Maxel

Members
  • Posts

    1853
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maxel

  1. LittleWyvern hit the nail on the head with his remarks about open canon- I also recommend the site he linked if you ever wish to peruse our scriptures. In addition to the KJV bible (and the only bible officially used by the Church is the KJV) we have excerpts from what's called the 'Joseph Smith Translation' (hereafter JST) of the Bible, or the 'Inspired Version'. In his lifetime, Joseph Smith read the Bible with the intent of clarifying points of doctrine found within, adding new prophetic insight, and correcting mistakes or malicious injuries made to the text of the Bible made over the years by careless (or evil-minded) scribes and translators. Usually, if a verse from the KJV Bible reads differently in the JST version, there's a footnote indicating so, and the JST version reading at the bottom of the page. Occasionally, a section of the JST is so long that it has been put into a specific 'JST' appendix at the back of the Bible. I should note here that all LDS use an LDS-specific printing of the Bible that includes footnotes containing references to LDS scripture, explanation of meaning, and referrals to the various appendices found in the LDS scriptures. It is unique in that, when reading the Book of Mormon, if one follows a footnote they may well find themselves referred to a Bible passage related to the one from the BoM. One side note: Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible is not a 'translation' in the common sense: the word 'translation' in the title comes from another of its meanings common in the 19th century but obsolete now. The word used to mean 'clarification' as well.
  2. I think the misunderstanding arises from the term 'angel'. The way I've heard it described, 'angel' as a term can be applied to a variety of beings within LDS theology: -A pre-mortal being without a body (like we were during the Great Council of Heaven, and like Satan and his followers are always doomed to be) -A 'twinkled' being, like the 3 Nephites or John the Beloved -A translated being, like Moses -A resurrected being, like the angel Moronoi So, Satan could be an 'angel' in the first sense, but not in any other, positive ways we might label an angel.
  3. I've made my voice heard on the bulk of this subject; I just wanted to weigh in on this one gem of a statement. First of all- ROFL LOL!! I am imagining that happening, and it's a funny sight to see (for the people out in the audience, who are fighting between astonished disbelief and stifling hysteria). I can see the bishop going bug-eyed. Now that that's out of the way... I think you're fair in your posing of this question, prisonchaplain. I believe we Mormons see the same thing, that understanding the nature of God is vital to us as His children. I think the difference is (or rather, 'might be') that we believe following the principles of the teachings of Christ- i.e., expressing and feeling charity for one's fellow man, acknowledging Christ as the Lord and savior, learning of our own nothingness and the need for Christ's atonement, etc.- is the first and foremost lesson to be learned on the earth. Adherence to doctrinal correctness is nice and facilitates in the former, but because of work for the dead and the nature of the spirit world/prison, if one doesn't ever hear the name of Christ in this life it doesn't bar them from inheriting the kingdom of heaven. Hhhmm... That doesn't seem quite right after writing it out. It makes it seem like Protestants are condemning all those who never heard of Christ to hell (which I don't believe is the case), and overemphasize doctrinal correctness above Christian living. That isn't the case in my experience... Can you clarify a bit, prisonchaplain?
  4. My ambiguity was added because of the confusion that arises when one interprets the Bible. I do not believe the Bible contains the fullness of the Gospel of Christ, therefore it does not contain the entirety of Christ's doctrine, though it does set the foundation. This foundation is more than enough; if followed with a 'sincere heart and real intent', it will produce an honest-to-goodness Christian.In my heart of hearts, I don't designate anyone a Christian based on their metaphysical beliefs- I designate someone a Christian for trying to follow the light of Christ as it touches their lives. My problem with your original post, and with any attempt to label Christian according to doctrinal correctness to the degree that you seemed to apply it, is that it assumes the one handing out the labels understands, 100%, the true nature of God and how others feel about God in their own personal soul. Frankly, I wouldn't give any mortal man that attribute of near-omniscience; not even the prophet. I feel that you approached the manner of calling one Christian as an exercise of exclusion (i.e., excluding those who believed in the heresy of the Arian controversy) instead of inclusion. When one goes about to exclude people from a group, their manner is entirely different than one who goes about in an attempt to include. In this instance, the former relies on dividing people according to metaphysical beliefs, the latter on bringing people together according to desires and good-faith attempts. To righteously exclude anyone from a group based on character attributes, one has to be acting in the authority of God Himself- I am not given that authority, and I doubt I ever will. You have not been given that authority either. At this point in time, none have been given that authority except Christ, who is not currently exercising that right. He will at the great Judgment, when he separates the goats from the sheep. I do not believe that prisonchaplain, for instance, has the 'correct' views on the nature of God, but I fail to find anything un-Christian in the way he conducts himself to his fellow man (or in his honest attempts to find the true doctrine of Christ). If I were to label him 'Christian' based on exclusion, I could point to the fact that (I believe) my view of God is correct, and he doesn't follow it- therefore, he isn't 'Christian'. If I were to label him based on inclusion, I would point to the fact that he spends his life attempting to bring the good word of Christ, and the spirit of Christ (love, charity, long suffering, etc.) not only to us on the forum, but inmates in a prison. Frankly, I believe he follows the mandate to 'visit the sick and the afflicted' better than I do. Am I to then exclude him from being a 'Christian'- one who has taken upon himself the name of Christ, which is what we are told to do- based on the fact that he doesn't believe the exact same things I do? It is my firm belief that, in the last day when the Lord comes again in all his glory, there won't just be bona fide Mormons at Zion- you'll find people of all walks and faiths who, for some reason or another, do not accept the restored gospel before the second coming, but lived up to the Light of Christ inside themselves so well that they found themselves among the anointed of God. At that day, I believe they will accept the Gospel, having followed the path to exaltation which leads to the feet of Christ in their own lives. If I believe that I will find some Protestants, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Orthodox Christians, Jews, and (anything's possible) a few atheists kneeling next to me on that day, confessing that Christ is the Lord... how am I to exclude any of God's children from taking upon them the name of Christ here and now? As I judge, so will I be judged. I would rather be found on the side of giving my fellow man the benefit of the doubt, rather than giving him the shaft.
  5. Wow, that really is bad... I'm really sorry. Wish I could help.
  6. Well, I guess that throws extenuating circumstances out the window. I'm really sorry that you are bombarded with bad examples of correct living- from your leaders, no less! What do they say when confronted about the issue?
  7. The_Branch;324907]So it's kind of the spiritual version of Noah and the flood? The wickedness had become so great, God simply started over, spiritual-authority-wise? Good analogy. It is similar, in a fashion. LDS theology holds that Jesus was born the son of Mary and the son of God the Father. His spiritual and bodily inheritance was both mortal and divine.We believe that Jesus was truly born a baby, and that while a baby he was subject to all the discomforts that a baby is subject to- yet, in all his actions, he was a perfect baby. After a baby he became a small child, being subject to all the temptations of a small child- yet, in all his actions, he was a perfect small child. After a small child, he became a young boy, subject to all the pressures and follies a young boy might be subject to- yet, in all his actions, he was a perfect small boy. This pattern continues throughout his life until he achieves manhood without ever having sinned. He was truly a perfect man, yet he did not start out that way. This doctrine is reflected in D&C 93: LDS.org; emphasis added In other words, he did not start out, as a child, full of the knowledge and wisdom that he possessed as an adult, but rather gained that knowledge and wisdom as he grew. He was always the literal Son of God, but was also called so because he was in all ways a son: starting out as a babe, growing in 'wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man'. (Luke 2:52)
  8. True, the apostles were around long enough, but if the state of the Church was one where no righteous successor could be found (i.e., none righteous enough to take up the prophetic mantle), what could they do? It was not a matter of a dearth of people, but a dearth of righteous people.Now, I'm not sure exactly when the succession was stopped. I haven't heard anything from LDS canonical sources or authoritative leaders saying that the Priesthood authority most definitely died with the original 12 apostles. However, it might as well have it we look at it as an issue of authoritative succession in relation to our present time. Somewhere, very early, in the line the authority was lost and the faithful of Christ were left to worshiping Him under an earthly minister with no actual authority from Christ.
  9. How old is your brother, and is he having sexual relations with his girlfriend (bishop's daughter)? Also, what's his situation- does he have a job and is able to find other lodging, or for some reason is he up with his back against a wall? I agree with you that the situation is far from normal propriety, yet I can't help feeling that there must be something else to the story. I don't mean to say you are intentionally leaving it out, but perhaps it's something you haven't considered before. Also, is he engaged to this girl? I ask because of an experience I had with a good friend a few years ago. My friend came from a rough background and had to overcome a lot to get where he was, in good standing before God (in my opinion, anyway). He started dating a girl and got engaged to her. They strove in the utmost to fulfill their duties to chastity (and I am fully convinced they both succeeded) in the face of extenuating circumstances. My friend's old roommates, while not bad guys, were not the most positive influence. They were lazy, given to playing far too many video games and not given enough to... well, anything else. The environment at his house was something he had to overcome, yet he couldn't move because of money issues. When he was engaged to this girl, he continued living at home until he couldn't stand it. His roommates would talk openly about his fiance, saying cruel, spiteful things. The Holy Ghost was never present in the house, and that pained my friend in the worst way. He eventually 'moved' out (for all intents and purposes) and crashed on his fiance's couch for the final 3 weeks before the wedding. I spent a decent amount of time with him and at her house, and I can safely say the spirit of God was present in a degree that it would not have been if they were having sexual relations before the wedding. Long story short, it may be improper, but there may be other circumstances that (almost) warrant his behavior. That's not to say I condone it, but merely that I think more needs to be known about the situation.
  10. I believe you, and I'm usually a hardcore troll-spotter. Welcome to the forums! Before I get too far, let me explain something. The term 'spirit of God', in LDS theology, can refer to a few different things. One is the 'Light of Christ' which is the power of Christ which emanates from His divine presence out into the universe. It is the power through which the natural laws of nature and logic continue to operate, and is the source of what we call a man's conscience. The Light of Christ encourages men to do good and live correct lives.The second thing the term 'spirit of God' can refer to is the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is the third member of the LDS Godhead (or the Protestant Trinity) and has a few main purposes. The 'gift of the Holy Ghost' is conferred to all members of the Church who have been baptized, and results in the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost all of one's life. The result of the 'gift of the Holy Ghost' is the baptism by fire described by Jesus in the NT. The 'power of the Holy Ghost' is the ability of the Holy Ghost to impress revelation upon the minds of man- any man (or woman), baptized or not. I hope that's not too confusing, lol. For a treatment of the Priesthood, see below. We believe the priesthood authority must be used strictly within the same laws that apply to continuously enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Doctrine and Covenants (part of the LDS canonical scripture; hereafter D&C), section 121 verse 41, reads: (LDS.org; italics mine)In other words, to be properly (or righteously) used, the Priesthood power must be exercised under the influence of the spirit of God, for it is through the righteousness of Christ we are saved, not our individual merit. While the power of the Priesthood is the same power (in kind) that we believe God possesses, our own power is not on par with His. Think of it this way: a baby's muscles are similar to his father's, yet in no way possesses power 'on par' with his father. Or, the CEO of a business may delegate responsibility to an underling, but that underling is in no way as powerful, within the confines of that business, as the CEO. A robot may move using the same laws of nature as its human creator, but the robot's power to act is far inferior than its creator's. These examples are basic, albeit imperfect, analogies. The difference is that the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost are both the influence and power of God, and the Priesthood Authority is the authority to act in Christ's name on the earth, as His proxy. Through the Priesthood, ordinary members are able to preform healings, blessings, receive revelation, and organize and maintain Christ's kingdom on earth until He comes again to rule it in the Millennium. It is important to note, however, that the power of the Priesthood is fueled and directed through revelation from God- that is, Christ is still the source of power and through revelation guides His church. If any man holding the Priesthood attempted to use it in a manner or for a purpose against God's will, then that man is under serious condemnation and his acts are not binding on earth nor on heaven.As for the revelation of the Holy Spirit at Antioch, I do not know the event which you are referencing, so I cannot comment. However, I can say that Priesthood authority does not need to be present for a revelation from the Holy Ghost (see earlier about the 'power of the Holy Ghost'). Saul, while on the road to Damascus, received a revelation directly from Christ before having received the Priesthood through proper authority. Such a revelation must be wrought by means of the Holy Ghost. One thing about the Holy Ghost: to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, one must do so from another holding proper Priesthood authority. If the Priesthood is taken from the earth, than the gift of the Holy Ghost is also taken from the earth because there are none with the authority or power to confer it to others (i.e., their children so that it is passed down through generations).
  11. Welcome to the site! I'm a returning member of the forum as well, just recently returned. Glad to have you!
  12. But, I have this overbearing sense of Duty (with a capital D!) that leads me to try to answer everyone's questions if I know the answer. It's also misguided most of the time. Good point... I'ma try that next time.
  13. Blargh... you're right. I signed him up for updates from jesuschrist.lds.org. Hopefully, something will get through to him.
  14. When I was wrestling with my faith, years ago, I visited a lot of anti-mormon sites. One was kind of a mixture of a forum and extensive blogging atmosphere for ex-mormons ('recovering', they would say).I clearly remember one person laughing at the statement that 'they can't leave the church alone'. 'I haven't been to church in 20 years, and haven't thought once about it since then!' One user proudly proclaimed, much to the satisfaction of his friends ('Exactly, that's how I am!'). Yet.... they were active members of a site devoted to the insulting and deriding the church. I seriously believe that the logical faculties of one who rejects truth is affected until they repent.
  15. Good point PC. I hadn't realized that before.
  16. I think the search engines are what's doing it. Thought process of a troll: Troll: What religious group that I don't agree with can I terrorize tonight? Evil spirit influencing the troll #1: lol, bash da mormons. deyre fun Troll: I think I'll go show the Mormons how messed up they are! Um.. where to find information? Evil spirit #2: 'Pro' is being in agreement with something; 'Anti' is being against. Troll: I dunno why, but the term 'Anti-mormon' just popped into my head. Let's see what it brings up in old google... 5 minutes later. Troll: Perfect! I have my irreproachable intellectual fodder, which I will bash the Mormons to the ground with! Now, to find some Mormons... *Looks around* Evil spirit #1: duh, dude, go to one of dem forum thingies. their fuun and u can say wutever u want. lolz forums rockzors Troll: I'm brilliant! I'll go to an online forum and antagonize me some Mormons! I bet they all post about how sad they were their religion duped them when I tell 'em how it really is! *Cackles maniacally* Evil spirit #3: You are truly the master of wit and intelligence. *Snicker*
  17. *Shameless bump* There's been actual activity on this forum in the last couple days; I'm really, really hoping to see some activity in this thread. Not through some sense of megalomania, but because I really feel this is a serious issue for the LDS YSA, and I think discussion helps foster knowledge. This is a serious topic for me.
  18. If anyone is interested, another thread discussing this topic is underway in the Current Events Forum. The link can be found here.
  19. lol, it's not your fault, AngelLynn. Like you said, the internet is not private.
  20. Oh, if only. Then again, the really honest truth seekers would never find us. I wonder how prisonchaplain and Elphaba found us, just to name a few. EDIT: A few honest truth seekers, NOT a few trolls. I hope that was clear.
  21. It's the sign of the times. Jono even put his religion as LDS- possibly because he thinks we enforce some sort of posting restriction on those who aren't? Being Mormon means dealing with this kind of stuff. It will get worse with the last days. When you feel yourself getting too angry, take a break and pray. Do some stress-relieving activity. It'll help.
  22. I just started. Doing general education mostly, hopefully I'll get a doctorate in the theater. I say 'hopefully' because that's my dream line of study. However, I feel I may end up studying something else- perhaps communication- for monetary purposes. I love the theater, but it's hard to raise a family with work related to a theater degree.
  23. Are you able to schedule an emergency appointment? Most therapists have the option to do that. If not, seeing a psychiatrist would probably be the best, if the therapist approves. Definitely talk to him/her if you can.
  24. Again, my apologies for the length, but... it feels wrong to cut it. I'm usually able to cut a good chunk out of long posts like that, but not this time. Were you visiting a chapel in America? Might that be the source of its... American-ness? There are chapels all throughout the world, most of them are built among the same architectural guidelines, when possible. The decorations and inside designs are probably a bit different. The Pauline epistles are arranged by length first and foremost (except for Hebrews, which was placed last due to disputes about it actually being written by Paul). Have you considered this condition: seeking to find the NT Christianity, and yet not cursing others' religions and beliefs because they differ from one's own? That is the stance of the LDS church: there is much good and truth found in the other religions of the world, but the LDS church has the fullness of Christ's Gospel and the most truth of them all.It might seem that stance is denigrating to other religions, but there is no way to more charitably state the case of the church- unless we are to start saying it does not hold the fullness of truth, which we believe it does.
  25. Maxel

    UFOs

    "There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -Shakespeare I don't think UFO's are aliens, but a mixture of things. Some may be government experiences, some may be a cloud of swamp gas that refracts the light from Mars... My personal belief is that any 'UFO sighting' that has origins not of this terrestrial world has its roots in spiritual matters. I believe some people are given those sightings for their own reasons, known to them and God.