wa1den

I was born and raised in the LDS faith. "Born of goodly parents" as Nephi so aptly put it - which makes the burden and responsibility of living up to it just that much greater.

Personally, I consider that the story of Adam and Eve is in at least one sense literal, not general nor alegorical: That is in the sense that the literal individuals Adam and Eve actually literally did exist as is described in the account. I don't know if I can assert that in every detail of the story that everything in the account is literal. However, I can state that rather than constituting a "rebellion against God" their actions should more properly be viewed as a "choice". You appear to assume that it would have been better for them to remain as they were, and that God intended for them to remain there. However, it is difficult to sustain that concept if you believe that God is in fact omniscient and "knows the end from the beginning". It is blatantly obvious that God had specific goals in placing a "tree of knowledge of good and evil" within their reach - he obviously didn't have to do that - and the intent was specifically that the "Fall" needed to occur, but it needed to be THEIR CHOICE (Adam and EVE's), and not something God forced them to do against their will. The whole scenario of the Garden of Eden was crafted specifically to produce that result - that was the INTENDED RESULT. God knew it would happen and planned for it. That is why the scriptures state that the Atonement was planned "from before the foundation of the world". The Garden of Eden scenario was a sort of "ceremony" which was necessary for the sake of introducing God's children into the state of mortality, where they were to be tested and proved in order to establish whether they would be worthy to return to Him and be exalted with Him and receive "all that God hath", which is a much higher gift than simply tending a beaiutiful garden for all eternity. The Garden of Eden was literal but was never intended by God to be a permanent abode nor a permanent state of being for Adam and Eve. No - but rather His intention was for them to become exalted as HE is, and receive a fulness of glory as He has - to inherit "all that the Father hath", and be co-heirs with His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. THAT BEATS TENDING THE GARDEN!!!

The fall of Adam and Eve, another really intriguing topic. I see no contradiction though... I have thought somewhat about that situation. Do you ever ask yourself just why God would create such a lovely garden and make it SO IDEAL a place for Adam and Eve, BUT THEN PLACE THOSE TWO TREES THERE? WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF HIM DOING THAT??? I think that ANY of us who actually believe in God would concede that surely God must have already known FULL WELL exactly what was going to HAPPEN. He tells us he "knows the end from the beginning", so surely it came as no sur- prise to Him. And the fact that he put such a tree there, then took pains to point it out to them, I find very fascinating. I am certain that all of this was intended and was part of His plan. Obviously He could just as well have not placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil there even, and Adam and Eve would to this very day have continued along in blissful ignorance, but enjoying all the beauty and bounty of that amazing garden - but that I think is the point. They would have been stuck permanent- ly in a situation in which there was no progress. It would have been a POINTLESS EXISTENCE, and not like the kind of existence our Father really wanted them to have. The Garden of Eden thing was actually a "ceremony" of sorts, through which this mortal period of probation for God's children could properly be initiated, by HIS standards, in HIS way (which I am sure WE don't understand well at all). But how can anyone arrive at any other conclusion. IT WAS NOT GOD'S PURPOSE NOR DESIRE THAT ADAM AND EVE ACTUALLY REMAIN PERMANENTLY IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN - THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THEM BEING PLACED THERE WAS SPECIFICALLY SO THAT THEY WOULD FALL AND BECOME MORTAL, BUT IT HAD TO BE BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. Now we come to the common misconception that it was some kind of SIN or OFFENSE to GOD for Eve and Adam to want to be like HIM. Others have also suggested that this was Satan's great sin - to want to attain the power and station/position of GOD himself. The Bilble actually discusses that matter and quotes words or aspirations where Satan revels in the idea that he will ascend to God's throne and all the glory that will be his, and they claim that THIS is what constituted his great sin, for which he was cast down from heaven with the two thirds of the hosts of heaven who were decieived and followed after him. However, we can glean a greater perception from comments made by Christ and that put this matter into a much clearer perspective: John 8:50 & 54 50 And I seek not mine own aglory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God As Christ points out here, he did not seek glory for himself; nevertheless, God gave it to him. Satan's problem was that rather than being willing to submit himself to GOD'S plan for receiving glory and honor, HE WANTED TO TAKE IT UNTO HIMSELF IN HIS OWN SELFISH WAY RATHER THAN SUBMIT TO GOD'S PLAN AND THE DIVINELY SPECIFIED PATH FOR RECEIVING THAT GLORY AND HONOR. We have already previously discussed that fact that Christ is heir to all that the Father has, and not only HE, but all of us who are God's children, who submit to His will and His plan are to be co-inheritors with Christ.... and of WHAT? The scriptures say we and Christ will inherit "all that the Father hath". Mention is made of "glory" "kingdoms" "principalities" "powers", etc.. etc. The sin is not the desire to bel like our Father in Heaven - THE SIN IS WANTING TO TAKE IT UNTO OURSELVES IN A MANNER OUTSIDE WHAT GOD HAS DESIGNATED AS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE WAY TO RECEIVE IT. HE has to give it to us, we can not take it unto ourselves by OUR OWN BACKDOOR PATH. It must be received by the legitimate path that is decreed by God - otherwise we fall into the same sin as Satan who was cast out. So, no, Eve and Adam wanting to become like God and "know good and evil" is not a wrong path nor do the scriptures condemn the notion of becoming like HIM (to make a short story LONG ).

Regarding the finding of truth and the concept of the rational mind entering into that process: Though God I am sure doesn't expect us to totally discard all semblance of rational thinking, we need to bear in mind that even the Bible (new testament - in the epistles) states that the "natural man" cannot comprehend the things of God - that to him these things are foolishness.... that the things of God are "spiritually discerned" if one is to understand them. Again, I don't think this means we are expected to become blind followers who don't think, but nevertheless it behooves us to admit that our use of "rational reasoning" will really never lead us to a clear understanding of these matters. We don't have sufficient information/knowledge to be able to comprehend. So, we are told that we are to study these things out for ourselves, but that additionally we are to ask our Heavenly Father for confirmation that we are on the right track, and the promise is that if we sincerely desire to know it, the truth of it will be manifest to us through the influence of the Holy Ghost. This brings an assurance and conviction of the truth that exceeds other forms of knowledge. Interestingly, Paul in his letters also comments about worldly learners who in his words are "ever learn- ing and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". Then again, in the book of Acts, in verse 21 of the 17th chapter, Paul comments on the attitude towards knowledge of the Greeks in Athens, saying: 21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.) In this two commentaries by the apostle Paul, we gain insight about people who are curious and want to know - perhaps want some sort of interesting challenge, intelectually, but not for the sake of following that knowledge. Rather, their interest is purely intelectual - an intriguing mental exercise... the mere curiosity to "know about", but not the desire to "do" anything about it. Christ, on the other hand, gave counsel saying, "be ye doers of the word, not hearers only". God honors sincere requests for under- standing from sincere individuals who desire to know in order that they may FOLLOW the knowledge He grants them. However, He spurns requests from those are mere curiosity-seekers, who have no desire nor intent to follow and implement the truth in their lives were it in fact to be granted to them. The passage that inspired Joseph Smith to seek an answer from God I think addresses such situations very well: James 1:5-8 5 aIf any of you lack bwisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him aask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8 A adouble minded man is unstable in all his ways. All very good food for thought, when it comes to the matter to our interest in knowing about God and His truth/purposes. It isn't a matter of an idle game or intelectual entertainment (speaking of how God views the seriousness of the matter). He expects that if He opens our understanding, we must be wil- ling to put into practice the precious knowledge thus gained - once we have that knowledge, WE COME UNDER CONDEMNATION IF WE FAIL TO LIVE BY IT AND ABIDE IN IT, so He doesn't give it to people lightly, just to satisfy their whims and curiosity. Ok - once again I am waxing overly long winded. Enough for now.

It is easy to find instances/statements in all the scriptures which taken superficially appear to be contradictory, and which people are fond of pointing out as contradictions. For example, the Bilbe also has some passages which state there is but one God, yet others which mention more than one (God the Father is acknowledged as God, as is Jesus, and as the 3rd memnber of the godhead, the Holy Ghost is likewise acknowledged as God). The following scripture from the bible is interesting in the insight it gives: I Cor. 8:5-6 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Remeber from an earlier post of mine that the Bible states that those who received the word of God were called gods themselves - words which Christ himself cites, giving his own comment on the matter, saying, "he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken". Again, remember that this is Christ himself citing these words. The important thing to bear in mind is the concept expressed by Paul in the first scripture - namely, that though there be others who may bear the title of god or of lord, there is only one God and one Lord who pertain unto us. In other words, just as I have only one father, in spite of the fact that many father's exist, none of those others is father to ME, though in their own right they may be fathers to someone else. In like manner, for the family and decendants of Adam, there is no other being who is God over them/us but God as we know him, and no lord over any of us but Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father. To me that concept is not only not hard to grasp, but it makes all the sense in the world. And it applies in like manner in a myriad of other situations in life. We have but one president over in the United States (at any one time), yet there are people in other nations who preside there. Unfortunately, it is appar- ently human nature to want to engage in a "play on words" rather than the more sure concepts underlying what we try to express with our imperfect verbal descriptions. There- in, I believe, to a large extent lies the problem. Our verbal expression is far too imperfect and inexact, and leaves too much room for misunderstanding, and we are far too prone to constrain God to fit into that imperfect framework. I, personally, find no contradiction whatsoever between the concept that there is only one God (only one in the sense that there is only one who is God over US), and the idea that the offspring/children of God can achieve the stature of being like their Father, and therefore be also referred to as gods themselves, AS JESUS HIMSELF REFERRED TO THEM IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN in the Bible. That is no contradiction - it is simply a matter of understanding what is the intent of the words, what they were intended to convey when given by God. There is ONE GOD FOR US, yet more that one bearing that title for those outside Adam's family; yet nevertheless the others are NOT GODS OVER US, thus do not count as gods for the sake of discussion of who is our God. When we see the statement, "there is only one God", we should understand that the qualifier "for us" is understood. Otherwise, how would we jus- tify Christ's comments (and he states that the scripture refers to them who receive the word of God as gods themselves, and then declares that this scripture "cannot be bro- ken" (and that comes out of the Bible, so it can't be construed to be just a "hokey mor- mon notion"). So, if you want to strictly insist on such a narrow interpretation of the state- ments about "one God" you will have difficulty with Christ's statement. Again, as someone has already mentioned, it is the difference between "God" and "god". The capitalized one is God over us. In that sense, there is no other "God". It is obvious from the passages in the Bible that this concept was had, and provides no true contradiction outside an obsession with wanting gospel truths to hinge on a "play on words" which is a matter of mental gymnastics rather than expression of real-world realities. And as the passages cited in the Bible demonstrate, the statement in the Book of Mormon is no more a contradiction than the ones in the Bible. All statements have their context and parameters, but we often overlook them and begin to apply the statements to things they were not intended to apply to. God may be perfect and infallible, but our lan- guage is not perfect when it comes to attempting to convey the truths that God under- stands - so we must be careful about over-extending the meaning of scriptural state- ments. Ok - sorry to get so long-winded again. I guess that is more than enough for now. :)

Basic Biblical/scriptural concepts: !. We (the human family, the family of Adam) are sons and daughters of God – we are his offspring. Jer. 1: 5 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the enations. (this was God speaking to Jeremiah the prophet, stating he knew him even before he came to this earth) Heb. 12: 9 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? Acts 17: 28 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Paul speaking to the Greeks about the nature of God) Eccl. 12: 7 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (bear in mind that you cannot RETURN to a place you have never been before!) 2. As offspring or literal children of God, if we will follow the path he has prescribed and obey his commandments, then we will become his heirs: Rom. 8:16-17 16 The Spirit itself beareth awitness with our bspirit, that we are the cchildren of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; Rev. 21: 7 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 3. As his heirs, the scriptures say we shall be like Him. (we know that in every species, the offspring grow up to be like their progenitors). Ps. 82: 6 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (this quote is from the old testament ...now compare this to the following quote where Christ himself cites this same passage of scripture) John 10: 34 - 36 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 1 Jn. 3: 2 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 4.Finally, for the sake of clarification, nobody is saying that we will be equal to God - He is eternally to be God over us... any who achieve the stature He has promised will inherit the same things He has, but He will remain superior and God over all of us. No one else will ever occupy that position over us, no matter whether they may inherit the promised glory and stature, nevertheless, even as one man is and always remains as father to each of us, so God will always be God over us, and no one else will ever occupy that position relative to us but Him, though they may come to occupy such a position over others that become their spirit offspring. We will all eternally be subject to the father of our spirits, who is God the Father.

I like your kitty cat Elphaba!

You say the chat room hours changed and are 9 am to 9 pm - you must be referring to the English-speaking site. My comment was directed at the fact that for folks in other time zones, even that may not come close to working very well - take the case of the fellow from England as a case in point. It is several hours later over in Jolly Old England where he is located than it is even on the east coast of the U.S., so those 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. hours that would appear to give a pretty decent range or window of opportunity for folks here in the continental U.S.A. still just don't provide a very viable window for those in places like that - then consider for example that there are a number of good members of LDSnet who are in the Philipine Islands.... the time zone difference over there will really blow your mind, so it is more challenging for them to participate. I point out that although for the English-speaking site, the chat room closes up shop and becomes inaccessible outside the "window of opportunity" hours, the same does not hold true for the sister sites in Spanish and Portuguese. I have personally been in the chat room on the English side when we have been informed that it is going to shut down and we must log out now, so I know that when an assigned admin/monitor isn't there they shut down. But in the chat on the Spanish/Portuguese side, I have entered the chat at about every imaginable hour - daytime and during the wee hours of the night - and it lets me enter and sit in there for as long as I have the patience to do it. Unfortunately, generally there is nobody else in there to talk to, but I can't help but think what a great opportunity this makes for those who for what ever reason have a need to carry on their visits and chat during odd hours when the English side isn't available. It could be because of the time-zone problem, or simply because at the time that the main English chat goes off-line, they are in a good conversation and don't really want to cut it off. All you would do in that case is that those participating in the conversation would agree to go over and continue it on either the Spanish or the Portuguese sister site. In some instances it might take some participants a few minutes to set up their additional account over there, but you can use your same username and password as you have on the English side, so it can be done in a matter of a couple of minutes or so - then you are all free to continue the conversation with no fixed shut-down time., Of course, there is a distinct possibility that if everybody started going over there for this purpose, at some point they might eventually alter things and begin to require a monitor/admin on that side also, but it would be viable for a while, and those with time-zone problems, if they were to invite additional folks to join up over there in their own area, the chat over there wouldn't be empty - though in some instances you might have to pretty much "set an appointment" with the other parties, to get everyone in there at the same time and have them available to chat with. Ok - I don't know if it will attract anybody or not, but it would work really well for those with time & time zone-related problems, or those who don't want to have to cut off a good conversation from time to time.

These sorts of questions are always tough to deal with, and of course opinions are easy to give but if you follow advice from someone, you are the one who gets to live with the consequences that come, for better or for worse. That being said, I will venture to throw out some opinions, but you will have to be the one to determine what works for you. Ok, I think that the first thing I would comment on is that a very primary issue is to determine and know very solidly what the family budget will withstand/survive. Obviously, regardless of anything else, if the money isn't there, then that is the determining factor, though it might still take some lengthy and tactful discussion to get mutual agreement and a true "meeting of the minds" - and that is something that your marriage will have a tough time surviving without. The next big issue I see is that from the tone of what I am hearing, I really suspect that there is a pronounced tendency in your marriage to devolve into "yours v.s. mine" thinking. You marry supposedly, because you truly love each other and enter the marriage with the notion and attitude that it is no longer "you" and "me", but instead it is now "us". I think it is important to understand something I feel is no doubt going on with your wife, and that is that as the mother of those other children, her heart is subject to feelings of remorse and stress over the loss of them and having failed to keep a family together for them, and she longs for their affection and company still. I think it would be unrealistic to expect that any normal mother would feel any differently about such a situation. In the "back of her mind", she no doubt senses that those children will be more likely to want to continue to come and spend time with her when they experience "positive" things there with her, such as the gifts and other attentions she might be able to give them. She is experiencing a very real fear, no doubt, of losing their affection and their willingness and desire to continue to come and spend time with her. You may argue til you are blue in the face about whether the affection of those we love should be based in such material attentions or not, but the reality is that when any person sees someone very close to them and very important to them slipping away and begins to feel the fear of losing them, then they are going to be prone to do whatever is withing their power to try to prevent that from happening. You no doubt are looking at it from the perspective of feeling she is spoiling them and of feeling she is trying to show off having more means than she actually has, but that is probably a very narrow and less than perceptive way of seeing the matter - again, it no doubt hinges on deep emotional forces in her as a mother that tie her to her children beyond what is reasonable to expect her not to feel and struggle with, and she is resorting to what means she senses are among the few advantages she thinks she can wield in the battle to hang on to their affection and not lose them altogether. I think this brings us back once again to the original point, because it really comes back to what is possible and what is not possible. At the same time, the additional element you would likely want to consider is that if it is in fact financially possible to be supportive of the need and desperation she has to be able to do these things for her children, then you should consider that it is harmful to look at the matter in the perspective of, "well, how can she expect me to do that". You marry a person complete with all their needs, weaknesses, difficulties, and liabilities, and that is how it should be. Knowing how important her children are to her, it would only make sense that if reasonbly possible to do so, you would support her in that effort and consider that if the children are important to her, they should be important to you also. The final question would be, well - are there any additional children in the mix? Did you bring some kids with you also, or perhaps have the two of you had any additional kids together? If so, then the remaining consideration is whether or not the expenditures in money and time where her other children are concerned constitute something that would compromise the ability you two have to care properly for current children in the family - back agian to point number one, of what is actually possible. Ultimately, if between you it is mutually determined and agreed that the money is just not there to cover the kind of attentions she wants to give to her children from the prevous marriage, then at least you will need to find was t demonstrate to her that you at least sympathize with her attachment to her children and would love to support her effort to keep those ties if the money were possible. You could in that case try to help her find alternate ways to strengthen the ties to her kids. But she needs somehow to feel that you empathize with her need and longing towards her children. I would suspect if she does not get that sense from you that it will be an alienating force between the two of you that could seriously undermine your marriage - you are dealing with basic female, mother-related instincts here. It would be really tough to just reason her out of these feelings by logic and argument. You would likely fight a losing battle against the instincts of motherhood and nature. Just remember that that isn't a defect in her - it's just how women/mothers are made. You will need to come to terms with that or you will probably have a tough time ever making a success of relations with the fairer sex. So, the issue is pretty complicated, and obviously nobody can really dictate to you two. But I would suggest that insofar as the financial factor will reasonably allow it, her devotion to her other children should be important to both of you, since it is obviously so to her, and that is the nature of a woman and mother. I don't know if you have any feelings like, "hey, those aren't MY kids - why should I have to be saddled with a bunch of expense for them when they are not mine?" If perchance you do in fact feel that way about it, I would suggest that in effect, SHE is yours now, and HER KIDS are STILL her kids no matter who has custody of them. You can't legislate the feelings of a mother. So - they are emotionally hers still, and she is YOURS. If your marriage is going to work, what is profoundly imortant to her better be profoundly important to YOU also - otherwise you are looking at really long-term stress between you two over the matter. Or, do you suppose that it is feasible for a mom to emotionally divorce herself from the children that she bore? I suspect if she could so easily do so, she wouldn't be the kind of woman you would want to be married to. Final commmet: It is always possible for a third-party type like myself to mis-read things in such a matter, or to lack sufficient information of the full situation to be able to reach a valid conclusion, so I obviously can't offer my opinion with any guaranteees. But from the limited info presented and the general tone of things presented, these are the conclusions that to me seem warranted, and my opinion of what seems to be going on. If perchance I misread things, you have my apologies. Bro. Walden Barney Gridley, California

oops... sorry for a few typos - hope the message was still basically intelligible

For folks who are geographically quite far-removed from the U.S., I think there is definitely an issue with time-zone differences. You might need to do a little recruiting on your end and get some of your acquaintances to sign up (and hopefully they would then recruit others as well, and it would begin to spread over there). I will pass along a little secret that might help - at least briefly... they might get around to altering it and spoil the fun. Here on the English language version of the site there has to be a moderator for the chat or it gets closed down - but on the Spanish & Portuguese versions of this site, you can enter the chat at any old time and even if you are the only one there, it is still functional. Ok - you will probably say, "that fool - what possible good would it do me to go into the chat when there is nobody esle there???" This is the point.... if you RECRUIT some more people, you can meet each other there and it won't matter whether there is a moderator to keep it open - that isn't needed on the isster-sites (so far, unless they alter it to be like the English site, but I just tested it and it still works). So, go do some "missionary work" there, and get us smoe new "members"!!!

I think what I would do is to protest being limited to only 2

P.S. ...regarding "what this is", ...it is a site where folks belonging to the LDS church or who enjoy associating with us, "congregate" to enjoy each other's company. I think you will find that here you will be much less prone to have people go into "attack" mode, or to make themselves offensive or unpleasant. It is a place you can come and feel that you will be among people who try to respect those around them and want to enjoy pleasant company and conversation. So, hang around a while and give it a try - we hope you will make some good friends and feel at home!

Hi there and welcome indeed! I hope you feel comfortable among us and will enjoy being here!

I gotta wonder if perchance people walking the extreme fringes and beyond (of legitimate doctrine) make it a point to zero in on places such as this "gathering place" online, for the sake of trying to promote their cause and lead away any that they can possibly influence, to follow down their mis- guided paths. When I see so much focus on groups such as the RLDS, and when I see claims that they are in fact actually mormon/LDS, in spite of official statements the LDS church makes that they are not, it becomes obvious that these people here have ideas that definitely lie outside of the range of LDS doctrine. While it is true that they have a right to believe what they will, supposedly this is LDS.net and not FLDS.net, or any other splinter group's bully pulpit. I truly have to suspect that this gathering place is being subverted for the sake of trying to influence and lead off those who might be willing to listen to such notions. The internet is full of places where such notions are quite welcome, and shared by most of those participating (for those who can't resist getting off on that tangent). But it is troubling to think that some of that is "leaking" into a place that was supposed to be LDS, and that these elements are now attempting to use an LDS gathering place to try to undermine the faith of LDS folks who come here thinking they are coming to a place where they can enjoy the company of like-minded brothers & sisters, and now are finding that they are surrounded by folks with some really out-in-left-field ideas that they are trying to promote to anyone who will listen. Again, when you have folks hanging around who clearly state a disbelief in what the LDS church is teaching and proclaiming publicly (and when you state that the FLDS are in fact "mormon" regardless of what the church says to the contrary, what else could you possibly expect to be communicating???), and you engage in presenting lengthy expositions on these splinter groups which have deviated from the live branch of the church, it then becomes obvious that there is an agenda - it isn't like the case of an investigator who comes here because he/she has some doctrinal questions they want to under- stand better, or a member who is struggling with some aspect of the gospel and wants to hear some counsel and support from fellow brothers & sisters - rather you are getting into recruiting mode and making an attempt to win folks over to doctrinal positions which are contrary to those that the church (the LDS church - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, based in Salt Lake City) officially teaches, and what place has that got in a gathering place labeled "LDS.net"??? In so doing, you are essentially putting your self in a posture of "criticizing the bretheren", which we are taught is the first step towards apostacy. I feel compelled to warn that it is not a sound decision to go down that road. Anyone here who actively counsels us not to accept what the leadership of the church teaches us is on extremely unsound ground, and we should realize that we are dealing with folks coming in from the outside who have designs of leading some of us off or at very least planting the seeds of doubt regarding the legitimacy of the calling of our prophet and the leaders that have been called to preside over us - and that is an extremely questionable thing to find going on at a gathering place that is supposedly for LDS folks. I followed a link to get here that indicated a discussion of "church history", and the main thing I find in the discussion is instead the FLDS group - I find the labeling of the topic of discussion to be bordering on disingenuous. If you are going to get off on such an unfruitful tangent as a discus- sion of the FLDS, then at least label it as such, rather than suckering in folks who simply have an interest in the topic of LDS church history. Again, I find that the probable motive for not doing so would be a desire to lure if possible a few such unsuspecting souls off with doctrines at odds with what the church teaches. This is how I see the matters being discussed here. It frustrates me to have to speak out in such a bold fashion, which I know will not exactly cultivate warm fuzzy feelings with those making these posts, and most of us come here to enjoy good company and to re-enforce each other in the gospel, so it hurts to have to do this. However, I think there comes a point when things going on have to be pointed out. When you actively promote ideas contrary to LDS teachings, it must be pointed out, and particu- larly when it is going on at an LDS gathering place. So - I have had my say on the matter. Those of us who enjoy membership in the LDS church have raised our hands to sustain those leaders that we recognize as having the keys, of having the calling to be the mouthpiece for the Lord to clarify for us the path, and to point out the doctrine that is sound and acurate, and which we should accept and prac- tice in our lives. When anyone comes along who would undermine our commitment to do so, we can know that they are on a wrong track. While we strive to help clarify for any sincerely seeking to under- stand the teachings and doctrines of the kingdom, I do not think we owe anyone a forum here for the purposes of recruiting and promoting for another cause at odds with the true and living church.

I still say that this is a matter that isn't fruitful for us to be involved in. The comparison has been made to what happened in Germany, suggesting that we shouldn't ignore what is happening to others. How- ever, this is much different than Germany. We have a system here in which people have recourse and defense. While it is true that nothing is perfect and injustice does still sometimes occur, we really aren't in a position to know all of the facts, and for us as members of the LDS church to show such active in- terest in a polygamist group and what they are embroiled in is not helpful. To begin with, it is simply idle speculation since none of us have any real "inside track" to be able to ascertain all of the actual facts; and even if we could, since the matter is under jurisdiction of estab- lished law, the outcome will not be altered by our opinions and speculations - so we really aren't help- ing any of them by our commentaries, regardless of our opinions. Additionally, we DO give cause for our opposition (the anti-lds crowd) to point to any expressed sympathies as evidence that we truly continue to be polygamists in disguise. So, WHERE IS THE BENEFIT TO ANYONE??? I think we hurt the Lord's cause by showing such interest. And if any injustice is being committed with these people, UN- LIKE IN GERMANY UNDER HITLER, THERE ARE ACTUALLY LAWS IN PLACE THAT GIVE THEM RECOURSE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. That was why the Lord raised up this nation and provided such safeguards, both to establish freedom and guarantee the rights of all, and to provide a safe place for his Kingdom to move forward from. We had to fight that legal battle once upon a time, and had to live with the results, despite the fact that the resulting decision was taken with bias and prejudice against us, and was not done according to what the law shoud have been. Others may yet also have to do the same; and perhaps in similar man- ner, in some cases, have to live with whatever the outcome is under the law. But we believe in and pro- claim our support for the rule of the law of the land, and have submitted to living with the results of it, EVEN when it has been applied unjustly to US. We don't have jurisdiction, and we have no business providing ammunition for the enemies of the cause of righteousness to use against the church and king- dom of God - they get plenty of that as it is, without us providing them with additional things to sen- sationalize and squak about. That is how I see the matter. Let these people seek their redress before the law of the land, which was established by our Heavenly Father. That opportunity has been provided for them under this system of government which God raised up in this promised for just that purpose. WE and THEY do not live in GERMANY, nor are we/they under Hitler nor under someone like him. Our efforts and energies are best spent in moving forth HIS kingdom in those things in which we have been commanded, and in being prudent enough to not provide unnecessary fuel for the rabid crowd to use for adverse publicity.

I think I am a little bit confused. I thought this was LDS.net here. Did I misunderstand something there? This sounds instead a bit like FLDS.net. While I don't lack sympathy towards anyone who might perhaps be unjustly represented, or be persecuted because of their faith or religion, I feel that as members of the LDS church, we already get plenty of people who misunderstand us and want to attribute to us the practices and beliefs of others that we have nothing to do with. My perception is that as we delve into pro's and con's of such other groups and what issues they may be embroiled in, we risk having the un- informed around us take our interest as evidence and/or proof that we really are like these groups such as the FLDS - that we are really in fact polygamists ourselves and that either we practice it in secret, or form separate "splinter" groups as cover for what we do, in case it may be discovered; or at very least that we sympathize with a polygamist lifestyle and the kinds of distortions and abherra- tions that have occured in some instances in such groups. We really don't need to be throwning any gasoline on that fire by having others observe that we have such an active interest and and are running to defend such groups. There is law in the land and recourse for them to defend themselves if they are wronged. Our interest truly should be in the restored gospel and the true church and kingdom of God, and we ought better to not waste time with splinter groups (unless you have the opportunity to re-convert some of them), nor should we be attracting attention and risking giving the many rabid "mormon" haters more material to point to as evidence of our supposed decadence and status as supposedly being "abominable" before God. We all understand that they just live for an opportunity to discover if some "mormon" has said something that can be used as evidence to show that we are not what we say we are. We are also not likely to be in a position to determine the facts in such a he said/she said tug-o-war between opposing sides. I just feel that if we show an interest and fascination with the matter we end up appearing to favor practices and groups that we should not want to touch with the proverbial ten foot pole. We have enough to occupy us with what the Lord has asked us to do for His cause and His kingdom. Ok - well, everyone has an oppinion, I know. So, now you have heard mine. For anyone who desires to "flame" me on the matter (in case any of you might want to do so), my email address is: [email protected]