Maxel

Let me see if I can share my insights here without crossing the line... God the Father is the creator of our spiritual bodies, just as our earthly parents are the creators of our (current) mortal bodies. Spirit and matter are intended to be eternally joined as one, but intelligences do not begin that way- they begin as beings of pure spirit. In order to attain a body, a mortal existence is required. In said mortal existence, the trials of physical sensations and temptations will inevitably lead to sin (if said mortal existence is to reach the desired goal of giving God's children the necessary test to see if they will be faithful to Him) and an eternal excision from God's presence. The only way to bridge that gap of a broken law is through a Mediator who has never fallen to sin- that is Christ. Though we die because of our sin we are literally born again, spiritually, through the grace of Christ. Because He has given us a second lease on eternal life, he is in that sense our 'Father'. However, he is not the literal creator of our spirits, thus he is an 'adoptive' Father. We are born again in Christ, and having overseen and made our second birth possible, He is our adpotive father.

I didn't vote- I didn't see an 'Other' option, nor the option I think most accurately reflects the truth. In my opinion, Satan could not have implemented his plan, even if the Father were to have given the go-ahead. Agency is an inalienable attribute of human nature, as core as the existence of intelligence. Just as the existence of matter requires said matter to react to extrinsic forces, the existence of intelligence requires said intelligence to react to intrinsic forces- that is, the existence of intelligence requires said intelligence to react, in a manner, to ideas and spiritual promptings. How that intelligence reacts is dictated by agency. As far as Satan is concerned, it is my opinion Satan either A.) did not understand this and merely thought his plan could work, or B.) knew this and knew his plan could not work, yet continued to seek power for himself. Either way, it could not have worked. Just as God does not- cannot- force us to make one decision or another, another being has no power to take away our agency. I am reminded of the inhabitents of Ammonihah, who pretended to abide by the letter of the law, yet sought to overthrow the law of the land (Alma 8:10-13, 17). I think, in the same way, Satan pretended his plan followed the letter of the Father's laws, yet Satan secretly plotted to foil the return of all the Father's spirit children to the Father. Satan, for all his cunning wickedness, was (and is) the ultimate fool, for he thought he could hide his plans from the Father of righteousness.

Thought I'd return to this thread, as I got to witness a blessing for an animal in action last night. My sister's pet turtle, which she's had for 8 years, has been very sick the past couple of days. Long story short, it was malnourished due to a lack of food before it went into hibernation for the winter. It wouldn't awaken fully to eat, nor would it submit to force-feeding. My sister asked her home teachers to come over and bless it. They did, and I was present. It was a humorous situation, as this was the first blessing one home teacher had ever given- and it was to a turtle. The other home teacher had given blessings before, but never to a turtle. What I witnessed and felt last night was a testament to me that blessings for animals work and seem to be sanctioned, in part, by God. The reason I say those two things is this: now, my sister's turtle is eating again and no longer exhibiting unusual behavior. Second, my sister was extremely upset about the situation; she loves that turtle- it's been with her for a long time and has been a constant in her life. The healing of its ailment, through the power of the Priesthood, brought comfort to her heart and peace to her soul. I cannot honestly see how such an act could be forbidden by God, especially with my other view that all animals are in possession of souls and that one great mandate given by God to Adam and Eve was to 'subdue the earth'. I cannot see how Adam and Eve would be tasked to do so unless the very subjection of the Earth to righteous human power- that is, righteous priesthood power- followed in part the order whereby humans are commanded to subject their own souls to Christ's righteous influence. Such an order includes the blessing of the sick and the afflicted, where enough faith is present for healing to take place. Whether the faith tested is that of the human asking for the blessing or in the animal being blessed, faith is still present and is, in my opinion, honored by God.

I understand there's more to the situation than can be solved by the quotation of one scripture, but the woman taken in adultery in John 8 seems to relate to this situation. There's much more to the situation than is stated, and I am referencing the infamous pericope adulterae, but I can't help but feel it is very relevant to this situation. I agree with other LDS posters that the woman should have a chance to remarry after a sufficient repentance process- but that repentance process will be difficult, if undertaken at all.

You're very well spoken for a 13-year old! I wish I had been that articulate and driven... Welcome!

D&C 19 states: The short version is, we are commanded to repent to avoid everlasting punishment and damnation of a degree so severe it caused God Himself to "tremble because of pain... and shrink".In other words we are saved, through the grace of Christ, from eternal damnation and torment of an unimaginable degree. This is the most plain explanation of the doctrine, and the first understanding required before moving onto greater doctrine- such as the differing kingdoms of of glory in heaven. That is, it is the most honest answer to give a curious investigator.

First- start citing which verses you're quoting multiple version of. Your regular tactic of not citing any sources is highly irritable, although here it's easy enough to tell which scripture you're referencing, as it was mentioned in your quoted post. Second, the prophets are only earthly stewards over Christ's church until He comes again. In reality, Christ is still the head of the Church through revelation- just as He has always been, since the beginning of the world.

That's actually what I'm thinking about, the verse that says the earth will be seat of the Celestial Kingdom. I can't go much further without divulging beliefs of such heterodoxy that I do not share them openly. I hadn't thought of your examples of a righteous being 'turning off' their glory. It makes sense, though, if the Glory of God is intelligence, or other words 'light and truth' (D&C 93:36), then one with greater intelligence could choose to exude less than their full capacity (if that makes sense). Kind of like an Yale-graduate genius could mingle incognito with a group of high school freshman without showing his full range of knowledge and potential.Anyway... Hope that helps your question about parent/child sealing, Shauncoles! lol... sorry for the tangent.

I thought it was about bachelor pads... Like the one I live in and am desperately trying to escape.

Growing up, I was taught- and I've learned nothing in the way of doctrine that disavows this belief- that members of the higher kingdoms could visit members of the lower kingdoms at will, but not vice versa. Since then, I've actually come to agree with Just_A_Guy in the belief that the different Kingdoms of Glory are different state of beings. However, I also believe the different kingdoms are, in a degree, physically separate from each other- thus, those inheriting Celestial glory dwell in the physical and spiritual vicinity of the Father. As for the reason we seal parents to children- I think it's as much physical as symbolic. I believe baptism brings a physical change over our spiritual bodies, and so do other physical ordinances. The sealing ordinance is unique in that it ties two spiritual bodies together in a way, so that they can dwell with each other in the next life. I have no idea how it would work, but... that's my take on the issue.

You still need to cite your source... let me cite where I found it (might be another website, but it's still the same thing). The Triple Cure: Jesus Christ - Our Prophet, Priest and King So what do you do when someone on the other side of the disagreement does the exact same thing and has the exact same resources at his/her disposal?

Thank you. I did not know the exact method of how some churches are replacing hymns with CCM's. Your explanation of hymns and choruses also helps me understand the situation better. Personally, I still stand by the idea that music in any worship service should ideally follow the 'traditional' style of hymns- not because such a style is traditional, but because it is proved effective as a means of evoking the spirit of God in listeners. Also, when I say 'traditional' I mean a style of music that is reflective, quiet, reverent, and passionate. Good point. I guess my own ideas about 'what makes a good worship song' might exclude some older hymns that I am not aware of. In this matter, age does not generate sanctified holiness- the style of music does. CCM's patterned after contemporary musical styles will, by definition, contain musical characteristics of the style they are fashioned after. The very nature of much of popular music excludes it as ideal worship music, either by its tempo, lyrics, tessitura, presentational style, etc. Popular music is made to entertain; ideal worship music (which the prototypical hymn is) is made to calm and cause the listener/singer to reflect on God's nature and mercies. There is a pithy difference that cannot be overlooked or excused based on lyrics. That's the heart of what I'm trying to say. Thank you for pointing that out, PC.

Interalia- Congratulations!! It seems you've hit yet another breakthrough by following the path of righteousness. Do you mind if I ask- is your wife a member? I agree with the above stated that 'social norms' are overrated. I would encourage you to try to find any Gospel reasons that might exist for social norms, and then see how to reapply those Gospel themes to your personal situation. You are who you are for a reason- you are male for a reason, and you feel the way you do for a reason. Both are sacred parts of your eternal nature, and the same goes for your wife. If, in your marriage, you are truly best suited to stay at home and your wife is truly best suited to work, then you will find more happiness than prayerfully following that path. While you will have difficulty in taking the road less traveled by, you will find happiness beyond your greatest hopes. Good luck!!!!!

He's being inflammatory... Someone please close this thread. loveofthelord94, come back with a real screen name and be honest if you want to discuss. Personally, I'm inclined to believe all of your views are incorrect if you have to lie about who you are. Deceit breeds deceit.

The pithy question is: was David in the House of the Lord worshiping Him while dancing jovially? I agree with the advice given in Psalm 98. However, I see nowhere it advising us to do so inside our meetinghouses during our time to gather together to reflect on the mercies and nature of God. I see nowhere it telling us to dance and shout inside the temple of God. EXACTLY- they serve different purposes. One should not attempt to replace the traditional role of hymns in church meetings- which I understand as the correct use of music in worship meetings- with the use of modern CCM's, which, as you said, serve a different purpose. One's parents would not like a surprise birthday party thrown in the middle of an important business meeting, or at a serious occasion. At the least, they would prefer a surprise party thrown at another time in another place, as the nature of the party detracts from the current proceedings. (Ecclesiastes 3:1)I should note that all my comments here have been in defense of my own usage of the term 'irreverent' when applied to CCM's- which have always been applied in correlation to the issue of replacing hymns with CCM's.

I should first state- again- that I see little 'wrong' with most CCM- as others have said, and I echo, it's another viable form of entertainment. I admit it is not my preferred cup of tea. However, I do not condemn the whole gambit of what can be called 'CCM' except in two cases: I condemn only certain types (which I have called 'hypocrisy incarnate'), and I condemn the practice of replacing hymns with CCM. Of course, take my condemnations with a grain of salt- I am a man of no authoritative import. I admit I brought up the act of replacing hymns with CCM's. However, I mention it because I see it as an extremely important and vital issue regarding this topic. I stated, many times, that as regular music CCM is fine (in most cases). It is important because most CCM I've heard simply does not invite the actual Spirit of God, but a form of Feel-Goodness. Someone can think I'm too 'narrow' and that I am taking my own definition of 'spirituality' too far and imposing on others' views; everyone's entitled to their own opinions. However, I think I'm following the same principle Christ's prophets laid out when they said to 'test the spirits' and to 'cling to that which is good'. If someone, through innocence, equates Feel-Goodness with the Spirit of God, then that person's perception of righteousness is harmed. It was Joseph Smith who said "[f]or nothing is a greater injury to the children of men, then to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the spirit of God." He also stated: I don't doubt the good intentions of the producers of CCM, but I will not budge from my position that the spirit they usually evoke is not the Spirit of God- and that is particularly bad because innocent listeners believe they are feeling the Spirit of God when they are, instead, feeling another spirit. Therefore, the replacement of hymns with them is bad, as is assuming they are another viable form of 'worship'. Again, the most significant way CCM is vitally different from other popular music (aside from lyrics) is that many 'modernized' churches feel it evokes the Spirit of God and as a sufficient replacement for hymns- which they usually are not. I put my own feelings first to show my general opinion and be perfectly honest with everyone. My personal tastes in music are not 'closed minded'- I don't like some CCM for sundry reasons. I like some CCM (as I stated in my first post) for other reasons. Also, a tacit reason I stated my experience was to give an example of what I said. Someone rocking out and 'worshiping' Christ through listening to CCM and then having orgies is not an example of someone feeling the Spirit of God- yet they exhibited the exact same behavior as witnessed in many Protestant churches. I guarantee you they would not be listening to hymns- any hymns- in the same manner. From the mouth of President Monson: Of course, he was only echoing a former President of the Church, who stated: Who, of course, was only echoing another former President of the Church- Boyd K. Packer. The belief that 'specific genres of music' are not bad only in my own eyes 'just because they don't fall into my own personal category of spirituality' does not originate from me, nor did I think of it on my own. I learned it from the modern prophets. Genres must be defined by certain musical characteristics, and certain musical characteristics are inherently evil (in the sense that they drive away the Spirit of God). Combine those certain musical characteristics in ways required for certain music to be placed within a certain genre makes that combination of characteristics wholly evil. I'm sorry... there is no truly uplifting rap or metal music, as I understand the genres. They're too intense for feeling the spirit. In fact, if we want to get down to brass tacks, there is little music that, by its own merit, is truly conducive to the Spirit of God. Like you said, it's what people bring to the music that really counts- it's a person's personal connection with the music that might invoke the Spirit of God, and different styles of music drives away that ability to make that connection. If a person feels the spirit when listening to those types of music, it is highly doubtful that the music itself brought on the spirit. I tried; I couldn't listen to any of them. My computer blocks YouTube, and reading the lyrics without hearing the music is useless in this case. I too have felt the actual Spirit of God when listening to a wide variety of genres of music. Doesn't mean I feel they should replace hymns- nor does it mean I condone the entire genre of music. I said before, I find little wrong with the bulk of CCM- I only condemn the kind that is hypocrisy incarnate, which I cannot cite examples of. Think about that- it's telling a person to use satanic practices (rebellion) against Satan himself. How on earth is that the promotion of godliness? Also, are you seriously suggesting I take this example of a Christian band that uses 'Hell' as a curse in the title of their song as an example of a band that invokes the Spirit through unconventional means? Judging from the lyrics and my very little knowledge of what metal music sounds like, I can assume they stir up a person to anger against the devil. That is bad because: The devil laughs at the rich irony of a person stirring others up to anger against the devil, as both parties are unknowingly acting in accord with Satan's own means of expression and existence. Both parties are drawn closer to hell, and only repentance- the conventional, Christ-approved method of repentance- can redeem them. At the last day, many will say to Christ, 'have we not... in they name done many wonderful works?', but then 'will [Christ] profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.' (Matthew 7:22-23) No, it's not. The internet is a network still extant despite any web pages. If we are to compare 'the internet' to music, then the existence of 'the internet' is the existence of all the physical phenomena required to make music work- matter, vibration, pitch, etc. The web pages can be compared to songs, and web page genres can be compared to musical genres. I say all pornographic websites are evil; I daresay all extreme heavy metal is evil because of the parameters a piece of music is required to meet before it fits the category. Pornographic websites must have pornography of some form; heavy metal must (traditionally) have 'loud distorted guitars, emphatic rhythms, dense bass-and-drum sound, and vigorous vocals' (Heavy metal music).

Question: how did a sincere question devolve into mud-slinging and claims of naivety and misguided faith? Much more of this, and the thread will have run its course and no one will be happy.

How to begin? The past week, I've gone through another phase of Not Caring. I mean, Really Not Caring. I didn't care about the fact that I didn't attend school or church classes; I didn't care about the fact that I was being lazy and deceitful to my family; I didn't care about the fact that I was neglecting my personal hygiene and health. The worse part about Not Caring, though, was the fact that I was perfectly cognizant of the fact that what I was doing was the beginning of the road to Hell. I was perfectly aware that if I continued in the path I was following, I would be forfeiting my salvation and exaltation because I was rejecting Christ's atonement. I was aware of the pain I was putting God in, but i couldn't care less. I wanted to die, physically and spiritually, so the pain of living would be gone. I wanted to blip out of existence. I'm pulling out of it. Prayer and hope and a loving sister helped me through and now I'm recovering. My question is... is this normal? In a time period lasting between 2 1/2 years to 1 year ago, I experienced what I dubbed 'Green Goblin moments' (named after the insane super villain in Spiderman). They were times when my whole person would change, it seems. One minute I would be fine and dandy, smiling and feeling the Spirit of God and being charitable. The next I was plunged into a maddening state of anger and hatred. My main desire was to denigrate, murder, plunder, and rape. In one instance, I seriously tried to get a female coworker to go home with me (my roommate was out of town). I thank God she had the sense to decline. Those 'Green Goblin' moments would last between an hour to an hour and a half, and then leave almost as quickly as they came, leaving me spiritually destitute and afraid. There are three times I remember most vividly: once it happened at work (when I tried to get the coworker to go home with me), once at church (where I had to leave sacrament meeting to avoid running up to the pulpit and punching the speaker in the face), and once when I was with my girlfriend at my house (luckily, we were not alone). I will never forget, to my dying day, the look on her face when I said the most cruel thing I have ever said to anyone in my entire life. I haven't had a 'Green Goblin' moment for over a year. However, now I have periods of days where I enter a state of Not Caring. I cease to care about myself and others; and I thank God that I am not in the position to do anyone any real harm. My question is, does anyone know if this is normal, or has anyone else experienced anything akin to what I've described? I'm going to start seeing a counselor in a few weeks, but I thought I'd try to learn what I can from people I trust so that I can have a little bit of foreknowledge. I tend to think it's because I suffer from major clinical depression and cyclothymia, but something seems not right about it in a deeper sense... BTW, mods, if you feel this is inappropriate feel free to delete it. I don't want to spark any fires...

Welcome!

NOTE: I like your use of the term 'CCM', so I'm going to adopt it and use it to conserve space. In my usage, 'CCM' can refer to 'contemporary Christian music' or one or many 'contemporary Christian song(s)' (CCM's). I only compare the two when one attempts to replace the former with the latter- in which case, it becomes a true dichotomy and the two must be compared based on their individual merits. Again, I see nothing wrong with (most) CCM's as music in general, but they are not hymns, and should not be used in place of hymns. My whole statement was based on the premise that if a church replaces reverent hymns with sensationalistic CCM, that church is doing a bad, bad thing. I stated in my aforementioned post why I think that's bad. Again, all my statements are based on four separate occasions in Protestant churches that used CCM in the worship services. It was done absolutely horribly in the first instance and turned the service into a musical production with little depth. In the second instance, the CCM detracted from the actual Spirit of God that was present during the discussion. Yes, the CCM's drove the spirit away, and my girlfriend who attended with me felt that happen as well.If I am reading you right, then you are saying that in many churches CCM's are not replacing hymns, but being added to the worship service. In that case, I must be lead to wonder... why? As I have stated and restate, the CCM's I have heard (including the 'Praise and Worship' songs) do not invoke the actual spirit of God, but something else. If one sees the emotional response experienced when listening to the kind of CCM's I have heard as feeling the true Spirit of God, that person is deceived. It is akin to expecting junk good to have the same nutritional effects as healthy food because the junk food tastes as good or better. Again, as a student of the theater, I frankly disagree with your assessment that the vision of a Protestant congregation 'shutting [their] eyes, and lifting [their] hands' is an actual result of feeling the Spirit of God. I've seen the same reaction, time and time again, among the audience of a catchy musical production, including off-Broadway shows and non-Christian concerts. I've felt the same feelings that drive this kind of behavior myself- I've exhibited such behavior myself. I believe it is possible that some are feeling the genuine spirit of God when they do this, but it is the rare exception as opposed to the rule. It's a fine line, but the described manner of worship has more in common with mass catharsis than actual spiritual stimulation. I'm sorry to be so coarse, but this is an area I don't see room to mince words on. One last thing- we are commanded to worship God 'in spirit and in truth' (John 4:24). God's spirit is reverent and profound, not gaudy and intellectually shallow. Generationally, I am a product of this generation, and I find the lyrics of most CCM's very shallow and not profound. Others may; that's fine. However, as I stated above, music is far more than the mere lyrics, and the beat/tessitura/style of many CCM's drive away the actual Spirit of God as I understand it, and is replaced with the Spirit of Feel-Good. What I mean by that is the reverent, reflective and profound nature present when one feels the Spirit is replaced with the more superficial emotional response of Good Feelings- happiness, levity, etc. Again there's nothing wrong with this! However, it is inappropriate to evoke such feelings through song in a meeting with the stated purpose of worshiping God. (Most) traditional hymns worship God through reverence, respect, and reflection; (Most) CCM's are about God's love for us- but don't actually encourage reverence, respect, or reflection. If all I knew about Christ was what I learned through the CCM's I've heard, I would assume He was some awesome dude one could hang out with at the mall or go see a movie with, and who everything is ok with because He Loves Me. Frankly, such a view of Christ is repulsive to me- yet that the feeling I get of Christ as portrayed in most of the CCM's I've heard. The thing about music is it is what it is. There has been a sharp, sharp change in the direction and style of music in the past 100-150 years, and the fact is that it is no longer enough to simply take a modern-day 'bar tune', transform the lyrics, and call it a worship song. A song may be taken from a score, have its lyrics and style changed and become a completely different song. However, when one writes a song in the popular style of the day, the end product will reflect the popular style of the day. In other words, it would be possible (within reason) to, as you said, take secular music and "baptize" it with gospel lyrics, as the end product reflects the change made: reflecting the nature and mercies of God. However, it is another matter altogether to write gospel lyrics into songs that reflect the popular culture of the day: what you end up with is God-a-la-Pop-Culture.Also, FYI, many of the LDS hymns were written in the early days of the LDS church- meaning that we don't exclusively use traditional Protestant hymns, though there are many present in our hymn book. I don't believe the fact that many traditional Protestant hymns are structured around popular music is sufficient support for the act of doing so today- even if that was all that was being done. The point of a hymn needs to be respective reverence that prompts reflection on the nature and actuality of God; the point is not to draw a listener in with catchy beats, and the point is most definitely not to draw attention to itself. When a band preforms, a band is preforming and drawing attention to their music. If the congregation cannot sing due to a lack of professional adroitness, then the congregation is on the losing side of the situation, with the performer on the winning side. Unfortunately in a situation like that, neither side is edified of God. You have a good point here. However, I look at the situation as a matter of Good, Better, and Best- it is simply best to use reverent hymns instead of fast-tempoed CCM's in a worship services, because the former more accurately reflects the actuality of God's nature. Again, I have no problem (in most cases) with CCM's in and of themselves- my entire concern revolves around regarding them as sufficient replacements for reverent hymns.EDIT:I'm really trying not to be so inflammatory, but this topic is something I've spent a lot of time on and I'm very opinionated about it. Unfortunately, I am in a bit of a rut emotionally right now so my faculties of tact and diplomacy are severely lacking... I don't take back anything I said, but I apologize for its abruptness. I also apologize to anyone I might offend, as I know this is an issue others feel deeply for too.

Granted! But, now you have to pay double mortgages on it. I wish I could find a girlfriend who wouldn't leave.

Welcome Roland!

I think you bring up some interesting points. I understand that this 'proof' you are offering is not intended as actual proof, but as examples from valid doctrine that support your theory.The idea of the earth being 'baptized' during the great Flood isn't new to me, but the corollary that it must have been at least 8 'years' old is new and, in my opinion, intriguing. It makes one wonder, what internal processes have matured enough inside a person by age 8 that they are ready to be baptized then? Of course, the 8-year rule is not universal (for example, those with mental retardation are not baptized at 8) but it is the rule. If we go further and assume that the baptism by fire will be given the Sunday following the baptism by water, we might assume that the Earth's baptism by fire- that is, the second coming of Christ- would happen anywhere between 1,000-7,500 years after the initial baptism by water. (The 7.5k high-end of that range is due to the additional 'hours' and 'minutes' that might separate the baptism by water and the receiving of the Holy Ghost) It is an interesting theory...

I remember the story of a member of the Priesthood blessing a sick ox during the pioneer trek to Salt Lake City. They were going to put it down, but the mother of the family who owned it (single mom, I think) pleaded and exhorted the brethren to anoint it with consecrated oil and bless it. They did. It got better and lived many years after reaching the Salt Lake valley. Growing up with dogs, I was amazed by the spirit of happiness they each exuded. We had one dog with a particularly patient and sweet demeanor. She was perfect for the daycare we ran from home, as she would let the little children play with her (and often pull her tail, ears, etc.). Dogs can suffer the same psychological trauma from abuse that humans can; other animals can be trained to respond to certain situations. There are more stories than can be told here of animals acting completely unusual to save a human's life- like the 50-pound dog that pulled his master 3 miles to his home after he suffered a heart attack while hunting. Or the cat that was left behind when its beloved family moved, and showed up on their doorstep 6 months later (they had moved across the country). It makes sense to me that animals can receive and benefit from blessings, even if the blessing is catalyzed solely by the faith of the person giving the blessing. All animals have spirits, and therefore are saved by the atonement of Christ. The Priesthood is the harnessing of the atonement of Christ for the salvation of mankind. It makes sense that the bodies and souls of animals are influenced by the power of the Priesthood. After all, the lions that would have eaten Daniel would up playing with him in their den, and one day the lion shall lie with the lamb.

Let's not descend to mud slinging...