bytebear

Is that the one that some speculate was actually written by Bill Ayers? Oh, and I remember Carter. Trickle Down Economics all the way baby!

I remember first hearing this idea on my mission, and it kinda blew my mind. I had no idea other Christians thought angels, and devils were of a different species than man. And, no offense to Maureen, but the more it was explained to me, the more I thought this was doctrine defined by Dante and not by God.

Ok, sometimes I am just dense. You rpoint makes much more sense after a second reading, and after a bowl of cheerios.

Growing up LDS in Utah is a unique experience. I recently went back to my neighborhood after living away for over 20 years. I could still tell you the names of every family in the area, with two exceptions. I didn't know who lived outside the ward boundaries, and I didn't know who lived in the house where someone wasn't LDS. It's funny how those ward boundaries really do define an LDS community. I knew exactly where the lines were drawn, and everyone outside the parameter was a stranger, literally from one house to the next. Wards really are social bubbles that happen to fit the parameters of a neighborhood. Wards are very socially active, not just in church, but outside it as well, with bbqs and dances, and kids parties. I think every birthday I had up to age 13 had every similarly aged child from church invited, whether they were my friends or not. That was just what you did. And I totally think it's cultural. I was friends with non-Mormon kids my own age, and was never told not to. But, especially later, my friends came from school and not church. One oy my best friends in High School was Lutheran, and he sometimes got ganged up by the rest of us Mormons in a theological discussion, but for the most part we just hung out and did kid things. I also remember a single mom who wasn't LDS but her son who was around our age was encouraged to do the social and scout things offered by the church. She was good because she always made sure to let him know that his beliefs were different, and the leadership of the church made sure that he wasn't preached to. It worked out well because there was a good understanding and respect there. You don't need the Bible to learn how to tie square knots. Now I live in Southern California, where LDS are still prominent, but not dominant, and your ward is still a big definition of who you socialize with. But my immediate neighbors are not Mormons, so I have to work a lot harder to get to know them, because we don't have Sunday service and frequent social activities that force us to interact. I know a few of my neighbors and we wave and say hi, but not nearly as many people I know from my ward and not nearly as closely. It's hard for a non-LDS to break those barriers. But I think it can be done. Since your husband is a pastor, how about coordinating some interfaith social events with the Bishop. I think it depends on how friendly (or guarded) the bishops is, and since bishops are only in office for a few years, things may change if the ward leadership changes, but I think it would be a nice gesture. It's really about creating opportunities for social interaction that don't exist between Mormons and non, but do exist between Ward members, who by happenstance are also all neighbors.

I think God is absolutely capable of forgiving anyone, including Satan. However, there are some beings who are incapable (or rather unwillingness) of repenting. It's not God blocking the path, it's Satan.

Well, comparing it to the original church, how uniformed were their beliefs in 150 AD?

The church is still young. It hasn't had thousands of years to weed out the heresy. Come to think of it, if this were the original church, it would be 250 more years before we even had the various creeds written.

YouTube - Coming Out Mormon: VC2

I think that's accurate. I think we agree on the nature of God, but we define the terms based on different criteria.

Because we emphasize free agency, and studying and finding our own answers.

Uh... no. Some members may take that position, but others do not.

There are a few times where the OT uses the tern YHW/EL which is translated as Lord God, which usually refers to the Father, but most of the time it's just Lord (Jesus Christ). But, also remember that Jesus is sometimes called the Father, in that he is the father of our salvation, and the father of our faith, so it can be confusing.

The problem with defining "Kolob" is that it could be interpreted metaphorical and symbolically. Calling it a star or planet is too strict a definition, in my opinion. If you want to see all scripture that uses the term, click here. Your interpretation is as good as any. Word Search: kolob

I agree that it's not that simplistic. In fact, nothing is so simple that we should just take it for granted. We must study it out in our mind, and ask God if it is right, and receive a witness from the Holy Ghost. But, we cannot simply take every word of Joseph Smith and assume that the entirety of the church believes it. It is up to us as individuals to find our own truth. But it is easy to know canon from non-canon. One is in the Scriptures, and the other is not. All of the quotes I have seen explaining LDS doctrine are from non-canonized sources, and therefore have no binding authority. But, I think it is fair to say if Smith says, "I, the Lord" or "Thus sayeth the Lord" it can be assumed that God is speaking.

How about firing up the ward to do missionary work too. Talk about what missionary work means to you, and how it has benefitted the church. Maybe give some examples of great missionaries. And maybe challenge the ward to help the local missionaries, as they work in your home ward area.

Now, I have to disagree with that. When you say God, who do you mean? Do you mean one being, or do you mean the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? I think you mean the Father only, but scripture is clear that the Godhead is/are God. I extend God to include all exalted beings, and as such, there is one God which encompasses infinite beings, of which we know of three.

We can become one with God, and as such become God. But there is only one God. Read the following verses from the Bible, and tell me how you iinterpret them: Acts 17: 29 we are the offspring of God. Rom. 8: 17 heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. 2 Cor. 3: 18 changed into the same image from glory to glory. Gal. 4: 7 if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Eph. 4: 13 Till we all come . . . unto a perfect man. Heb. 12: 9 be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live. 1 Jn. 3: 2 when he shall appear, we shall be like him. Rev. 3: 21 him that overcometh will . . . sit with me in my throne.

Wonderful concept, but not canon.

I think that is true, but I also think that the gospel of Jesus Christ is love, and it is reflected in the church. We do have to deal with gay members within the church, and we need to do it with love. We cannot bestow all the blessings of the gospel to people who choose not to enter into the (heterosexual) covenant of marriage. The concept of family and sealings are simply incompatible with the eternal definition of parentage. But that does not mean we cannot give as many blessings that the gospel can provide.

I randomly picked something from the D&C. I just clicked on section 25 1 Hearken unto the voice of the Lord your God, while I speak unto you, Emma Smith, my daughter; for verily I say unto you, all those who receive my gospel are sons and daughters in my kingdom. Do you see how this verse is written in the voice of God. not the opinion of Joseph Smith. Just go to Doctrine and Covenants and browse a bit, and you will find many examples of this style.

No. You obviously have not read many of Joseph Smith's revelations. There is a distinctive style to a prophecy which is missing from mere sermons.

Yes. When we are resurrected, we are resurrected in glory, but that glory is dependent on not just on our righteousness, but on our trials and how we overcome them. There is a scripture that says "where much is given, much is required" and as such, those born with same sex attraction are given a larger burden, but will receive greater reward for overcoming that challenge. Again, it goes to society, and whether you are willing to live within the standards of that society. God has laws which must be obeyed to live within a society of heaven, and we choose whether we will live to those standards or not. But, being gay in and of itself does not limit our potential for heavenly reward.

Do you understand the LDS view of heaven? As I understand it, the church used to tell gay members to "find the right woman" but now, they do not recommend a gay member try to "become straight."

No, it doesn't work that way, because we cannot always know when a leader is speaking with the "voice of God" or with his own opinion or speculation. When Joseph Smith gave the King Follett sermon, he did not end it with "Thus Sayeth the Lord". In fact, the speech was distinctly not prophetic in tone or language. When you read the D&C and compare it to that sermon, the styles are vastly different.

No, you said you cannot have gay emotions. I said you cannot act on them. There is a difference. My point is, we live in a world of societies. Each society decides the rules of behavior. The church teaches free agency, so you can choose whether you want to conform to societal norms or not. Fortunately, in the United States, we have freedom to create or switch to other societal subcultures. But, we still have no right to force a society to change their standards. And you cannot expect to enter a society, act against their established rules, and expect no ramifications.