qedd

Kind of like how it might irritate the heck out of Christians of other denominations when we claim to be Christian, even though we've never been a member of one of their accepted (i.e., orthodox) denominations?

Charity, the true love of Christ, seeketh not her own.

From the Online Etymology Dictionary: Seems a bit subjective. From who's perspective would opinions be judged right or wrong? How would you know if the answer to the previous question itself is orthodox? Perhaps orthodoxy is best associated with consensus and tradition. At the end of the day, what does it matter what an orthodox (or any other label for that matter) Mormon is? Are you led by the consensus or tradition of the group, or by what you know or feel in your heart? Would you purchase a pair of jeans because of the label on the back, or because it fits well and meets your functional needs?

Towards the end of the speech, Elder McConkie said... Elder McConkie calls a personal and intimate relationship with the Lord improper. Which leads one to question, can one be respectful (i.e., "worshipful adoration") while having an intimate relationship? What is an intimate relationship? How do we become *one* if there is a requisite distance ("required reserve between us and him") placed between us? If he meant the idolatrous relationship with the Lord called out earlier in his speech, then perhaps he should have stated that an excessive and idolatrous relationship with the Lord is improper, not simply a personal and intimate one. It wouldn't be the first time that a church authority employed a poor choice of words -- and it wasn't the last. But I think it's his excessive boldness that rankles many within the church. For example: He assumes a single interpretation of scripture. And failing to interpret as he does is false doctrine, and leaves one without salvation. The following quote illustrates one perspective, or interpretation, that he holds, and seems to boldly assert with authoritative finality: Supremacy, independence, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence... Semantics are important. Context is important. And personal interpretation is important. One of the beautiful things about LDS theology is that it is so open to personal interpretation. Concluding that there is but one interpretation denies spiritual growth and evolving perspectives. He seems to come from a very dogmatic school of LDS theology -- and I think this is partly why you'll find many that feel uneasy with his words.

Linear time relative to what? If time is related to motion, or the transition from one state to another, then regardless of where you might find God, that He moves, increases in glory, and interacts with others and His environment means that He experiences time in some fashion.

Doctrine shouldn't be confused with dogma. Being that doctrine is simply something that is taught, and that which is taught comes from the perspective, interpretation, and wording of fallible beings, it is possible for all or part of a given doctrine to be false. But that is missing the point of what the Church is bringing to the table: The Church teaches individuals how to discover and comprehend the truth for themselves, thereby enabling them to come unto Christ, find salvation, and pursue exaltation. Those quotes are a wonderful springboard for one to search out the truth for him or herself -- take them for what they are and go from there. It is lazy spirituality (if you can call it that) to let someone do all the thinking for you. As frustrating as it may be to some, I believe this is why there are so few "official" or final declarations of specific interpretations of truth (dogma) published by the Church.

I have always loved this topic -- thank you questioning_seeker. A definition of "free agency" that I have liked is something along the lines of "the ability of an agent to act on the choice of free will." I don't think the topic of free agency is complete without discussing intelligence, free will, and faith. As I see it, in order for one to exercise free agency, the agent must have: 1. Awareness, or the ability to distinguish. 2. Memory, or the ability to record observations made using awareness and the ability to recall such observations. 3. The ability to reason using prior observations and anticipate outcomes. 4. Desire or motivation to achieve some purpose or end. 5. Two or more paths or choices that can be made. 6. The physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual strength, skill, or discipline necessary to execute one or more of the possible choices. 7. A knowledge or awareness of these possible paths or choices. 8. Hope that the choice will lead one to a desired outcome. 9. Belief that the choice is possible and that it will lead to a desired outcome. With the above the agent is then able to act on his/her choice. Upon acting on the choice, the agent then observes the outcomes which then completes the feedback loop for future choices. Agency is limited or restricted by: 1. Ignorance. 2. The laws of nature. 3. Violence (the forceful imposition of one agent's will over that of another). When we speak of the Father's "gift" of free agency given to each of us, I wonder if that "gift" is really the Father helping us learn (dispelling ignorance) the laws of nature, and refusing to forcefully impose his will over us. A long way of saying I believe we have always had agency (to one degree or another) and that the Father's gift is to help us increase our agency in an effort to help us realize our potential. So yes, we likely could choose to accept the gift or not. Which brings up another question: Did we choose to become His spirit children? Is the acceptance of His gift where He became our "Father"? In other words, did we become His children when we accepted His offer to be our teacher?

Is violence worse than pornography? Why are many violent movies sexually charged? Part and parcel of the same? Both may be an addiction to forms of aggression. Humans Crave Violence Just Like Sex | LiveScience

Single mothers would probably be the first to point out that this role is not "always assigned to the man" since there is no man present to fill the role. If there is room for one exception, then why not others? As husbands and wives grow together, who is to say that the distinction between their roles will not blur over time? But early on, before such maturity and unity has fully developed, wouldn't it be nice to give them some guidelines to start with?

There is a lot of emotion and opinion when it comes to the authoritarian or dictatorial interpretation of 'preside', but why couldn't presiding mean that the husband / father is to function as a project manager and teacher / professor? Wouldn't this be more in line with the priesthood functioning by way of persuasion?

No. If you can answer the question, "why should I be obedient?", then obedience is a means and the answer to the question brings you further to understanding the end. Even Mormonmusic's example of Abraham illustrates obedience as a means to an end.

This thread brings some questions to mind. Are ordinances themselves part of the gospel? The gospel is the "good news" -- are ordinances themselves the good news? What is the good news? I think the gospel is the message. A message of hope and optimism. A message that shows that one can overcome the natural self and the past through Christ and become something more by following His example. I think ordinances are vehicles that support the gospel, but are not the gospel itself. That ordinances are vehicles for instruction and meditation. Vehicles for growth. The gospel never changes, yet ordinances may change over time as needs necessitate (wine vs. water, wording in temple ordinances, etc.). So, to me, the Book of Mormon does contain the fullness of the gospel in that it contains a fullness of the good news, or the message of hope. It just so happens that it contains references to a few ordinances as well. This isn't to belittle ordinances to any degree -- just to say that I don't see them as being one and the same, rather, one is in support of the other.

I've been thinking about your situation all day. Having been an adolescent that was frequently oppositional and defiant, the following are a few questions that have come to mind: 1. Is your 12 year-old angry about being denied the Aaronic priesthood simply because he was denied, or does he really want the priesthood for unselfish reasons? 2. Is he stating that he does not believe in God and/or the Church simply out of defiance, or because he truly does not believe in such? 3. Why did he think there should have been an earth-shattering confirmation of everything when he was baptized? What are his expectations and where do they come from? 4. What is it he opposes? Why is he defiant? Have authority figures somehow let him down in the past? I'm not sure that you would have the answers to these questions. You may have asked them of yourself already. I don't have any real advice for you other than for you to keep loving your son. Make sure you tell him and show him that your love for him is unconditional. Also, never underestimate the value of example. They are always watching and learning from you -- what you say, but mostly what you do or don't do. Practice what you preach. If you want him to be an active church-going young man with a positive attitude, then make sure you set the example by being an active church-going woman with a positive attitude. I don't believe you can teach someone to feel the spirit. To draw an analogy, I would never be able to teach my children what a warm summer day feels like -- it is something that has to be experienced. All I can do is teach them what they have to do to prepare for the experience (i.e., where and when to go). Ultimately, opening himself up to feeling the Spirit is something he has to do.

It would be best to speak with your bishop directly for clarification. There is no way for us to know what he intended.

The conditions of informal probation are entirely up to the discretion of the bishop/branch president. The conditions may be restrictive or prescriptive. In other words, the leader will seek to set conditions that are geared towards positive growth and repentance and since each individual's situation and needs are unique, the conditions are left to inspiration.

Love is unconditional: Love is the unconditional desire for the subject to find joy. Love is the unconditional desire for the subject to achieve his or her potential. Love is conditional: There are conditions, or natural limitations that the one who loves can not violate lest he or she bring about a result that is contrary to his or her unconditional desire that the subject find joy and achieve his or her potential. It is only through the exercise of agency that man is able to grow and become something more. Spiritual salvation must be invited in, it can not be forced upon. True growth comes from within. God does not walk away from the sinner, the sinner walks away from God. God would be unloving if He were to violate the sinner's will and agency and forcefully keep him from willfully walking away. The sinner would be nothing more than a captive or slave. He would be taking away the natural consequences of the sinner's choices, which are themselves opportunities for growth -- both for the sinner himself, as well as for others that observe cause and effect play out. God's unconditional love does matter, if for no other reason than the practical issue of fairness. If He loves all equally and unconditionally, then there is some guarantee that the rules of the game are fair -- He can be trusted and is worthy of our faith. The sinner can not claim that his present spiritual condition is the result of lesser opportunities afforded by a God that loves him less. The sinner must face the reality that his present spiritual condition is the result of his own agency -- the result of opportunities that he willfully declines. Of course, personal definitions mean a great deal (as can be evidenced by the back and forth demonstrated in this thread). The above comes from my definition of love.

First, you have to establish that "Church leaders are those that have the right and ability to define and interpret doctrine" is itself doctrine and not just a widely held belief. For example, your wording here seems to remove the role of the Holy Ghost, revelation, inspiration, et al from those that are entitled to such and obligate the membership to blind and unquestioning adherence to the whims of those at the top of the organization. Not to mention, you fail to define "Church leaders" (primary presidents, prophets, seventies, etc.) or show how it is that you came to believe that he makes such a challenge. If there is room for intelligent discussion here, then it would seem a bit premature to question Gileadi's motives and possible contributions to the field of deciphering the Book of Isaiah. There are plenty of books that line the shelves of Deseret Book or articles in official Church magazines that have the occasional quirky opinion that it would be a little unfair to target him at the exclusion of the others. Read what he says and listen to the promptings of the spirit. Even if you don't agree with an author completely, it may be that his perspective opens up a different way of looking at the world/scripture for you. I have read some of his works and while I don't agree with everything he posits, I do appreciate his perspective.

As I see it, there are several possible reasons for secrecy as it relates to LDS Temple ceremonies: 1. The secrecy of specific portions of ceremony plays a part in the overall object lesson that the individual is to meditate upon later. Questions that one would ask him/her self might include, "Why was I required to make an oath to keep this part of the ceremony secret? What is its significance?" 2. Secrecy is for the benefit of those that are not yet ready to process the lessons that such ceremonies convey. 3. We do not willingly cast pearls before swine. We do not willingly put that which we consider valuable in the middle of the road to be trampled upon by those passing by that do not understand the value of what they are coming upon. I believe the above would likely apply to Free Mason temple ceremonies as well since they likely (he's not here to ask, so I have to assume) had an impact on the prophet Joseph. (Bringing this thread back to the original topic of Free Masonry and Joseph Smith, Jr.) I find it interesting that so many in the Church believe that it is wrong to discuss anything that transpires within the walls of the temple while outside of the temple. I think "Secret Combinations" could be roughly defined as "those that secretly conspire to do evil". Secrecy itself is neither good nor evil -- it depends on how it is used. For example, would it be wrong for an individual to refuse to give up the PIN for his debit card simply because someone asked him for it? The PIN in this case is a secret. Let's throw the spouse into the mix now -- a "combination" in that there are multiple parties that are knowledgeable of the secret. Would it be wrong for one spouse, the other, or both to refuse to give up the PIN? Bottom line, I don't believe Latter-day Saints, Free Masons, or any other group can be compared to a "Secret Combination" unless malicious intent were proven.

Why is there so much opposition to the Boy Scouts of America within the Church? I believe it stems from the LDS culture somehow pulling Boy Scouts into the Priesthood rather than keeping it what it is -- a program. When priesthood leaders are expected to act as fundraisers for those that profit from such fundraising, when quotas are set for said fundraising, when better-off members of wards are targeted for fundraising, when fundraising activity is announced over the pulpit, when scout activity is somehow implied to be a part priesthood duty, when scout uniforms are somehow acceptable church attire (especially when coupled with the attitude that a suit and tie or a dress are the ONLY acceptable church attire), etc. I believe you will naturally hit resistance. I believe the scouting program can be and frequently is helpful for the development of many young men. However, I start getting antagonistic when scouting is raised beyond the status of a program. (That and I have personal issues with taking oaths to unconditionally promote and further advance any temporal organization, with the BSA Eagle oath being just one such instance.) I would love it if there were comparable programs for the character development of young women as well. On a side note, I believe the character of the young men could be further helped by NOT attaching their accomplishments to their uniforms. Badges of honor feed the ego, and we should be working to control and ultimately defeat the ego -- should we not? Do we seek for the praise of the world? This isn't to say the scouting program is inherently flawed because of this, just that I personally see room for improvement.

Before one can understand the role of temples for Latter-day Saints, one has to understand a little bit about LDS theology. In Latter-day Saint theology and philosophy, there is no beginning and no end of an individual. We have always existed and always will. We do not believe that individuals will ever come to an absolute end state. Rather, we believe in eternal progression. In other words, an individual can always become more than what he was -- growth potential is infinite. Obtaining a mortal physical body is part of this growth process. One had to progress to a certain point to be worthy of a body. The mortal experience provides the opportunity for individuals to grow and progress to the next phase in existence. With all of this in mind, temples are defined in LDS scripture as houses of learning, houses of prayer, houses of faith, houses of order, and houses of God. Temples and the ordinances performed therein are part of the progressive learning and growth process. Nobody is prohibited from participating, but there is a particular order, or a particular series of steps that have to be followed before one is admitted. A first grader may be highly motivated and intelligent, but it would not be beneficial to that individual to put him in college courses until he is ready.

No offense, but this forum needs a "Laughed out loud" button. Considering LDS membership is greater outside the U.S. than within and that the Boy Scouts of America is a U.S. institution, does this mean that the majority of Aaronic Priesthood holders fall short? The Boy Scouts of America is a profit-based organization. The LDS Church utilizes the scouting program as a vehicle to achieve certain objectives, but by no means should one come to the conclusion that there is anything more with regards to the BSA organization itself. Sadly, the Eagle Scout award has become an idol for many. Please don't get me wrong -- scouting can and will produce worthwhile results in some. We just need to keep its purpose in perspective.

Attending church accomplishes a number of things, one of which is fellowship, yes. Partly because some of us want to know what makes the next guy tick -- at least that is how it works for me, and it's nothing personal. There are three sides to every story: His side, her side, and the truth. ;-) Please don't take offense with the following questions, I'm just looking to better understand the context of the issue at hand... Besides your choice to befriend an individual that happens to be an homosexual, what statements or other overt gestures or communications have you or your wife made pertaining to your view of appropriate Christ-like behavior towards homosexuals? Have you or your wife made any critical statements about the official Church position on homosexual marriage?

Which reminds me of two things never to discuss at a dinner party: Religion and politics. ;-) Seriously though, a truly loving friendship is strong enough to endure differences of opinion. However, why get into discussions about divisive topics while in the early stages of establishing a friendship? Build on what you have in common (faith, family, etc.) first, then move on to friendly discussions about temporal differences that matter less (economic policy, etc.) when and if they happen to come up. Why did politics come up in Church to begin with? People are people. People socially gravitate towards those that are similar to themselves, thus the emphasis to build on common ground first. As for disliking you for what you socially believe, nobody is perfect.

Do you believe societal or political views are the foundational basis of friendship?

Love, charity, faith, understanding, comprehension, and mastery of thought and action only come through experience.