Faded

This is interesting because it's the euphoric chemical high experienced when initially "falling in love" that gets a lot of people into trouble. It can be lust or it can be love (the world barely distinguishes between the two), the chemical high comes most powerfully when we first begin to romantically connect with another person. Many people are highly distressed when that early rush slowly tapers off and is less overwhelming and powerful. "Do I love my spouse anymore? I don't feel the same strong emotions anymore. What went wrong???"

Ezra Taft Benson would have evened the score at 7 bearded and 7 clean shaven. He died in 1994 and then Howard W Hunter becomes the tiebreaker. So yes "in the last 20 years" is a pretty close approximation.

I've got a Van Dyke beard -- same thing as a goatee but where the mustache and beard on my chin are connected. Had it for years. Wife likes it that way. Nobody at Church has ever suggested that I need to get rid of it. A good number of folks in my current ward have a beard. If you serve a mission or work in the temple you may be asked to be clean shaven. Why? Because the Church wants their official representatives to give the best impression possible in their official capacity. While the clean shaven thing virtually always holds true for missionaries and usually for temple workers, it is not mandated for any local callings. You could be Elder's Quorum President, Bishop or Stake President with long hair and a beard, no problem. If the social standard for what is "clean cut and respectable looking" were to shift to having long hair and a beard then the General Authorities would probably go back to wearing beards (like they used to) and growing their hair long. Point is, it's by no means a commandment or rule we live by. It's just based on social norms. Here is a composite picture of every prophet of the Church from Joseph Smith till today. Those who wore beards used to outnumber those that didn't, but the beardless ones have now pulled into the lead within the last 20 years or so. Will I guarantee that nobody will say anything at any future point about the beard and long hair? Nope, can't say that as once again, the Church is filled with flawed imperfect human beings and they don't always behave as they should. Same thing is true just about anywhere you go involving people. All I can say is that my experience has been that members don't really care if you have a beard or long hair or whatever.

You're referencing a hostile retelling of a legitimate and accepted belief of the Roman Catholic Church: Transubstantiation. Yes the wording is contemptuous in its disapproval, but it does reference something that the RCC really does believe in. This is not the same thing as continually perpetuating the myth that polygamy is still being practiced by us 120 years after we ended the practice of it. Protestants might even go so far as to say, "Catholics would resume their bloody Inquisitions if they could get away with such barbarism," but what you do not see the vast majority of Protestants insistently claiming that the horrors of the Inquisitions -- torture, murder, burning at the stake, etc -- are still fully in practice by the entire Roman Catholic Church right now and that the RCC never stopped torturing and murdering people they branded as "heretics." You do see a majority of Protestant and Catholics clergy either doing nothing to set the record straight or actively perpetuating the myth that we still practice polygamy to this very day.

The important correlary to this: We concur with the canon as found in the Bible as it exists today. We don't know exactly what got left out or removed before the compilation and canonization of the Biblical texts but modern revelation verifies that what texts were selected were authentic. Of the 66 books of the Bible, we hold 65 to be inspired writings and sufficient in their current form to be profitable for doctrine, etc. The Song of Solomon is the only exception. Entire books by prophets and apostles of God are referenced in the Bible, but we do not have them today. There are many texts of ancient date that have been around for a long time or recently uncovered: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Nag Hammadi Gnostic library New Testament Pseudepigrapha Yet out of all this giant mass of works, living prophets and apostles have not received any revelation confirming any one of them as inspired works and worthy of inclusion in our canon of Scripture. If any of them were true records written by inspiration of God and sufficiently uncorrupted, the Lord most certainly would not have remained silent on the matter. So their current forms, all of these texts fall under the counsel from God regarding the Apocrypha in Section 91 of the Doctrine of Covenants. Conclusion: The scholarly work of canonization of the Bible was almost entirely successful in compiling and preserving the best of what was left of inspired text -- which is to say they chose the right books to be included in the Bible. They were remarkably successful in leaving out the uninspired/corrupted dross. Whatever legitimate inspired works were left out, we can conclude that no authentic uncorrupted copies survive today insofar as the world at large has as yet uncovered. The most likely conclusion is that most of what is missing from the Bible was probably already missing when the work of compilation and canonization was begun. If the scholars who undertook the work of canonization had a hand in "taking away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" we cannot be certain. It is more likely in my mind that the work of deletion and destruction mentioned by God to Nephi was already complete, and that these scholars successfully gathered the best of the surviving texts into the canon of the Bible. Their success rate at sorting the gold from the dross seems the best indication that this was the case and that their intentions were good and that the Spirit of God had a hand in helping them.

When Catholics and Protestants want to engage in honest dialog with us about the differences between our beliefs that is one thing. But when they actively and falsely report "Mormon conspiracy theories" that are blatantly false and completely unprovable, that is when it just turns my stomach in disgust. The Spanish Inquisition is not still ongoing and non-Catholic "heretics" are no longer being tortured and burned alive to "save their souls from hell." The Southern Baptist Church is no longer defending the right to own slaves as "ordained of God," preaching the inferiority of the African race, and entirely refusing admission for membership to all blacks. Yet these things are very real facts of their religious history. Nobody is beating Catholics and Southern Baptists over the head with their history nearly to the same extent we experience. You don't have a general consensus myth, actively upheld and encouraged by "men of God" (ministers, pastors, priests, etc.) that Catholic Inquisitions are still ongoing with non-Catholics being tortured and burned at the stake to this very day. You don't have anyone claiming that Southern Baptists are still holding African Americans as their slaves. But for some idiotic reason, your ecclesiastical leadership among both Protestants and Catholics actively continues to perpetuate the myth that we're still practicing polygamy. Those religious leaders who do it know they're lying. They know that polygamy is 120 years gone. But they maintain the myth that we're still practicing it and doing nothing to set their followers straight on the matter because it helps keep people afraid of "the Mormons." The media helps them too. When "Christians" and "men of God" undertake bearing false witness, lying and deceiving their flock in some misguided attempt to protect their followers, then their complete hypocrisy becomes apparent and undoubtedly God is not with them. "For by their fruits ye shall know them." Lies and deceptions are not the ways of God.

Okay, I'll bite. Two separate events of canonization occurred. The Old Testament canon was sorted out by the Jewish scholars. The Jewish canon is essentially identical to the Christian canon with some Christian denominations adding additional books: 1 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Maccabees 1-4, Odes, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah. The Latter Day Saint recognized canon of the Old Testament contains all of the Jewish canon and does not include any of these additional books. The Song of Solomon is included in our printing of the Bible, but according to Joseph Smith, it is not an inspired text. Who wrote the Old Testament? In general, the prophet whose name appears at the beginning of the book. Isaiah wrote Isaiah, Ezekiel wrote Ezekiel, etc. There are some cases where we know for certain that the book was written in part by somebody else. Case in point, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel cannot have all been written by the prophet Samuel (at least not in their entirety) as the contents extend to the end of the reign of David, and Samuel was dead for many years by then. There is a lot of room for theory-crafting when it comes to Biblical authorship. LDS Church policy doesn't officially take a stand on who wrote what, but accepts the contents of the Lutheran and King James Bible to be inspired works and the additional books generally referred to as The Apocrypha as being a mixture of inspired writings and uninspired additions/corruptions by humankind. "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited." Doctrine and Covenants 91. The trouble faced by all scholarly groups was simple enough: There were some records which claimed to be inspired which were complete fabrications. There were some books that may have been inspired texts in their original form, but too much had been changed or corrupted by the creative licence of transcribers in these records to maintain confidence in their purity any longer. There were some books whose content was almost entirely uncorrupted. The trouble was sorting out which was which. The canonization of the New Testament is wholly a Christian endeavor. The compilation of the New Testament cited early Christian fathers such as Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Marcion, Origen and others. Sorting out which were inspired texts and which were fabrications was largely accomplished by referencing which New Testament works they cited and which they did not. Finalization of the canonization occured at the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. Revelation was added to the list in 419. The important difference between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and other Christian denominations: We do no regard the canon as closed. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (9th Article of Faith) In the time of the Apostles, there would have been no compiled Bible as we know it. They would have had the Old Testament readily available. The written works of the Apostles would have been hit or miss, and not as general as the Old Testament, and many hadn't even been written yet. Obviously, a compiled Bible as a single volume wouldn't have existed until after 419 AD when the canon of the New Testament was finalized. And it is hard to say if the average Christian of that era ever had their own copies of the Bible. We do know that general circulation of the Bible to the masses did not exist throughout the Middle Ages, and this didn't change until Martin Luther dared to defy the Roman Catholic Church and translate, then print the Bible into the common language and make it available to everyone. We believe that there were many plain and precious things taken from the Biblical record before it was compiled because that is what the Lord has said. We don't know exactly what form that deletion of material took. Missing chapters of the Old and New Testament canonical works? Missing books? We don't know. We do not accept any current Psuedopigraphorical Old and New Testament works as authoritative. Whatever was lost either has yet to be uncovered or was destroyed entirely and will either have to be re-revealed to the world or simply have to wait until Christ comes again when all things will be revealed. We have seen the restoration of missing parts of the Bible. See The Book of Abraham, The Book of Moses, Joseph Smith Matthew (compare to Matthew chapter 24), and we believe that God had a people anciently here on the American continent, and that The Book of Mormon is the record left behind by them before they fell away from God and were destroyed by their enemies. We believe that the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel have their own records that will one day be revealed along with their location(s). We believe that revelation and scripture are an ongoing process and that there is never an end to the Word of God. "As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints." Doctrine and Covenants 121. "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." John 21:25.

The official position of the Church and of the Lord: If at all possible, save your marriage. I think jayanna's point is something that far too many people never even try: Giving up on trying to change the other person and just focus on yourself and being the best person and spouse that you can be. The number one cause of divorce is selfishness. The number one cause of a happy marriage is selflessness. I would suggest taking your "I want" statements and turning them into "I am" statements. When my own marriage seemed hopelessly doomed, a strange thing happened. I didn't know it at the time but my wife had cheated on me, and in the process had essentially shocked herself awake spiritually. I didn't find out for 3 months. In those 3 months, my wife went out of her way to change and be the kind of wife I had always wished she would be. She changed things that she knew bothered me. She was doing things that she had always refused to do before and was acting so unselfishly I was at a loss to figure out what had happened to her. I had no idea about the affair, but I had very nearly given up on our marriage anyways. Her behavior for that 3 month period changed my attitude towards our marriage completely. I suddenly wanted it all to work out and wanted to do more for her because she was doing more for me. What I didn't know is that she was absolutely certain that I would divorce her when she told me about the affair, so she decided that she would make the last three months of our marriage (which happened to include Thanksgiving and Christmas) the best three months possible so our marriage together would at least end on a positive note and I'd have something good to look back on. I can't know for certain if I would have reacted differently, but when my wife told me the dreaded news that she'd had an affair on New Years Day 2 years ago -- after a week or two of getting past the shock and disappointment -- I found that I really wanted to stay together. Her three month gift to me had a tremendous impact on things -- and she wasn't doing it as an experiment to see if she could change me. She was being a wonderful wife for me because this was going to be her parting gift to her soon-to-be ex-husband. She had no selfish motives for it. Never underestimate the power of this course of action. It is a very, very powerful thing indeed. It tends to make your spouse want to be a better husband/wife. I didn't quite catch the part where your children are in danger, but if they are then it changes things a great deal. But all I was seeing in the Original Post was "almost illegal substances" and "porn" and "alcohol." I wasn't catching the part where he was doing anything overtly illegal. I didn't catch the part where he's beating the children or his wife. I did catch that he had been unfaithful, but a assume that is in the past at this point. If I'm wrong on any of these points then it changes everything.

My wife and I have gone over 10 years without children. This was not our choice. We're both in our 30's. Thanks to the miracle of invitro fertilization, we're expecting our first child currently. There are a few couples in our ward who never had children as well. They are not looked down on or treated as less in any way. The only real problem in our experience is that Latter Day Saints do tend to have a good crop of children and so it's a major conversation point at church. Successful parenting gets a lot of focus in General Conference and in Sunday School -- because you're quite right, families are very important to us. Because we always wanted children but couldn't have them, it was a bit of a struggle for us to hear everyone talk about their kids and parenting experiences. We just sort of tuned out the Sunday School lessons focusing on being better parents at times. At times we listened because we never gave up hope. We both knew that nobody was actually trying to make us feel bad. Having said that, as the Church is composed of flawed human beings with all the weaknesses and imperfections that come with that, I'm not going to promise that nobody will make you feel bad or uncomfortable for not having children. I likewise won't promise that you'll never hear an unkind word from a coworker, manager, etc at work. People are flawed and the do the wrong thing very often. The important point is that they shouldn't. It's none of their business, it's between the two of you and God. But I haven't experienced judgmental attitudes about childlessness anywhere I've lived as a member of the LDS Church: (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Las Vegas, California, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma, Illinois.)

Above all else, WELCOME BACK!! It does sound like you're more or less answering your own question. You're afraid that the people you encounter every day that have strong anti-Mormon opinions are going to more or less bully you into leaving again. While you are still feeling weak and vulnerable, it may not be the time to stand up and paint a target on your chest. That is what it sounds like you're feeling right now. I would focus on building yourself up again. If you have any choice in the matter, don't associate with those people anymore. But if it can't be avoided -- like if they're coworkers or family members -- then the best course is to build up your testimony and defenses. Ultimately, you want to become fearless in standing up and being counted. You may want to put off confrontation to a future point in time, but especially if you've no choice in your association with them, the confrontation will come eventually. What sort of tactics did they use to get you to doubt the reality of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ? Perhaps by having an answer to the things they're likely to try, you can be better prepared in the future.

Depends on how far down the rabbit hole you go actually. There is illicit slave trafficing for prostitution and pornography that is extremely prevailent in East Asia, but it can be found to some degree just about anywhere in the world -- including Western Europe and the United States. That represents a sizable chunk of the porn industry world-wide. Is a girl who is sold and forced into repeated sexual encounters against her will culpable and "reaping the rewards for her actions?" I hardly think so. There are teenage girls that ran away from home, went to Hollywood figuring they'd become a moviestar or model or something glamorous. That is exactly where the porn industry has set up shop and is waiting for them. They end up getting sucked into the industry in order to stay alive with their limited education and job options. Drugs becomes a coping mechanism and then drugs deepens the trap, and pornographers know this, and encourage the drug culture within the industry. As the girls can't afford to maintain their drug addictions working at McDonalds, they stay in the porn industry. With no college education nor support structure to fall back on, their options are extremely limited. In this case the Porn industry has created the perfect trap for the unwary girls who most certainly did not set out with the intent of becoming a porn star. Many if not most such runaways were fleeing domestic sexual abuse to begin with. Often, they told someone about the sexual abuse at home or at church or at school but nobody believed them. They ended up trapped into the very thing they ran away from by a highly opportunistic industry. And the psychological tendency to repeatedly act out what happened in the cycle of childhood sexual abuse makes them the perfect targets, because they're already pre-programed for the porn industry's needs. The Porn industry could care less that these girls (and boys) are re-experiencing their childhood trauma with each and every sexual encounter. Are these girls and boys completely culpable for their choices? It's a lot less clear cut than you're making it sound. The fact that "blood-diamonds" have led to worse things than the porn industry is a weak argument. We don't stop prosecuting rapists just because there are murderers out there. Same response as above. Looking over her OP, sure I'm seeing where she is evoking an emotional response. Seeing as it is her own emotional response of revulsion to the industry, why is that a bad thing? The fact of the matter is that TheActualLiz is telling a firsthand account and her emotional reaction of disgust is part of that story. Unless you're intending to help her put together a better write up that will have a broader more resounding impact, I don't see where you're going with your critique. Most of the facts she relates are things we've heard of as generalizations before. The power of this example is that she's a real person telling a real first-hand insider experience. First-hand true stories are always more powerful and effective. It makes it more real and evokes a better response.

Disagree with this. The one thing that all types of addicts can use to hear is that they're not just hurting themselves. Drug addicts are responsible for massacres and terrorist acts in South and Central America. Most drug addicts as oblivious to the death, pain, suffering and horror that their personal compulsion costs. Would they care if they knew in graphic detail what their personal addiction costs? Most would, but there may be a minority of them that wouldn't care -- they don't care about anything but themselves. Does it cure their addiction? No. But it offers one more reason to break their addiction, and that is a very valuable thing indeed! The one thing that addicts of all types like to tell themselves is that "this isn't hurting anyone else but me." As somebody who has struggled with pornographic addiction, TheActualLiz's firsthand experience is invaluable to me. It tells me that if I relapse, I'm supporting horrible things. It means that I have a lot of people to apologize other than just my wife and family if I fall back into the addiction. Thinking of having to face each of porn industry's tortured souls and tell them I'm sorry for making their suffering possible -- well, that's actually pretty terrifying. Is this experience a sure-fire cure? No. Does it help? Absolutely it does!! I would venture to say that the vast majority of addicts to porn and those addicted to other things are still good and decent people by nature. So what if you can't help 100%? Helping if a fraction of addicts is a very good thing!!

I first encountered anti-Mormon propaganda at a very young age. I think I was 5 or 6 years old. A neighborhood friend's parents went to a church that went heavy on anti-Mormon garbage and so I heard the most bizarre things at such a young age. I dismissed out of hand the following, "Joseph Smith put some magic pebbles in his hat and used them to look for treasure. He found the treasure while plowing a field when his plow ran into a stone box ..." I knew it didn't happen like that. It was many years later when I came to realize that there were tiny threads of truth in this entirely false statement. Yes Joseph Smith was given a seer stone and yes he did at times keep it in his hat. There is a statement made well after the fact that the golden plates were found in a farmers field. Clearly, the person producing the story knew the real details that they were distorting, but went overboard sensationalizing it. I was unwilling to believe the accusation, "Joseph Smith had many wives." I didn't know any better at the time of course. It isn't something that they ever mention in Sunday School. Ultimately, I would say that I've found it best to take it as it comes. I don't actively seek out anti-Mormon material, but I deal with it when I encounter it. Mostly, that's because I've long since heard it all and got my mind sorted on all the stupid accusations. What you learn is simple: The answer generally lies with knowing the whole story. If you take any scripture used against us and carefully read it for yourself with and understanding of it's context, you always find that the accuser is misunderstanding the passage. A more complete and unbiased telling of a historical event will almost always turn the accusation on its head. Anti-Mormons will continue to produce new material by twisting details wherever they can. The pattern for unraveling them as they come is very easy and always the same: Go do some research and find out the true story behind the lie.

It's an interesting event where everything that could go wrong apparently did go wrong. It is essential to consider one important factor when considering the Mountain Meadows Massacre: There was a very large US Federal Army marching towards Salt Lake City. As far as anyone knew, they would do what every other army did before them: Drive the Saints from their lands. Raping, pillaging, murdering. You know, the same things the Saints experienced in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. Those memories were still very fresh. Nauvoo was still only a decade earlier. And here was an even bigger army come to do it all over again! The effective hysterical state many saints were in should be born in mind when considering this tragedy. Of course it absolutely should not vindicate those that murdered those poor people. Food for thought.

It's a good enough question, and insofar as I'm aware, we don't have a thorough answer. What we do know is that by being begotten of God the Father, a less advanced being (Mormon vocabulary term = intelligences) is advanced to it's lesser existence to a higher one. How does this work exactly? I have no idea. But the fundamental core essence of every human being to ever live has no beginning and no end. In order to remain in harmony with the Bible, it would only have to be demonstrated that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are an infinite and eternal Godhead. The infinite part is easy enough -- though the Biblical phrasing doesn't say infinite. The Bible actually doesn't use the word "infinite" to describe God, but it can be implied readily enough from the text. It is unique to Latter Day Saint modern revelation that we find the exact phrasing of this in scripture. Example: Doctrine and Covenants 20:28 "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end." All three are infinite beings. I think that point is fairly obvious and clear. All three have always existed and are eternal beings. Is it essential for us to establish that they have always been as they are right now? Perhaps, and the biggest difficulty is explaining the answer in such a way as can be comprehended. When we begin to consider beings who exist outside of the bounds of linear time, the rules change greatly. What the Father is, he always has been, because it is that now. What the Son is, he always has been because he is that now. What the Holy Ghost is he always has been because he is that now. As we understand it, the Father progressed to become infinite, eternal and existing outside the bounds of time as we understand it. Ascension to becoming what Our Heavenly Father now involves arriving at a level of existence for which linear time and the notions of the finiteness of oneself cease to exist. He became eternal, a change that runs infinitely in both directions in linear time. We cannot hope to begin to really comprehend it unless and until we become it. The all-important matter at the core of things comes down to this: What is humankind? Are humans merely the most favored pets of the Creator, or are we His children? Are we made "in His image and after His likeness" or aren't we? The scriptures describe God as our Father. They teach us to call him Father when we pray to him. Why? Is it a lie or merely a white lie in a metaphor to help us feel closer than we truly are to God? Are we commanded to complete an impossible task when we are commanded to be like Christ like the Father? The reward for the righteous in heaven constantly invokes crowns, thrones, powers, etc. Both Trinitarian and Latter Day Saint will readily agree that the righteous are destined to become something indescribably glorious and great. For the Latter Day Saint, the highest goal is quite simple: To grow up to be just like our Father in Heaven. The Trinitarian envisions an end state of becoming "godly" (odd choice of wording, but that is how they refer to it) and ascending above all the angels in power and authority -- but because they must ultimately concede that because God and man are different species (for lack of a better word), then whatever we become after receiving of the heavenly reward of eternal life, we are ultimately nothing like God. Everything hinges upon whether we are literally children of God and made in His image or not. If we are, then the Triune God, while landing very close to the mark, cannot be an accurate description of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. If we are His children literally, then it's simple enough to conclude that Father once was as we are now, and what God is now, we may one day become. We are merely little children in the eternal scheme of things, and we've got a long ways to go to grow up to be like Our Father. In the end, it is no offense to a parent to see his children grow up to be adults -- and thereby becoming their parent's equals in standing. It seems to me that the Trinitarian view of the relationship of God and man is much like the relationship I have with my two dogs. My wife and I love them. They're spoiled and they get to sleep in the same bed as we do. We love them very much and we'll be heartbroken when they eventually grow old and die. In a way, we think of them as our children. But at the end of the day, they're dogs and we're humans, and they are simply not truly our children. My wife is expecting our first child currently. (By the way, IT'S A BOY!!) That baby truly will be my son in every sense of the word. I will never love my dogs as much as I love my son. My dogs and I will never connect nor understand one another because ultimately we're just two different animals. Yet my son and I can connect more deeply and completely than I ever could with my dogs. The Trinitarian viewpoint has me casting aside the notion that I'm really God's son, and tells me to accept that I'm merely a very much loved pet of the master (like our dogs). Envisioning a downgrade of my relationship with Heavenly Father in this fashion is very difficult, as you might imagine.

It's a fine line we walk. Apologetics is just a fancy word for people who defend their own theological point of view. If you're accused of a broad diversity of malevolent practices and behaviors falsely and you never say anything in your own defense, people tend to assume you're guilty. If people twist and turn your actual believes to make them sound evil or nonsensical or self-contradictory, then there are going to be times and places where somebody will need to set the record straight.One very notable LDS apologetic also happens to be my favorite apostle: Elder Jeffrey R Holland. More than one of his best discourses ever are filled with reaction to some of the most persistent lies being circulated by the anti-Mormon press. Indeed, the role of apologetic includes all of the general authorities of the Church. The key of the matter is knowing when you are wasting your time and when you are not.

According to Soninme's profile, she's a he. Otherwise, good points and thank you for making them.

If you read the introduction to this book, McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" and a great many other books, you will find a disclaimer in there. Copied verbatim from our own copy of volume 1 of "The Mortal Messiah": "This work is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book Company." That is not to say that McConkie wasn't a prophet and apostle, but that this work was presented as a collection of his own scholarly commentary. Most of the opinions therein are probably going to be a true reflection of LDS belief, however it is not official. Because it is unofficial, it allows McConkie to venture into theological theory and explore beyond the limits of official LDS doctrine. Not a bad thing, but in more than one case, theory-crafting on LDS theology has produced incorrect or unproven conclusions. Actually, a couple very notable cases were opinions and theories of Bruce R McConkie. If you can find a book that has "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" stamped on the cover or binding, that's probably an official text.

Ex nihilo creation is one of those doctrines that I've often puzzled at. I'm not sure where the idea came from, but it's one of the two pieces of the Council of Nicaea that nearly all Christianity accepts without question, and defends vigorously. The Hebrew word doesn't indicate making something from nothing, but making one thing from another thing. "Organize" is another way the word could be translated. This is the sense that the word "create" functions in every other instance in the English language and in any language. Making something out of nothing is a definition for the word "create" that is applicable only to this theory about how the Judeo-Christian God creates things.It becomes an interesting point when it comes to comparative religion though. Many who accept this doctrine feel that we diminish Gods' power and make Him less by saying that he didn't pop the Universe and the Earth out of oblivion and into existence. While I can understand where they're coming from, it's just common sense to use already existing materials when they happen to already be there. Also, it not necessarily a true statement that to build from something is easier than building from nothing. Take building a house for example. It takes a lot of work, time, effort and patience to fully restore a run down 120 year old Victorian mansion to pristine condition. It would be far easier and cheaper to build a brand new house of the same size, and making it a rough copy of the original. Making order out of chaos is often more work and effort just making order out of nothing. And ultimately it does not demean God in anyway to say that one non-Biblical theory of how God creates is inaccurate. God never said he created the universe like that, so if we say that he has revealed to modern prophets that he created in a different way, then I don't see that problem there. It's not uncommon for rumors and gossip to fabricate that a person did or said something that they didn't. From our point of view this would be no different.

First and most important: In LDS theology, there was never a time that God did not exist. There was also never a time that the most basic and fundamental essence of each of us did not exist. This essence or "intelligence" as some LDS apostles and prophets have described -- it always was around. It always did exist. The progression from intelligence to spirit is something that we don't understand completely -- but we do know this much: It was similar to birth in the same sense that birth on the earth functions. Both Father and a Mother together accomplished this. An already existent being is added upon and becomes something more than what it was previously. From intelligence to spirit. From spirit to birth on this earth, becoming body and spirit together. The notion that any of us began to exist at any point is not in line with LDS teachings, so when you say that Christ was "created" in the sense that you intend, it isn't an accurate statement. And thank you Maureen for also explaining it. Why do we say that Christ is the creator of all things from the beginning. Because that is what the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants teach: Helaman 14:12 "12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name." Mosiah 3:8 " 8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary." Jesus the Christ: Our Master and More (Elder Russell M Nelson) Under the direction of the Father, Jesus bore the responsibility of Creator. His title was “the Word,” (see John 1:1; JST, John 1:16). In the Greek language of the New Testament, Word was Logos, or “expression.” It was another name for the Master. That terminology may seem strange, but it is appropriate. We use words to convey our expression to others. So Jesus was the Word, or expression, of His Father to the world. The Gospel of John proclaims that Christ is the Creator of all things: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3; see also D&C 93:21). In modern revelation, Jesus’ responsibility as Creator of many worlds is affirmed: “Therefore, in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation— “The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men. “The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him” Doctrine and Covenants 93:11-26 11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us. 12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; 13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; 14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. 15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. 16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; 17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him. 18 And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John. 19 I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. 20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace. 21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn; 22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn. 23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth; 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; 25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. 26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth; --------------------------------------------------- So to say that Christ was not the Creator of all things from the beginning would pretty directly contradict both ancient scripture and modern day revelation on the matter. What we do see is that he "was in the beginning with the Father" and that he is "the Firstborn." In this reality and universe, everything was created by Christ from that moment on. For that to be possible, he would have needed to be infinite from the very beginning of the universe. If it were not so, how could he direct the events of all creation? The Son acts under the direction of the Father in the creation of all things. He didn't create himself because he was never created. Begotten, yes. Created, no. Are the notions of "ex nihilo creation" leading you to confusion here? You have to set your notions of creation from nothing aside if you want to understand LDS teachings. The ideas that "God spoke and the universe materialized out of nothing" or "God spoke and the world appeared out of nothing." are not only completely baffling to most any Latter Day Saint, but it's not found anywhere in the Bible. If you already believed in creation out of nothing, then of course you see it there. But if you had no notion of creation out of nothing, there is no passage that would lead you to conclude beyond all doubt that this was how "creation" occurred and indeed the intended meaning of the word "create." As far as Heavenly Mother is concerned, if and when she is mentioned, it is brief and at no time in official LDS material do we find anything taught about her nor revealed concerning her. Some scholars will speculate and guess at more than this, but that is all they can do. We don't have anymore information on the matter than to say that she exists and that she is Mother to our spirits. It's not for us to question why we do not know more, we just trust that God has his reasons and obviously we don't need to know right now.

The website that was specifically set up for giving introduction to our faith is: Mormon.org

I think the word that has me puzzled is "premortality". I'm not sure what you mean by it. My understanding of your explanation derails when I run into that word, so please explain what you mean.I'm not talking about anything premortal. The focus of my thoughts here is 100% on the mortal lives of Father and Son. And it bears mentioning that there is no scripture in our canon that is more explicit on the matter than this one. Yes Joseph Smith taught, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." He taught that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. But nothing in our standard works seems to better describe and demonstrate what sort of mortal life God the Father had than this one. John 5 is the most explicit by far. Some have criticized Latter Day Saints for demeaning the Father by saying he was once mortal, and by implication, the Father was once a sinful mortal man. But would they find the notion quite so demeaning if they understood that The Father's mortal life and mission was exactly the same sort as that of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Not on this world and likely not in this universe, but the same mortal mission. If we say that such a mortal mission demeans the Father, then we would be dishonoring the Son's own earthly mission. You seem to be heading in the direction and you're making some good counterpoints here, but I think I'll need better clarification on some of it. "You've mentioned that the Son lays down his life. Has the Father ever stopped a person's life?" Wouldn't the correct parallel for the Son laying down His life be that the Father at some point in time having laid down his life as well? I don't quite follow, "Lay down my life = Stop somebody else's life." Or am I misreading? "that prior to Jesus' resurrection, raising the dead was only a temporal, not an eternal life." According to the Bible, we certainly know this to be true as far as this earth is concerned. "You have Life in Yourself. Command your body to rise, the same as you did to Lazarus, and this time animate it with Your everlasting wellspring of Life!" Okay but I don't see where that precludes the Father from having done the same thing at some point. The only difficulty is sorting out where and how. We know it didn't happen on this earth because if it had then Christ's resurrection would have served no purpose. Now in Hebrews 11:3 we find mention of "worlds" in the plural. So one good logical conclusion, going just from the Bible alone, is that God the Father did the same works as Christ, but on some other world. I've never liked sidestepping any passage of scripture. There's a stubborn streak in me that says that the proper understanding is in that very passage, I just need to dig it out. Diverging to another passage that says "Jesus didn't raise himself, the Father did it" opens to door to the merry chaos of a good ol' Bible-bash session -- since a significant number of passages elsewhere say that Christ rose himself up from the dead. But it's a clever play.

No it does not mean that the Father never made contact with humankind. It means that his Son Jehovah was and the principal messenger, and that most cases of God physically appearingin the Old Testament is an appearance of Jehovah, aka Jesus Christ. Where did you get all of that? I'm not aware of any Latter Day Saint material that says anything like that. I'll be happy to offer an answer to your question, but first I'd like for you to cite official LDS sources stating that we believe that: 1.) Any of mankind were created from nothing and at some point did not exist. 2.) Jesus was created from nothing and at some point did not exist. 3.) Jesus Christ is not the creator of all things. 4.) That the Godhead is not infinite and eternal. 5.) Heavenly Mother officially taught and discussed. The revelations from God are silent and do not mention her. So even if we can logically conclude that she must exist, since God has remained silence on the matter then it's not our place to bandy about our logical conclusions. He does not speak of her for His own wise reasons, and we follow His example. Soninme, I want to be completely honest with you on something. Something that has bothered me since you came to this forum: When you take our teachings and twist them around with obvious contempt for them (like you seem to be doing here), it doesn't help to maintain a civil discussion. It provokes retaliation, annimosity and misunderstanding. If I were to refer to the Trinity as "the great three legged cosmic spider-thing" (it's something I heard some Atheist say at some point) then I would be showing blatant disrespect for beliefs you hold dear. Can I humbly request that we all show more respect for each other's beliefs? Jumping to unfounded conclusions and saying "Mormons" believe X, Y and Z when we actually don't is not very polite. Accusing us of believing things we don't believe at all is rude. Telling us what we believe is extremely presumptuous. Wording things to make them sound stupid, childish or nonsensical is the province of the tabloids. It has no place in civilized discussion. You don't have to agree with me to show respect for my beliefs. If you don't understand how we can logically get from A to B, all you have to do is ask. If I don't understand something about your beliefs, I will ask. Can't say I'm familiar with it off-hand. I never said anything about the "premortal life of the Father." What I'm saying is that John 5 seems to indicate that God the Father at some point had a mortal life, by simple logical deduction, based upon what Christ said.If I'm understanding the Trinity correctly, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate people. What I don't see Christ saying anything about "The Father and I are the same being." in John chapter 5. The closest thing to that is what the Pharisees and Scribes said, but Christ didn't say that at all. What I am seeing is this: Christ says that he sees what the Father does and then does the same thing. Christ says that he will never do anything unless he sees the Father do it first. If the person of God the Father did not do all the same works as the Son, then why does Jesus say that he is following in the footsteps of His Father and seeing his Father do the same works? That is how the passage is worded. Christ establishes His authority to do the things He does because all of them are things that He saw His Father do before Him. So for the Scribes and Pharasees to call Jesus a sinner would be to accuse God the Father of the same thing. Calling God the Father sinful and evil was a line they wouldn't dream of crossing. Surely there is a clearer explanation accounting for the actual wording of this passage from the Trinitarian perspective? You may not know it off the top of your heads of course, but surely somebody somewhere has made logical sense of this passage while still maintaining that the Father has no physical body and has never lived a mortal life. I'm just very curious to know what that explanation looks like. As I said earlier, I was a little hesitant to bring it up to begin with, but curiosity got the better of me.

In this matter and pretty much every other matter, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints takes what God has revealed and stands by it. Does it cross the line into polytheism? I can definitely see where somebody from the outside looking in would say that it does. But the distinguishing characteristic of every other polytheistic religion in the history of the world has been that the gods of that pantheon have their own agendas and motives. The times when those agendas come into conflict is the stuff that Greek, Viking, Caananite, and Egyptian myth is made of. The gods quarrell, wage war on each other, plot against each other, etc. So if we are to be labeled polytheists (which I'm not willing to entirely concede), one must acknowledge that it's a very different take on polytheism. I'm warming up to accepting the label of henotheism -- but henotheism is still considered a flavor of monotheism by definition. I'm of the opinion that it makes no difference how the world categorizes us, so long as what we believe in is God-revealed truth, but I also know that misleading labels lead to bad rumors and general confusion.There are many times when I feel like people are setting us up for the next propagandist smear campaign. The world's perception of "Mormons" is a very strange thing indeed. Case in point, the world should have woken up to the fact that we do not practice polygamy anymore a VERY LONG TIME AGO. But it seems that most religious educators either don't know the facts (how on earth could they not know???) or intentionally ignore the present facts and just let the false rumors rule the day. Most will even encourage those rumors. The world knows very well that slavery is no longer legal in the USA anymore. The world knows that Catholic Inquisitions are not actively seeking out heretics and heathen, torturing them and burning them at the stake anymore. But something the Latter Day Saint religion has not practiced for 130 years somehow sticks to us and never goes away. News reports on a tiny handful of groups of long since excommunicated former LDS no bigger that 10,000 strong are used to falsely paint the entire religion of 14 million that cast them out. The best known fact about "Mormonism" is completely false, purporting that members are practicing something that they don't practice and if they did practice it, they would be excommunicated. I doubt the religious world at large is very sincere about wanting to know the truth about "Mormonism" nor are they interested in really understanding what we believe/practice. Sensationalism is so much more interesting. No doubt many would say that it's all the better because it serves to scare people away from the "Mormons." "Polytheism" sounds to me like something that can and will be treated in much the same way. I think that's the biggest reason most Latter Day Saints feel apprehensive about being labeled "polytheists." Sounds like another chance for traditional Christendom to sow more misunderstanding and mischaracterization. We've learned from experience that so-called "Christians" will never let it go once they make any heretical sounding accusation stick to us. Sorry for going on about that, but I hope it illustrates one important reason we might balk at being labeled "polytheists." Back on topic -- We do agree that the three are co-equal. All are Omnipotent and Omniscient and you don't get more powerful nor knowledgable than infinite. God the Father takes the lead and directs the other two because that is his role in things. Christ repeatedly states this throughout the New Testament record. The Father commands and the Son complies. Such was the tale of the entire life of Jesus of Nazareth. If you would catagorize the life of Christ as subordinationism, then I suppose you could say we believe in subordinationism. But the passage does not say "approve" nor does it seem to be discussing the Father approving of anything. It seems pretty clearly stated that the Father did a number of things. Then he shows the Son everything He the Father did. Christ says he does nothing but what He sees His Father do. How can Christ claim that he does nothing except what he sees his Father do, if His Father did not also live a mortal life, suffer and die for the sins of countless others, and then rise up from the dead -- thereby breaking the bands of death for countless others? If only Jesus Christ did those things and God the Father never did anything like them, then this passage doesn't seem to make any sense.Whether I read it in the King James or in the New International Version, I'm getting the same thing out if that passage: John 5: 19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. If the Son can only do what he sees the Father do, then at some point the Father must have done everything that Jesus Christ did. What else can this passage mean?

I couldn't think of the right section to post in so I just threw out the all-purpose forum board. LOL.