its_Chet

Thank you sir. Check for a PM.

I'm going to voluntarily accept the possibility that I'm just the equivalent of a monkey impressed by something shiney. The author's language and depth of knowledge regarding astronomy impresses me, even on an academic level alone. I know you're not calling me dumb, but if this makes me dumb than I can accept that, though I can't see that beign the case. Bare in mind that the depth of your post impresses me as well. I'm not trying to sound facetious and I sincerely mean that as a compliment. You make a valid point regarding the hypochephalus. It says right there in the description of it that some of it is not proper for us to know about right now. Frankly, the parts that are explained don't make much sense to me. I think all the author's trying to do by referring to it is to suggest that Abraham knew the things he is suggesting in his book (if they are indeed true, I don't doubt Abraham would have known them), and specifically, I think he's using it to reinforce his belief that there is a cluster of stars/celestialized planets near the center of the galaxy that pool their gravitational force to govern the rest of the galaxy. This causes the description of the hypochephalus to be more clear to me, as it regards the 15 planets/stars. It doesn't seem to me that the author is trying to claim that he understands the hypochephalus any better than we do, just that he is suggesting that his theory fits with it, as any true astronomy regarding our galaxy should. I see parallels. Whether it's me being naive or not I cannot say, but it makes sense to me, and the fact that I can say the same about the Gospel of Jesus Christ has always been a major part of my testimony. I must be missing something about the copying of the facsimile. I know that the Book of Abraham was written in Abraham's own hand (red ink, if I'm not mistaken), and that includes the images contained therein. I was under the impression that the Book of Abraham was translated by Joseph Smith, including the copying of the hypochephalus and the other images. If someone else copied the images, that's the part I'm mistaken, I think. I see your point regarding counting the stars in our galaxy. I probably sound like devil's advocate when I say this, but we really don't know how many stars there are in this galaxy, nor could we really determine that, I think. The estimate of 150 billion is obviously somewhat arbitrary. To round off a number that large tells me that there is no precision. The way I interpret the scriptures regarding the number of objects in the galaxy (I say objects because I don't feel that it is meant to be limited to just starts) is that it is beyond human ability to count them. The author makes the point that if one were to attempt to do so, they would die of old age long before they could finish. I think maybe a slightly apt comparison might be counting the hairs on someone's head. How could you keep track of which ones you'd counted and which ones you hadn't? In theory it may sound possible, but in practice I bet it would get confusing. Plus, we might have to take into consideration the creation of new stars, worlds, etc., as well as the destruction of others. In the 27,000 light years between us and the galaxy core, even on a straight patch, I'm confident that accurately counting every object would be impossible. Perhaps some might say that we can count the number of objects in this galaxy, and that therefore proves that the Kolob Theorem is wrong. I would ask as a response, if we can count the number of objects in this galaxy, can we count the number of objects in other galaxies? Why or why not? I think distance would probably be a factor. But I think there's enough distance in our galaxy alone to make it impossible for us to count all the objects in it. Not to mention that for whatever reason (and I agree with the Kolob Theorem on this one), we cannot see the galaxy core, even though it is believed to have large and powerful stars there, which should appear to us much like the cores of other galaxies do. Whatever the reason why, we cannot see all the stars in this galaxy, and we therefore, in my humble opinion, cannot count them, at least not with any reasonable degree of accuracy. I'm not trying to sell anyone on this, and I apologize if I sound like I am. I personally believe in keeping an open mind about everything not explicitly covered by the Gospel and the Prophets, and should they ever have anything to say regarding this book, that will be the final word as far as I'm concerned. In the meantime, the book makes sense to me, and since the Gospel does the same thing, I'm inclined to believe it. At any rate, some of the basic ideas in this book were already beliefs of mine before I'd ever heard of this book.

I certainly couldn't argue with this point of view. And I find myself applauding everybody who's said as much. But I know from personal experience that just because a person is physically abusive it doesn't mean they're beyond help. True, there are some people who just resort to violence as a first line method to control their environment. But I know of marriages where both parties were physically abusive to each other, and they both repented and stopped doing that. My understanding is that if a person feels like an animal in a cage, trapped, forced to endure emotional and verbal abuse, yelling, screaming, etc., that person will eventually snap. It's just a matter of time. Not that it would be right to do so, but I believe that anyone can be pushed to the breaking point, eventually. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's no big deal, but I am saying that there is still goodness in some of the people who are physically abusive, and some of them do what they do because they forget to flee from contention, and thereby remain in a situation that I believe would eventually drive anyone to violence. The secret is to flee from contention. If a person's behavior makes you so angry that you feel yourself beginning to lose control, even the slightest little bit, you have to get away from them. If someone is verbally or emotionally abusing you, you have to put enough distance between you and that person for you to regain your sanity. Hang up. Go to another room. Leave the house. Stay at a friend's for the night. Whatever the situation calls for. Whatever it takes. Avoid the contention to avoid making a mistake yourself. If you don't get away, you will crack eventually. And doing it once will make it easier to do it the next time, and you'll find your tolerance for provocation shrinking. We should instead flee from contention, and if we do, we'll find our tolerance growing stronger. It's easier to deal with being verbally and emotionally abused when it doesn't happen very often, or if, when it does, we flee from it rather than try to endure it. Heavenly Father will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we're able to endure, but we share responsibility in that it is up to us to avoid temptation, and to flee from it when it presents itself. His wife may surprise us all and someday become a kind and loving person. He shouldn't have to wait forever for it. Vort's idea about a deadline is a good one. Everyone needs mercy and forgiveness. Everyone can repent. I think we should give as many second chances as we can to those who hurt us. But when they're violent, that's a difficult call to make. No answers here. Some things we have to decide for ourselves.

As a person whose marriage has been abnormally difficult, and the close friend of two remarried guys whose imperfect wives left them despite my friends' determination to make it work, I can offer some extra perspective here. Take it for what it's worth to you. First off, I would counsel anyone reading this who is not yet married to at all costs avoid marrying anyone with bi-polar disorder or any other kind of depression. It's hard enough to live with someone without having them scream and screech at you over a mood swing that you CANNOT control or influence. No matter how happy you make them while you're courting, eventually they will be verbally and emotionally abusing you (if not also physically). Just because you are confident enough to believe you CAN take it, doesn't mean it's wise to put yourself in the situation where you are FORCED to in order to keep your marriage together. I'm not saying that people with emotional disorders don't have the right to be married, or that they're of less worth. But I can promise you that if you do marry someone whose emotional disorder is bad enough, you will find yourself in the middle of a howling maelstrom of torment and despair, through little fault of your own. A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that only certain kinds of people are capable of physical abuse, or that only patently evil people can do it. I submit that any of God's children, even the Prophets, are capable of lashing out physically at someone if they are tormented and antagonized long enough. I recommend anyone who finds themselves being verbally or emotionally abused should get up and walk away before they find themselves retaliating in shame. I believe everyone has their breaking point, and a smart person will flee contention before they reach that breaking point. In fact, the sooner, the better. You say your wife was perfectly willing to walk out on you AND the children? I would expect that she'd try to take the kids with her (not that that would be fair), or that she'd at least try to get joint custody. Does she even love her children? The picture you've painted so far suggests she doesn't. Anyone who is able to abandon their own children (with the exception of giving them up for adoption) is scarey, in my opinion. What callousness! One of my friends' marriage ended after he had an affair. His wife was convinced that he was the scum of the earth. At times, it seemed he agreed with her. He was pretty down on himself, and his lamentations haunt me still. Above all, he wondered how he could have allowed himself to do it. He almost seemed like a person who'd woken up to find out what he'd done, unable to control what had happened. It became clearer to me why he did it the more I came to understand what his wife was like at home. At Church, she would seldom say hi, even if I said hi first. Once, she read an email I forwarded to my friend that she misinterpreted and didn't like, and she replied back on his email account just to say "bullcrap", and then she emailed me from her email address and ranted about the email from me. Other than that, she seemed normal to me. But my friend revealed to me only recently that she was verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive to him (although I knew a little about the physical part and that on at least one occasion he retaliated). The way I see it, she had just worn him down the point that he didn't care about right and wrong anymore, he just wanted to be treated kindly. The woman who seduced him filled that need. This friend of mine has since remarried (not the woman from the affair), and he jubilantly proclaims that he didn't know it could be like this. He had been lead to believe that all women were crazy and he just had to live with it. He marvles that he has found a woman who treats him with respect and kindness. My other friend's wife, from what I gather, simply lost all respect for him over the fact that he was poor and seemingly somewhat lax in his testimony. Perhaps about some things he is lax, but I can assure you that he is a special person with hidden spiritual strength. She was in the process of leaving him right around Valentines Day. Things were looking bleak, but hope wasn't completely lost for him. He felt he hadn't completely lost her yet. They spent the night together on Valentines Day after going on a date, and she moved out the next day. He got the papers for the divorce soon after. I think the biggest problem she had with him was his slow decline into inactivity. She should have stuck with him and helped him get back into activity, but instead she lost all respect for him and abandoned him. My friends aren't perfect. But they didnt' deserve what happened to them. I imagine you don't deserve what you've been through either. Something I can tell you from my own experience is that love can appear dead when it is only sleeping. This is true for all loved ones, whether we get along with them or not. Our feelings can seem dimmed to us, and then something happens and we suddenly remember that we do in fact love that person very much. I think if it weren't for this, maybe we wouldn't be so strongly encouraged to avoid divorce. Your wife has the ability to fall back in love with you. She has to choose to open her heart. Ultimately, your marriage will survive or end based on what she chooses. It's obvious you're willing to stick it out, though I can't say how committed you are to it. I haven't got any real answers for you, but I can tell you that if you've accurately described her here, she's already made the decision and you'll probably be seeing the papers soon enough. If I were you, when you get them, I'd show them to the Bishop and say that given all the abuse, you'd be relieved to sign them. But don't punish yourself by sinning with another woman just because you're wife treats you like garbage. That's not geting even with her, it's harming yourself. Don't be your own enemy on top of the abuse from your wife. I strongly recommend you explain all this to the Bishop. It'll be a lot easier for you to move forward in whatever way you need to once your slate's clean.

I had always assumed that when Joseph Smith made the facsimile of Abraham's illustrations, that he did so by using a thin, semi-transparent piece of paper, tracing over the original image below. I will have to look into that, as your claim warrants deeper investigation. I have no reason to believe that anything contained in the scriptures is inaccurate though. The author is a PhD, but he earned it in education. Kind of vague, so I don't know if I could say he's qualified to make his assertions in astronomy with the status of an expert in the field, yet the fact that he has a PhD does warrant that one take his academic opinion on pretty much anything at least a little seriously. PhD's don't come easy. Personally, I was impressed by the depth of his descriptions and explanations of astronomic phenomena, and therefore concluded that he must have done his homework on the astronomy at least. That's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. I agree with the assessment that we cannot count the number of God's creations, at least starting from scratch and doing so without any kind of technological assistance. And yet, astronomers have come up with estimates on the numbers of stars in our galaxy, which I seem to recall having heard years ago. While there appears to be a discrepancy in logic here, I wouldn't necessarily fault the author for it, nor would I even assume that things are what they might on the surface seem. Maybe they're able to do tricky things with radio telescopes or infrared imaging to be able to come up with that estimate (and obviously, it is an estimate, maybe even a guess-timate). However that number was decided upon, it was someone other than the author who did it. He is just quoting what is considered conventional thinking in the field of astronomy, perhaps in agreement with it, but still, I see no insurmountable logic gap there. Lastly, your perspective on Hebrew linguistics is interesting. Thank you for adding that to the thread.

My two youngest are managable, but my oldest is "hard to reach", if you know what I mean. When he was younger we thought he might be borderline autistic. He occasionally shows signs of sociopathy. He's at Grandma's for the summer, but the plan is for him to come back in time for school. It would not surprise me if my wife asks her mom to keep him indefinitely, and that really bothers me. He's already spent a whole year with her not long ago. What I'd like is to have my own son under my own roof, without it driving my wife (his mother) insane, literally. She's spent brief time in a psych ward for various issues, this being one of them. So, independent though I like to believe I am, I may just need those contacts. Again, thank you for your civility in discussing an idea that normally seems to bring out the worst in those who disagree with me.

You wouldn't happen to have a telephone number or mailing address for those professionals, would you?

Thank you sir! This is the first time I have ever heard anyone suggest that it's a bad idea to spank your children in a way that didn't just reinforce my belief that it's the proper way to go. Up to now, everyone who'd ever approached me directly about this has always behaved in such a way as to embarrass themselves (even though they have no shame) and undermine their own credibility. I take exception with your use of the word "battering", but generally, you've done the opposite. I'd be lying if I said you've changed my mind, but I can honestly say that you've done a tremendous amount of credit for your point of view on the sheer basis of your civility. I am usually willing to listen to anyone's opinion if they can be respectful about how they give it, and it gives you credibility, in my view. The quotes from Gordon B. Hinckley (man it's hard for me not to call him President Hinckley) were worth reading, and helped you state your case with class and eloquence. Honestly, though, two things linger in my mind after reading them. First, I can't tell for certain, but it sounds like those were opinions rather than commandments (but for the record, the opinion of a Prophet is nothing to take lightly). Secondly, I keep thinking that if Gordon B. Hinckley was my kid, I wouldn't have to spank him either. I hope I don't sound flippant. I apologize if I do. More than anything else, I want to thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not some pot bellied, smelly, creep sitting around in a grease stained tank top and beating my children for fun. That's the attitude I basically get from my in-laws, and they lack any credibility when trying to tell me how to raise my children when I consider their tone, their threats, their hostility, and the results of their own parenting skills. See, my mother in law wasn't very strict with my wife when she was growing up. My wife was able to behave promiscuously pretty much from the age of 12 right up until the day I met her. Her parents let her have boyfriends be with her in secluded places without supervision, and this, coupled with other issues has caused me inexplicable grief. I don't really want to get into all that, but the point is that the sloppy parenting of my in-laws has caused me tremendous pain, and yet my mother in law dares to tell me I'm the bad guy, essentially calling me a monster. I think most people can see how that would just make me dig in, reinforcing my beliefs. Thank you for giving me credit and assuming that I'd prefer not to spank my children. I'd love to not have to physically separate them when they fight. I'd love it if all I had to do is tell them what is expected of them. I'd love it if they would respect my and my wife's authority. Unfortunately, it seems that the only way to keep order in my home is to spank them. Sometimes nothing else works. I usually try something else first, and sometimes it works, others it doesn't. I've prayed constantly, for years. I've fasted. Time seems to help, but sometimes nothing else but spanking gets my kids to behave themselves. I'd prefer if I didn't have to, but I don't see that being the case. And normally, the people who tell me I shouldn't spank them exhibit behavior that convinces me that they're simply wrong. Thank you for being an exception. As I said, I'd be lying if I said you changed my mind. But I can say that you did give me pause for thought, and I am now reevaluating everything in a way that was not possible before. You are a credit to your opinion. Never change.

I'll be praying for you and your family's safety, Romanytony. Please be sure to be on your A game, and make any covenants you can think of. Fasting would probably be advisable also. I doubt this is going to be easy. You may be stirring up a hornets' nest, and this may escalate before it's done. Nonetheless, we both know the Savior's got your back. We're pulling for you!

Could just be the skeptic in me, or maybe I'm just too lazy to look through all 10 pages of this thread, but could you put your quotes and such in a reply to me? I am sincerely interested to see them. I remain as yet convinced that the notion that there is anything at all wrong with spanking is just new age gobbledy-guk conceived by leftists and bohemians during the 60's and now beginning to permeate more traditionally conservative segments of American society. True, I've heard on one occasion a General Authority (don't remember who) praised parents who "spare the rod", though it didn't sound like a ringing condemnation of those who don't. There are some parts of the country where people don't believe in spanking and parts were people do. I see it as a cultural issue, not a doctrinal one. Also, we don't do any battering or beating where I'm from. I'm sure that would cause damage and is immoral. Spanking is something different though. It helped me learn respect for authority as a child, and eventually I learned to police myself. It would have been a terrible thing for me if my parents had not spanked me when I got out of line. I think it would be neglect on my part if I did not teach my children right from wrong, and when words don't work, I know from experience that the belt or paddle does. We don't spank our kids if we don't have to. But if we have to, we do it to keep them from getting the idea that they can defy authority with immunity. When I was in high school, if you got sent to the principal's office you could choose between three days of detention or three swats with the paddle (made out of a 2 x4). The students almost always chose the paddle. Willingly. I doubt they'd choose that if it caused them any damage. I'm not out to tell anyone else how to raise their kids. I apologize if I sound disrespectful. I've had enough threats, insults, and screeching heaped upon me by some of my in-laws about this issue though. I find some of their cultural practices and ideas to be very wrong, but I don't get in their faces about it. I wish they could reciprocate that respect, rather than see me as some kind of subordinate, subject to their will and imagined mandate. And that just reinforces my opinion that this anti-spanking stuff is a cultural by-product of the counter culture revolution of the 60s. The 60s didn't go over too well where I'm from.

See? That's what I'm talking about. Get personal. Get mean. Raise contention. This is not becoming of a Latter Day Saint. I would also argue that this was done without provocation, but apparently what I said was taken in the worst possible way, much worse than I could have ever intended, and the worst possible interpretation of what I said is being used as justification for taunting and bickering. I've grown accustomed to seeing that at politico. People tend to forget that there's a human being on the other side of that message board, and they say things they wouldn't normally say face to face. Or maybe they would and they just don't care if they're uncivil. The point is, this will be the undoing of our society, and one would hope that the Church of Jesus Christ is above that. Apparently some of us are not. Ms. or Mr. "Loudmouth Mormon" (your words, not mine), If you have a problem with something I've said, why not address me personally and privately? I took issue with some of the mean spirited language being used to deride the author of this book, but I did not single anyone out. I did not quote anyone and then criticize them as an individual. You did. That's the difference between your behavior and mine, so hopefully the word "hypocrite" isn't bouncing around in your head right now, though you already called me one in not so many words. Regarding the beliefs with which I was raised, and I ask this with all due respect, what business of yours is it? I don't recall having much to say on the matter. You're mixing two different things together. I never said that the beliefs with which I was raised were "a bunch of hoo hah and science fiction", and even if I did, how on earth could that be construed as an attack against you? Do you even know how I was raised? What does it have to do with you? I did state something to the effect that the non-LDS beliefs with which I was raised were not accurate, and I did state that I personally think that the idea that there are multiple dimensions, planes, or parallel universes is a bunch of hoo hah and science fiction. That's an honest opinion, and I fail to see how it would get you so riled up. Maybe that's shortsightedness on my part. If so, I apologize for my insensitivity. Never mind that I wasn't speaking directly to or about you, or to you at all, in fact. I don't need to understand how you were offended to apologize, thankfully. I'm not sure what you mean by "unrighteous judgmentalism". You're welcome to explain that bit to me if you want. Your next quote (of me) strongly leads me to believe that you're simply spoiling for a rumble wherever one might be found, even on a website that is supposed to be for polite discussion about religious issues by people who either share the same beliefs or are at least tolerant of those beliefs. Maybe I should read over the terms of service for this website again, but I thought there were rules about being rude around here. And apparently, I must have misread that bit about contention being of the devil, as there seems to be a lot of it here. I have no idea why you would be so defensive, as well as offensive, over the second quote. Maybe I just came off as some kind of jerk and you're just retaliating, so I'll see if I can clarify. I was saying that I know there are some people who are averse to such deep doctrines, that they feel that any doctrine that they do not see a practical, "real world" use for, is a waste of their time at best. I made no judgment to the wisdom of that mindset, and I don't think it's fair to accuse me of having done so. All I said was that it's probably for the best if people don't spend any time on deeper doctrines if they are uncomfortable doing so, and I don't blame them for that. I would hope such understanding could be reciprocated. But one would rationally be led to believe that you're not strictly a pragmatist based on the fact that you came to a thread discussing a book about deep doctrine. You're acting like I called you out. You're acting like you have voluntarily assumed the non existent role of my personal target of contempt. That is your invention, not mine. I'm sorry if something I said earlier has somehow translated into a direct, personal attack on you. I still don't understand how that could have happened, but I apologize nonetheless. I don't know why you're here, but I'm here as a member of the Church, to interact with other members of the Church, and where I'm from, we talk to each other and about each other with respect. Maybe it's just every ward I've ever been in, but we have this saying about Zion: "If you are not one, you are not mine." All I'm saying is that we need more mutual respect in this particular thread. I never meant to offend, and I thought I had chosen my words carefully enough that I wouldn't. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you're normally a nice person. I don't know you and can't say. Please forgive me for whatever it is you thought I said bad about you personally. God bless, my sibling.

As an investigator, I took the discussions at the house of a friend's parents. They bore testimony to me and taught me about the Gospel, to the point that when the missionaries showed up, it was basicly just Q & A. Their testimony of Joseph Smith Jr. was the "deal closer" for me, and I have been in awe of the man ever since. Anyway, my friend's father, whose teaching had the single most profound effect on me, and whom I love like he was my own father, had a bit of a rigid policy about the sacrament while I sat with them as an investigator. When he held the tray out to me, he would never turn loose of it until I had taken the sacrament, and he never held it out to me before I got baptized. Prior to my baptism, he passed it by me, which I thought nothing of. I assumed that prior to baptism, an investigator should not be taking sacrament. Other religions have similar customs and it didn't bother me. One day he explained this, as he noticed that his behavior puzzled me, even though it did not offend. He told me that sacrament is to be taken with the right hand, and that you do not serve yourself. He said you take sacrament as the person to your side serves it to you, and once you've partaken, you serve the person to your side the same way. Regarding children, for the longest time I believed that it was improper for anyone who is not yet baptized to take the sacrament. Moroni had strong feelings about baptizing children before the age of accountability, and I still feel that a child under the age of accountability who is offered or coaxed into taking the sacrament by their parents is something similar, because taking the sacrament renews our baptismal covenants and has the effect of removing our sins as if we had just been baptized. And to attempt to wash away the sins of a child without sin, to me, is an offensive idea. Of course, I have since learned that the official Church policy is that it's okay for unbaptized children and investigators to take the sacrament. My wife insists that they do, whereas with me, if they're not paying attention and it goes by them, I'm more comfortable that way. It's just my personal feeling and I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I don't understand the "why" behind the Church policy on this, but I humbly and cheefully defer on this, despite my lingering sentiments. I believe having a testimony requires this of me. As far as when to partake or not to partake, I think it's a judgment call we all have to make for ourselves, and for the most part, need to refrain from attempting to make on another's behalf. Sometimes I see my wife take sacrament after having recently said something hurtful to me, and I don't question it. Sometimes I see her not partake, and I have no idea why, but I don't question it. The story about the Branch President telling the visitor to "drop it" is probably more complicated than it sounds. My understanding is that a Branch President has the same authority that a Bishop has, and a Bishop is a "judge in Israel". Maybe he knew something that isn't revealed here. I'd like to hear his side of it.

It is not my place to counsel a High Priest, but I offer my humble thoughts and observations for whatever they're worth to whoever reads them. I believe that physical danger posed by evil spirits is very real. Joseph Smith Jr. was attacked in the sacred grove. His ability to speak was affected, among other things. On a few occasions I have been attacked in my sleep, while dreaming, and normally I am unable to speak without great effort and multiple attempts. When I get the ability, I have always used the Priesthood (in my dream) to banish the presence from me. Whether or not we can use the Priesthood in our sleep I leave to you to decide for yourself. I believe a person is more vulnerable to this sort of attack when they're sleeping, for reasons that are obvious as well as ones that aren't. I also believe that the more a person thinks about this stuff, the more vulnerable they become, though I can't explain why. I have observed that people who come from poor countries tend to be much more susceptible to spiritual experiences of various kinds, both good and bad, while people whose cultures cause them to be jaded and cynical have no knowledge of these experiences. They are too numb to experience the good, and normally the bad as well. A friend of mine served his mission in Curitiba, Brazil, and he told me a true, scarey story that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up all night, I have heard of no such experiences in the more developed countries. I believe that these attacks can be conducted by the third of Father's children that sided with Lucifer, as well as people who have lived and died and whose hearts are far enough from the Savior that they don't mind trying to harm others, alive or dead. I have read a book about people who have left their bodies and returned to them (near death experiences). The book is called "Glimpses of Eternity" and was written by Arvin S. Gibson, a member of the Church. He interviewed Church members, inactives, and non members alike. A few of their stories involved attacks from evil spirits. One was the story of a college professor who was an atheist. As the story goes, he left his body in the hospital, and was coaxed out into the hall by spirits. He was led down the hall, which seemed to become an entirely different place from the hospital. The further he got from his body, the more aggressive and threatening the growing number of spirits around him became, until eventually they were attacking him "physically" (which caused him pain that he could feel). At that point, he began saying anything remotely religious sounding that he could think of: "On the first day, God created light", etc. He had no idea what to say, but he knew he needed Divine assistance, and attempted to solicit it any way he could. Though the things he was saying were mostly simple recitations of vague recollections of scripture, the spirits recoiled from him whenever he would say it. They demanded that he stop talking about God, and the mere mention of Him seemed to repulse them to some degree or another. At some point, with the spirits not yet successfully banished, he called on Jesus Himself to save him. Then Jesus came and the spirits left. We have been advised, when our mind seems overrun by impure thoughts that we wish to rid ourselves of, to sing, hum, or play in our minds our favorite hymn. I submit that if you were to download some hymns from the Church's website, burn them to CD, and play them in an area where you detect hostile spirits, you might very well drive them from there. Or perhaps you might anger them. Either way, you'll be able to observe the strength of their resolve. Think of it like this: there are people living among us whose hearts are very far from God, and when you discuss religion around them they are offended. They may flee from you. They may become agitated and cause you problems. I suspect the same can generally be said of spirits. As long as you demonstrate genuine faith, I suspect that eventually they won't be able to tolerate hanging around any longer, and flee from you. Of course, they may take action against you first before they give up, but we know that at least on the other side of the veil, Heavenly Father's authority cannot be denied. Make no mistake, this is literally a turf war, and you need to be packing, whether it's "firepower" or your belongings, if you get my meaning. Your position is one of staking a claim on an environment that is claimed already by people who don't answer to your private property rights, or any worldly office that would enforce those rights. The battle lines are drawn and either you or they will win this. And you may be able to judge how hard they are willing to fight. You know they can't beat the Savior, but when we act in His name we become a variable in the equation and that's the tricky part. I am reminded of the Savior's teachings on such matters. His disciples were unable to cast out devils on one occasion of which we know, and He told them that they could only be banished with fasting and greater faith than those disciples had. He also said on another occasion that when you banish an evil spirit it will probably attempt to return, and so you must be on guard against that. By this I believe He meant that we should use the time when they're gone to mature spiritually and increase our faith. It takes faith to cast out devils, and by faith, I infer the definition given in the Lectures on Faith: Not only believing, but knowing that you're doing everything you can to obey Father and qualify for His blessings. I asked a missionary about dedicating my home once and he said that until I had gotten rid of some CDs I had with some bad language on them, there was no point. I inferred that until every square inch of our homes is as spiritually pure as we can make it, dedicating the house will not work. At least partially, or perhaps not at all. Not sure. My personal guidelines: Don't watch lots of ghost stories or TV shows about paranormal investigators, whether I think they're staged or not.Spend very little time, if any at all, thinking about encounters with evil spirits.Keep my home as spiritually clean as possible (throw out or edit movies and music that offend the Spirit).Do all I can to abolish or flee from contention in my home (no raised voices, verbal abuse, etc.).Avoid telling any stories like the one my friend told me from his mission.I don't know how much of this, if any, is helpful. I'm afraid the best any of us can do is share what we know and leave it up to you to piece it together the best you can, and figure out your own way, with Father's help.

I just finished reading this book. I'm almost inclined to take personally all the bashing done here of this book and its author, because I personally love this book and believe most of it to be true or at least very highly probable. Furthermore, some of the heated language I see being used to condemn it (decidedly NOT too strong a word to describe what I'm perceiving) reminds me quite strongly of the kind of un-Christlike language I see used by the inhabitants of the proverbial "great and spacious building" or "Babylon", which we see around us today -- the worldly people who lack the virtues taught by Christ, and revel in their abilities to insult, offend, and defile. Long story short, we, as members of the Church, ought to be capable of expressing our dislike of something like this book without resorting to acting like we're auditioning for a spot in the Sanhedrin. Ask yourselves, what if your grandfather or father had written this book? Would you still heap such strident criticism upon it and the author? The author of this book IS someone's father, someone's grandfather. Bare that in mind when you choose your words. And now back to the book itself. For some time now, I have known that the world where my Heavenly Father resides is located at the center of this galaxy. I say KNOWN. This was revealed to me. I didn't really ask for this knowledge, but it was given to me as I pondered such things, and for such revelations I am always grateful. This book's author confirms what I had already known, which gains him a measure of immediate credibility with me. From that point on, I have considered everything else he admittedly theorizes in this book, and while some of it I don't see being certain truth, I find none of it to be the sort of heresy that requires me to saddle up and ride for Damascus, if you get my meaning. There were a few parts in this book where I did not see the logic behind a theory. Such parts of the book may possibly be true or untrue. Need we remind ourselves that the book is clearly labeled as a theorem (theory)? Maybe those parts I don't believe (yet?) ARE true. Maybe later on down the road I'll learn something that will make the pieces fit together and it will make sense. I have yet to hear of a General Authority stating that this book is untrue or doctrinally unsound. If the day ever comes that one does, we would all be obligated to heed his counsel. But unless that happens, this book is not heresy. Most of it resonated strongly with me, explaining things I already knew, or fitting with such knowledge naturally and comfortably, like interlocking puzzle pieces. This is how the Holy Spirit has manifested the truth of the Gospel to me, through reasoning and logic, in addition to a certain kind of "quickening" often referred to as a "burning within" by others. If it passes Moroni's muster, it's good enough for me. As a convert, I can attest to the value of an open mind. If you're worried that a book like this will make us seem "unhip" to the Protestants, Catholics, and other sects of Christianity, or the rest of the world, for that matter, I can assure you that this book is unnecessary for that purpose. Some of our most basic beliefs seem like heresy, when misunderstood, to good people of other religions. And some of them only appear that way because of the smokescreen that Satan has spent the millenniums building. On the other hand, some seem born to hate and distrust. Some seem born cynics and skeptics. They will scorn you for your faith regardless, and their approval should not be inordinately, if at all valuable to you. People like that counseled me not to join the Church, but I didn't listen to them. The "wisdom" of the world is nothing compared to the Gospel. Should I have listened to them? No. I kept an open mind. I accepted that maybe I did not actually know everything. I accepted that maybe some things I had been led to believe by worldly philosophies, superstitions, and sectarian fallacies were wrong. I let the Holy Spirit decide what was true and followed His counsel, not the world around me. Maybe some of you believe you feel the Holy Spirit telling you this book is heresy. I cannot argue with what you perceive, especially on a spiritual level. Your relationship with Heavenly Father is your private business. But you would do well to show that same consideration to others, especially in the Church. It is folly to condemn what you don't understand, and call it untrue on that basis alone. Ask yourself, if you were not born into this Church, would you have an open enough mind to at least consider the doctrines we teach? Are you humble enough? Are you willing enough to take some things on faith, to accept that they may not make sense at first, or to realize that in a thousand years you will know things that today might make your head spin? Can you really condemn those things today? If you are not ready to believe, just leave it at that. Some of us find the deeper doctrines, such as what is contained in the Pearl of Great Price, to be truly amazing and faith building. I for one am greatly attracted to such things, as long as they are true. This book has not been proven untrue, to the best of my knowledge, and my conscience leaves me free to accept it. The fact that it hasn't come from a General Authority does not rule out its veracity. We are all capable of receiving revelation. A General Authority is uniquely anointed to declare doctrine to be true or untrue, to function as judges in God's Kingdom, and to tell us what is needful to know, declaring revelation meant for the entire Church. This book is not necessarily needful information or revelation necessary for the whole Church at present. If it doesn't strengthen your faith and inspire your mind and soul, put off this portion of your eternal progression until the day you are able to handle it. There is nothing wrong with not running faster than you are able. But some of us are rejuvenated and feel closer to our Father in Heaven when we read things like this. I would not have completed the discussions if it weren't for the amazing flood of information and the resulting surge in faith I got from it. The Church has made my Heavenly Father a real person who knows and loves me, whereas before, the sectarian beliefs I had been taught were absolute truth presented Him as a creator but not Father, who viewed me as an experiment and not a son, and who existed in some alternate universe or plane or dimension. No offense to anyone who believes in such things, but I personally think that is a bunch of hoo hah and science fiction. The way I see it, there is only one universe. And if Father has His own Father, they share this universe. The universe is organized into galaxies, so it makes perfect sense that each Heavenly Father would have His own galaxy, wherein He would have plenty of room and material to bring to pass the salvation of His children. So if I could live long enough, or travel fast enough, and if I could abide the glory of a celestial kingdom, I could actually come face to face with Heavenly Father in mortality and of my own accord. But He has organized things in such a way that this is impossible. He has hidden the center of this galaxy, and placed veils between us, so that I can be forced to rely on my faith to find Him, as I should be. This does not mean He isn't there, just beyond those veils. Have we not learned to believe in things we can't see? Figuratively and literally? The Gospel of Jesus Christ has taught me to do so. I believe that is its purpose, in addition to teaching us how to be Christlike. Some very good and noble people believe that if a doctrine doesn't have what they recognize as practical value to help them become more Christlike, than it is of absolutely no use to them. If this works for them, it is their prerogative as a child of God. Eventually we will all have to learn how to build a planet, star, galaxy, etc., if we make it to the celestial kingdom. Some of us are driven to learn what we can now. That too, is our prerogative as children of God. As long as we make sure we are doing all that we can to learn how to consistently live and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to be among the wise virgins with extra oil for their lamps, we have seen to the most important of our duties. But this is not the end, and our eternal progression is not limited by anyone but ourselves. Don't be like the sectarians of the 19th century who condemned the Gospel just because it didn't gel with their superstitions and prejudices. Keep an open mind and stay true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We ought to be able to do both at the same time. In Joseph Smith's day, those who couldn't manage that left the Church. They left over "new" things such as the law of eternal marriage (which also deals with plural marriage), and the law of consecration. Some members left when they heard that Joseph Smith was retranslating the Bible. B.H. Roberts has said that there is much of our own Church History which, if we are not sufficiently mature to understand it, can challenge our faith enough to cause us to leave the Church. If we are not mature enough to understand the law of consecration, for example, than we should wait until we are before we let our doubts on the matter drive us from the Church. But that doesn't mean the law of consecration doesn't come from God. It only means we are not ready to receive it.

Not accusing anyone here of being unduly critical or hostile viz a viz Glenn Beck. I was talking about criticism of him in general society and other sites, like politico, and sadly, even Deseret News online. I expect better from fellow saints. As far as the rabid lefties go, I just wish they could place humanity and country over politics. That's all I meant to say. Probably should have been more clear. And I haven't listened to/watched Beck enough to witness any dirty talk, but I can tell you it's the biggest reason I don't listen to Rush anymore. Your point is a valid one.

Haven't read the book. Saw the movie. Liked it. Probably should be embarrassed to say that as a 35 year old guy. Wouldn't admit to it in some social circles. But that's another story. I'm glad Deseret Book is doing this. I kind of like thinking of Deseret Book as a place where I can buy books that have the approval of the General Authorities. I don't like thinking of it as a place looking to cash in on people who are trying to feed their souls with the written words of Prophets and Apostles. Not that Twilight is in that category, but I just think there's a proper place for selling books like Twilight and I just don't see Deseret Book as being it. If Deseret Book is going to sell books like Twilight, it would make me feel uncertain that the more religious books there don't contain speculation or innacuracies. Hopefully I've explained already why I feel that way. I'd say Deseret Book is right to limit what it sells in this way.

I've tried two different ways of dealing with music with offensive lyrics. Method# 1 I broke the CDs into pieces and put them in a dumpster. Even the ones I bought in Canada or special ordered and have never been able to replace. Method# 2 I used software to edit the music in digital format and then burned it back on to CD. I found that the only workable solution for me was method# 2. Having a song in my CD collection, I can go for very long periods of time without feeling the desire to listen to it. Almost any song I even remotely like, if I don't have it, will constantly play in my mind and I become driven to get it and listen to it repeatedly. Simply throwing away an entire CD because of one swear word in one song made me feel like there was a hole in me. I use a program called Cool Edit 2000. The developer was eventually bought by another, and the program was renamed. I expect it probably costs a bit more than I paid for Cool Edit. Explaining how to edit a song using Cool Edit (which is similar to how it's done in other digital audio editing programs I've tried) would be difficult to do here. There are websites out there where you can find how-to guides on stuff like this. But I can tell you a bit more about how it works, in general. First, you take a song in digital format. So you'd have to rip it to your computer. You'd want to go with .mp3 format if possible. Any other format and you'll likely have to download a file called a "codec", to help your editing program read the audio file, unless the program you use has native support for it. Next, you open the audio file with your editing program, and they will always give you a wave form to look at in addition to hearing the audio file. The waveform (kind of looks like the possible results from a lie detector test given to a certain former President who lied to a grand jury under oath) can help you visuallly see the drum beats, and even the riffs in the song. Listen to the song with the waveform zoomed in enough that you can see fluctuations in the waveform that are consistent with sounds heard in the song. When you get to a swear word, likely, you'll be able to see enough fluctuation that you can basically "see the swear word". It might take practice, but it gets easier. Cool Edit allows you to do what is called "Vocal Cut", which essentially takes out the vocals and leaves in everything else. It doesn't always work though. It depends on how the song was recorded, how many microphones were used, which one picked up the vocals, etc. Sometimes it works like a charm, sometimes it has virtually no effect. In that case, I just select "silence" instead, and the section I'm editing is simply turned into silence. Better a second of silence in a song than a swear word, I say. The end result is that I have a proper version of a song that would be stuck in my head. I can listen to the fixed version I have, get tired of the song, and then it's not an issue anymore. Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to edit movies on my computer. I'm having mixed levels of success. If anyone ever figures out how to do it without the video and audio coming out of synchronization, I'd love to know.

The first time I ever heard fo Glenn Beck was during the Terri Schaivo (sp?) thing. Back then he was only on the radio, I believe. I saw a link on some blog and saw that he had designed some t-shirts and coffee mugs with a picture of Michael Schiavo on them and it said something like "I killed my wife and all I got was this lousy shirt." Angry as I was about what was happening to Terri, and how, with the state's help, Michael was getting away with it, I did get a laugh out of Beck's blunt punditry on the matter. I've watched his show a few times when he was on HNN (CNN part two), but have very rarely seen him on Fox news because the time slot just isn't good for me. I especially liked when he has Ted Nugent on. But I once saw Ted Nugent on the Jon Stewart show (back in the early to mid 90s, before he went political), and that was hilarious too. The "Nuge" is just good viewing entertainment, I think. I like Beck's sense of humor. On the wikipedia page about him, he's quoted as saying that God "stalked him with a baptismal rifle", as a way of saying that he wasn't particularly interested in the Church at first, but God didn't give up on him and kept leading Beck toward the Gospel. What I find really sad is members of the Church who hate Glenn Beck just because of their own political views. They let their politics influence the way they will talk about another member of the Church. Not to say it's okay to bag on someone who's not a member, but I would hope at least they could holster the guns for a fellow member. It's just really sad that some people get so worked up about politics that they will spew hatred and venom all over someone they don't even know. If it keeps up, I can see Doctrine and Covenants 45:68 coming to pass. This rampant and wildly out of control animosity is going to tear this country apart.

Always wanted to read that one. It was suggested to me by a missionary once. I own and have read multiple times a similar book called "Glimpses of Eternity" by Arvin S. Gibson. Unless the General Authorities come out and say that what is in this book is inaccurate or wrong, I am inclined to believe it. The author is LDS, and the people he interviewed were active LDS, inactive LDS, and people who had never been members. Almost every story was completely different, though some of them had some common elements. Some stories involved out of body experiences without death occurring, and there were some stories included that came from or referred to similar books by other authors. As a result, I was motivated to also read "Return From Tomorrow" by George Ritchie. Reading these books has, I believe, greatly expanded my understanding of how things work on the other side of the veil, and strengthened my testimony as sort of a by-product. I would encourage anyone to read these books. A word of caution though, there were a couple stories in "Glimpses of Eternity" that are not for the faint of heart. My wife finds scarey movies give her nightmares, and that's just fiction. When she decided to read my book, I put post-it-notes on the pages I thought might scare her. There were a couple of stories in the book where the person was attacked by an unclean spirit.

Having a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ means you believe His messengers, who relay His words and will on to us. Either Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet or he wasn’t. If he was, then the commandments, or callings, if you will, that he issued to select Church members to practice plural marriage were approved by God, if not actually coming from God Himself. Joseph Smith knew things he was not always able to share, and plural marriage was one of them. He was aware of the doctrine as far back as 1831, but only confided it in those he trusted not to freak out about it. I expect he found it an unpleasant idea at first himself, but he did what God asked him to do anyway, which is what is expected of all of us. Perhaps, like Brigham Young, he “wished for the grave” when he first realized he was expected to practice it. Lest anyone assume otherwise, there is a difference between plural marriage sanctioned and commanded by God, and a harem or the activities of a philanderer. There seems to be a counterfeit for every noble thing God ordains, and it is always important to know the difference. There were some who sought to practice plural marriage out of lustful desires, but these were people like John C. Bennett. People who apostatized. People who were not so much interested in obeying God as in gratifying their own base desires. Such cannot be said for Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or any of the other Apostles, General Authorities, and just men and women who obeyed the call of God to practice plural marriage as instructed by the prophets. In the scriptures we see that the problem with ancient men of God who practiced plural marriage was the ones who wanted more wives. This was the downfall of David and Solomon, for example, their good deeds notwithstanding. I believe that anyone who has a problem with the Church’s past practice of plural marriage does not understand the difference between the law of eternal marriage in its fullness, as revealed to Joseph Smith Jr., and its counterfeit, the harems, fornications, and lasciviousness that we see in the world. The counterfeit appeals to the natural man, who is no more disciplined than an animal when faced with temptation. But just as there are appropriate circumstances under which to procreate, and there are inappropriate circumstances, there are also appropriate circumstances and inappropriate circumstances under which to practice plural marriage. When a prophet of God calls on one whom Heavenly Father trusts to honorably do so, practicing plural marriage is not only acceptable, it is a moral imperative. The cynics believe to this day that the Church stopped the practice of plural marriage as a sop to the US federal government, to appease it while applying for statehood. This is a great misunderstanding, and an insult to all those who practiced plural marriage despite whatever difficulty it may have meant for them. Some had to reconcile themselves to the idea in spite of everything they had previously believed about marriage. Some had to suffer imprisonment, or the imprisonment of their husbands or fathers because of it. I believe the Apostles frequently begged Heavenly Father to allow the Church to discontinue the practice, and eventually He agreed. One of the reasons He agreed was that if the Church had been forced to continue the practice, all men practicing plural marriage would have been jailed and all Church property would eventually have been confiscated, which would effectively stop Temple work and basically ended this dispensation. The Church doesn’t make mistakes, because the Savior is its Head. The Church acts on revelation directly from Him, and if any of His Apostles ever went astray from the orthodoxy He has and will yet proscribe, He would remove them from their office and fill it with one whom He could trust. Plural marriage was not a mistake. It just went against societal conventions, and the stigma surrounding it comes primarily from that. God’s law is higher than societal conventions, mens’ laws, philosophies, etc. Let us not be so beholden to worldly thinking that we would leave the Church over something like the laws of eternal marriage or consecration. Our baptismal covenants require us to obey all of Heavenly Father’s laws, not just the ones we like. If He requires something of us tomorrow which again runs counter to society’s ideas, I pray we have the courage, or the sheer stubbornness to obey Him.

I’m a convert, was raised Catholic, and am from the rural Midwest, so consider all this while reading my opinion. That said, my opinion is that spanking is the proper way to go, unless the Holy Spirit directs otherwise, which I would consider an exceptional case, but the Gospel is filled with exceptional cases, and I think a wise person will keep an open mind and be prepared to do what God wants when they come, rather than stick to their own ideas. Hopefully I practice what I preach, but I digress. My parents spanked me quite commonly as a child. Both parents. They usually used a belt, at least for as far back as I can remember. When I was young enough that my Mom still bathed my brother and me, she noticed unsightly bruises and marks on our backsides from my Dad using a flyswatter on us. Up to that point, his preferred tool was not the belt, but those steel wire flyswatters with a plastic mesh stuck on it. He just pulled the plastic off and used the wire part. My Mom asked him to stop and so it was only the belt from that point on. I remember getting a newspaper in place of a belt on one occasion and I preferred the belt. Looking back, my complaint, flyswatters aside, isn’t that my parents spanked, but that they spanked too often. I felt that they tended to spank first and ask questions later. I remember Bill Cosby, explaining the perspective of a parent, saying “We don’t want justice. We want quiet.” As a kid I thought this was just morbid sarcasm, but as a parent, I notice that I feel the same way. It seems more important to have order and peace in the house than to take the time to listen to the complaints, hold an impromptu trial, and make sure that the punishment doesn’t in any way exceed the crime. My two oldest kids fight like cats and dogs, more than I have ever seen any children fight in all my life. The spirit in my home is adversely affected by all the screaming, crying, and shouting, and I feel driven to lay down the law quickly and uniformly, so I tend to tell them that if they don’t knock it off, they both get a spanking, no questions asked. I guess maybe I understand how my parents felt when I and my brother fought. For whatever it’s worth, I believe that spanking is the best way to go, in most cases. Of course, I believe that a child should be old enough first, and that it would be best to spank with a bare hand until the child is old enough that it isn’t effective anymore. And when a child reaches their teens, I think other methods need to be used. I married a girl from the greater Phoenix area, and have encountered an uncommon degree of cultural conflict. I’ve noticed that out west, even in places where the people are politically conservative, there is a world view that seems leftist to me. For instance, the roles of men and women seem to be viewed differently. Among those cultural differences, there is a difference of opinion on what is the best way to discipline children. Where I’m from, even among members of the Church, we consider the aversion to spanking to be new age claptrap, an idea spawned inside the great and spacious building. In addition to the cultural differences resulting from geography, I was raised Catholic. You never see children fussing in a Catholic Church, at least not where I’m from. I got in trouble from my grandfather once for passing out in Church (I had a fever). That’s the kind of reverence you can expect in a Catholic Church. Very stiff, very stern, very formal. But that’s how I was raised. My wife doesn’t believe very much in spanking, though she is normally willing to not challenge my equality as a parent. She even spanks occasionally as well. But neither one of us seem to be having the level of success raising our children that we’d like. Our oldest seems to have some sort of cognitive disconnect. He’s getting better, but when he was younger I worried that he would grow up to be a crazy old man who sits on his porch and rambles a borderline coherent tirade against some unseen antagonist all day long. My wife says that spanking isn’t the best way to go with him because he “just doesn’t get it”. She may be right, but it’s all I know. If she comes up with a better idea, my mind is open. You might be asking yourself how being raised like I was affected me. My parents were pretty strict about some things. My Mom made me take vitamins as a child that tasted exactly like vomit, and that’s no exaggeration. I wasn’t allowed to open a new box of cereal if one was already open, even if it was a different kind. There was a certain way everything had to be done I was expected to respect that. It was a bit of a drag as a kid, but now that I’m older I’m thankful that my parents raised me the way they did. I still got in trouble, and I suppose someone with less resilience than they had might have thrown their hands up in the air at some point and claimed it wasn’t working, but by the time I was a senior in high school, my idea of cutting loose and being wild was to skip school two or three times a year to go to the lake and hang out. I was taught to police myself, to anticipate discipline and avoid behavior that would incur it. I honestly believe that we’d have less crime if more people were taught to be considerate of others and behave themselves in such a way, and with respect for authority as well. That’s how I was raised and I love my parents for it. I shudder to think how I would have turned out if parents like some of the well intentioned but excessively mild people I know out west had raised me. Discipline made me a good citizen, and helped me to attain the mindset of one who respects God’s laws, and obeys them. That’s more than I can say for some people I know who were raised in the Church, particularly out west (especially in Arizona). I’m not bagging the western states, mind you. I lived in Salt Lake City for a while and loved every minute of it. But I do tend to write off the opinions of people I perceive to be “cultural Mormons”, who feel that if you don’t have the right haircut, the right clothes, the right CDs and DVDs, and whatever else it is that means so much to them, than you couldn’t possibly have a strong and positive relationship with Heavenly Father. I frequently notice gaps in the testimony of those people, and see them as relying on their piety as justification for being prideful. I use mine as a tool to bring me closer to God. I wonder if that too is a product of how I was raised. At any rate, I would much rather face my judgment than that which awaits people who have criticized me for not looking like I came off an assembly line. And that goes for views on spanking also. One last thing. Nothing I’ve said is meant to be “in your face” to anyone here. My frustrations may have been amplified here somewhat, and they have nothing to do with anyone here, so please take no offense or think I’m being uppity or anything. Just sharing a perspective that I see missing from the thread, for whatever it’s worth. God bless.