiences with God. Just as the wise men in the east, they saw the star and were told it's meaning. They probably did, but didn't realize it was new and it's meaning. Frankly, a hundred new stars could appear in the sky and I would no even realize. The wise men and the prophets of God were studied men and (more importantly) attuned to the Spirit.

And that is because you are a prisoner to Political Correctness. You are a player in victimhood Olympics your art of speech is subject to someone else's victimhood claim to offense. You are like the Democrats who think - "you did not vote to give food, shelter, and healthcare to poor people, you must not care about poor people" regardless of the work you have done to promote and uplift poor people. You are more concerned of "how it looks" rather than "how it is". You are the perfect example of somebody who cannot see the ugly truth because you're offended by its ugliness so you'd rather have the pretty lies. And you keep on saying things like "does not care about any collateral damage done" or "getting revenge on those he wants" - completely baseless accusations.

It's a new news article, but I'm not exactly sure this is new news. I've been hearing similar things for a few years now. It makes sense. We believe there are better ways to run life than having a divorce or children born out of wedlock, but part of doing genealogy is recording an occasional divorce date or birth to an unmarried partner. One good way find the skeletons and dirt on our ancestors, is to do their genealogy. Just enhancing the capabilities.

"the doctrine or belief that there is only one God." So you contend that Paul was "henotheistic". I doubt almost any other Christian, LDS or otherwise, would agree with you. And that has...what to do, exactly, with the present discussion?

Wow. I don't even know what to say to such an assertion from a self-proclaimed Latter-day Saint. It implies no such thing. God is indeed all-powerful. He possesses all power. Period. There can be no argument over this. The things that God "cannot" do are not things. They are non-things. God "cannot" create a rock so big that he can't lift it. God "cannot" save people in their sins. God "cannot" make you exist at a certain place and time, and simultaneously make you not exist at that place and time. God "cannot" do these "things", not because he lacks the power to do them, but because the "things" aren't actually things at all. They are mere word games. God "cannot" sin. Of course he "cannot". He doesn't lack some sort of "power" to sin (which is a contradiction in terms, anyway); rather, sinful behavior is contrary to his nature. It's another word game. I think it's too bad when non-Latter-day Saints falsely preach that we believe in a non-Almighty God. I think it's much sadder when Latter-day Saints fail to understand this basic point.

How is that to produce interesting answers? There simple answer is, yes.

Not quite. Neither the original story nor the Disney adaptation talks of Cendrillon/Cinderella as a beauty prior to the godmother casting the spell. And neither the original story nor the Disney adaptation talks of the step sisters as physically ugly but daughters who took after the meanness of their mother. And the physical attributes of all the courtiers going after the prince's affections were not depicted as ugly either. The end of the spell brought Cinderella back to plainness such that the prince was not able to identify her without her shoes and so he had to see her stripped of her physical accouterments and recognize the person within that captivated him at the ball above all other courtiers.

How many “wallflower” stories does it take for people to understand physical beauty is skin deep and that cinderella got the prince?

The most official statement I know if is canonized in the D&C section 20. Read verses 17 to 28. Highlights: verse 17, "by this we know that there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal..." verse 21, "...the Almighty God gave His Only Begotten Son..." verse 27, "...the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son." concluding in verse 28, "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen." There's no discussion of ousia or any attempt to talk about the philosophy of what it means to be three in one and one in three. Beyond that, I am unaware of any official, prophetic statements that try to explain exactly what we mean by three in one, one in three. You can find various statements by individual apostles and prophets about the Nicene Creed or what they believe we mean by three in one, one in three. I could be wrong, but I am not aware of anything that will rise to the philosophical rigor of Nicea or subsequent theologians who have thought in great depth about it. I will be interested in others' responses to this query as well to see what statements and such that they choose to reference. For me, I find the statement in the D&C sufficient to declare myself monotheistic while still finding myself confused and befuddled at mystery that is a single three in one one in three God.

We are indeed most definitely monotheistic. In revealed religion, semantic discussions must always yield to revelation. Through the ages, philosophers have proposed various models for who and what God is. Terms like polytheism, monotheism, and henotheism are by-products of this philosophical discussion. None of them fit reality very well, but some come closer than others. Revealed truth shows that all of these terms are deficient. Nevertheless, we need to communicate with our brothers and sisters here who don't know or believe LDS doctrine. To do that, we make...approximations. We talk about "repentance" and describe it using five (or six, or seven) steps—as if God has a list that he checkmarks off for us to see if we've actually repented! We call ourselves "monothestic" (and we do!), even though the term itself is inexact and not a robust representation of eternal reality. It's true, but deficient. Nevertheless, it's less false than calling ourselves "polytheists" or "henotheists", both of which carry nuances and baggage that go far beyond any bounds of truth. We even call God our Father, as if he stands in the same place as the biological men who generated us, though of course he is far more than they. In doing this, we are just following our Lord, who called God "Father" and commanded us to do likewise. He revealed a "celestial" kingdom, though "celestial" just means "of the heavens," but he added new, more defined meanings. He spoke of man being "exalted", which just means "made high", but again, he imbued new meaning into the term. He revealed a doctrine of "plural marriage", which by the definition of words sounds pretty much like "polygamy" (which it is also called). But of course, it is unlike the polygamy practiced by many civilizations down through the ages and even now. Yet God himself used "plural marriage" to describe the unions. We talk of heavenly things, but in doing so, we are of necessity restricted to earth-bound language. The Spirit can and does teach beyond language, an absolutely vital need for Saints. Surely this is the reason that we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost, our most important gift besides eternal life itself, right up front, when we very first enter into the kingdom of God. But we are still heavily dependent on the divine gift of human language. So God reveals things to us is our weakness, using our weak language to try to give us some dim inkling of what he's talking about. We do well to be careful in drawing strict literal semantic lines in every case; in at least some of those cases, we will be cutting ourselves off from the truth.

When I think back on some of the more popular and attractive girls and compare them to the “ugly” ones. I find that some of the ones I thought were really cute were actually quite ugly when you stripped away their personality and how they acted around others. One girl in particular who I knew had what I would describe as having a “sloth” face. She was born with some facial deformity that made her look like Sloth from the Goonies. But despite this deformity, she was fairly popular and I found her to be pretty attractive due to her contagious smile and positive attitude. There were also a lot of “ugly” girls that actually looked pretty, but due to their awkwardness and lack of maturity, no one dated them. Anyone can become attractive if they: 1. Took care of their body 2. Participated in social activities 3. Learned what was appropriate to do at such activities 4. Lived authentically 5. Developed a productive and social hobby/talent (sports/music/art/politics/work/etc.) The difficult is the mental and emotional part. It’s so hard to convince someone they are worth loving if they don’t feel that way. Until that happens, it is hard to be attractive.

I would not be delighted, but I would appreciate the honesty. Such honesty can set a person in good stead, if they're willing to respond to the deficiencies that their honesty points up. But if they stand by that attitude, their clear-eyed honesty won't do them much if any good in the end.

Thank you. This helps. I understand that the LDS teaching is that he will very likely be fully redeemed through his afterlife conversion. He is so close, and once he knows he will likely accept. My best estimation is that I don't know. I do not agree with his understanding, but is the difference enough to damn him? Your proviso is that he is sincere and his error would be unintentional. If so--if God's Spirit had not been wooing him back towards a more traditional understanding--if personal pride were not what steered him--then I suspect he will receive rewards rather than punishment. I do not pretend to know the inner workings of each soul. I don't want to cast aspersions, but I do not want to offer false hope either. This is why, when I was asked how wrong one's doctrine had to be before s/he would be damned I answered that I do not know. I suspect that a primary factor would be how much of the error came from bad teaching and unintentional error and how much was from resisting the Spirit and pridefully clinging to error. Maybe the best theological answer I offer, at least from time to time, is that I do not know.

I have seen discrepancies in ward budgeting cut both directions. It's kind of hit-or-miss, and I've heard of enough first hand accounts of young women being given smaller budgets than young men (including from my spouse), that I'm certain the problem was common, but not ubiquitous. The first time I was called as a ward clerk, the ward had three young men and their budget was $700. The ward had seven young women and their budget was $400. Yet, when I looked at the expenditures, the young women were trying to milk every penny out of their budget, and the young men had $575 left at the end of the year. From the other direction, the Relief Society had a budget of $850. The EQ/HP had a combined budget of $100. The mens and womens groups were about equally sized. I decided that couldn't stand. I assigned budgets based on how many active participants there were in each group. The Young Women presidency loved me. The Young Men presidency didn't care (they weren't spending the money anyway). Surprisingly, I got more push back from the men than I did from any one else. The Relief Society president wasn't thrilled, but when she looked at my process for allocating the money she was willing to accept it because it treated everyone fairly. What caught me off guard was the resistance from the men. Their claim was that they didn't need it and weren't likely to spend it. I responded that if they weren't using their budget, they weren't doing enough to build their quorum, and they should start doing a better job of that. In then end, we negotiated $50 less to each EQ and HP, gave it to Relief Society and told the men to suck it up and have some activities. That's when we started holding cookouts before priesthood sessions, and Elders Quorum started to be a bit more fun. Anyway, I am a fan of the directive to allocate funds equally between programs based on participation. Like I said, it wasn't ubiquitous, but it probably does still happen that one group gets more than another for stupid reasons. This gives a clear statement that leaders can use to advocate better funding for their groups when leaders are being jerks about budgets.

Modern Feminism is Societal Cancer and it permeates even the Church. Sadly.