bmy-

I'm not even convinced that God could stop our eternal progression outside of 'killing' us.

In order to teach 'repentance' to a broader audience.. being able to adequately answer the tough questions should be mandatory. This Church seems to severely underestimate people. Which is ironic.. given that this Church is built on the principle that every human on this planet of the race of God. Missionaries should inform their audiences that what they say is not 'officially' doctrine. But they should demonstrate the ability to think for themselves.. the ability to think critically. Remove the brainwashed label and many many doors will open. I can't begin to express how excited I was when I met my first missionary who had considered these issues. We talked for hours about these topics. I would challenge him.. and he would challenge me. Net result was my baptism. I had a missionary who did not know that the Church teaches the plurality of Gods. He was either lying or woefully ignorant.

That's part of my loophole.

I was specifically referring to certain questions about the temples, etc.

Perhaps.. this is the problem. Our missionaries simply don't know enough. They know the plan of salvation like the back of their hands.. but it seems to me (in general) that they have little to no knowledge of the tough issues.

Yes.

I think they could simply remove the one year waiting penalty. It's ridiculous. I've yet to find a real answer for why it exists.. it just does. Bishops don't know, missionaries have no clue, and emails go unanswered.. You get the greatest looks just by asking about that stupid rule.

What if they didn't let you come see their marriage in a regular church because you were mormon? Then they told you.. well.. you could wait outside and watch us come out. That would surely rub me the wrong way. I'm mainly saying this.. to turn the tables and encourage people to look at it from the other direction. No.. the emphasis of the Church always has and should be on the family. Not a family.. on the family. That includes non-members as well. My scenario.. i'm the only mormon in my entire family (including all relatives). Is it right that my girlfriends family could see our ceremony.. but mine could not? I've already told them that if we do choose to go the temple route (without penalty).. nobody is allowed in. It's all or none, for me. It's a celebration and i'm not about to shove my families face in the dirt and feed the other side cake. Obviously i've given this a bit of thought.. and i'm simply adding my opinion to this thread. I think it's contrary to the nature of the Church to have this one year penalty in place. My gripe is with the Church, not with the OP. (I did find somewhat of a loophole, I believe)

Not at all.. you fail a course in college.. you simply retake it (and are behind the rest of your class). You are not forbidden from ever taking the class again (stopping eternal progression).

I think it's just the "I prefer it because it's what I have".. or perhaps it's the "I would love for faith and reason to co-exist inside of me". Sorry if it was confusing.. I re-read it.. and yes, it made no sense whatsoever. I have faith people can figure it out though

On the other side of the issue.. do you not think them not being able to see the ceremony (with members of your family being able to) stings them also? It does. It's one of those issues.. that frankly.. is ridiculous. We should not be punished for choosing to enter into a marriage by having to wait one year to be sealed. Are there any legitimate reasons for this policy? Don't cave to their pressure.. cave to yours.

My opinion.. absolutely. Have you ever heard of a great father who would punish his child.. forever? However.. you won't get a second chance to do it right the first time. Just like some take longer to get through college than others do.. just as an example.

I know it's a difficult statement.. and quite honestly.. online is the only place I voice it. I'd tell my bishop.. but that's about it. I'd rather people not look at me funny. I love this forum because very few people are judgmental. My definition of faith.. I think is important. We can't talk on the subject without defining it. I view faith as .. a belief in something without proof. That proof may or may not be measurable. Faith is more than claiming a belief or claiming to follow a certain theology (which I do).. it's believing in something regardless of contrary evidence.. and believing it to your core. Faith and doubt cannot coexist -in my opinion- and that's where my problem lies. What do you think? That's a pretty heavy statement.. I disagree. I feel that reason will lead to truth.. wherever that truth may lie. That's far more important to me than faith. I'd rather have the truth and be unhappy.. than settle for ignorance and be happy. Reason is the best tool I have to discover truth.. I would love to have faith. It's just not that simple. I can't choose to have faith.. or I would have done so. So for now.. I just align myself with the right principles, surround myself with the right people, practice what i've been taught (as oft as possible), and hope for the best. I haven't left the Church nor do I have plans to. Some brief research will also lead you to realize that those IN the Church think themselves wiser, more enlightened, and insightful than those outside of the Church. I see little difference in the degrees of elitism. If anything.. I would think that that those who are members of the Church on average feel more elite. I've been working on faith for as long as I can remember. I've prayed, fasted, studied, and everything under the sun to try to work on it.. but in the end.. i'm always talking to myself. That doesn't stop me from trying though.. i've got reasons to continue.

Crystal clear now

I don't cut anyone down. I'm a convert to this church. Some atheists openly oppose religion.. but your comments are similar to one saying that all Christians do the same. They don't. There are evangelicals who attempt to force their agendas on people.. and atheists who do not as well. Atheist philosophy is not the denial of deity.. it's the lack of a belief in deity. Ever been to 'atheist' forums before? Christians pop in there as well.. to discuss, debate, and hone intellectual skills. Everyone should recognize the rules of logic.. that is my stance. This is why I want people of all religions to admit that (logically speaking) atheism is more likely to be correct. Just because something is more likely does not make it fact. In fact.. my stance would be classed as atheism.. I do not believe in the supernatural one bit. I do not believe in a supernatural deity. I simply claim belief in a father. In all fairness.. they are not falsifiable (as you said irrefutable, which means nothing here). They cannot be measured or predicted. It's proof enough for you.. but if it were that easy we would all believe the same thing. I think the typical response to that type of statement is.. so did the pagans, wiccans, and scientologists. I'm glad you have a testimony like this. It's excellent.. and it can definitely serve a positive purpose.

It speaks on angels, sir. I'm not sure if you read that part of those quotes. Michael the archangel. Joseph explained that angels with bodies were glorified/translated beings.

In general.. the people who catch the most flack are the ones who believe in creationism or other silly Biblical stories. From experiences.. I think LDS in general are treated fairly well by atheists who actually understand what they believe. It's the evangelicals that take most of the shots it seems. I do not think there is anything wrong with promoting reason and science over faith as a way to explain the universe. I'm all for that. All I ask is that people stay respectful (and for the average theists to admit that their view is not as 'logical' as the atheists).

I don't buy the 'spiritual' and 'material' knowledge deal. Knowledge is knowledge.. simple. Spirit is matter, matter is spirit. They are simply measured by different tools (and some of those more exact than others). There is none. Much like polygamy, no? That does not mean that it was wrong.. it simply means that it's taught differently now. I've already admitted that there are no recent (within 10 years) citations in favor of the situation. That does not change what was said/taught in the past. I think it's time to change the direction of this discussion.. Why was it taught in the past? Why was it presented as doctrine by Brigham? Why did he claim that he learned of this 'theory' from Joseph Smith. If he was a prophet of God.. there must be something to it. He laid it out very plainly with little room for wiggle (which fits his personality, haha).

I'm quite confident that Joseph Smith is said to have received revelation before the LDS church ever constructed a temple. This alone dictates that the temple is not the only place one can receive revelation (it is an excellent place, or so I am told). Do not act like the temple ceremonies are currently in their original form. It was condensed, had parts removed, and is a shadow of it's former self. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. It is good because it is less time consuming (and easier to fit into our busy schedules). It is bad because in any translation.. pieces are lost. This was necessary, perhaps. I have. I could just as easily say you are the one who is missing something in this discussion and my claim would be worth just as much as yours. All knowledge is the same.. there is no distinction between matter and spirit. And perhaps you have more epiphanies to go through (and the eventual end would be that Michael is both a/our God the Father). The KFD does not introduce any concepts that are strange, unusual, or difficult to comprehend in any way. Your idea of 'current citations' is rather odd. Does the Church not use the 8 witnesses as an evidence of Joseph Smiths validity as a prophet? The point is that evidence is evidence.. and that unless the Church has undergone major doctrinal changes.. a quote from 1900 is just as valid as a quote from 2009. Having only one scripture with God and Michael in the same verse could be taken as evidence for the theory as well. (If they were the same person it would be silly to mention them both in a single verse, so that point falls also). I said that Michael took sin upon himself when he ate from the fruit. He had a celestial body that became mortal again only after he had eaten of the fruit. Again.. simply because your interpretation differs does not make yours more correct than mine. Also.. Brigham claimed that he learned of the theory from Joseph Smith (if journals and the like can be trusted). Again.. I understand that you believe that speculation is bad. Not everyone shares your view. I've posted a few scriptural verses and your response is that I misinterpret it. My response to you (in this thread) is that you are the one misinterpreting it. I begin to feel like i'm beating a dead horse here. I've said multiple times that those quotes were not meant to be taken as evidence for the Michael/God theory. They are simply to show that Michael is a previously exalted being. The discussion has moved on.

Quotes 1-3 do not reference Adam directly. They do however tell us that Adam was a previously ressurected (and glorified) being. Quote 4 should not be discounted because it's a quote from a copy. It's still useful. Quotes 5-7 count, still. It's simply a compilation and shows that multiple people heard it said in conference (which is not technically doctrine, but it's darn close) Quote 8 still outlines the idea that Michael is a previously exalted being. The point is.. Michael was previously exalted before he came to this world.

As do I. Again.. this is a topic for a different thread. I just want to clarify that it seems the Church was effectively split down the middle on this theory. He did not deny it, though. he simply said that it is a considerable mystery to a good many. I'll agree.. it does not matter who God the Father is.. it only matters that he is there. Who he is will be important, but perhaps it's not for us (or everyone) to know yet. Again.. I posted nearly all of those quotes just to add emphasis to the fact that Adam was previously exalted before he came to this earth. Not to add weight to the Michael/God theory.

I'm well aware of the temple version of the creation story. Very few things in the temple are to be taken literally (symbols). I disagree. I'm not using it out of context at all.. this is Joseph outlining 'exaltation'. Line upon line and precept upon precept is the way knowledge works (exaltation is knowledge, in essence). We will do what we see our Father do, over and over again until we have reached the next station. I don't recall implying that it was instant. It's a long and arduous process that I suspect takes place over the course of 'epochs' and should not be measured by periods of time.

Paradise Lost seems fairly plausible to me.

Oh, I know. I was using this as 'proof' that Michael was a previously exalted being. The Michael-God theory doesn't say that Michael is Elohim either though. And the Michael-God theory (for emphasis) doesn't say they are. It says that Michael is Michael.. and that he is God the Father.

I'll see what I can do It's been a fun discussion.. I think next we should tackle the issue of our prophets not agreeing with each other. (Now that is a touchy subject) I'm fairly certain there are far more quotes than these lying around. I tried to include all sources, etc. Plenty of these are talks/information given during conferences and the like. It was fun.. and this is nothing more than food for thought. Just a note.. the 3rd quote is in there because of my view that 'Elohim' is a plural term and using it in such a way can change our view of the creation process.