• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TruthSeekerToo

  1. Well, I think that the news that you all can be sealed to both sets of parents (eventually) is great and takes the edge off the whole issue.

    Now, your deceased brother will need to have 2 sets of parents made on the FamilySearch system. That is how the sealings can be done. It will look like his father and stepmom are one set and his mother and stepdad are the other set.

    I'd suggest going on the new FamilySearch website and taking a look around your family information. You will not be able to access your siblings, but your parents should be able kinda depends on if people are members or not.

    I would involve the temple recorder near you in the situation and have them walk you through the best way to have the double sealings done for your brother (so that the system accepts the second one). After your parents and you are all passed on then the double sealings can occur for all of you.

    When I think of sealings I think of chainmail rather than one long chain. Love is what binds us.

    I will add that your mother is next of kin. It is against church policy to do vicarious work for someone without the permission of their next of kin...that is your mother AND your father must both approve. Doing the work without permission is AGAINST the rules. The reason is that the temple has had too many tears in the office when a child discovers they can't do the work for their own parent or something because someone already did it without asking.

  2. I agree that nothing is without bias.

    The 7 volume History of the Church is good. It is biased and has things left out or added in and was only partially written by JS. However, it contains a LOT of interesting things, both historical and doctrinal.

    An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott H. Faulring is fantastic. His bias is that Joseph was a true prophet. He did an outstanding job, IMO, of leaving out his personal bias in editing the journals. Plus, the book is way cheaper than the current project.


    I think that reading accounts from members who were close to Joseph is very helpful. I'd go with David Whitmer's "An Address to All Believers in Christ" and The Nauvoo Expositor which was written by William Law (in the First Presidency at the time) and others. These might be still considered "anti" so I won't link to them, but a simple search should allow you to read them online. I think finding accounts from other early leaders who left the church is very helpful to seeing many sides of the picture.

    I would also read the 4 accounts of the First Vision.

    The original Book of Commandments and compare the changes made in the subsequent printings. I also liked learning when each section was added to the scriptures. I'd read the entire modern D&C, if you haven't.

    I'd also read The Article on Marriage that was included in the 1835 edition of the BoC. Oh, the Lectures on Faith that used to be in the D&C are good to read, too. You can find them online from what I think is an RLDS site (if memory serves).

  3. I have a 3 year old boy so I am having a difficult time imagining what a 4 or 5 year old could possibly do that is so bad. :( I am sorry you feel so awful right now! Guilt can be a terrible master. It is normal for little boys (and grown men, IMO) to explore themselves.

    Perhaps this is something you can work on privately with a therapist. Only you know what it is that you need.

    I also agree that if an older child or adult introduced you to things or abused you it is NOT your fault! Please know that! Many survivors of abuse feel guilt. That is normal. Again, therapy might help with that burden.

    I really think that excommunication is used in cases where someone else was involved-like adultery or abuse. Honestly, if they ex'd everyone who had personal issues (that don't involve others) then we'd lose a LARGE chunk of membership. I could be wrong, though. ((((hugs)))) Good luck to you!

  4. I have used it.

    I had my first child, no problems, no complications. Then I had several years where I didn't get pregnant while trying. I got pregnant and m/c'd at about 7 weeks. About a year later I had another m/c at about 9 weeks.

    The next time I got pregnant (first cycle trying after reading more about fertility and charting) I went right to the midwife and she prescribed Prometrium. I took it and pregnancy went fine. Gosh, that was in 2003/4.

    A few years later I got pregnant again. Did NOT use Prometrium this time. I did have bleeding at 11 weeks from a uterine hematoma. YIKES! Nothing to do with hormone levels, though. I was able to keep that pregnancy and deliver a healthy baby...breech.

    So, I am not sure if Prometrium actually helped me stay pregnant or not. I am glad I took it because it made me feel like I was doing all I could. Gave me a little peace of mind. I didn't take it with my last pregnancy because I didn't feel it was necessary for me. If I had felt I should than I would have asked for a scrip.

    Good luck! Miscarriage is a very traumatic thing to experience. I wish you well and a healthy pregnancy!!!

  5. Hmmmm, I'd be careful calling modern revelations false doctrine myself. Thats pretty dangerous ground.

    Besides that, I don't think it has been reinstated for 2 reasons. 1, doing so would make us liars about obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. 2, with the ability of people to make things like that public nowadays, it just wouldn't work.

    Then you should definately be careful. I have had my witness, so I feel no qualms. Thanks for the warning though. :)

    The early church had the EXACT same problems and did it anyway. :mellow:

  6. I haven't seen anything that states animal sacrifice, have you?

    Well, yes.

    This is found on, History of the Church 4:211 and the article linked in the OP:

    It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e., the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus] was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future: but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the priesthood, or with the Prophets….

    These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the [p.212] powers of the Melchisedic Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the holy Prophets be brought to pass? It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the Prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses' day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.

    I also remember learning about the concept in church-probably from seminary on up.

  7. Yet, according to Joseph Fielding Smith (or was it F? I can never remember and I'm too lazy to look it up right now), very few of us will have the opportunity given to us to participate in animal sacrifices. They were to be reinstated at the temple in Far West where the sons of Aaron would make the offering to reclaim their position in the Priesthood. This would complete another part of the restoration of all things, and it would then be permanently discontinued. (See Doctrines of Salvation)

    I did find that quote on fairlds. Basically, what you said. Would be reinstated for a finite amount of time and then discontinued. All quotes I've read seem to indicate it was OUR priesthood holders that would participate. D&C seems to indicate that, too, IMO.

  8. It may have been Brigham Young who was confused. There is some indication that he believed that the LDS temple would be a place for animal sacrifice.

    "The introduction of such sacrifice was suggested by Brigham Young in preliminary remarks on the design for the Salt Lake Temple. However, Brigham Young died before any serious plans for the interior layout of the temple were developed. No such facility was built into the temple. Smith's remarks have some special weight since this sermon was contemplated and written before-hand."

    In reading D&C 84, it seems that WE are the sons of Moses and Aaron. And the acceptable sacrifice is to happen in the temple at New Jerusalem.

    31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses—for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed—

    32 And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion in the Lord’s house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build up my church.

  9. This is sort of a spin off from the polygamy thread.

    Joseph Smith once made the comment that animal sacrifice was a right of the priesthood and it was error to think that Christ's death had completely done away with it. It would be reinstated. Here is a link to a talk given by him where he talks about animal sacrifice being reinstated when the temple is complete.

    So, if animal sacrifice was brought back and practiced in the temple. How many would go to a session? How many priesthood holders would do their duty by slaughtering a lamb or some other animal on an alter? Blood sprinkling and fat burning and all that jazz?

    I'm also curious, do you think it will be reinstated or was JS mistaken?

  10. No.

    I actually never thought I would have a problem "sharing" my DH. We've even joked about it with single sister friends and stuff. I have a handicapped sister who will never marry, so I always figured that I would gladly "share" my DH with someone in the afterlife because of that.

    Now I am a hardcore monogamist. I believe D&C 132 contains false doctrine. Therefore, I would never participate in any form of multiple spouses. However, others are welcome to participate in whatever kind of marriages or relations that they like.

    If a prophet or leader ever asked for me to secretly marry them, even though I am already married, I'd tell everyone I could. If any of them approached my wouldn't go over well.

    Hmmm. How do we know it hasn't been brought back already?

  11. I think I've heard that one before.

    Makes me wonder -- what criteria is used to determine what are the "hard" commandments that keep you out of the temple, and which ones are the "soft" commandments which, when violated, lead to no Church consequences?

    The more I reflect, the more I wish that the temple recommend questions included:

    "Do you do your home or visiting teaching?"

    So many brethren don't do it out of rebellion against the administration.

    I sorta wish the temple was open to the public (like Kirtland) and only had one question required for ordinances.

    "Are you worthy to enter?"

    Obviously there is no solution that would please everyone.

  12. Until one opens their mind and their heart (Alma 32) they will not feel the Spirit. If people are trying to open their minds to Greek myths being true, the Spirit cannot help them. If one is truly looking for truth they will be led to it, or it will be led to them.

    Truth is everywhere. That is what the spirit tells me. Greek myths can be just as true and useful as Jewish myths. Each culture thinks their myths are superior, but they aren't.

    Why wouldn't the spirit help someone trying to learn truth from Greek myths? My experience is that the spirit can teach the truth of ALL things from ALL sources.

  13. Interesting. I disagree. I don't believe we are on trial. At least not in the sense that quote gives.

    God wants us to take a critical look at everything. That is what we are here doing. It's our birthright. He wants us to look at the scriptures critically. That is what they are for. He wants us to discover the truths AND the false doctrines presented in them.

    Why shouldn't the scriptures be on trial? "Truth has nothing to fear from investigation." Although, the truth can be frightening!

    Are we really supposed to make people feel like criminals for investigating the scriptures?

  14. I already said that He was an exalted being and that He was the God of the Old Testament. Though He was mortal, you are correct in that He was more than the natural man. As Alma said, an infinite atonement needed to be made and a normal, mortal man could not have survived an infinite amount of pain. By definition, to be immortal one cannot die. It is not possible for God to ever die so He is immortal. Jesus Christ could die, and therefore was not immortal, but at the same time, being a literal son of God in the flesh He had the ability to suffer infinitely before He finally died. Once He was resurrected and the atonement was complete He became immortal as He could no longer die ever again.

    How was Jesus Christ exalted without a body? Why couldn't we all have been if we are truly brothers/sisters with him? Weren't we all immortal before earth life, by definition?

    How did he get a throne and exaltation before his earthly probation?

    If God came to this earth then it would be possible for him to die. According to Talmage, Jesus could have lived forever without dying. He had the power to choose to die or not. That would make him NOT mortal IMO. Maybe that makes him half and half by LDS doctrine. But, this doctrine makes it so that Jehovah God HAD to be murdered or commit suicide for the plan to work. That is just not a plan of happiness to me.

    I do not want to kill my God or bathe in his blood or torture him. I can't reconcile that with the admonition to love him with all my might, mind and strength.

    Anyway, I have a feeling that my thoughts are offensive and so I will end with that.

  15. Its also important to note that the bible is fallible and certain things could have either been changed or lost in translation. Are we expected to observe the passover in the eternities after this life? There are around 10 words in English for every word in Hebrew so choices had to be made when translating. The word "forever" may have been translated from something else that meant something a little different.

    Do you have any proof that the word "for ever" has been incorrectly translated in these instances?