jiggypoo

Poligamy wasnt permitted in the early church for those who held offices in ministry. 1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. ← Now I can respect that, since it is specific "one wife". Thanks.

Taking this approach as "God gave so and so cancer" to kill them/test them is dangerous. It inspires a "victim" attitude, and often creates confusion and anger in those impacted by such events. I've learned through real life that the perspective may be a bit different. My perspective is this: Your Aunt contract cancer as the path of life she travels took her there. Whether God "wanted" to do that is nothing that we can judge. I hope your Aunt will work through it, either to life or death - though the end is irrelevant. What matters is how she takes stride and faith in it - doing the good will of God despite her travials and suffering, and gaining capacity to empathize with others and become more as Christ is. People die according to biology, bodily harm, etc, because their life path went there. God somtimes interviens into the cycle of life to change or alter its course (usually called a miracle), but I believe He lets the dominos fall where they may. I'm not one that promotes the "God gave me this as a test", as all of life is the test, not just isolated moments where difficult things happen. Its about the journey, not the destination. Its about becoming greater than our natural capacity through the Grace of the Almighty God. Our WHOLE life is here to help us learn this, and then become this. This is just my perspective.

"Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." This is terribly mis-quoted in my opinion. It simply states the relationship that should exists between husband and wife. It doesnt imply restriction of number - as this union should be unique between the two individuals and NOT shared (such as a threesome) among the rest. As for the feelings this person is having about a new mom, family ,etc - I totally relate. My mother passed away from cancer shortly before my 11th birthday. Dad remarried 11 months later (too soon I think). That transition is bitter, difficult and greatly confusing. Life is never the same. She may feel "outside herself" for something - "outside herself" being that there is no more sense of home, security or direction. It is hell to go through that when you're young. I'll pray for her.

Polygamy is something we're conditioned to believe certain things about, just as monogmany and any other marital order or sexual practice. We're conditioned in most things - told that we'll experinece (x) or (y) if we do (a) or (B). We have to be careful and wise by tapping the Holy Ghost for the truth of the matter. If polygamy were re-instituted, I am sure many would balk at it. Others would embrace it. It would be an adjsutment of thinking across the board. For me, I would need confirmation from the Lord that it was the proper practice for me and my marriage. If none came, obedience to it wouldn't happen.

1. Ayn Rand (100%) Click here for info 2. Jean-Paul Sartre (93%) Click here for info 3. St. Augustine (91%) Click here for info 4. John Stuart Mill (86%) Click here for info 5. Plato (75%) Click here for info 6. Spinoza (75%) Click here for info 7. Aquinas (72%) Click here for info 8. Kant (72%) Click here for info 9. Epicureans (68%) Click here for info 10. Jeremy Bentham (65%) Click here for info 11. Prescriptivism (63%) Click here for info 12. Aristotle (58%) Click here for info 13. David Hume (56%) Click here for info 14. Stoics (53%) Click here for info 15. Nietzsche (51%) Click here for info 16. Nel Noddings (48%) Click here for info 17. Thomas Hobbes (46%) Click here for info 18. Ockham (39%) Click here for info 19. Cynics (37%) Click here for info

Frued is kind of on target - but I think there is MUCH more to the human sexual psychi than what Frued or you are considering. My experience w/ recovery from porn addiction has revealed much about my relationship issues with women in general. My understanding of how to deal with the opposite sex didn't come from my mother - it came from a babysitter who sexually abused me. With her actions, she taught me that this is how I am acceptable to other women, and what is required to gain their acceptance and relate to them (which was a false way). Additionally, I believe we respond to persons in a conditioned way - a way that people have taught us to reply with. So, it doesn't surprise me that some abused women seek out men just like their abuser. That is the only way they know how to relate to the opposite sex. Though I didn't marry a woman who was like my abuser, I often find myself very attracted to women who have the abusers physical traits and personality components. It is very complicated and confusing, at least for me.

Lionheart - It seems we're really on the same page, as I agree with much of what you have said. Thanks for a good discussion. I feel edified.

Yes. Merry Christmas!

Lionheart -- thanks for the answer. My reply: I've re-read your words & pondered them. You state that sin will be used as a measuring stick for our progress, but we will earn our glory by our works. These statements seemt to be in contradiction. If my glory is determined by works, then works is the measuring stick - "sin" and "works of pure, single intent" being types of the "works to be judged by" category. You state: "Now there is no such thing as "saved by grace after all we can do" because it is not necessary. " Tell me what Nephi meant by his statement in 2NE 25:23? If it is not necessary, then why did he make such a statement? You state that the Atonement does nothing about sin. Please explain the following verse: Alma 22:14 This verses clearly states to me a relationship between the Atonement and sin. Please clarify how you came to understand the Atonement as doing nothing about sin. You say: "Because you see, on judgement day, it's not about what we have done, it's about who we are" I agree it will not be about what we've done. I believe it will be WHY we've done it. It is the WHY that defines the WHO in our being, not the WHAT. God judges upon intent, not exclusively upon action. I believe this may be what you are trying to convey here. "Have we used every opportunity to better ourselves, or did we let them slip by and allow ourselves to become more slothful? Understanding this principle will help one more fully understand the parable of the ten talents. You can have two men; both of them truly do their best, however, one of the men makes more temporal accomplishments in this lifetime than the other because of the cards they were dealt. They will both receive the same reward because they both did their best." Yes, this is again coming to the WHY of the matter, rather than the materialist perspective of WHAT. As for life's circumstances, I do understand that Lord takes into account all the cards. If He didn't, He would not be Just nor Merciful. "This is also why the Saviour instructs us to forgive always. Because it doesn't matter what we have done in the past. The thing that matters is the type of person we are right now, and what is in our hearts." God instructs us to forgive so that we may be forgiven also. Forgiveness isn't simple, nor trite. Forgiveness is an act of genuine Love, a sign of Grace that we can ill afford to let pass, nor withhold from those passing before us. As for the past - it DOES matter. It will show the intent of our heart. It will reveal the hypocrite and the slothful, as well as the enduring righteous. The NOW will not matter at this point, as the definition of our character will be blazen upon our soul and evidenced by our past. "Although, we will pay a price for our wicked deeds, however, that punishment will be brought on by ourselves and not by the Lord;" The Lord states clearly in D&C 19:15-19 that it will be He who exercises justice and allows the just punishments to commence upon those who fail to repent and use the Atonement to wash their souls clean. I believe you may be stating it is we who EARNED this reward by sinning. As for "our wicked deeds", we will suffer for only those that we do not repent of. We will be free of those sins of which we've been forgiven. This forgiveness comes by way of the Atonement of Christ. We are sanctified through Him. D&C 20:30-31 states we are justified through the Grace of Jesus, and thus sanctified through Him. This enables us to partake of the reward our works of pure, single intent have earned us. As for the punishment, I believe you are correct - it is designed to change flawed character and lead a person to redemption. A note about the Atonement: it isn't just about physical redemption. It is about spiritual redemption of the person. The Atonement, when applied fully, changes character flaws and purifies the individual. It is called sanctification. It is spoken of much by the early prophets and is a central point of the Scriptures. We much be sanctified before we can inherent any type of glory - for no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of God.

So what you are saying is this: 1) Salvation = Ability to enter one of The 3 Degrees of Glory (done by Atonement) 2) Exaltation = inheriting a Degree of Glory (determined by nature of works done in this life) Is this what you are getting at?

Lionheart - What did the Atonement do about sin? Did it play a role in redeeming us from our sins? If so, what role is that?

Lionheart - I don't entirely agree with your discertation on the Atonement. You state it as though it had no meaning outside of providing the Ressurection. Surely the Garden experience was not about the Ressurection - but about the blood being given so that we are made white, sanctified through Christ's goodness and sacrifice, this being done so that we can enter into the presence of the Father. The Atonement enables Salvation not just through ressurection, but through GRACE, for we cannot make complete recompense for our actions. The law and justice must be satisfied - and the garden made that wholely possible (i.e. saved by grace after all we can do). I presume that this would fit within the redemption stage you spoke of. We much first be reconsiled to God, then made pure by Jesus Blood, then endure to the end. Exaltation is enabled through the taking upon ourselves priesthood and covenants required for it. Atleast, that is how I believe it works.

I've seen the attitude Tao speaks of in my own ward. I find much more reward in giving freely of my surplus and by constraint or by demand because "I'll be blessed in return." I'm not paying my tithing to be blessed. I'm paying tithing because I AM blessed, and this is what needs to be clarified in my ward (atleast). And, according to Malachi, a blessing is promised for those who contribute, so I'm a bit off in my ascertion against my ward. What I feel is that we're too focused on our reward, as if we're lost without the money we donated to the Lord!

It is true I do not disagree with your point. I think I approached the my empahsis incorrectly by stating I disagreed with it.

I think the point I tried to make has been missed. It isn't that serving God is the point. It is HOW that is done. See, in my ward, we don't teach that the heart and one's intent is the great measuring stick. We are taught that our actions are the measuring stick. BUT THEY DON'T. Actions are misleading. Where our self-interest is pointing is the WHOLE point of this. So what if I serve my fellow man if I do it to get glory or a "reward". It will do me no good. But if I serve my fellow man out of genuine unconditional love for him, I will naturally bring God glory and reward to my soul. How genuine are we in our so-called charity? How honest and naked are we really before the Lord? Simply put, the answer Lionheart gave is the standard "church" reply - and that no longer holds the point, power or impact that it did in its younger years. We Mormons need to get it in our heads that it isn't about what works I do - it is about WHY we do those works.

Yea...I see it as a possibility. Its conjecture on my part, but none the less something to consider.

"The only thing that matters here is that we absolutely serve the Lord in all things. " Well, I disagree - kind of - on this phrase. Yea, the point is to serve God in all things - about HOW this is done is REALLY the crux of the whole point of life. We can't serve God if our self-interest is not guided by unconditional love for those (all those) around us. This life is to learn to USE self-interest for the good and welfare of those around us while keeping in check the selfish tendencies of self-interest (yes, self-interest and selfishness are seperate). I've come to this conclusion: if we fail to learn to love each other unconditionally, no amount of "good works" will earn us the reward because we have selfishly sought it. Good works are in vain if they are done for personal gain or glory. It is selfishness that kills the golden goose! So, let us learn that we can use our self-interest for the betterment of others - and that this needs to come through genuine love for them. Only God is the great Giver of this type of love, and so we must first seek him, become reconsiled, and then petition God to infuse within us this unconditional love!

I belive the seperation of glories in the Heaven of God may not be as physical as we think. I believe it has to do with knowledge and with an endowment of power to act on that knowledge. Just my thinking about the Glories of God and the Righteous. PS - I don't have scripture to back this up. It is just a thought that comes to me now and then.

"However, you make it sound as if church leaders have changed the rules because they want to " Fiannan - I can see how I sound that way. Your point about lower laws is a nice justification for change but I'm not really comfortable with the "lower laws" approach. It would bother me that God's expectation of me changes according to my willingness to reach for Him. I'll have to ponder this more.

Yes, and Im not even Mormon. ← LET ME HELP THE “SON OF PAUL” IN THIS BATTLE ABOUT WHAT IF’S These are some very good “what if questions” because all who are students of the truth must ask these types of questions everyday. We must base truth on sound evidence, solid teaching and tested documentation. We can’t test truth on: hearsay evidence without checking it out ourselves; personal feelings that are relied on can lead to accept an untruth based on how I felt at the moment; and so on. We must first start by ask a much broader question first. How do we know that anything is true? How do we test any claims of truth? The answer to these two questions is: we test to see what is truth through observation, experimentation, examination, eyewitnesses and scientific evidence. For example, one must test historical claims measured by the common standards of historical research. Any claims, for truth, generally, will be verified by some other documentation or scientific evidence. These claims of truth must also be tested for rationality. Is it logically consistent and coherent? The Bible has, through thousands of years, been claimed as a standard of truth. One of the most astonishing things, of course, is that the Bible has literally thousands of testable historical prophecies, cases in which events were clearly foretold, and both the foretelling and the fulfillment is a matter of historical record. We must also examine the Book of Mormon, by these same methods to see if it is a source of truth, as claimed by Smith and others. Conversely, if, like many other so called statements about the truth, of a particular belief system, it falls by the way side as false teaching and erroneous beliefs. So let’s examine of the responses to the what if questions posed by SON OF PAUL BEN RAINES SAID: “I believe that God continues to communicate with his children whom he loves.” HEY, WE FOUND SOMETHING WE AGREE ON BUT THEN YOU NARROW DOWN YOUR STATEMENT TO ONLY “living prophets today”. I am assuming you are referring to the LDS seer, prophet, and revelator. I agree God hasn’t “closed the heavens” and speaks to every one of us today if we will listen!! But I think you are limiting your focus to only the “living prophets in the LDS church” which is where you are in error. Peter declared in Acts 2:17 that when the Holy Spirit falls on His people the “sons and daughters shall prophesy”. Acts 21:9 states Philip had 4 daughters that all prophesied. Paul states in Romans 12:4-6 that the believers shall prophesy according to the proportion of faith they have. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 14:1, 24, 39 that there would be many who prophesy as the Holy Spirit moves in them. Paul even goes so far as to say “covet to prophesy”. So my take on this is that God never intended prophecy to be only one individual as the LDS teach. So SON OF PAUL is correct in asking the question “Does God speak to normal people like you and me” or does he only speak through only the (living) prophets? I believe that God speaks through many prophets today. However, in all cases, the prophecies must be compared to a standard of truth that will test to see if it is really God speaking as He spoke in the past. This is where it gets difficult for there are many false prophets out there. So since the Bible has been tested and verified as the Word of God then we should be checking any new prophecies against it to verify the veracity of the “so called prophecy”. LINDY asked some more “what if” questions but I didn’t see anything there to further respond to except if she accepts the Lord Jesus as her personal Savior as I have posted elsewhere then we will meet in heaven. JOSIE apparently got a little upset over the “what if questions”. SON OF PAUL was only asking the dramatic questions to make one think. Paul stated in 2 Corinthians 13:5 “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith, test yourselves. Do you realize that Christ Jesus is in you – unless of course you fail the test.” So we are to ask the what if questions. JOSIE goes on to talk about the LDS church has withstood “mobs, murder, threatenings, fire, and much, much more.” I don’t disagree with that but SON OF PAUL’S question was about the BOM. The JOSIE states the “Book of Mormon is being used to find ruins of cities in central and south America.” Please provide some proof from known and respected archeologists as to the veracity of this claim. And to base your truth on the statement that the “LDS Church is one of the fastest growing churches in the World” does not prove anything. Communism was at one time the fastest growing form of government but it was based on a lie. So for the most part it has fell by the wayside. JIGGYPOO says he will have lived a good life based on what he perceived as truth. That doesn’t answer the question asked. If it is not true then why do you live by a lie why not search out the truth. If JS told some “tall tales” which he was known to do then those who follow him blindly also will have to account for their belief before God. JIGGYPOO then makes a great statement in “I know my God and His great compassion and infinite goodness. I know my sins are remitted through His Son. I do not fear the judgment bar of God. I know in whom I have trusted.” I hope and pray you are basing this statement on the acceptance of Jesus as your personal Savior. JIGGYPOO says the “Mormons believe the Bible to be divinely inspired but that portions have been removed or changed”. The BOM states that the Bible has the “fullness of the everlasting gospel”… and that the BOM “contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel”. After this one statement in the Introduction of the LDS version of the BOM there a systematic tearing down of the statement that the Bible “contains the fullness of the everlasting Gospel”. For example read the 6th paragraph of the same Introduction which quotes Joseph Smith as saying “…Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book”. This statement leaves the impression that the BOM is superior to the Bible and should be trusted more. 2N 29:8, 10 also tear down the Bible by saying “plain and precious” things have been removed. If one studies out the dissemination process of the New Testament in the early church they would find it very hard to say there was a systematic removal of these things. JIGGYPOO you are basing your premise on what the BOM, JS and other Mormon teachers have told you to believe. Study out the NT dissemination process as I have said and verify it. I will have to stop here because I have run out of time to respond at this time. I will work on the rest of the responses later. ← My response: Question #1 was: "What if the Mormon doctrine was wrong?" I replied to this in the personal sense. It is a sufficient answer to the question if taken in personal salvation context. IF the question's context is different, then that context needs to be better explained by the questionaire. #2: About Jesus being my personal Savior: Of course He is! I don't get evangelicals nor Mormons debating over this. Ultimately the whole point (for me, atleast), is to learn, accept, and live by such a truth. Yes, I accept Jesus as my Savior. He is my Redeemer and He is my judge. #3: About the Bible and the revisionist perspective: yea - it's the Mormon's perspective (though I doubt we're alone). I don't see it as unreasonable, either. I've not extensively researched it, as I haven't seen any need to. Maybe sometime in the future I will. For now, though, I'm comfortable with what I see as evidence that the Bible has been muddled (i.e. plain and precious truths being removed). One such evidence (for me) is the lack of clarify and agreement on the requisites of Salvation, and how one obtains such salvation. I figure this critical truth would be as clear as day (and it is when considering the BofM's definition and requirements). This is how I see it. One day, if and when I feel the need to explore translation erros in the Bible, I'll check it out. Thanks for your concern anyhow.

Porter - You make excellent points about the application of the Atonement of Christ. I stand as a witness to this truth. In my recovery from pornography addiction, I had to come face to face with the many false bleiefs I carried about God, forgiveness, and the Atonement. It is very difficult to begin to own one's actions and stand accountable before God and his judges for our actions. It, though, is the fire which helps begin the purging process. Thanks for this post.

Well, you ask the traditional questions. My answers: What if the Mormon doctrine was wrong? Then I will have lead a good life, making positive contribution to my fellow brethren and bringing glory to God through my faithlfulness to what I percieved as truth. What if Joseph Smith was telling a tall tale? Then he will have to account for that before God. What if everything that you have been told from the Mormon Church is false? Then there will be a few disappointing moments, but since my allegence is to God and His son Jesus, I will humbly comply to His will What if the evangelical’s God exists?Then He will be a bit different God, but His grace, mercy, and judgement will be true and faithful. I would conform to the truth. What if you had to give an account before the evangelical’s God? This account would be no different than the account before my God. My actions, my inactions, and so forth will be accounted for. I'm comfortable with this. I know my God and His grat compassion and infinite Goodness. I know my sins are remitted through His Son. I do not fear the judgement bar of God. I know in whom I have trusted. What if the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God? Who says it isn't? We Mormons believe it is divinely inspired, but portions have been removed or changed through the weakness and craftiness of men. What if God created the world as the book of Genesis states? Great. Don't know how that impacts my salvation though. What would it mean to the Mormon faith, if some or all of these questions are true? It would mean it was just another faith that required reconsiliation to God. What would it mean to your understanding grace and salvation? Nothing really since I am reconsiled continually through Christ.

It is interesting how contradictory and hypocritical God can be. But is it for us to judge? When it comes to "why" things happen or are commanded, the INTENT is what we ought to judge on. Plus, with things in ancient writing, we do not have all the details. Let us be mindful of such. As for characteristics of God found in history - mine would be consistentcy. This mmeans he is always working to establish His people here on Earth and lift us up above our carnal natures.

I love the conflicts of interest that exist within the Church. It goes to show that things do change in the Church - and not because of God - but because of men and their biases. Prophets are biased. They have their own set of ideals - and those are founded upon the prejudices of their life, culture and so forth. How do we break through this? We turn it to God and ask His divine guidance. I sincerely believe this is most important. Blind obedience leads to slothful servants and faithless congregations. Let us exercise the gift of the Holy Ghost and determine our proper course regarding this.

It doesn't surprise me that ETB and others so heavily defended the United Order against Markist-Communism. Look at the time all this was happening - in the heat of the Cold War. COmmunism has a strong negative connotation to the generations previous to mine (i'm 27). It meant nuclear war, desolation, dictatorship, loss of "freedom". To have the United Order as a synonim(sp?) to Communism would be a very negative thing - creating alot of questions and alot of heart-ache for the church. As for differences - Communism is a man-lead organization. The United Order is to be lead by Phophetic/spiritual basis. Now - as for the benign concept of Communism - it is an ideal of unity and equality. The problem is this , though - self-interest is a factor that must be considered. People have an inherent self-interest in bettering their condition. Now, self-interest ought to better both the person and the society as a whole. If it does not, self-interest should be termed "selfishness". For "equality" to happen, selfishness must be stifled and the social self-interest must be fostered. Anyhow, I'll stop rambling. I hope this provides for a more civilized discussion vs what we've had on this thread lately.