richlittell

Oh yes! fireflies Every night! Eternally romantic, eh?

Hmmm, will football be allowed? And if so, how would we play? Would we like have to slip into some kind of mortal mode so that nobody uses special powers?

Snow!! Yes, I want snow. (oh, and the ban on mosquitoes and flies was for newly created worlds) I really don't want to see any octopus though, I mean, ugh, how creepy! And cockroaches?, or is that just an earthly stigma.

On lighter note. What are the things you can or cannot do without if you have to go to the Celestial Kingdom. For me, that would be peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, Pizza (preferably pepperoni), and chocolate. If I can't have those, it'll be tough times Oh, and surely we could come up with a special celestial blend of coffee (ouch, is that blasphemous?), but of course, only the holy kind without imperfections, you know, so it is legit. I have a friend who says his worlds won't have any flies. I think I'd like to banish mosquitoes.

You know, we had this discussion just this last Sunday School class and by the time we finished, so many people and organizations were suspect that I was afraid to leave the chapel:lol:

Besides the general advice I gave above, which I hope you take to heart, I'd like to specifically address some of your issues. Who says it isn't enough? We are one of the few religions in the world that say non-Christians living good principles, Christians living good principles, and even lukewarm Mormons all have their place in one of God's glorious kingdoms (which glory of the lowest is beyond our comprehension). And who's to say that all these might not come to the true church someday, maybe in the millennium. Please, keep doing that, seems God may have given you a special gift, to be one who can be knowledgeable in such areas and help the rest of us. And.. wasn't it because of your conversion and time in BYU that led you to these things? Don't too quickly bite the hand that feeds you. That is the power of the Holy Spirit, the one you received by the laying on of hands. You may lose it, at least as a constant companion, if you turn away too quickly. No one ever said the only place to feel the Spirit is in our temple or churches. God has had inspired men in various places in various ages for all his children. Your son will have his choice one day, teach him how to choose well, let him feel free to keep your faith or another, though if you are strongly inclined towards LDS, let him know so and he can decide for himself. He will have his choice regardless of what, if any, religion you practice. But I can tell you, just like the friends who brought you into the church, you will never find a greater group of young men and women for your son to hang around with (and someday find his life partner maybe, you know, a woman like yourself) :) Question. Is your husband not LDS?

Oh, and p.s. sounds like you're a convert and maybe the only one in your family that's LDS, Been there done that. This makes some of the things you're feeling more intense because, even though your family loves you, you still don't have their full support, which leads to doubts and feelings of loneliness. Buck up, it only gets better. Just remember, that is probably why your doubts or feelings may be more intense than others who have family support in the gospel.

Wow! that was a great read, your digest I mean. Thanks for sharing that. You obviously have studied a lot and it sometimes hard to see how one church can claim to be the only true church and yet others have so much to give, and it's all very interesting besides. My personal take on other religions, religious leaders, and even great philosophers is that at various places and various times, God has always had inspired men, even if the fullness of the Gospel isn't there. Why, because we are ALL Heavenly Father's children, so it is not surprising that you find so many good things in other religions and philosophies, and that you have met so many wonderful people. Things to keep in mind. Just as there are Mormons who are too proud, or not living the standards and such, and whatever other shortcomings you see in our church, you 'll find those shortcomings in other churches as well, in any king of organization--because we are all human. My suggestion is, before going away from your church for some "soul-searching", stick with what did come to you first--remember, you did not choose the church, Heavenly Father chose you. Write down all -- ALL -- of your concerns, ask the Bishop to appoint someone to walk with you through this journey and to address all your issues. Once you have done that, if you are not satisfied-- then go out and do your soul-searching. As for the feeling of hypocritical-- I think we all have that experience from time to time either because we aren't living right or we just have sincere doubts. I don't think that it will last forever. But you know, God knows what your thinking wherever you are or wherever you go, so you're never being hypocritical if you are just honest with him in your prayers, and then, just go and socialize and don't worry so much. sincerely, rich

PC I enjoy sooooo much having someone like you around to enter into these discussions. Why? Because I know that you are generally well read and sincere in your beliefs and effort. I really enjoy having discussions with well-read Christians even though we may not agree on things. Unfortunately, I haven't met many well read Christians, and that is not a slam on protestant/catholics (my whole family on every side is protestant), I think it's more a reflection of our society of computer and videos and just overall busy-ness that keeps people from really studying their scripture (and I know some Mormons who love to talk-it-up who themselves haven't done much reading). Anyway, Thanks for your contributions.

I'll never look at debt the same way again, thanks a-train.

That's a really big gun! So far everyone seems to be in agreement and that really helps me out. Thanks. So it seems best to use canon and the Standard works interchangeably. Doctrine would be that set of principles or ideas that come from the body of knowledge we call canon. As far as scripture, we could use that the same as canon or standard works, however, we all know that there are additional scriptures (or records) yet to be found/revealed, but not as yet part of our canon. Gen Conf would be to expound upon the scriptures and occasionally maybe some revelation or direction for our immediate needs, but not canon unless it is voted on and accepted and added to the standard works, such as DC138. Does that sound about right? BTW, Prodigal_Son, love that signature quote, first time I ever saw it.

That makes sense to me. I think why I have in the past included General Conf. as scripture is because we always get the encouragement to go to Gen Conf and study/ponder the words of the living Apostles because they are akin to the words of Christ? Ever have a leader ask you. "If Jesus came to speak at Gen. Conf. and you knew ahead of time, would you go? Would you ponder the words spoken, and the words written in the Gen Conf issue? (or some such thing). I know I have. So I've always considered Gen Conf talks to be scripture, but maybe we really shouldn't use scripture and canon interchangeably? Some more thoughts on this anyone? In fact is there any great scholar out there who might better define the terms scripture, canon, and doctrine (by LDS standard)? this is good But do the Standard Works Equate alone as Canon?I have to admit, this statement was quite a surprise to me, I never considered such a thing before: I know there is editing, but I have never considered that an Apostle/Prophet would never speak by the Holy Spirit at Gen Conf. As far as the Seventies go, even though I would think that at the moment of delivering their talk, they would have the mantle of the Holy Ghost upon them, yet I do give more credence, study, and ponder more the addresses of the Apostles/Prophet. But actually, I can't imagine anyone giving a talk at Gen. Conf without the mantle of the Holy Ghost. Good point though. Anyone else?

Dear xanmad, You initiated the latter part of this thread with what I thought was a sincere desire to understand our view and position on a certain subject. I and several others have answered you quite plainly and to the best of our abilities. We are not prophets nor paid ministers, as we don't have any in our church. We are husbands, fathers, mothers, and wives who are quite busy with our lives. I am sorry that I put so much time and effort into responding to your posts, or at least, that I didn't just simply stop responding earlier. We are not trying to "prove" anything to you, why should you try to "prove" anything to us. You are a lover of the Bible, I respect that, especially since we are too. We happen to believe in more than the Bible and we know and understand many many people don't agree with that. That's fine. For me, I wouldn't go to another religion's website and ask seemingly sincere questions to understand how they believe and then turn around and try to show them why they are wrong, regardless of my personal bias. This isn't a "convert the Protestant/Catholic forum" nor a "convert the Mormon forum." We would like to have open dialoque with all faiths and respect their beliefs, as I have tried to indicate that I respect yours, having myself been raised a Protestant; I can see many of your positions, I simply have studied both sides for myself and made my own personal choice, as have most others here. I won't be bothering to respond to any more of your posts, but best wishes, as I once said, my whole family is Protestant (and if they can't "re-convert" me nobody can). So I do respect your position and also your zeal.

As a spur from another thread, I have a question about what we LDS consider to be canon. I always supposed that General Conference was canon but some have suggested that General conferences are not canon but expoundings upon canon (which I suppose was meant the standard works). I don't want to mislead anyone, so please, let me know how you think we should explain "canon." Here is my quote from the other post. If anyone could clarify this, I'd appreciate it

BTW, anyone curious, our official stance on the Bible is given here at the LDS newsroom Reverence for the Bible - LDS Newsroom. Hi Snow, In all fairness to xanmad, I had listed the General Conference talks as part of our canon, along with the Bible and BofM, DC, etc.. I tend to use "scripture" "canon" "doctrine" all interchangeably. Nevertheless, Joseph F. Smith gave new doctrine in General Conference (DC 138), and if you do a search on lds.org, you'll see that our prophets constantly refer to our canon as "open canon" or "open scriptural canon" (as opposed to "closed canon") And since we are instructed that General Conferences are the place where the apostles and prophet give us specific instruction for the needs of our time, I would say they are canon, for where else do we recieve ongoing revelation or direct counsel to our times? However, others may disagree, so I think I'll start another thread and get some input on this from others (as we are already digressing quite a bit from the original topic of this post).

Not sure where you gather all your facts, but I can tell you love the Bible, as do I, tremendously, as I tried to point out earlier. It is not now or ever my intent to "prove" the Book of Mormon or the Bible as perfect or imperfect or true or untrue or anything other than what I said we believed they are--- words of God written down by men doing their best to record God's message of hope and salvation. I have also stated that in all our scriptures, they point to Christ, they speak of Christ, and they inspire us to do good. That was your initial question to me wasn't it? That what are the "issues" that we view as relevant to salvation and what do we consider canon and does one book have any value over another? I have answered those the best I can. Yes, so far as they are translated correctly. Not sure what you mean about disclaimer, but as I said, even Mormon, the original author of the Book of Mormon (or Joseph Smith if you think the BofM a false work) admits there may be errors. In fact, the Book of Mormon says that Jesus Christ was born in Jerusalem---that's a pretty big error. We don't try to hide it. However, when we add the context of all our scriptures together against this one point, it is very simple to deduce that there was obviously an error in transcription, translation, or prior knowledge of geography on the authors part, and that, rather, Christ was born in Bethlehem.The Bible has similar errors (from our perspective, not yours, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise) and for us all the scriptures together complement each other. That is what I was referring to when you initially asked me about what our canon is, and whether or not we hold one book of canon above another. As I tried to indicate, many, like myself, love the Bible and find great comfort in its specific teachings. The wiki is not part of our canon. I personally, as stated before, feel that Babylon represents the wickedness of the world, and the whore of Babylon could be interpreted to mean any of many wicked organization that have existed throughout history that seeks the misery of mankind in one form or another through the control of wealth and power and the subjugation of others. I do not agree with Pratt, at least not as you may interpret it. As I stated earlier, I do NOT believe that the "whore of Babylon" would apply to any one or group who is trying to live by Christian principles. Not correct. In the first place, you may be one up on me here because I would have to see the context in which that was spoken. I'm not sure, in those initial days, what proceeding he was speaking at, and I'm not sure which proceedings were considered official and which were not in those days. Most importantly, however, as I pointed out earlier, we believe in Modern revelation which takes precedence (or attempts to clarify) the scriptures according to the times in which we live, and the most recent General Conferences have the most relevance to us now,and I haven't in 20 years heard any of our leaders teaching about "the whore of Babylon" being Protestants and Catholics , but rather, I have heard them consistently encourage us to seek harmony with our Christian brothers and sisters and with all the peoples of this world.

There is not a reputable Bible scholar around who will claim that we have the Bible in its purest form. And yes, even Mormon himself admitted there might be errors in the Book of Mormon itself, because they are the records made by men trying to do God's work, but men make errors. However, I think neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon have any serious errors when it comes to the basic issues of salvation, such as faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, his atonement etc... And yes, the Book of Mormon in other languages sometimes go through a second or third revision. This is not different than Bible translations to other languages, not to mention the different English Bible versions offered to the world these days (I mean, New Living, New International, Modern Reader's Bible, New American Bible, American Standard Version etc.... ****So General Conference Talks are doctrine? Yes I may have been a tad too strong in my position, as the word blasphemous has very serious meaning to me. It's not that I am "choosing to disagree" that a Mormon is not a Christian but let me put it another way... It was implied. They are the same to me and my understanding of the terms. And to your point "no one should label any others' religion blasphemous" Would you hold your own religion to that same statement? Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' (The Seer, p. 255). While that is a strong statement, he did not use the term blasphemous--look it up especially in a Mormon dictionary, them's harsh words. Nevertheless, our early leaders were quite fervent in their days. I haven't heard such a thing ever come out in our Sunday lessons and certainly never at a General Conference in my 20 years with the church, and there is no such direct comment in our canon. We are free to accept or refuse Orson Pratt's viewpoint, as I stated earlier, many times, we are free to disagree with our leaders on issues that are not canon nor specific directions for our times. I think all things worldly are the "whore of Babylon" and for me that would NOT include any person who is sincerely attempting to live by Christian principles (Christian or not).

There you go again Ceeboo, bringing up the same point that we have answered over and over for you. We LDS Mormons do ALL agree on principles of salvation--the JS discourse is not canon nor relevant to our salvation: We often disagree about things, so what? Have you never disagreed with a mother, father, son, friend, fellow parishioner, or even priest? Would you not love them just the same? We all love each other the same regardless of some extraneous positions we take on issues outside of canon and not relevant to our salvation. So, what's your point? I don't see a problem, and fail to understand yours.

That is very insightful PC, better than I tried to say myself. Thanks!

So far as they are translated correctly, yes, although we hold modern revelation (the General Conference talks) to be most relevant to our needs of today. No problem, you are welcome to feel that way. So is Ceeboo. Why not? In good conscience, I did. I am a convert, I studied my Bible many years before carefully considering the LDS church, reluctantly l might add, because I didn't really want something like that disturbing my set world, but alas, I took the plunge after serious study, reflection, and prayer. All my family are protestant. My favorite Uncle is a protestant minister whom I may very well love and respect more than any man on earth. My parents are deeply involved in their church, my sisters as well. One of my cousins is also a protestant minister. Both sets of my grandparents were the old-fashioned bible thumping Christians who could quote their Bible front to back and front again--I miss them dearly. I am completely and fully immersed in non-LDS Christian doctrine and way of life as well as in LDS-Christian doctrine. (I hold that we are all Christians---protestant, Catholic, and LDS--- but you can choose to disagree). So it is a moot argument for any one to discourse with me as if I have never studied out these things for myself. There is nothing blasphemous neither in our canon nor our way of life. I'm not sure what you mean. I take the position that the Book of Mormon and D&C etc.. are necessary to have a fuller understanding of the Bible. There are no Doctrines taught in the church's canon that are contradicted in the Bible, though you might say we have additional beliefs, but those beliefs are not disputed in the Bible either, if you study it as a whole. All our teachings point to Christ as our one and only Savior, and salvation can come by no other way but through him. I had read and studied my Bible many times over, from my days as a child until adulthood, before I ever knew there even was an LDS Church. I came to the LDS church, in fact, because they were teaching about the things I read and understood from the Bible, unlike the churches that I grew up in. No one should label any others' religion blasphemous unless they have a clear knowledge that these people or their teachings are intentionally attempting to destroy truth and righteousness. Everything our church teaches inspires people to do good, and to better themselves, and to serve one another, and humankind, and to live the example Christ set for us. I love the sermon on the mount more than anything else from ALL the scriptures combined--that is from the Bible. Sure, as far as it is translated correctly. I LOVE my Bible-- I have read it from cover to cover more times than I can count (okay, I confess, I skip over a lot of the begats).

In a nutshell, here are the issues relevant to our salvation: No.Our canon is, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the General Conference talks that are given by the prophet and apostles every six months. All the scriptures complement each other in giving us a fuller understanding of Christ and his mission and teachings, and a fuller understanding of the nature of God, and of the differing places in the spirit world, of Christ's reign on earth, and of the degrees of glory in the afterlife, However, Joseph Smith said that a man would come closer to God through studying the Book of Mormon than by any other book, but I don't think he meant that it overshadows all other scripture, personally, I think he meant that if anyone could choose a single book to know concerning spiritual matters, the Book of Mormon would be that book. For me, it was a long and lengthy study of the Bible combined with a later serious study of the Doctrine and Covenants that finally converted me to the church, so the Book of Mormon didn't hold that prominence for me at that time. I think we would treat all scriptures equally, but we may be touched more by one than another at different times in our studies.

First, Ceeboo, if you don't want to read my whole thread, don't comment on it. Thank you. I don't think you really mean that. Of course, what's your point? Agree. I have decided on this last point that you are simply trying to rustle or feathers. My post and several others have been very clear about the difference between the accepted canon of scripture and any additional teachings, comments, sermons etc. made by men as they speak on diverse topics for diverse occasions to diverse audiences. Maybe the trouble is you can't understand what LDS saints face in everyday study. Take the Bible, it's dictionary, the cross references, the topical guide, the Book of Mormon, D&C, the Pearl of Great Price, and all the General Conference talks in our history, most especially the most recent ones, and pile them up in one high stack, and you'll get a sense of what a Mormon faces when they attempt to study the doctrines that our pertinent to our salvation. We don't have a lot of time to spend on issues that are not relevant to our salvation-- we have families, jobs, volunteer work, and no paid ministry, so it is hard enough to incorporate those basics from our canon into our lives and try to live accordingly without mucking it up with something like the King Follet sermon (and not just that great discourse, but many other great discourses we have that you are probably unaware of that in themselves make up volumes of works spoken directly from the mouths of our prophets from Brigham Young to the present--all of which is not canon). Unlike my Christian friends whom I grew up with (not directed at you as I don't know you), but unlike them, we actually read and study that huge stack of information we consider canon, and not just once, but again and again (again, I'm sure you are well read, so that was not directed at you but others from my own history). The King Follet is a great read and serious food for thought, but as I and others have said, it is not pertinent to our salvation, so we are free to understand it, misunderstand it, or even reject it. Hmmm, maybe that's something else you don't know about us LDS, unlike how many may perceive, we do not live in a church that tries to control our lives and our minds, we are quite free to take our little brains anywhere soever we choose--it's called free agency and so important is free agency to the Lord, that a war in Heaven was waged to maintain it, So I can stand face-to-face with Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Moses, and any other great prophet and disagree with them all I want, so long as we are not talking about issues relevant to our salvation. And yet, we shall all meet in God's kingdom, assuming we've lived according to the principles of salvation, and fall on each other with hugs of happiness. We don't mind disagreeing with each other on issues not relevant to our salvation, so why should you care? Jesus Christ is the way to salvation, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. His words and his teachings are the only way to salvation. The only difference between you and us is that we believe we have additional scriptures and revelation that we, in turn, believe give a more full account of his teachings. I don't know why you talk as if we believe there is some other way to salvation, for there certainly is not. We get baptized because Christ was baptized, we pray to heavenly Father because Christ directed us to do so as he did, we believe in the Holy Spirit because Jesus Christ promised us he would send us a comforter, we receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of Hands because Christ has directed us to do so. We accept Christ's atonement as the only one who could pay the price of our sins, we accept his teachings to love the Lord our God and our neighbors for all the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments. We do not place our selves now or ever above our God or our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ. I fail to see the "blasphemy" in any of that. I don't think anyone here has ever said your beliefs are blasphemous even though we might disagree strongly with them. We respect your right to work out your own salvation. Blasphemy is a very strong word, a word directed once upon a time at our Savior, Jesus Christ, whom we love, serve, and follow, to the best of our abilities.

I should clarify... The church's purpose is for presenting the principles of salvation in a manner that can be understood and accepted by most people, not for introducing confusion among those of differing backgrounds. That's why we have the Bible, the Book of Mormon, D&C, the Pearl of Great Price and the General conference talks. These are the only principles relevant to salvation. That, Ceeboo, is why not every word ever spoken from the mouth of every prophet on every occasion is considered to be a doctrine of salvation. Also, as pointed out earlier, there are many prophets, Joseph was our prophet and is not our god. Moses was our prophet once, but to this Christ added more in the fulfilling of the law and all the prophets. And so today, we have modern day prophets that help us in our current mortal state concerning the conditions of our times and the things that are most important to our salvation, and to every generation, there is a different emphasis on different aspects of the Gospel according to that generation's needs. The King Follet sermon is not relevant to our salvation. If I have difficulty understanding it or accepting it, but I live my life as Christ has taught, according to the basic principles as taught by the prophets through all ages, I shall receive my reward. :)

Ceeboo, Many prophets have spoken on thousands of topics on many occasions to diverse audiences. We do not hold every word spoken out of their mouths to be the indisputable word of God.

I can tell you why it's NOT doctrine, though it may very well be true. Just look at this thread. It is a tough and difficult concept. The church's purpose is for presenting the principles of salvation and the support of the family. There are many truths that go beyond the average person's ability to understand--especially those from different cultural backgrounds. These things will never be doctrines until the minds of the people are ready. Ceeboo, Many prophets have spoken on thousands of topics on many occasions to diverse audiences. We do not hold every word spoken out of their mouths to be the indisputable word of God.