Faded

I often wonder where most of Christianity completely lost all interest in seeking for eternal truth. It used to be a core guiding principal to all Christians everywhere. Christ himself rejected the Pharisees and Sadducees teachings with great vigor. Why would he do such a thing if having the right teachings was completely irrelevant? I think that eternal truth should still be a guiding principal of Christians everywhere, just as long as they've finally learned their lesson: It is not worth waging wars and massacring masses of people. Seek eternal truth while maintaining peace on earth. Knowing God as he really is and knowing what he expects of his children. Knowing his purpose for us in this life. Knowing what he expects of us. Knowing what we can expect in the next life. These things are worth knowing.

I'm curious to know what you're referring to with this. I do find that Latter Day Saints almost universally don't understand the Trinity doctrine. Likewise, traditional Christians grossly misrepresent the LDS concept of the Godhead. Did Elder Holland get the Trinity wrong perhaps? Or was it something else?

Of course they should pull the ad! It's a violation of the invisible ink fine print in the Constitution: First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press * ... *[invisible Ink Fine Print: UNLESS it's politically incorrect, in which case freedom of speech is just plain out of the question. Political Correctness shall be enforced no matter what and nobody get's to voice any opinions to the contrary.]

Is global warming for real? Yes I think it's a valid concern. Is it overstated? Yes, that too. The thing that always puzzles me. The Democrats say, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" http://www.hobartwelders.com/weldtalk/attachment.php?attachmentid=27474&stc=1&d=1227193280 The Republicans hear no global warming, see no global warming and speak no global warming. Doesn't sanity lie somewhere between the two viewpoints???

You have no idea how happy it makes me anytime I see someone coming back who has been away for awhile. It's such a wonderful thing! Your Heavenly Father wants you to go. The devil will try to work on your insecurities and fears -- and it's important to realize that he is the source of them. I'm certainly excited for you.

While being baptized into another Church might be in the handbook as grounds for Excommunication, it is almost never done. The exceptions have already been noted: Joining apostate sects or religious organizations that are specifically focused on attacking the LDS Church. Ex-Mormons for Jesus (aka Saints Alive in Christ) would be an example. And like I said, excommunication is VERY sparingly used across the board. The Church is very cautious about formally removing anyone who is in the Original Poster's situation: Wandered away for whatever reason and might very well return home to us. The general approach is to leave the light on and the door open.

Yep, that was the one. Of course, the difference between Midvale and Salt Lake City proper is just lines on a map. Typical metropolitan area.

Yes there are strip-clubs, adult bookstores, bars and the like. But the numbers are SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the average American city of comparable size. I remember living in an apartment complex that just happened to be across the street from the only Hooters restaurant in the entire state (no idea if there are more now, but at the time anyways.) Crime and gang violence are there, but they're also significantly lower than comparably sized cities elsewhere. No idea on abortion clinics though. I would say it's one of the better places to live. It does have challenges for Latter Day Saints, as has undoubtedly been pointed out.

What it all adds up to: He doesn't sound like he sincerely wants to change, but he'll go through the motions to keep you coming back. It doesn't sound like he's willing to take any accountability for his behavior. He has followed you around, checked phone records, accused you of cheating and driven your friends and loved ones away. It's stereotypical abusive spouse behavior, and it's VERY dangerous for you to stick around for any reason. Gathering evidence? It's not worth getting hospitalized or killed. It won't do your children any good for you to be killed and then see their father thrown in prison for it -- effectively making them orphans. The ugly truth is that far too many women in such circumstances do not survive. So you're highest priority needs to be for your own safety. If and when you leave, try to never be alone. Worrying about your husband changing and again becoming the good man you married is a worthy concern, but it's a distant second to your personal safety. I wouldn't let token changes and token niceties lure you into believing he's going to turn the full 180 degrees and become good again. He's got to do better than that. A lot better. Personally, I scared for your safety. So are you: "I'm terrified for the next time, as I don't believe I'll live through it." Please, please don't let anything terrible happen to yourself. Praying for you. Faded.

It's pretty simple really. The only thing that would have invalidated your baptism and membership would be: 1.) Excommunication. This would only have been for extremely bad sin, and you'd have received notification. This is almost certainly not true in your case. Excommunicated members have to be re-baptized. Excommunication is usually reserved for murder, unrepentant adulterers, child molesters, and other such extremely bad sins. Excommunication is used EXTREMELY sparingly. 2.) You personally having sent a letter to your Bishop requesting that your name be removed. The Church would have complied and removed you from the records of the Church, but would have retained a record that you were once a member. The re-reinstatement process for that is quite simple, and doesn't require re-baptism. From what you've described, neither of those things happened. You can return to full activity in the Church at any time. You're still a member in good standing, though you may need to be actively attending for awhile before you're going to get a Temple Recommend.

It is probably worth noting that the Territory of Deseret and later the Territory of Utah had long since granted Women's Sufferage (granting women the right to vote in other words.) It was actually the Federal Government that enforced a repeal of Women's Sufferage in the territory from 1872 to 1896. The territory repeatedly applied for statehood, but was denied. One of the big reasons cited by politicians in Washington DC for repeatedly denying Deseret/Utah statehood was because they were insistant upon granting W omen's Suffrage as a part of their State Constitution. There were many other reasons of course, and revisionist US History will seldom own to the fact that Washington D.C. politicians were strongly opposed to Women's Suffrage and used it as one of it's foremost excuses for denying Utah statehood. The fact that the US Government had accepted Wyoming with Women's Suffrage probably forced the issue to be overlooked when Utah entered the union in 1896 with a re-institution of Women's Suffrage as part of their entry. Strange that a religion reputed to be so oppressive towards women was so keen on the idea of giving them equal voting rights with men, don't you think?

Because the Church of Jesus Christ maintains high expectations for ALL of it's members, there are going to be a number of complaints by those who struggle to live up to those expectations. It's an interesting and very manipulative tactic. OF COURSE there will be members who are dissatisfied with something or another. These seek to plant the idea that LDS women are oppressed. They seem to be recycling an old tactic oft used during the anti-polygamy crusade of the 1800's: Telling LDS women they are being oppressed. The really nonsensical thing: A woman who is dissatisfied with her marriage for any reason is going to be counseled to work to save her marriage by ANY Church worthy of calling itself "Christian", yet these ads can put it into such a woman's head that, "The Bishop's counsel to stay together is oppressive. I should be able to leave my husband now, and nobody should tell me differently! My Church has no right to tell me to stay with him!" Women who feel the priesthood should be given to women will cite this as oppressive, etc. The trick is, if you go into a room full of people anywhere in the world and do a little digging, you can ALWAYS find a lot of complaints. People love to complain, it's human nature. Such ministries should be careful that they are not guilty of hypocrisy. How many big-name ministers of the Evangelical movement have been guilty of using their position of power to entice member to commit adultery with them? How many cases from other religions of perceived oppression of women could easily be cited? They're living in a glass house and throwing stones at ours. It's quite sad really.

ABSOLUTELY!! Having grown up in a great big desert that we call the Rocky Mountains, I don't think the desert parts of Aussie-land would bother me. Overall, Australia might be a more pleasant place to land than Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. And it's not like the whole of Australia's desolate either. Lots of good stuff!

I find it very interesting that Ed Decker was so off-the-charts with his exaggerated criticisms of the LDS Church that several anti-Mormon sources berate him for it. I believe it was last Saturday. A new-ish couple in the ward was going to go to the temple for the first time. In addition, it was Ward Temple Night. The Endowment room was filled to capacity, and several people were left standing throughout. I think it was 59 people in attendance for that session? The temple workers verified that everyone was there from that couple's ward (they wanted to shift anyone they could to a different session so the room wasn't over-full.) Now take into account that my wife and I weren't there. I work evenings, Tuesday through Saturday, so there was no way for us to make it. No doubt, there are a number of other folks in our Ward who were in the same boat: Wanted to be there but couldn't. To break it down a bit: 200-ish active members in the ward. At least half are either children or othewise not old enough to go to the temple yet. Comes out to 90-100 folks that are active and old enough. That's a pretty high percentage of the group that attended, considering. So no, it's not one or two members per ward. It's a good majority of actively attending adults that CAN go whenever they like. Just like most religious congregations, there's a lot of people who don't show up very often for services. The same is often true of the temple. Human nature I guess. Ed Decker is a sensationalist tard. The garbage he created and creates are the same sort of thing we saw with Farenheit 9/11. But if you're into that sort of media, here you go: http://covers.magazine-agent.com/images/image.aspx?i=748.jpg&h=650

I had always understood the part about "the Levites offering a sacrifice in righteousness" as a one-time thing. Apparently I was wrong. It also appears that the ancient law of sacrifice (pre-Moses) is not going to be re-instituted until the prophecy of the Levites again offering sacrifice in righteousness is fulfilled. Thanks for sharing this bit, I learned something new today!

Three step process: 1.) Buy one. 2.) Go get yourself lost intentionally. 3.) Sue them for false advertising.

Good that things are playing out well. Your husband got himself buried deep in Satan's territory. Porn, prostitutes, etc. So many of his perceptions and ideas have been twisted and warped. It doesn't get undone overnight. My best advice: Create structured rules that will prevent him from relapsing. That is a HUGE danger right now. And he needs to agree to do a lot of things to make it up to you -- and this is an important point. When my wife confessed to me about the affair, I realized that she needed to be actively doing a lot of things to repair the damage. It was more for her sake than for mine. It was by her actively working on specific tasks that helped me realize she wanted to earn my forgiveness. More importantly, I know it really helped her realize how much she valued our marriage. You might want to chat with the Bishop about coming up with some ideas there. One thing that sabotaged my wife was that somewhere or another, she had picked up the notion that our marriage was disposable. If things weren't going well, she could just leave. It seems that your husband is fighting against the same notions. Marriage was not intended to be disposable, and your husband needs to realize that. He might think, "It's just better off if we part ways" or whatever, but that mentality is in direct violation to God's will and God's commandments. This is not a cell-phone contract that you break, pay a fee and get out of. Until he realizes that, he'll never be 100% right with God. Tendency is, if you've told yourself about a million times, "I just want to get a divorce and move on" that you'll convince yourself it's true. You're husband needs to unlearn that bit of idiot-wisdom. Were you married in the temple, incidentally? You may have mentioned it, but I didn't see it.

Jumping into the conversation rather late, so let me respond to the initial post first. January 1, 2009 was the day that my wife told me that she had cheated on me. I don't think anyone can truly comprehend how devastating it is without having gone through it. The road has been ugly and it hasn't stopped hurting yet. We were going through a stressful point in our marriage -- she had refused to continue going to Chruch with me, and there were a number of other factors. Long story short, the love-life side of things was impacted. She met someone online who literally charmed the pants off her, she let herself get drawn into the relationship, they met up and eventually she slept with the man. So I know much of what you're going through. Difficult to say how to feel about the fact that he cheated with prostitutes, because that would at least mean that there isn't some woman out there whom he has fallen in love with and she with him, etc. A large part of rebuilding the trust comes with setting boundaries and him agreeing to live within them. My wife was not allowed to go onto the social website where she met the guy anymore. There were a lot of long talks about "how did this happen" and figuring out what went wrong. The most important thing was, my wife was more than willing to do whatever it took. Both of us agreed that we will NEVER EVER be alone with a member of the opposite gender that we are not directly related to. That's one thing that is simpler than you might think to do and it certainly eliminates risk. You're husband sounds -- reluctant? Hard to say, but was he looking for a reason to sabotage the marriage so he could simply get out of it? Unless he is fully committed to fixing things, he's only setting himself up for repeated failures in the future. He obviously went out of his way to find another woman to have sex with, so you have to get to the root of why. It's not like a porn addiction or ties to a specific person. If he's traveling on business or anything like that, the opportunities are virtually always out there if you go looking for them. The porn addiction likely requires brutal measures. The wisest course: No computer access at all. Porn addicts relapse at the drop of a hat, much like alcoholics and other addicts. So completely removing the ability to relapse is just a good idea. He needs to earn your trust when it comes to online behavior. If he must be online, then be in the room with him. Your husband needs to realize that he cannot make this right between him and God unless it is reconciled with you. Does that mean fixing the marriage? Not necessarily, but if he's so keen to give up on the marriage then he's being a coward. I have a father-in law who had a porn addiction and he had decided that it would just be in his wife's best interests if he wasn't around anymore. It's possible that your husband may be thinking along the same lines: That you'd be better off if he just left. Father-in-law's rethought that and they've sorted themselves out. They're quite happy in their marriage now -- but it's never perfect of course.

The interesting thing about the Trinity in contrast with the Godhead is that most people debating the two viewpoints don't realize how similar the two are. Trinitarians seem to think we're Arian-Christians. Latter-Day Saints mistakenly believe that Trinitarians is Modalism or Unitarianism. We're definitely not Arian in our thinking, and Trinitarians are definitely not Modalists or Unitarianists. It's quite interesting to watch somebody defending the Trinity doctrine: They'll use many of the same scriptures as a Latter-Day Saint would to defend their belief in the Godhead. While discussing the Godhead and the Trinity in depth with anyone, I often find myself going from, "Wow, we believe exactly the same thing!" to "Wow, we believe something totally different!" Many advocates of the Trinity seem to have mixed understandings of the meaning of "one substance." Trinity purists will understand it as being three separate persons who are of the very same material -- essentially linked while still remaining distinct. But some have taken it to mean something more along the lines of "cut from the same cloth" -- and that would fit with our understanding of the Godhead just fine. We agree that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are each Omnipotent, Omnicient, etc. There are some points that are vastly different of course. The trouble I have with Nicea: 1.) What Biblical precedent is there for gathering together a committee of bishops together and through debate and discussion establishing eternal truth? 2.) The non-Christian Emperor Constantine convened the Council to begin with. 3.) When the discussion was deadlocked, Constantine picked a side, laid down the law and pronounced severe penalties upon all who did not agree. 4.) So essentially a non-believer pagan monarch was God's voice for establishing the most important eternal truth of all: "What is God?" 5.) Later in life, Constantine regretted the harshness with which he had dealt with the followers of Arius. For that reason, he started to ease up on his treatment of Arian Christians. 6.) Possibly as compensation of sorts, the foremost Trinitarian, Athanasius, was deposed and exiled by Constantine. 7.) A year before he died, Constantine was baptized by an Arian Christian. 8.) So effectively, the instrument of receiving God's will on the matter of defining and describing God betrayed his own belief in the Trinity and seems to have reversed position somewhat. 9.) Not surprisingly, Constantine's successor, Constantius II was more Arian than Trinitarian. Thus, the debate between the two sides would rage on for more than a century. 10.) The Council of Nicea was convened to reconcile the dispute between Athanasius and his followers against Arius and his followers. The aftermath of the Council would see Arius assassinated and Athanasius exiled and disgraced. 11.) Of the Eccumenical Councils of the Church, only Nicea is mostly accepted by all traditionally-minded Christian denominations. Some of the 22 Ecumenical councils are actually rejected by the Catholic Church today. So doesn't that undermine the supposed authority of all other such councils? Would that not undermine the authority of the Council of Nicea? Those are just a few of the reasons that I have a very difficult time viewing the proceedings of the Council of Nicea as divinely inspired. It seems a lot more similar to the current debate in Congress over Health Care -- Which is to say it seems like a typical bunch of politics. I sincerely believe that those who formulated the Trinity teaching were trying their best to describe God in such a way that would fit with the Scriptures. It certainly does work as a context for interpreting the scriptures dealing with the nature of God. I think they got it wrong, but that doesn't mean they weren't sincerely trying their best. And as stated, from my point of view, they came very, very close. I do find it very interesting: The leadership role taken by Constantine in this matter would establish the Emperor of Rome (and NOT the Bishop of Rome) as the ultimate Earthly authority in all of Christendom for the next few centuries. Indeed, the last vestiges of the primacy of the Emperor died with the last Holy Roman Emperor and the Last Tsar of Russia at the end of World War I. Both were claimants to the successor ship of "Emperor of Rome and Head of Christendom." How is the Bishop of Rome the successor of Peter? There is no evidence that Peter ever led the Church from Rome. There is no evidence that he was ever in Rome for any great length of time in his entire life. We do know that he led from Jerusalem and Judea repeatedly in the New Testament times, but we have no record of him leading the Church from Rome. We certainly have no reference that he was ever the Bishop of Rome. I certainly agree that Peter's was foremost of the Apostles with God-given authority higher than the other Apostles. But I don't follow the logical leap that puts a line of successor-ship to Peter's position in Rome. Wouldn't the Bishop of Jerusalem be a more logical successor?

It's certainly not a commandment to be skeptical, but it lays things out pretty clearly. Abuse of priesthood authority happens. When it happens the authority of the priesthood leader in question ends then and there. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not built upon unquestioning blind obedience to local leaders. Many have been led astray by unrighteous leaders who took upon themselves more authority than they truly had. A more direct warning would be: Just because the man has all the trappings of legitimacy (in this case, he is a bishop or stake president) does not mean that we must follow them no matter what. If a bishop or stake president is doing something that is that far out of the ordinary, then the Lord's direction is clear enough. Be very careful that you are not being led astray by a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Exactly! This is the point that I've tried to make. If a bishop (or stake president for that matter) makes such a request without the direction from the First Presidency, then the odds are extremely high that it's a scam. Local leaders acting on their own authority to effectively re-institute the United Order in any capacity are overstepping their authority. There have been Stake Presidents who have insisted that any member with a beard could not have a temple recommend. Such leaders have been rebuffed and set straight by the General Authorities. The proposed scenario would be a lot bigger change in Church policy than a matter of facial hair. So we can hardly expect that an order to donate everything you own to be legitimate if it originated at local levels of authority. The direction would have to come from Church HQ, and any member with any sense would thoroughly verify the source before proceeding.

Consider the sheer number of times that persons in this Restored Church at various levels of authority have abused their position to make a quick fortune and immediately left the Church. I think that if anyone is on the receiving end of an extremely unusual request by their bishop or branch president has a duty to be skeptical -- a request such as "Sign over everything you own, do it now, and no we won't answer any questions." That's a whole lot of red flags going up in short order. If anyone here ever experiences such a thing, my advice would be pretty simple: Proceed with EXTREME caution. If you are able to verify the legitimacy of the request (whether by earnest prayer and fasting or doing a little research and double-checking things -- preferably both), then you know your duty. But by all means, look before you leap. Unfortunately, the world is filled with dishonesty.

The original post says, "What would you do if your bishop instructed you to sign over your house, your car, and everything else you own of value to the Church by tomorrow?" Vort has since added that this would be without any explanation. As a agent of the Church, it is conceivable that the bishop in question can redirect everything into his own name even though it was technically signed over to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." In large degree, it would depend on the laws in that part of the world and how they might be twisted. The reason I'm being a stickler on this point is simple: There already have been examples of this very thing where the bishop takes the money/property and leaves the Church. No doubt there will be others who will be tempted in the future. So if a bishop told any of us to sign over everything we own to the Church, I hope that all of us would have the wisdom to be skeptical. Direction coming from God Himself is one thing -- God is perfect and we don't have to worry about him scamming us nor having any hidden agendas. But we live in an era where dishonesty abounds. The whole point I'm making: A bishop who asks you to sign over everything you own, to do it immediately, and with no explanation -- that man is very, very likely not on the Lord's errand. He's most likely up to no good. My immediate reaction would be one of extreme skepticism, and I think that the Lord would expect us to be skeptical. I would find it highly distressing if the majority of Church members just take the Bishop's word for it and sign away all their Earthly possessions without another thought. The Lord merits that kind of trust. An imperfect mortal man doesn't. Agreed. I just know that my first reaction would not be, "Sure! Here you go!" And I don't think anyone should project that expectation on me or anyone else. It struck me that certain individuals were implying that any hesitation on my part (or anyone else's part) would only be because I'm worldly, self-centered and that I do not have the true spirit of the Law of Consecration written in my heart. I disagree and would contend that a healthy amount of skepticism would actually be the more righteous course. Once we are sure that it is all at the Lord's command, then we know our duty and should follow through accordingly.

The Law of Consecration is what we are supposed to be living today. Yes we tithe and pay fast offerings, this is true. But especially any endowed member has consecrated (made holy) everything they have. Money, time, talents, everything. They are God's and if we are truly living this principal, then we will not fail when called upon by the Lord. Abraham was asked by God to offer his son Isaac and off went Abraham to obey. That is the true spirit of the Law of Consecration. Abraham lived the law of tithing according to the Biblical record, yet the true test was when the Lord asked for something that was far more precious to Abraham than mere money or property. All of us should be ready and willing to give anything and everything to the Lord should the Lord command. In my opinion, this is the question that is at the heart of the other thread. Ultimately, if we know for certain that the direction is coming from the Lord, then there should be nothing that we will withhold from the Lord. That doesn't just include everything we own. It includes everything we are or ever will become. Everything.

Sorry, my mistake, I thought it was unintentional that you were saying it's on the Bishop's authority alone. If that is the core of what you're proposing then I think the answer is obvious. I covenanted to consecrate everything I have to the building up of the Kingdom of God on Earth. You are essentially forcing a scenario upon the discussion that equates obedience to your covenants to unbelievable stupidity. I did not covenant to be an idiot. What good is everything I own to the Kingdom of God if it is filched away by an apostatizing Bishop? Can it help to build up the Kingdom of God if it is no longer in the possession of any Church member and is instead possessed by a group that actively seeks to draw members away from the Church? If you cannot provide a single example in a range of time as broad as 50 years, then I think we can confidently put this one to bed. There is no realism whatsoever to your hypothetical scenario. You've created a scenario that would only have one possible explanation: Only a Bishop who is up to no good is going to pull this one with nothing but his local authority to back him up. The situation you postulate: The Bishop asks for EVERYTHING YOU OWN to be donated post-haste without explanation. Not a superfluous car or bicycle or even an extra house (for those who are so blessed.) You're saying "give me everything, right now, without delay, no explanation." God doesn't command us to be blithering idiots, nor is he going to be pleased with us for letting ourselves be robbed blind by a wicked man. You can call if faith if you want, but that's the stuff that leads to enmasse Koolaid drinking parties and things like that. There's a big difference between being faithful and gullible.