Faded

If Eternal Marriage is the only way for us to achieve Exaltation and receive the fullness of glory promised to us by God, then what do you do in this case: You have a woman who has done everything right and has lived up to everything she needs to in order to receive those eternal blessings. But through no fault of her own she has no Eternal Companion. She can't get to Exaltation without one. So what can be done to help her? What solutions can you offer for her?

I don't understand it either. Trying to point people in the right direction and have them do the right thing is fine and well. But seriously, the policy is treating civil marriage like a sin. Since when is it a sin to get married? Seems like a policy with good intentions but I don't think it's wise to take a hard line on the matter. Otherwise you're potentially going to be taken as punishing people for doing nothing wrong.

I'd say we could start yet another thread on the Trinity vs the Godhead, but I'm scared of the idea. Always ends badly though. If you say "God is one" and leave it at that, you're a Unitarian. If you say "God is three" and leave it at that, then you believe in the Godhead. These are two, no nonsense simple approaches to the nature of God. They say what they mean and they mean what they say. There's no room for confusion. Now you can dress it up any way you like, but what the Trinity really boils down to is exactly what I said. "God is three and God is one." Trinitarians reject Unitarianism as well as the Godhead. So from the Trinitarian point of view, God is neither and both. How you describe that apparent logical contradiction is the really tricky part. It's made even more difficult by the existence of the other two doctrines. If you proclaim too strongly that "God is one" then you're going to come across as a Unitarian. If you focus on the "God is three" aspect then people will think you believe in the Godhead. So the Trinity rests somewhere in between the two options, and is incredibly confusing as a result. Centuries of theology and work have gone into trying to explain how the two contradictory statements about God can coexist in the same being. And there's no easy way of doing so. It all gets very mysterious and confusing. And many Trinitarians will tell you all of this is clear proof that it's true. It often puzzles me that the Council of Nicaea chose this option for describing God, but I suppose they felt that Arianism was the only alternative. Arianism is certainly a worse option than the Trinity, IMHO.

Ironic that an event that has woman prancing around in very revealing clothing and bikinis has a moral objection if a participant was photoed "semi-nude." They were semi-nude the entire time they were on stage in a bikini weren't they? Or are they saying that the Miss USA competition gets first dibs?

Most of the information and research done by this group The Mayan Civilization Time Line : Mexico History and by the BYU Studies folks works from a lot of incomplete information. There's a lot of "best guesses" at work in the research. Still, I felt that there were a few items that were interesting and worth pointing out. The Maya Calendar is based upon traditions that would have been somewhat corrupted, from our understanding of things. But the timeframe does coincide with the estimated arrival of the Jaredites in the Americas. 2000 BC would easily be within the time frame of the Jaredites. This would be a bit over 100 years different from the arrival of the Nephites. We do know that they brought a form of writing with them, which was subsequently modified. It's possible this is talking about that same form of writing and that the dating is a bit off. It's also possible that they've discovered Jaredite writings. Either one fits with the Book of Mormon just fine. This would exactly coincide with the final destruction of the Nephites. But we should acknowledge this was not a complete destruction. We know very well that many Nephites survived via dissention. But it is interesting that the completion of a notable conquest happens at approximately 400 AD. But it is also possible that these: are misdated and represent the the actual destruction of the Nephites. For instance, the human sacrifice part would make perfect sense if Tikal was city of the Lamanites.Currently, Central America is our best guess location for where the Book of Mormon happened. Mormon gives us very little to go on, since his purpose is much more focussed upon spiritual matters. But the Book of Mormon would fit quite nicely into the limited archaeological information we have for Central America.

I think it might be more useful if you were to begin by explaining how you can read the quoted passage in Romans and conclude that God intends to punish every human being that ever lived for what Adam did (unless they repent and are reconciled with God of course.) I am unable to see where Paul is saying anything like that. It's clear enough that the Fall of Adam caused this world to become a lost and fallen world. It is clear that it placed Earth at a greater distance from the presence of God. Separation from God is often termed "Spiritual Death" because it places us in a state opposite to happiness. Because we are imperfect, just by living in this lost and fallen world, we will all eventually sin. That much is the consequence of the transgression of one man, Adam. But the passage doesn't say that the moment a baby is born into this world, they are already guilty before God and deserving of an eternity in Hell. That is what I would refer to as "reading too much into it." The Atonement of Jesus Christ redeems us from the Fall and guarantees that we will be raised from the dead and live forever. Christ does overcome the Fall, just like Paul says it does.

The best summary of where we are today is in the Book of Mormon: Currently, the Lord has withdrawn his command to "raise up seed" unto Him, so polygamy is prohibited at this time. Practicing polygamy is a great way to get excommunicated. As for the eternities, we have not ever been told that every eternal marriage is a polygamous one. It may or may not be, but the truth of the matter is that we simply don't know.

Odd. Clear enough that I'm wrong on this matter and I acknowledge that. But the policy seems a bit silly. I wonder if there is some kind of official explanation?

There once was an organization called F.A.R.M.S. (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) but they've since been incorporated into BYU and the Maxwell Institute. They have a TON of good stuff worth looking into: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship - Home The works of Hugh Nibley will offer a lot of good material as well. It's important to realize that the Spanish Conquistadors were reckless in their attempt to erase the cultural identity and history of the Native American peoples that they subjected, that there is a TON we don't know very well yet. More and more information is surfacing all the time.

The answer is obvious. Yes you can. Why would you suspect that you couldn't? And no a person doesn't necessarily have to wait 1 year before being married in the temple. One might assume as much because most cases where an LDS girl marries and LDS boy in a civil marriage and not the temple, it's because they committed fornication. They wait for 1 year because of the fornication. The civil marriage has nothing to do with it. Additionally, newly baptized members have to be members in good standing for one year before they can be sealed in the temple. I think we're getting a bit silly, painting civil marriage as some kind of sinful thing. I think if there was a reason for having a civil marriage first between two temple worthy Latter Day Saints, then they can sort it out with their Bishop. I think I've heard of cases where a civil ceremony happened (generally to appease non-member family) and then the temple sealing happens shortly thereafter. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

From my brief scan-through of the RLDS (at the time) Doctrine and Covenants, their D&C goes up to about section 107. From there, it diverges and adds a number of sections from their prophets that are obviously not in our D&C. So no they don't have our section 130 in their version. Still, the fact that Joseph Smith taught that the Trinity was a false doctrine is clear enough. It's a matter of historical record and he was consistent on this point. The fact that they accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet of God on the one hand, and accept the Trinity on the other is one of those things I've always wanted to have one of them explain to me. The first vision would be great at disproving Unitarianism or Modalism, but it doesn't really work when it comes to the Trinity. The Trinity accepts two completely contradictory truths to be true at the same time. God is three. God is one. Because the believer in the Trinity understands them to be three separate and distinct people, then the experience of Joseph Smith would not directly disprove the Trinity with absolute certainty. But he did teach that the concept was a false doctrine throughout his life.

Right "legally." The KKK is still a guilty of influencing people to commit hate crimes against Blacks and Jews. Anti-Mormon preaching (virtually every Protestant religion in Texas does it) is responsible for influencing people to commit hate crimes against Mormons. No, you can't prosecute them, but but a huge amount of blame is rightly theirs.

As far as I can conclude, there was not a single photo taken of Miss California that could not be proudly displayed on the magazine cover at the grocery store checkout line. Was she and idiot for having those pictures taken? Yes she was. Is it pornographic? Yes, in my opinion it is. So is a lot of what you see on the covers of those magazines. I think I spotted on the other day that showed a fully nude woman with some cloth item barely covering the "essential" bits. If you're going to take action against Miss California for those photos, then shouldn't somebody do something about the smut that is being left wide open for the whole word to see? I think we're seeing an example of true hypocrisy here. It's using a double-standard to target and condemn one person for doing something that you didn't like. Miss California would not have ever been in any danger of being stripped of crown if she had not spoken out against Gay Marriage. She would also be Miss USA, and think everyone knows that very well. Who knew there were still witch-hunts in the 21st Century? All you have to do is exercise your freedom of speech in a way that violates Political Correctness, and they'll find a way to ruin your life.

Take a father who already allegedly abused/beat his daughter growing up (according to the daughter.) If that is true, then you're dealing with a person who is screwed in the head. Having served my Mission in the same region her parents live, I know how much hate and demonizing is going on. You're absolutely right - very few ministers are going to tell their members to kidnap their children for joining the LDS Church. They also don't teach their members to beat their children. They do teach their members that we are a Cult (have to assume they mean Occult, otherwise it's just stating the obvious - Dictionary.com (cult) .) They teach their members that "Mormons" are destined for an eternity in Hell. They have nothing but slander and hate when talking about our religion. Combine those severely distorted views of the LDS Church with a man who was already violent and abusive, and this is the result.

So many "Christian" religions have spent so much time and effort demonizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This father sounds like he was a piece of work to begin with, but the constant slander and attack on the LDS faith should rightly be seen as "accessories in kidnapping" and whatever else happens to this poor girl. Every person who spends altogether too much time badmouthing our religion has had blood on their hands in the past. Let's hope that they have not added more blood to their guilt. It is impossible that he would have reacted this way had she joined ... oh say the Methodist Church.

Are you talking about this printing press: Book of Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia LDS.org - Sunday School Chapter Detail - Establishing Zion in Missouri Or are you talking about this printing press: Nauvoo Expositor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Let's take a moment to compare and contrast these two cases where a printing press was destroyed. The Destructions of W W Phelps printing pressing in 1833: 1.) Phelps' printing press was destroyed by an illegal mob who broke a lot of laws in the process. 2.) LDS leaders were tarred and feathered and considerable property other than the printing press was destroyed. They burned W W Phelps home and business to the ground. 3.) The Mob was guilty of breaking and entering, assault and destruction of property and violation of freedom of speech. 4.) There was no legal or legitimate process even attempted by the Missouri Mob. 5.) No member of the Missouri Mob would ever be brought to justice nor penalized in any way for the destruction of the printing press nor any subsequent actions. 6.) The fact that the government of Missouri and the United States turns a blind eye to this event sets a common-law precendent that, at minimum, destruction of an offending printing press is fair game. 7.) Consistent in both cases, the destruction of the printing press was the starting point for completely inhuman and illegal actions taken against the "Mormons" by their enemies. Apparently, if somebody destroys a printing press, it's a cue to start assaulting, robbing, raping and murdering Mormons. I'm not sure why that makes sense, but that certainly is the way history played out in both cases. Ironically, it didn't matter who did the destroying, the same form of violence against "the Mormons" resulted. 8.) Clearly, the laws of the United States are good enough to punish "Mormons" but they're not good enough to protect them. The Destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor Printing Press in 1844: 1.) The legally constituted and recognized government authorities deliberated about the possibility of destroying the Nauvoo Expositor and it's printing press for two days. Since the power of the Nauvoo city council was explicitly equal to the power of the State of Illinois (but only within Nauvoo of course) there would have been no need to appeal to the State govenment. 2.) The reasoning behind shutting down the Nauvoo Expositor was based upon the opinion that the Nauvoo Expositor existed for the sole reason of inciting prejudice and hatred against the Saints. It was believed that leaving the Expositor in place would only lead to chaos and violence. So the stated reason for shutting down the Expositor is to keep the peace. Obviously, that backfired. 3.) The City Council of Nauvoo felt that they had adequate legal precedent for the action. The legality of the action is questionable. The Law of the Land as constituted in Illinois in 1844 can be convincingly argued either way. Obviously, the action would be seen as a violation to the US Constitution today, but since the destruction of Phelps' printing press in 1833 was fine and well, then one would assume that the same would be true of Nauvoo Expositor. 4.) After the Nauvoo City Council determined that the Nauvoo Expositor was a public nuissance, the city marshall (an officer of the law) carried out the order. No breaking and entering, etc. All formality of legal process was preserved. 5.) The actions against the Nauvoo Expositor were perfectly legal at best and highly questionable at worst. On the other hand, there is absolutely no way to argue that the actions against Phelps and his property were legal. 6.) Following in the tradition of the 1833 incident, the destruction of this printing press leads to one of the greatest overreactive responses in US History: ----The Mayor and 15 members of the city council are arrested. ----All those who were not released on bond were to be taken to Carthage Illinois, a known hot spot for Anti-Mormon violence. ----Joseph Smith and several others went to Carthage after Governor Ford promised that they would be protected and that he (Ford) would personally stay in Carthage to further ensure Smith's protection. ----Once Joseph Smith and his companions were securely inside Carthage Jail, Governor Ford promptly left town, went off to Nauvoo. Fords message to Nauvoo? "You brought this on yourselves!" ---- The militia pretending to be there to protect Joseph Smith surrenders to and then joins with the mob. They storm the jail, killing Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith and severely injuring John Taylor. 7.) Once again, none of the Anti-Mormon criminals are every brought to trial. No real effort to seek justice for these murders is ever undertaken by the State of Illinois. 8.) The Latter Day Saints are subsequently driven out of the State of Illinios -- another illegal action -- and deprived of their homes and property. No proper compensation of any of the property lost there or in any other state the Saints were driven out of has ever occurred. None of their attackers are ever found guilty of anything. 9.) Again we see that the Laws of the United States are good enough to punish "the Mormons" but they're not good enough to protect them. 10.) Apparently, one printing press is worth an entire city and the lives and property of it's people. Destroying one is punishable by death. Can anyone think of any case in US History where the government overreacted to such an extent? Such cases may exist, but I doubt anyone is trying to justify that sort of behavior.

Essentially, the hangup you keep coming back to: If the Protestant Reformation produced false doctrine, then calling it inspired is contradictory. Fair enough. We feel that the Protestant Reformation occurred to bring about the purposes of God. The Reformers had many excellent teachings and truths, but they were not a direct dispensation of eternal knowledge from God. As such, we fully expect that they would make mistakes. Let's be frank, it is absolutely impossible for every teaching of the Protestant Reformation to be true because the varying different Protestant movements directly contradict one another on a very long list of teachings. It was God's doing to change the world sufficiently to make the Restoration possible. It was God's will that the Bible no longer be withheld from mankind. It was God's doing to get mankind looking to Him for answers and understanding rather than relying entirely upon the Roman Catholic Church for absolutely everything. The following are conclusions and assertions found within the Protestant Reformation movements that we agree with: 1.) Rejection of the sale of indulgences. 2.) The greater focus on an individual relationship with God. 3.) Rejection of the reverence and worship of Mary. 4.) Rejection of the practice of praying to Saints. 5.) Rejection of the practice of keeping everything in Latin. 6.) Lesser dependance upon confession, greater dependence upon reconciling with God directly. 7.) Less complexity to the process of worshipping God. More of a common-sense approach. 8.) Rejection of infant Baptism. 9.) Separation of Church and State and the rejection of enforcing a State Religion by force. 10.) Rejection of the practice of celibacy among the Priesthood. 11.) Rejection of the belief in transsubstantiation. 12.) Rejection of the reverence of holy relics. 13.) Rejection of the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church in general. 14.) Acceptance of the Biblical writers as the last (aka most recent) authoritative recipients of the will and word of God on Earth. 15.) Rejection of the bulk of all ritualism practiced by the Catholic Church. The list goes on and on. Not every Protestant denomination accepts each of those things, but the point is that the Reformation is the beginning point to change on these issues. Erik, can you answer my question then? Why do Protestant faiths stop short of completely denouncing the Catholic Church? Doing anything less than that is fence-sitting. Essentially, they are willing to accept the Catholic Church as the true "Body of Christ" passed down from the Apostles, yet they reject the Catholic Church and separate themselves from it. So is the Catholic Church right or is the Catholic Church wrong? Protestant denominations seem to like to have it both ways. How does that make any sense? The number one point you have focussed on in virtually all posts, and you're primary reasoning for absolute rejection of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the Trinity. This is one of the aspects of fence sittting that I'm talking about. Protestants seem quite happy to claim that "By Scripture Alone," yet the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible. It is one possible interpretation of the Scriptures, but the Bible is never definitive enough to establish the Trinity as an absolute. If Protestantism can merrily reject a large list of long-held doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church, how can they hold the Trinity to be an absolute truth that can never ever be questioned no mattter what?? If the Catholic Church was wrong about so many other things, why can't they be wrong about the Trinity? Lastly, does Protestantism reject the Catholic Church or don't they?

Looks like security settings here at the ol' workplace are mucking with getting onto that site. I'll try it when I get home - whenever I get time. Missionaries coming to dinner and busy weekend.

Converselly, if I entered a room and I saw a cross hanging on the wall, I'd know I was in a room used by a Christian that was not LDS and not Jehovah's Witness. I don't think that anyone who uses the cross thinks of it as a symbol of a dead Christ. I would say we need to be careful when characterizing each other's symbolism. Some Latter Day Saints have similar things to say about the Cross. Many Christians like to refer to Temple Garments and "holy underwear." I don't see the point in making light of things that other people hold sacred. There are a significant number of Christians who like to beat us over the head as "unChristian" because we do not revere the Cross. I think more than enough information has been presented to show that reverencing the Cross is definitely not an absolute requirement for a denomination to be considered Christian. If failure to accept the cross as your symbol makes you unChristian, then all of the Apostles and a minimum of 300 years worth of believers would get kicked out of the fraternity. I'm still strongly suspicious that the Hammer of Thor has more to do with the adoption of the Cross as THE Christian symbol than anything else. But in the end, it's all "full of sound and fury signifying nothing." I don't think it's worthy of getting upset over.

I believe that is why it is striped. "In transition" and not official yet. Looks like there have been several states that have abandonned their more tolerant ways and voted to create a ban on Gay Marriage. California is just one of several striped ones on the map. I wonder why we haven't heard much about those states in the news?

In the eyes of God and believers in God, their sins are no different than any other sin. Their pathway to God is no different than anyone else. The trouble is that there is a lot of social pressure out there telling us that homosexuality is a perfectly natural and normal sexual behavior and that it is not sinful at all. Therein lies the confusion and controversy. They want to all religions everywhere to acknowledge homosexual relations as acceptable before God. Obviously, that's asking believers in God to speak for Him (which we have no right to do) and to contradict what God has already taught on the matter (which we absolutely do not have the right to do.) We love the sinner, not the sin. It is not any different. But it is sin. How can we defy what we have already received from God by saying it is not sin?

Did Bill explain that the symbol adopted by Constantine wasn't the cross? It was the Chi-Rho. I think that it begins a general precedent of the need for establishing the idea of a symbol for Chirstianity, but obviously, it isn't the cross, nor is it terribly similar to the cross at all. It sounds like Bill has some good insights on these things, but I wonder if he was handed the same distortion that everyone else was: "Constantine saw and adopted the Christian Cross just prior to the Battle of Milvian Bridge." Constantine I and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Chi-Ro symbol adopted by Constantine also rendered The "cross of light" Constantine sees was apparently the Chi-Ro and not the Christian Cross as we see it today. I would says it's perfectly fair to say that it was a prototype of sorts, but obviously it's a completely different symbol. I do enjoy the way Bill thinks, so I think this would be a valuable tidbit to run by him.

As I recall, the theory of blacks having done something or not done something in the pre-Earth Life was just that. Theory. Never taught as official doctrine. The trouble they had then was the trouble we still have today - the need for an explanation why blacks could not hold the priesthood. So a lot of theorizing came about on the matter. When revelation came to end the prohibition, it was welcomed by all Latter Day Saints worthy of being called such. Now they didn't have to try to understand something that God had never fully explained. Something that saw a lot of theories in attempt to explain it. Homosexuality is a lot different of course. The Bible is loaded with material that makes God's position quite clear on the matter. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Law of Moses and passages through the Old and New Testaments resoundingly preach against homosexuality directly. In that aspect, it is nothing similar to blacks and the Priesthood. In the case of homosexuality, a Judeo-Christian religion has to actively contradict a lot of scripture and more or less postulate that, "God just didn't know what he was talking about." That is why I would say it's a completely different scenario, and highly unlikely to follow the same course. The question for blacks with regard to the Priesthood wasn't really ever "If" it was "When?" That has never been the case with homosexuality. Ultimately, I wouldn't get my hopes up on the matter, as I don't see the position changing ever because it would effectively mean that God doesn't know what he's talking about and changed drastically.

Certainly can't disagree with you there. What I find particularly annoying is that the National Day of Prayer Task Force created such a perfect storm scenario for all of this. Rather than uniting all religion in prayer, they are excluding everyone that doesn't think like they do. So when the Atheist organizations come a suing like they always do, how much public outcry is there going to be when if and when the legal system starts bullying the religious bigots? There's the trouble, nobody will feel sorry for them. Divided amongst ourselves, it is easier to push us around. Their religious intolerance divides and dilutes the power of collective faith in God throughout the world by qualifying who gets to belong to their exclusive club. Believers in God need to stand united in the face of the enemies of all religion. The Evangelicals are being idiotic about this, and their timing couldn't be much worse.

I followed this link Interfaith Alliance Praises President’s National Day of Prayer Proclamation and found this: So my question is this: Is all the fuss on this story over the fact that Obama broke ranks with the National Day of Prayer Task Force? If that is the case then why is there a problem? They actively exclude Mormons and a lot of other religions. They are an Evangelical Christian group. Why do we need them to be the official National Day of Prayer people? They're intolerant and to advocate them would be to publicly advocate Evangelical Christianity in preference to all other religious voices. The religious world doesn't need their intolerance.