Maureen

or...(I can't help it) maybe he was a prophet of God.M.

Taoist - I'm not sure about the virgin birth, I'd have to check it out but, Paul's letter to the city of Corinth (1 Corinthians) talks about a physical resurrection. One of the reasons for writing the letter was to counsel the church members on several subjects, one was to correct false teaching concerning the resurrection:For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. (1Cor. 15:3-8)... It is the same with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living personâ€; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1Cor. 15:42-49) M.

Taoist - I've only just skimmed your several posts but I'm getting the idea that you want Paul's warning of preaching a different gospel to mean (see definitions below): (Galations 1:8) But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel (One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching) contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! Instead of: (Galations 1:8) But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel (The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation.) contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! I think Paul was refering to definition #1 not #2a. :) -------------------- gos·pel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gspl) n. 1. often Gospel The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation. 2. a. Gospel Bible. One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching. b. A similar narrative. 3. often Gospel A lection from any of the first four New Testament books included as part of a religious service. 4. A teaching or doctrine of a religious teacher. M.

Starsky - So IOW you are against gambling, you have never bought a car, life or health insurance and you don't drive on the freeway. Is that correct? Or do you mean we shouldn't gamble, buy a car, life or health insurance or drive on the freeway? - but sometimes we just can't help ourselves.M.

I was surprised as BYR. I'm sure Snow wrote the thead title that way deliberately just to get everyone's attention. :) Congrats to the Mormon Tab though! M.

Since you bring it up again I am re-posting this information - you can also find it in the Caffeine thread. The JofD section I believe is from BY:"<span style='color:blue'>I think I am as well acquainted with the circumstances which led to the giving of the Word of Wisdom as any man in the Church, although I was not present at the time to witness them. The first school of the prophets was held in a small room situated over the Prophet Joseph's kitchen,... When they assembled together in this room after breakfast, the first they did was to light their pipes, and, while smoking, talk about the great things of the kingdom, and spit all over the room, and as soon as the pipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobacco would then be taken. Often when the Prophet entered the room to give the school instructions he would find himself in a cloud of tobacco smoke. This, and the complaints of his wife at having to clean so filthy a floor, made the Prophet think upon the matter, and he inquired of the Lord relating to the conduct of the Elders in using tobacco, and the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom was the result of his inquiry." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 158) The following appeared in an interview with David Whitmer which was published in the Des Moines Daily News: "...quite a little party of the brethren and sisters being assembled in Smith's house. Some of the men were excessive chewers of the filthy weed, and their disgusting slobbering and spitting caused Mrs. Smith (who, Mr. Whitmer insists, was a lady of predisposed refinement) to make the ironical remark that 'It would be a good thing if a revelation could be had declaring the use of tobacco a sin, and commanding its suppression.' The matter was taken up and joked about, one of the brethren suggesting that the revelation should also provide for a total abstinence from tea and coffee drinking, intending this as a counter 'dig' at the sisters. Sure enough the subject was afterward taken up in dead earnest, and the 'Word of Wisdom' was the result." (The Des Moines Daily News, Saturday, October 16, 1886) M.

What is the evidence that Acts was written toward the end of Paul's imprisonment, and not later? Is there something written in Acts that implies that its author is a contemporary of Paul? Taoist,I'm answering you again with Dr. Daniel Wallace: Acts: Introduction, Outline, and Argument by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. <span style='color:blue'>A number of factors and presuppositions affect the date of this book. Among the most important are: (1) authorship; (2) the solution to the synoptic problem; (3) whether the Olivet Discourse was truly prophetic or a vaticinium ex eventu; and especially (4) evidence internal to the book of Acts (i.e., not related to the gospel per se). Though most scholars date the book c. 80-90, our conclusion is that it should be dated substantially earlier. 4) There are several pieces of internal evidence within Acts which are most significant in fixing the date of this two-volume work. Guthrie lists six, of which the last is the most significant. a. The absence of reference to important events which happened between AD 60 and 70. The fall of Jerusalem (66-70), the persecution of Christians by Nero (64), and the death of James by the Sanhedrin (62) are not mentioned. On this last point, it is a significant silence, for “no incident could have served Luke’s apologetic purpose better, that it was the Jews not the Romans who were the real enemies of the gospel.†b. The primitive character of the subject-matter. In particular, “the Jewish-Gentile controversy is dominant and all other evidence apart from Acts suggests that this was a vital issue only in the period before the fall of Jerusalem.†c. The primitive nature of the theology. Terms such as “the Christ,†“disciples,†“the Way,†and the reference to the first day of the week for the time when Christian met together to break bread, all imply primitiveness. d. The attitude of the state towards the church. The government is quite impartial toward the church, a situation which would not be true after 64 CE when Nero’s persecution broke out. It is significant that Luke ends this book by saying that the gospel was able to spread “unhindered†(ajkwluvtw"). e. The relation of Acts to the Pauline epistles. Luke shows no awareness of Paul’s literary endeavors. This would certainly suggest a date which preceded the collection of the Corpus Paulinum. Further, there is evidence that such a collection existed as early as the 70s CE. In the least, this suggests that the purpose of Acts was not to reinstate Paul’s letters, as some have suggested. f. The absence of reference to the death of Paul. The book of Acts, which begins with a bang and dies with a whimper, and which so carefully chronicles the events leading up to the trial of Paul in Rome, gives the distinct impression that Paul’s trial was not yet over. In other words, it is very doubtful that this book was written after 62 CE. Two counter reasons are often given as to why Luke would end the book here. http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/actsotl.htm M.

The Synoptic Problem by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. ...The implications of this affect authorship, date, and purpose of the first three gospels. In particular, these areas are impacted once a fairly firm date for Acts can be established. If Acts was written toward the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment (c. 61-2 CE), then Luke must have preceded it. And if Luke preceded it, Mark must have preceded Luke (mid to late 50s seems most probable). Further, if both Matthew and Luke used Mark independently of one another, it is difficult to conceive of Matthew having been written much later than 62, even if he were cut off as it were from the literary fruits of the nascent Church. Mid-60s would seem to be the latest date for Matthew. Once such a date is assigned for each of these books, then their traditional authorship becomes virtually unassailable. And the purpose for each book would need to be found within the framework of such a date. There is one more implication which can be made from all this, in regard to date: if neither Matthew nor Luke knew of each other’s work, but both knew and used Mark, how long would it take before someone such as John would become aware of any of these books? Since Gardner-Smith demonstrated long ago John’s independence of the Synoptic Gospels, such independence becomes increasingly incredible with every passing year. There is the very distinct possibility that John, too, was written in the mid-60s. http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm Hey Taoist, The above I copied from my post I added to the thread Romans or the Jews? M.

The destruction of the Jerusalem temple would have been 70AD. I disagree with your view of when the gospels were written, more like mid 1st century, from:The Synoptic Problem by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. ...The implications of this affect authorship, date, and purpose of the first three gospels. In particular, these areas are impacted once a fairly firm date for Acts can be established. If Acts was written toward the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment (c. 61-2 CE), then Luke must have preceded it. And if Luke preceded it, Mark must have preceded Luke (mid to late 50s seems most probable). Further, if both Matthew and Luke used Mark independently of one another, it is difficult to conceive of Matthew having been written much later than 62, even if he were cut off as it were from the literary fruits of the nascent Church. Mid-60s would seem to be the latest date for Matthew. Once such a date is assigned for each of these books, then their traditional authorship becomes virtually unassailable. And the purpose for each book would need to be found within the framework of such a date. There is one more implication which can be made from all this, in regard to date: if neither Matthew nor Luke knew of each other’s work, but both knew and used Mark, how long would it take before someone such as John would become aware of any of these books? Since Gardner-Smith demonstrated long ago John’s independence of the Synoptic Gospels, such independence becomes increasingly incredible with every passing year. There is the very distinct possibility that John, too, was written in the mid-60s. http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm I also found this regarding Pontius Pilate: http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate01.htm M.

perhaps but where and when did Holzapfel say it? AND...what exactly did he say? Maybe he used the sources from: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 158 and The Des Moines Daily News, Saturday, October 16, 1886. M.

What theory is that? - My speculation of why coffee and tea were picked? It's just human nature - tit for tat. :) M. I guess it's not speculation after all. This is what I found from one of those evil anti-mormon websites: <span style='color:blue'>"I think I am as well acquainted with the circumstances which led to the giving of the Word of Wisdom as any man in the Church, although I was not present at the time to witness them. The first school of the prophets was held in a small room situated over the Prophet Joseph's kitchen,... When they assembled together in this room after breakfast, the first they did was to light their pipes, and, while smoking, talk about the great things of the kingdom, and spit all over the room, and as soon as the pipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobacco would then be taken. Often when the Prophet entered the room to give the school instructions he would find himself in a cloud of tobacco smoke. This, and the complaints of his wife at having to clean so filthy a floor, made the Prophet think upon the matter, and he inquired of the Lord relating to the conduct of the Elders in using tobacco, and the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom was the result of his inquiry." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 158) The following appeared in an interview with David Whitmer which was published in the Des Moines Daily News: "...quite a little party of the brethren and sisters being assembled in Smith's house. Some of the men were excessive chewers of the filthy weed, and their disgusting slobbering and spitting caused Mrs. Smith (who, Mr. Whitmer insists, was a lady of predisposed refinement) to make the ironical remark that 'It would be a good thing if a revelation could be had declaring the use of tobacco a sin, and commanding its suppression.' The matter was taken up and joked about, one of the brethren suggesting that the revelation should also provide for a total abstinence from tea and coffee drinking, intending this as a counter 'dig' at the sisters. Sure enough the subject was afterward taken up in dead earnest, and the 'Word of Wisdom' was the result." (The Des Moines Daily News, Saturday, October 16, 1886) http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/w_wisdom.htm M.

What theory is that? - My speculation of why coffee and tea were picked? It's just human nature - tit for tat. :)M.

bizabra - I agree with you completely. It is no more than an obedience test.M.

Exactly! When we look back at the time the WofW was first introduced, the temperance movement was alive and well. The birth of the WofW started with Emma complaining about the smoking and cleaning out the spittoon; or if there was no spittoon the mess. So it only makes sense that if the men felt deprived of their treat, the women should have to give something up also - coffee and tea. If that moment in time (of Emma complaining) never happened, chances are the LDS church would be today just like any other religious community - a coffee and tea drinking one - which is quite normal, IMO.shanstress70, the choice is really yours. You are an adult, you have the ability to use common sense as you have shown in your posts. If you wish and like to drink your tea you should; you are responsible for the well being of your body. God gave you the ability to reason and to choose what is good for you. IMO, you are on the right track. M.

Amen! A WORD OF WISDOM, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days- (D&C 89:1-2) Has your scripture above now been changed or edited by a recent or current prophet to now have the WofW viewed as a commandment? M. I think I've answered my own question with this find. Obeying His Word “People argue over whether the Word of Wisdom is simply the word of the Lord or a commandment. What difference does it make? The word of the Lord becomes a commandment to me, and I am so very grateful for that marvelous thing which we call the Word of Wisdom” (meeting, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 31 July 1998). “Latter-day Counsel: Selections from Addresses of President Gordon B. Hinckley,” Ensign, Feb. 2002, 49 Since your prophet seems to see the WofW as a commandment, does that make it a commandment? (Yes - the same question, asked in a different way) M.

Amen! A WORD OF WISDOM, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days- (D&C 89:1-2) Has your scripture above now been changed or edited by a recent or current prophet to now have the WofW viewed as a commandment? M.

Like the Catholic Church? It describes it's main rituals as sacraments:The Seven Sacraments: 1. Baptism 2. Reconciliation/Penance/Confession 3. Holy Eucharist (Communion) 4. Confirmation 5. Matrimony 6. Holy Orders (Serving as Priests) 7. Extreme Unction (Last Rights) M.

Ammon – Here’s my 2 cents. Just so you know, I am non-LDS; that way you have an idea where I am coming from. I see GBH’s answer this way. He’s been a PR man most of his life. Before he was president/prophet he dealt with difficult situations, like the Mark Hofmann fiasco. I believe GBH was and is the type of man that loves the LDS church so much he would do and say anything that would protect it no matter what. Through the years you get the impression from GBH that he wants the outside world to see the LDS church as mainstream, not peculiar, which seemed to be practiced by other presidents. He seems to believe that to bring more people into the church, the church must not seem too controversial. That couplet is too controversial for most outsiders, potential converts. So in speaking to those potential converts he had to make that couplet sound as if it was not that important, as church doctrine, at present. To the reading members he could explain it away by saying that he had been misquoted. He was/is the prophet – they would have to believe him and not some magazine. So that is how I rationalize GBH’s response to that couplet.

Snow - this is how I see it.God is sovereign. He is supreme in all things. Everything that exists and happens to the good of mankind and to His glory is because of Him. God made His plan from the beginning (maybe even before the beginning). Nothing can stop God’s plan, not even man’s sinfulness. God has predetermined or predestined from the beginning what His plan is – the salvation of mankind. And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose, because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30) God chose Israel to be the community that Christ would be born into. God chose that Christ would die for the sins of the world. God chooses people for His purpose, to make His plan come to fruition. Mankind is separated from God and does not even seek God. God has chosen to seek out or call certain people (the elect) to bring mankind to God. In the OT God chose prophets to proclaim to mankind - Himself. In the NT the good news of God was proclaimed by apostles and by Christ. I believe the purpose of the elect is to be God’s instruments in proclaiming the good news of God to mankind. It is through irresistible grace that the elect are able to receive their calling. Only God knows who he has elected and how they are able to accept their calling so welcoming and willingly. I can only speculate how the elect having been already chosen by God can in turn by their own choice accept their calling so "irresistibly". That is the mystery of God - to bring about his plan by making it irresistible for the elect to choose God. And in mentioning predestination earlier, this is how I understand it. Predestination and Election are NOT God choosing who will be saved and who will be damned. Predestination is God’s plan for mankind’s salvation to the glory of Himself, and he uses the elect to fulfill this predetermined (or predestined) plan. M.

This is how I understand the doctrine of Election. This is new to me so I'm still trying to figure it out myself:Man because of sin does not naturally seek after God: …just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. (Romans 3:10-11) God instead seeks after man to draw mankind to Him: Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? (Romans 2:4) The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. (John 1:9) And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32) Then Jesus spoke out again, “I am the light of the world." (John 8:12) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44) Even if God seeks after mankind it is still up to mankind to make the final choice. …because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation. (Romans 10:9-10) If God is omniscient he is insightful regarding the heart and mind of man. Through God’s irresistible grace mankind is kindly persuaded into noticing God. But because of mankind’s sinful nature, man will not make the first move so God must seek out man to save him. For a more detailed look, see: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/election.htm M.

I'm not sure - but I think I believe in the doctrine of Election.M.

GBH did not apologize, he said this: That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment on the part of the Church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful and tragic day. (President Hinckley Dedicates Mountain Meadows Monument “News of the Church,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 111) M.

So then why can't the LDS church also contribute a kind gesture toward the families of those that died in the MMM, by apologizing?M.

From the essay, My Understanding of the Biblical Doctrine of Election by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. he says of God and the doctrine of Election: …Many folks want to seek a balance between God's sovereignty and human free will. A balance needs to be sought, but this is not the place. Nowhere do we read in the Bible that God is not sovereign over our wills. Further, we have the explicit testimony of Romans 9 to the opposite effect. As well, there is an inherent imbalance between a creature's will and the Creator's will. What right do we have to claim that these two are equal? The real balance comes between the two broad categories of God's attributes. God has moral attributes (goodness, love, mercy, justice, etc.) and amoral attributes (he is infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.). In short, the balance is between his sovereignty and his goodness. If God only had amoral attributes, he may well be a tyrant. If he only had moral attributes, he would be incapable of effecting change in the world; he would be impotent. Putting all this together we see the majesty and mystery of God. God's attributes cannot be compartmentalized. That is, he is good in his sovereignty, infinite in his mercy, loving in his omnipotence. However, we as mere finite creatures cannot comprehend the grandeur of his plan. Isaiah 55:8-9 says: "My ways are not your ways, and my thoughts are not your thoughts; but just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." There is no contradiction in God, but there is finite understanding in us. So getting back to the original thought to this thread; how does the atonement affect those who were not able to come to knowledge of Christ and therefore not have faith and believe in his power as Saviour. The doctrine of election tells us that God chooses who he desires to know Him through the power of the Holy Spirit (without taking away free choice), which in turn can be like a domino effect; when we share with others the wonderfulness of God. Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms in Christ. For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love. He did this by predestining us to adoption as his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the pleasure of his will— to the praise of the glory of his grace that he has freely bestowed on us in his dearly loved Son. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace that he lavished on us in all wisdom and insight. He did this when he revealed to us the secret of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, toward the administration of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in Christ—the things in heaven and the things on earth. In Christ we too have been claimed as God’s own possession, since we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will so that we, who were the first to set our hope on Christ, would be to the praise of his glory. And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation)—when you believed in Christ—you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit, who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:3-14) The book of Romans I believe may have the answer (in a round about way) how faith is central to knowing about God but also that life is not so cut and dry and that not everyone can come to that knowledge. Romans says this: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20) These verses though seem to be talking about people who have a choice because of knowledge and have chosen to reject God. Romans also says: But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach), because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation. For the scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How are they to call on one they have not believed in? And how are they to believe in one they have not heard of? And how are they to hear without someone preaching to them? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How timely is the arrival of those who proclaim the good news.” But not all have obeyed the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ. (Romans 10:8-17) So through the doctrine of election God has supplied us with knowledge of Him through the proclaiming of His good news by those he has chosen to proclaim Him, ie ministers, preachers, missionaries, even ourselves. Paul asks: But I ask, have they not heard? Yes, they have: Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. But again I ask, didn’t Israel understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous by those who are not a nation; with a senseless nation I will provoke you to anger.” And Isaiah is even bold enough to say, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I became well known to those who did not ask for me.” But about Israel he says, “All day long I held out my hands to this disobedient and stubborn people!” (Romans 10:18-21) Paul is specifically talking about Israel here. Israel has rejected Christ, so does that make them lost, their situation hopeless?. No! Ecclesiastes 3:1 says: For everything there is an appointed time, and an appropriate time for every activity on earth… Romans 11:32-36 says: For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how fathomless his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has first given to God, that God needs to repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever! Amen. So God is really in charge. If God is waiting for an appropriate time to bless Israel he more than likely has the same intent for those who made their own choice to reject God and for those who had no choice. ...but as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.” (Romans 15:21, see also Isaiah 52:15) But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8) I believe God gives mankind many chances to know Him, through the Holy Spirit. In the end I believe God will have the final say on who will have salvation and whatever he chooses and judges will be good. M.

It was an interesting article. I know 2 of my LDS SIL's have experienced depression. I do not know if the other LDS women that I personally know have ever had depression. When I have been at a few LDS women activities, gossiping about who is having problems with depression seems to be common. Relying on claims from early social scientists that the conservative faith's demands are "constraining and that LDS women are discouraged from pursuing careers and other courses that bring satisfaction and provide for mental well-being, these discussions depict depression as a pervasive problem" among LDS women. Yet Johnson said the most significant finding of her study was that "increased religiosity predicted increased life satisfaction and mental well-being." My one SIL seems to resemble the above statement in the fact that she is a very intelligent person and has chosen to be a stay-at-home mom and I think it drives her crazy sometimes. So she spends a lot of time doing church activities, which actually takes her away from her family. But I think she likes it that way. M.