deseretgov

Temple Square is AWESOME! I love going there. But living about three-four hours away it's a bit hard to find a reason to go. When we go we usually stop and eat and Crown Burger first then just walk to temple square. Mmmmm. Crown Burger.........

So how would an endowed couple go about doing baptisms for the dead? I haven't done baptisms for the dead since I was a youth. I would love to go again with my wife. Do we have to wait for a temple trip or can we just go in, like going for an endowment.

Well according to D&C 132 in special circumstances women can be sealed to more than one husband. Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were already sealed to one husband. Currently women are not usually sealed to another spouse after the first dies. But it is part of the New and Everlasting Covenant that women may be sealed tomore than one husband. Anyway, children will be living with their spouse(s). They wont be living with their parents. Children will be having their own spirit children in their own universe. They will be working to bring about the immortality and eternal life of their spirit children. So will the parents. The parents of the children will be in their own universe having their own spirit children. They will be working to bring about the immortality and eternal life of their spirit children. It's improtant to remember that we are all literally brothers and sisters. It's not just a title. Your children are your brothers and sisters, since we are all God's children. The titles mother, father, son, daughter, etc. are simply titles for an orgnizational hierarchy. All sealing really does is establish our place in that hierarchy. So being sealed to children doesnt mean children will be constanly living with their parents. It just means that those brothers and sisters are established in that position the hierarchy. The children will be adults with their own responsibilities to their spirit children. But that doesn't mean they wont be able to visit and see each other. After all in eternity so you have as much time as you need to visit with your children when they come to visit.

But God didn't create the laws of science. The laws ofscience are simply the way matrials and enregies behave and interact. If you have materials and energies then those "laws" happen. It's not like God thought, "Hmmm let's make water freeze at 32 degrees." No, water just freezes t that point. that's how the molecules of water behave. God in his infinite power uses that to perform his miracles. The laws of science are what allow God to maniuplate and control the elements of nature. Now our limited mortal understanding of the laws of science don't allow us to understand the "How" of God's miracles. But if we could understand everything perfectly they wouldn't seem like miracles but natural manipulation of the elements. If we went back in time and shows the ancients a mircowave it would seem like a miracle. But it's not something magical it's just that our understanding of the lawsof nature allow us to build and use a microwave. Now imagine this with somebody who has a perfect knowledge of everything. Making food appear on the desert floor, flooding the planet, and having an immortal body are child's play. Something cannot be created out of nothing. That's just they way the universe works. Matter can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into matter but something can not be created out of nothing. According to dictionary.com one definition of create is: to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design. So using the word "create" to mean organize or arrange existing elements is allowable in english. Well since our potential as children of God is to become gods then it is reasonable to conclude that God became how he is through the same process. If we become a god through being born spiritually, gaining a mortal body, experiencing trials, dying, being ressurected to a perfect body, gaining a perfect knowledge; then it's not that far of a stretch tconclude that all gods were made that way. There are scriptures telling us to be perfect and that we are gods and stuff like that.

I don't recall the bishop ever asking me this. Is it a new question? I only remember being asked if I obeyed the Law of Chastity.

I meant in general.

There have been tons of scriptures posted so I'll just post opinions. This is the fullness of times. The time when the gospel will never be taken from the earth. It's like the final time before the second coming of Christ. Well in the L-DS Church there are fifteen prophets the President, his two councilors, and the quorum of the twelve. I believe God has raised prophets up all over the world at different times. I believe Muhammad was one of those prophets. I believe it happened mainly when the Emperor Constantine converted Rome to Christianity. To make it possible he created a blend of Christianity and the prevelant pagan religion. He then made this type of Christianity the official kind. There have been statements by prophets that the gospel would never again be taken from the earth. There have also been statements that if the church rebelled the gospel would be given to another people. So either way the gospel will remain on the earth.

It would be great to hear more about women receiving the priesthood in the Temple.

Napkin in the Philippines refers to a female hygiene product. A "tissue" would be the term for the thin pieces of paper. But it seems stupid to humiliate someone just to enforce the standards. The law was created for man man was not created for the law. Basically when push comes to shove, people are more improtant than the law.

Somebody said in another thread that if you are baptized into another church it is a reason to be excommunicated. So if you if you join/are baptized into another church you are NOT excommunicated?

I would be a bit squeemish at first but I suppose after doing it enough I could get used to it. I saw pigs slaughtered in the Philippines by being hit in the head with a pipe. That made me sick for a few hours. I felt wierd that whole day. But the Sons of Levi will offer a last sacrifice in the Third Temple. It's interesting reading about the early chruch leades views of animal sacrifice. I read the Strangite's Book of the Law of the Lord and it too commands sacrifice of animals within their temples.

I've never heard of a "release blessing" either. I've heard of blessings that are given before a person dies, unkowingly of course. And those blessing include mention of letting the person pass on if the Lord wills it. I've never heard of a blessing that is given so someone will die. Basiclly if God wants someone to die then they will die. It doesn't matter if they have been given a blessing for it. My great grandmother died about the exact same time my parents and aunts and uncles were at the end of a temple session. They had put her name on the prayer roll.

Hmmm. I never knew there was such a change.

Yes, I would do it. My wife would probably struggle with it but she would probably accept it. The church would have to start a pretty big plural marriage campaign. Meaning putting plural marriage back in all the manuals and stuff. Educating members on just what Plural Marriage is. We've spent so many years trying to excise Plural Marriage from our image. Not to mention it would probably first have to be legalized in the United States first. Another midway step could be allowing plural marriage in countries where it is already legal. Or permitting new converts from those nations to keep their multiple wives.

It would be like a National Treasure/DaVinci Code sort of book but dealing with the LDS Church. Thanks for the advice everyone!

Recently(two or three days ago) I had the idea, I don't know if it was inspiration or not, to write a book. I do enjoy writing and the story idea is really great. It would be something that might appeal primarily to LDS and anti-LDS people. So I think if i finished the book it would probably pay off(meaning cash). But the problem is I don't know if I should devote all that time to researching and writing a book. I'm looking at at very least if I'm very lucky about six months. Realistically it would probably take much longer. Now the thing is that I have a lot of other things I would like to do sooner than that, in three or four months. And if the book did sell well then it could pay for those projects. But I would have to wait much longer and because of that delay might not accomplish some of them. On the other hand I'm working on some other projects that would allow me to accomplish those three to four months things. But while these projects would happen sooner they are less likely actually succeed. So what should I do? Write the book, and while more likely to succeed it would be less likely that my three to four month oppourtunities would still be around. Or should I... Work on those other projects that, while less likely to succeed, would be done in time for my three to four month goals to be accomplished.

Something I missed the first time. Plural Marriage isn't a marriage of a man and women. The women are not married to each other. That would be homosexual marriage and group marriage. It is one man and one woman. But the man may have more than one one man and one woman marriage. So dispite what the show Big Love says, Plural Marriage is just that plural marriage. Each woman has her own marriage covenant with the one man. It's not one large marriage.

I would say that Plural Marriage of living people is not doctrinal right now. Bute Plural Marriage of the dead is doctrinal. Section 132 about the New and Everlasting Covenant pertains to three types of marriages, monogamy, polygyny, and polyandry. We are only living part of the New and Everlasting Covenant. One of the biggest problems is that we don't have any good examples of what Plural Marriage is. All the public sees is the FLDS and stories of incest and child abuse. But don't think that legalization of Plural Marriage should try to ride the coat tails of homosexual marriage. Plural Marriage is a divine (if only occasionally permitted)covenant and a higher law. While Homosexual marriage has never been commanded nor permitted by God. It is a sin. It would be like associating the Word of Wisdom with binge drinking. Monogamy: Doctrine and Covenants 132:19 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Polygyny: Doctrine and Covenants 132:61 61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. Polyandry: This is something I just noticed recently. And Joseph Smith marryng other men's wives now made a bit more sense. Doctrine and Covenants 132:41 41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed. I don't know if that means that the woman is the one annointed or if the other man is the one annointed. Another thing Inoticed reading Section 132 is that it often commands not to shed innocent blood. I wondered why it would mention that commandment and not the others of the ten commandments. I was reading this in the temple(not that it makes my interpretation any more authoritative) but it sort of hit me. How does shedding innocent blood relate to a marriage covenant. Then I realized maybe this commandment not to shed innocent blood in the New and Everlation Covenant is referring to abortion. I started a forum for the discussion of Plural Marriage if anyone is interested I can post a link.

I've heard that theory too.

I love astronomy! I would love it more to actually personally visit the planets out there.

Or visiting England and missed the train to go to the ward you wanted to visit, and you can't find the local church.

Is this really true? I guess it does kind of seem obvious but I wonder why people must be monoreligious. If a person shares beliefs with multiple groups should they not be allowed to be members of all those groups?

No problem. Sorry I can't find more scriptural information. I believe most information about this conference at Adam-oni-Ahman comes from the words of prophets and apostles rather than canonized scripture. But I'm not sure. There could be some. Here's a couple quotes I found online: "There will be a great gathering in the Valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman." Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, p. 13. Before the Lord Jesus descends openly and publicly in the clouds of glory, attended by all the hosts of heaven; before the great and dreadful day of the Lord sends terror and destruction from one end of the earth to the other; before he stands on Mount Zion, or sets his feet on Olivet, or utters his voice from an American Zion or a Jewish Jerusalem; before all flesh shall see him together; before any of his appearances, which taken together comprise the second coming of the Son of God -- before all these, there is to be a secret appearance to selected members of his Church. He will come in private to his prophet and to the apostles then living. Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, pp. 578-579. If you don't know much about Adm-ondi-Ahman we believe it is the place where Adam dwelt after being cast out of the Garden of Eden. The conference at this location will be where Adam and all the ancient prophets will gather. The Keys of the Priesthood will be given from the current living prophet back through the ancient prophets to Adam and Adam will be give them to Christ. I'm guessing that this may mean that a living prophet will no longer be needed because Christ will now reign personally on the earth. Sorry I don't have any more references I'm sure other posters will have more. I don't think many LDS believe that we will literally lift up into the sky and meet Christ. I'm not sure where all this happens in relation to the ressurection and things like that.

Yes. We believe He will come againt first to a gathering of leaders in Adam-ondi-Ahman. Then He will descend on the Mount of Olives. I think this will happen at the climax of the Battle of Armageddon. I personally think it will happen around the 2030s.

Controversy is irrelevant to hid prophetic calling. The amount of controversy around a person does not determine the truthfulness of their prophetic calling. Joseph Smith was an imperfect man. Even the prophets of the Bible were imperfect men. We shouldn't really conncern ourselves with the problems chosen men have rather we should focus onovercoming our own imperfections. The purpose of this gospel is to take imperfect sinful people and process them into more perfect(eventually completely perfect) people. No unclean thing can enter into God's presence. So we must use the gospel and love of Christ to become clean. Ordinances can serve as landmarks. They let us know that we are on the right track. If we are worthy toenter the temple then we know that we are closer to being worthy to enter God's presence. Who said the connection to Masonry is bad? Must they both contradict each other. Couldn't God have used a modified Masonry ceremony as a tool to further His work. After all God uses imperfect men as His tools. It is a sacrifice. We must be willing to sacrifice those things we have. Eventually we must give all the we posses to the church and they will give us back what we need in the united Order. The key is to understand that nothingthat we possess is really ours. Everything belongs to God. We are just permitted to use them temporarily. I'm guessing this means anachronisms and things. We dont know everything. If we think we are at the point that we know everything we should just stop all research. Why reject the Bookof Mormon because of a few things we don't understand? Eventually we will have the knowledge and understand it. It's not as if the Bible has any fewer problems. Being accepting and happy is not something that a church provides. Being accepting and happy is a personal choice regardless of religion. Those men are the people set in administration over certain areas. They too are imperfect and they should be because God has only imperfect tools to use. Christ has set these menin their places and if we reject them then we reject Christ. Not everyone is identical. People have different understandings, experiences, beliefs, etc. The LDS church is not the perfect solution for everyone. You can't expect them to accept it as correct. If they did then they would be admitting they are wrong. If you think you are right about something would you support something that would show that you are wrong? What derogatory evidence? Most people prefer to live the way the feels good. They prefer the easy way out. There is a percentage, about 80% to 20%. 80% of people usually will do lest or just barely what it takes. Only 20% will go above and beyond and do what it truely takes. This applies not only to the gospel but to everything. Most of us just want to skate by and have fun. The number of people in a religion does not determine the truthfulness of that religion. It depends onwhich generation they were born in. When christ went to the Spirit Prison and opened the gospel to them they didn't haveto accept the Book of Mormon. They didn't live in the times when Book of Mormon was scripture. Even the people who lived in the americas during Bookof Mormon times wont have to accept it. It wasn't their scriptures. But then again if a person accepts the gospel then they would be willing to accept any scriptures that are part of that gospel. It would be like having us accept the teachings of the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. We can't it hasn't been revealed yet. But when the time comes that it is revealed and we are truly followers of Christ then we would accept it. The Mormon church/doctrine/ is not the final destination of all mankind. Christ was/is not Mormon. Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc were/are not Mormon. It's not the Mormon church that people will be converting toin the Spirit World. They will be converting to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.