Heavenguard

If your parents and your siblings love their alcohol more than they respect you and your husband's wishes in your own home, I would not want them to be an example to your (possible future) children anyhow. I know that sounds to cut and dry and heartless, but it's true. Not only are you their daughter/sister, but also an adult, a grown woman, and with your husband, the owner of your household. Disrespecting all those things in favour of alcohol would point to a problem in their priorities and your relationships with them. If you trust in the love and respect your parents and siblings have in you, then a rule of no alcohol should be no problem whatsoever. If you can't trust in that love and respect, perhaps some other issues need to be worked through before you get to the "no alcohol in this house" rule.

Well, let's look at what the bible says first. Coveting is the wanting of that particular thing. If you see a car commercial and you think "Oh, that's a nice car, I would like to buy that", coveting has not occurred. You did not with to take something that belonged to someone. You simply wanted something that did not belong to anyone (or rather, was free to belong to anyone, given proper payment). Coveting isn't wanting what isn't yours, it's wanting what belongs to someone else. That said, things like freedom have no limited amount. If someone gains freedom, another does not lose it (very specific scenarios aside). Also, there's a difference between coveting someone's freedom and fighting for justice, I think. There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich; David was obviously rich, so were Job and Abraham. Being obsessed with it and living with money as your goal is a problem, however, because we're supposed to live with God as our goals. God doesn't say "don't have smart business practises", but he does look at your heart. Is money your goal in life, or is it just a consequence of life? I'd just like to point out that your neighbour, in this case, can only be a man, and not a woman. Women held no status in society and could not own anything anyway. Women did not have their own money, possessions, land, houses, etc., and only had those through their fathers, husbands, sons and other male relatives. Only in exceptional cases did women actually possess things like that. I wouldn't say it's so much the condoning of plural marriage than the legalese regarding society's norms.

Agreed, Prisonchaplain. I dont doubt the ability to speak with spirits... there's been at least one exorcism done in my church where they spoke with the possessing spirit, but I don't believe that any of these speaking spirits are the ghosts of people past. We would have to believe that ghosts continue to inhabit the Earth after the person's physical body dies ... what a crowded ghost world it must be! Or that these ghosts come and go from heaven or hell (or paradise and the grave, whatever floats your boat) as they so please. If one could simply escape hell, well ... who needs Jesus? And of leaving heaven, remember Jesus' parable about the Rich man and Lazarus. The only remaining spirits would be God's angels, who would not be playing such silly games with humanity, or Satan's demons, out to deceive the world and those who would believe them.

I do not believe in or subscribe to celestial marriage at all, however I did ask some similar questions about it a little earlier. I think you'll find the thread a good read: http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mormon-church/12241-marriage.html Regarding that polygamy was in the bible and discussed through it, I'd like to point out that just because something is in the bible, it does not necessarily mean the action or principle is condoned, even if it's about a bible "Superhero". For example, David having an affair with Bathsheba, and his multiple attempts at covering it up, and finally signing off on a death command for him. This was not an example of things as they should be, but an example of how things should not be. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, although I personally don't agree with it, but "It's in the bible" can't be used as a defense or argument unless the passages are more specific. If the saviour were a woman, do you believe for a moment that the female-Jesus would have been paid any attention whatsoever by the people in the heavily male-dominated society of the day? Women were not people, women's testimonies were not testimonies at all, women could not hold any form of citizenship, and so on. A female Jesus would have been denied any and every credibility as a witness to even him (her) self.

Hey guys, I just wanted to say thanks for all your helpful and info-filled posts (Wait, let me go back and "Thank" each post later...) Personally, I am still of the mind that marriage is an Earthly ordinance (simply because my set of beliefs excludes its purpose), however I can now better understand where you're all coming from. I do have to say I really appreciate how romantic the idea is, though, haha If we (I) take the idea that the OT marriages were not sealed relationships (as they could not possibly have been sealed or made in the name of Jesus yet), when is it considered that sealings began to come into play? When Jesus gave Peter authority? I would take the authority that Jesus bestowed upon Peter to be not marriage-specific, but rather the binding and loosing Jesus speaks of to be a demonstration/explanation of the authority. We see marriage as an example of 'binding', but what of loosing? Do you/we consider that Peter (and therefore the proper church authorities) could/would undo a sealed relationship (likely sealed by another)? Or otherwise loosen something that has already been bound in this world and in heaven, whether by God or by man? Lastly, I think we are in agreement that Jesus was not married in his Earthly lifetime (despite what some popular non-fiction books claim), right? But the thought of Jesus not being exalted brings a "No way", especially being that he has partnership in the Godship. So would it be fair to say that Jesus has a sealed/celestial relationship with his wife from a time before we could even know about? Thanks for discussing, guys :)

If this question is directed to me, No, I don't believe Peter was allowed to perform a marriage (sealing or not). Peter was a fisherman, and did not have any Earthly authority to perform a marriage. I believe he may have blessed a marriage, but not perform it. The early church was an underground movement in its day, it would not have been until after Constantine that its leaders would have been empowered with the right to perform marriages. I understand there are sealings that occur post-wedding day, under that idea, I have no contention that he may have sealed people, but not perform or govern a wedding ceremony. I don't know what relation there is to the Law or what you mean by it. I don't necessarily think that Peter did or didn't have that power, however I concede that Jesus gave him authority in the Spirit and may very well have respected Peter's actions and works and maintained anything he sealed. I don't think it would be a power of his own virtue. Edit: If not directed at me... everyone else carry on >_> This seems to be the direct opposite of: 29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

I don't have a problem with believing that he had a mortal existence. What is irreconcilable in my logic is the idea that we, as God's children, can become exalted as gods like God our father. The reason it is irreconcilable in my logic is because since we model after our father, then he too had the same existence as we. It is not that he had a mortal existence that I can't comprehend (Jesus was an example of God's mortal existence on this Earth), but that there must have once been a time or capacity where God did not yet exist, as we did not yet exist, even in our pre-existence, before we were begotten. If the explanation or whatever for my question/understanding will hijack thread and bring it in another direction, please start another. (I'm not sure if i should yet >_>)

Letter or spirit of the law, that is. This came up in another forum I started going to, and I began to wonder what the LDS view of the matter is. Personally, I'm a "spirit of the law" kind of person. There are many things I do not take literally from the Bible. (Ie. I don't believe God literally created the world in 6 24-hour days, but I do not think it impossible for him to do so. My understanding is God gave that understanding in order for us to understand that God is creator, the source of all things, and God period.) In a Bible study discussion, my friend once said that we hide behind the "spirit of the law" in order to rationalize our way out of the more difficult commandments, and he gave the example where Jesus said to not invite your friends to your party, but the homeless and the poor instead, which is something nobody does. I have some more thoughts on the matter, but I don't want to throw it all out right now, because I want a discussion, not a monologue :)

I still have trouble trying to wrap my mind around the idea that God is eternal, yet progressed as we once did. As God's begotten children, we did not exist before we were begat by him. As God's children who are in the same likeness of God (that we may be exalted to godhood as he was), then he too was begotten by his own Father. As his father's begotten children, then he did not exist before be was begotten himself. I understand the idea of pre-existence, but even our pre-existent souls (and God's too) must have had a beginning, no? Otherwise we would have 'Eternal' as a humanly attribute, but we do not ascribe eternity to ourselves as humans, only to God. That's how my logic reads it, anyway. Could the apparent error in my reasoning please be corrected so I may understand this better?

The people of the day used a lot of imagery, poetry and other storytelling devices, as much was passed by word of mouth. It would have been understood by the people of the time that much was not meant to be taken literally without the author of any book/letter saying it specifically. In order to read the Bible, you must take on the mindset or understanding of the audience of the time, and then learn how it applies now. The principles of the Bible are timeless, but the way in which the principles were conveyed are lost through time, translation, cross-cultural references, if read without that understanding.

Well, I can tell you, as a non-member who has only recently come into more understanding (though not yet a great understanding, just more than before) of the LDS church that I simply didn't know better. Never meant to offend, never meant anything ill, just simply didn't know any different. Since coming here a few ... weeks? Months? ago, I do say/use 'LDS' more, but usually in conjunction with 'Mormon', because, as stated (somewhere) earlier, it clears up confusion. But just as a side note, it is much easier/quicker to say/type "Mormon" than "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". For that reason alone, "Mormon" will continue to be used, esp. by the media, until such a time that it becomes politically incorrect.

After giving the idea of celestial marriage a pondering, some points of observations came to mind. As I understand it (please correct any mistakes), when a man and woman are married in the temple, they are bound or sealed to/with each other in this and the eternal life. It would seem to me that Paul and Jesus suggest that marriage is a sacrament meant only for this Earthly lifetime. I read also this article (LDS.org - Ensign Article - First Presidency Message Temples and Eternal Marriage) that says : Also, concerning angels: In Matthew, Jesus says "people" will neither marry or be given in marriage, and "they" will be like angels. I see no distinction made by Jesus to separate the first husband and the wife from the remaining six brothers (as the author of the article did), and so would see Jesus' "they" and "people" to encompass them. The meaning I would extract from this is that all people, married or not, become like angels. But according to the D&C, the unmarried (or not married in the temple) stay as singular angels while their sealed counterparts are exalted to godship. Er, no question really. Just a presentation of the points noted in my head, so that you may present those in yours.

Whenever I mention that I've taken an interest in learning about Mormonism and the LDS church, I get all sorts of rebukes, warnings, and all sorts of things of the like. I'm just trying to broaden my horizons and learn more about the world around me. Why can't everyone be as level-headed as that McDermott? If I see this somewhere, I'd probably snatch it up too. Thanks for the info, Tough Grits.

I whole-heartedly agree. In fact, that's the very reason I am learning about the LDS church altogether. Well, I don't actually know anyone (in person) that is an LDS member (only you guys), so... maybe not the witnessing part so much. But it's important to know how your faith stands against others, and you really need to know what you believe in in order to do that. I say let your husband ask his questions. As a Christian, if my faith and beliefs in what I know of as being Truth (with a capital T) can't stand up against scrutiny, then it simply isn't the Truth (with a capital T).

Ah, okay. Thanks a lot, Vanhin! I was looking around the LDS site, but I don't know where specific ideas/ things are categorized under. (I looked under Prophet, and it contained more info about his role than how one is called to be the prophet, for example.) Oh, oh, I have another question. It seems from this that the line of succession from one prophet to the next is pretty continuous, with Joseph Smith as the first of them all. Is there a (known) reason why so long between the time of Mormon and Joseph Smith?

I wanted to ask what is the... not exactly the role... but uh... I guess the best way I can ask this is in familiar terms for me. How would you compare the Prophet (to Mormonism) and the Pope (to Catholicism)? Papal infallacy is something I take quite an issue with. If you don't know what that is, it's the teaching that the Pope speaks the absolute truth and is prevented by God from being wrong. It has more modernly been updated to being infallible only pertaining to faith matters. (Otherwise it puts the Pope in a very Godly position.) Is the Prophet similarly seen as infallible, at least in matters pertaining to faith/doctrine? (If so, how far does this extend down the lines of "authority" or structure?) What of a situation where a later Prophet reveals something contradictory or otherwise different than a teaching of an earlier Prophet? I always thought of it as an "Oops, White-Out please" from the RC side of things. Also, I wanted to ask how the next Prophet is chosen/revealed. Is he succeeded by a councilor/Apostle/other? Told you I'd get back to this later

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Abram and Sarai were half-siblings.

May I ask where one would find the book of Abraham? I'm assuming the lie that Abraham told to Pharaoh about Sarah is that she was his sister? If that is so, he was simply scared for his life. Gen 13: 12 & 13 (NIV) When the Egyptians see you, they will say 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live. Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you." I don't know what the book of Abraham says, but from that, the lie was not by God's instruction, but rather Abraham (then Abram)'s own fear. If it's another lie... then... Iunno, I'd have to read that book of Abraham for myself first >_> But I do agree that some things are circumstantial. God demands obedience to HIM more than he does obedience to his specific rules. Rahab lied to the soldiers and hid the Israelites in her home, and so God spared her and her family because of her obedience to his will.

Hear, hear, KuriChan. I hear stories from my girlfriends about the people they are/were seeing, and I just wonder why they were surprised that the jerks they were dating were ... jerks while they were dating. I can only wonder why they put themselves in that kind of situation to begin with. I often wonder how the very nice, pretty, smart and witty girls I know end up with the brash, sloppy, macho and egocentric boys that they do. As for the friend thing, though, I think it can get too weird. Some of my (guy) friends I think are wonderfully date-able (and seriously wonder why they don't have girlfriends), but just not date-able for me simply by virtue of being my good friends. If I weren't so close to them, I probably would seriously consider some of them, except now it'd be like... dating my brother. And I don't mean in Christ kind of brother, I mean borne of my mother kind of brother.

Based from the Word of Wisdom (this page, specifically: LDS.org - Aaronic Priesthood Chapter Detail - The Word of Wisdom ) the reason to avoid coffee and tea are because of the addictive effects of caffeine. (Okay, well, I added the "of caffeine, but what else are you getting addicted to in there?) Reading some other posts here, sodas are okay, but some pops have just as much or more caffeine than some teas. Er, there really isn't a question attached... just an observation. I personally put this in the "Drinking (wine/alcohol) is not a sin, but drunkenness is" category.

Hmm, I don't know if I'd so much say that education destroys creativity, but rather what the focus of the education is. Personally, I just got my degree in fine arts, so I can't say that education destroyed it, however, I do agree that there is much more of a push for children and education to excel in the 'academic' departments, much more so than the fine arts departments. More often than not, parents push for good grades for their kids in English, math, and sciences, and the others are a sort of oh-well consequence. Because of these expectations, the fine arts are almost always the first to suffer when there are financial issues in schools. Personally, I know grades were always expected from me, but when it became inconvenient to take me to art classes (when I was a kid), it just not nixed. It was never inconvenient to get me to math class, though. A much loved quote from a much loved movie, Mr Holland's Opus: Vice Principal Wolters: I care about these kids just as much as you do. And if I'm forced to choose between Mozart and reading and writing and long division, I choose long division. Glenn Holland: Well, I guess you can cut the arts as much as you want, Gene. Sooner or later, these kids aren't going to have anything to read or write about.

For the record, I am not of the LDS church, rather a Baptist myself... It's not something that we, as people, disagree with so much as something that God, whom we follow and worship, disagrees with, and we try to uphold the laws and morals given to us. If it were left to people's humanity, sure, some people would oppose gay marriage because it is something different, and people dislike change. On the other hand, humanity has accepted all sorts of wrongful acts as everyday fact, both in the past and the present. My disagreeance (not a word, but you know what I mean) with homosexual marriage is not something I simply blindly follow "because the church said so", it's something I've thought about for a long time. On the one hand, as a Canadian citizen, I almost faithfully believe in the Charter of Rights, which legally guarantees equality to all. But in the end, it came down to this: The government is a ruling body that is supposed to lead and guide the people. Laws are set by the government to achieve that by condemning and allowing certain behaviours. But the government is not more "morally right" than the rest of the proletariat just because they've been selected by the people. And so what's legal is not necessarily what's right, (and conversely, what's illegal is not necessarily wrong). We should submit to worldly authority (Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, Matt 22), but not where it conflicts with God's authority. (God's will on Earth, as it is in Heaven, Matt 5).

Hmmm, this has been helpful much and interesting. I think I have more questions about this, but I don't know what they are yet, hahaha. Let me think about it first and Ill get to it later. Much appreciated :) :) :)

Howdy folks, I was wondering if someone could explain to me the overall church organization and structure. I have so far, from reading snippets here and there, surmised that there is a structure similar to that of the RC Church, where there is something of a "hierarchy" or sorts (perhaps something like Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, Pope), and something like a geographic structure of sorts (like parish, diocese, archdiocese, etc.), but clearly not by the names I've put in brackets. I might not be putting it quite right (since I don't quite get/know it), but I think you can understand what I'm trying to ask :) I think it'd make observing stuff a lot easier if I knew who was a what Thanks!

I just wanted to throw in... Don't forget the Old Testament! I've been reading it. I just finished 1 Kings the other day. It's got a lot of interesting stories in there too, and it also makes me think a lot about why does God do this and that, why do the people keep sinning, etc, which is relevant to us even today, because God is timeless, and we still sin today =p I know a lot of people just read the NT without the OT, thinking that Jesus makes the Old Testament obsolete, but I decided to read the OT because that's the backbone/foundation/history on which Jesus' ministry was built, was it not? Therefore, I think the Old Testament is for everyone, not just our Jewish friends :) But I congratulate you on finishing reading the book. That's a lot of stick-to-it-ness