Rhoades

I think most of the time when we hear the word "angel" we think of messengers of God. These are usually a) spirits of people that haven't been born yet b) spirits of those that have departed this life awaiting resurrection c) resurrected messengers of God And, of course someone could call another mortal an angel but they're using the word metaphorically. However, there are some exceptions where the word angels is used in place of spirits. For example, in Jude 1:6 when it says "And the angels which kept not their first estate..." and Matthew 25:41 saying "devil and his angels" In cases such as those, I read it as spirits. However, I don't think you'd ever find an LDS person using spirits and angels interchangeably. They'd mean a non-mortal with a special calling to act as a messenger of God.

Similarly, I also wonder about children who die in infancy. In 1800 the estimated global child mortality rate was over 40%. Even in 1950 it was about 20%. This is the percent of people that died before age 5. If throughout the history of the world there were similar child mortality rates, that means a LOT of people didn't get to experience mortality as an adult. The celestial kingdom will be loaded with such people. My guess is that the child mortality rate wasn't always so high, but I really have no way of knowing. Either way, I realize that many many people have a different mortal experience.

I'm either not understanding this correctly or he's not very familiar with the scriptures. Was he was trying to find other scriptures that teach that death came about from Adam's fall? The obvious one is 1 Corinthians 1 15:20-22. It's even a seminary scripture mastery. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Sinning isn't needed in order to learn (e.g. Jesus), but opposition is necessary. I don't think he intended for a paradisaical glory to provide us with the necessary opposition. Also, it's important to know that at the end of the millennium there will be much opposition.

Agreed. The New Testament teaches that although the faithful will inherit all things, Jesus Christ will still be their God and He shall rule over them. "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." (Revelation 21:7) The King of Kings and Lord of Lords shall rule and reign forever. Some Christians are hesitant with the "heirs of God" doctrine because they feel like an all powerful being would not be as great and glorious if he can have offspring that he can help to become like him. They feel like it lessens God. But, it's actually the opposite. It adds to His glory and greatness. Someone that helps and lifts others around them is truly great. This reminds me of the principle taught in Mark 10, when James and John said they wanted to sit with Jesus as he ruled in glory, one on his right and one on his left (vs 37). He taught them that to truly be great, you don't exercise lordship and authority over others like the rulers in this world do (vs 42). Instead, you minister to others. "But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (vs. 43-45) God being able and willing to do such great things for us does NOT lessen Him. It makes Him greater.

>> driving belief towards a more traditional understanding? It's NOT that the doctrine of the LDS church is becoming more traditional. The doctrine is the same. What is happening is that more outsiders who thought LDS doctrine was non-traditional are learning for themselves what the doctrine actually is. The Internet has helped with this, as well as the fact that there are many more members. I've talked to hundreds of other Christians and am well aware that most who think they know LDS doctrine have a wrong understanding. For the few that are open to learning, the more they learn the more they realize most basic truths they already know are agreeable with LDS doctrine. Your quote about "we actually believe that too" made me smile because I find myself thinking that often. I sent my two youngest children to a local Baptist preschool. I have no problems with the doctrines taught. Jesus is our Savior and the only way to salvation. The Bible is true. Jesus created the world. We believe all of that. >> The less distinctive, the less necessary. In other words, if LDS teaching becomes almost-traditional then what's the point of the Restoration. Great question. The Restoration was needed to clarify and correct doctrines, but many truths were already around. Think about the non-LDS doctrinal views of baptism. Is baptism even necessary for believers? Does baptism need to be done by immersion? Should infants be baptized? Who can perform the ordinance? There are a variety of differing opinions. The Restoration is a gift from God to clarify truths to the world, including this simple example of baptism. Because of the Restoration, we know who baptism is for, whether it is necessary, and how it is to be done. Additional truths hinted at in the Bible although lost over time were also revealed (such as proxy baptism for the deceased). Although lots of the beautiful truths about baptism (and other doctrines) were already available, the Restoration clarifies and helps increase our understanding. It allows God's children to come in the "unity of the faith" and not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine". (Ephesians 4:13-14). A correct understanding of God and His gospel allows us to develop stronger faith in Him. In addition to restoring and clarifying some truths, we also need living apostles and prophets. If you teach a people truth and then leave them to themselves, they'll get lost over time. Circumstances come up for which inspired guidance is needed. God uses prophets for timely guidance and direction for the whole body of believers. In addition to giving us timely guidance, the Church with a foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus as its corner stone is God's way of helping his people become holy (Ephesians 2:19-22). Lastly, the Restoration provided more than truths. It also provides ordinances and authority.

Actually I believe each R-rated movie should be prayed about individually. :) No, not really. My point is that one should counsel with the Lord when making important decisions, especially in matters related to your family and parenting. Yes, I agree. I pray for general help with parenting daily, and pray about specific things on occasion. I know God doesn't want to direct every minute detail of our lives. I'm not saying you need to pray about which kind of cereal you eat for breakfast. We are "agents who act" and we need to learn to make decisions. To you, it sounds like home schooling is a no-brainer and there's really no decision. To me, it is a decision with pros and cons either way. Your "I wouldn't pray about it" statement caught my attention because I have past experience praying about how to handle some issues with our children (home schooling was among several options), receiving an unexpected answer, and going forward despite it being difficult. And things turned out better for our children than we thought possible. Way better.

Alma 37:37 teaches to "counsel with the Lord in all thy doings". We must counsel with God on things we think are important, especially things related to parenting. Be careful not to shut the door on light and knowledge because of what you already know. He doesn't want to make all of our decisions for us, and He'll let us make some mistakes. But, sometimes there's helpful inspiration He wants to share if we ask. There are advantages to home school and there are advantages to public school. What's best overall varies depending on a lot of factors (needs of the family, health, resources, personalities, where you live, etc.) Since God will know those factors better than you, when the time comes check and see if He has any advice.

Ok, I think I understand what you were trying to say now. And the word "greater" goes along with the teaching in Luke 7:47 that the person with many sins was forgiven more than the person with few. I agree that repentance and not just sorrow for sin is needed. The parable with the laborers did teach that the last laborers worked for a time period even though it was shorter. They didn't just get hired and then the whistle blew without giving them any time to labor.

I'm not sure why you used "greater" instead of "equal" in that statement so maybe I don't understand what you were saying. Were you thinking it would be "greater" if you lived a very sinful life and then repented and received celestial glory versus being less sinful and repenting and receiving celestial glory? If so, I disagree. There's no advantage to sin. There is a parable about late-comers receiving an equal reward. (laborers in the vineyard found in Matthew 20:1-15) Elder Holland used it in a talk a few years ago (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-laborers-in-the-vineyard?lang=eng). Of course he wasn't teaching that we should aspire to remain sinners with plans for deathbed repentance. He was teaching people entangled in sin feeling there's no hope that there is hope. In the talk he said "This parable—like all parables—is not really about laborers or wages any more than the others are about sheep and goats. This is a story about God’s goodness, His patience and forgiveness, and the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a story about generosity and compassion. It is a story about grace. It underscores the thought I heard many years ago that surely the thing God enjoys most about being God is the thrill of being merciful, especially to those who don’t expect it and often feel they don’t deserve it."

When I encounter such images such as at the grocery store, I call it what it is and turn to look at something else. I'm not afraid to call it what it is. It is pornography. Why would I call the Bishop? He already knows there's pornography all around. If he wants to find some, he can without needing my help.

You may be confused about what porn is. There's a good LDS video that teaches kids about porn at https://www.lds.org/youth/video/what-should-i-do-when-i-see-pornography?lang=eng At the 1:35 mark it teaches "pornography means bad pictures of people with little or no clothes on." This supports JojoBag's statement that "racy photos, including bikini shots, lingerie and other such filth are pornography". One of the points of the video is that when you encounter it you should immediately "call it what it is". If the images are "racy" with little clothes on, they are porn. In the "True to the Faith" book, Chastity chapter (https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/chastity?lang=eng) in the "Stay away from pornography" section it teaches "Do not view, read, or listen to anything that depicts or describes the human body or sexual conduct in a way that can arouse sexual feelings."

I'm with you, Vort. Before I actually looked at it directly (i.e. when it was only seen in the peripheral), I subconsciously thought it was a pig. Now that you've directed my attention to the image and I've processed it for what it is (a kitten), I have a hard time getting the pig.

You can get that on ebay. But, why not go for 100 trillion?

I agree that humility and love are important factors here. Charity "is not easily provoked" comes to mind. (1 Corinthians 13:5) There are both non-religious and religious people that have the charity and humility to not get easily offended. Some people just seem to be blessed with this gift more than others. But, we should all be seeking for more charity/humility. It is through the atonement of Christ that God can change our hearts if we accept and allow it. One of my favorite examples of not being offended is Pahoran's response to captain Moroni in The Book of Mormon after Moroni berates him in Alma 60-61. Moroni says things like If a church leader implied that God told him you were transgressing (even though you weren't) and that he needed to take action against you, how would you respond? Pahoran knew Moroni had good intentions but was lacking knowledge of the situation. He didn't get offended, he said:

Here are some more not yet included by others: Reading the Ensign or Liahona (church magazines) cover to cover each month is essential.Reading those magazines includes reading the latest general conference talks.The Family Guidebook (https://www.lds.org/manual/family-guidebook?lang=eng) For the Strength of Youth (https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth?lang=eng) People have already mentioned reading manuals. One approach is to read the scriptures and lesson manuals for whatever Sunday classes you attend. For Gospel Doctrine, there's a student guidebook but you can also just read the teacher's manual. If you have a church calling, read applicable sections of Church Handbook 2 as well as online resources for your calling.

It was "sacrament and priesthood meetings" a few years ago. When I saw the title of this thread, I thought of this specific question. You can see the wording was "sacrament and priesthood meetings" in this Elder Hales article in Feb 2006 New Era (https://www.lds.org/new-era/2006/02/preparing-for-a-heavenly-marriage?lang=eng) In the current Gospel Principles book, chapter 38 has some sample questions which say "sacrament and priesthood meetings" (https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-38-eternal-marriage?lang=eng)

"We will never be baptized for all the dead." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers To Gospel Questions, section 38, pg 150.) Although a worthwhile read, it's not canonized scripture. I'll share more of what he wrote: He cites Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 12 on that. He then says: He then quotes from D&C 20:25-29 and says see also D&C 76. He quotes D&C 29:43-44 then he quotes Romans 6:1-11. Then he says this: That's it. Yep.

I don't recall ever coming across anything teaching that baptism wasn't required for different dispensations. I think it is a universal ordinance, required in every dispensation for salvation in the celestial kingdom for those who reach accountability. We know people pre-Moses were baptized (such as Adam, Moses 6:64-66). People living the law of Moses were baptized (such as Helam in the Book of Mormon, Mosiah 18:13). People in Christ's time were baptized. People today are baptized. As a side note, there is at least one ordinance that all will receive regardless of kingdom. That is the ordinance of resurrection.

I found my Answers To Gospel Questions volumes this morning and re-read the one about baptism being needed for other kingdoms. It's 4 pages long (although a small booklet with not too much on each page). He cited several scriptures as well as a quote by Joseph Smith. I didn't think any of them were a slam dunk on the topic. After reading this, I side with Joseph Fielding Smith even more that baptism is not needed for lower kingdoms of glory. One that he cited is Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. D&C 112:29 says something similar, "And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned." President Smith reasons that Jesus taught it's possible to not be baptized and end up damned in a lower kingdom (damned in the sense that they can not progress). Not for little children. But, even for those that live past 8, I am not sure on that. Joseph Fielding Smith didn't think so. I could see it going either way. This was the response to my wild speculation that there was a chance children who died before being accountable might "receive baptism themselves during the millennium": Good thing I didn't die last night. :) Although I think by night time I had forgotten this thread and was thinking about other things. Here's what my thinking was: Do little children need baptism? No. Do little children need proxy ordinance baptism performed for them? No. Given that little children will be resurrected as little children and then raised to maturity, might they be baptized when they are no longer little? Yesterday I briefly considered this and without much thought speculated the possibility. I figured if I was asked to baptize a resurrected young man in this condition during the millennium, I would go along with it and it wouldn't turn my faith upside down. I wasn't meaning to think God was unfair and unjust to little children who were not baptized. However, after thinking about it a little more today, I do NOT think this will happen. Although with this and other things I acknowledge I don't know everything and I'm open to receiving new light and knowledge on the matter.

There are different degrees of salvation. Sometimes "salvation" means any degree of salvation and sometimes it means the highest, celestial. One could say "baptism is required for salvation" and actually mean "salvation in the celestial kingdom". My current thinking is that baptism is not required for lower kingdoms. This is also what Joseph Fielding Smith thought. Answer: The scriptures are very clear in declaring that baptism is for the celestial kingdom only. For a place in the terrestrial or the telestial kingdom, baptism is not required." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, pg. 147) However, I knew a career CES guy years ago that seemed unaware of this teaching when I told him about that quote. He thought proxy ordinances would be done for everyone. I'm not sure. Another thing to consider is those that do not live to the age of accountability and inherit the celestial kingdom. Since we do NOT perform proxy ordinances for them, some think they do not need baptism. However, it could be that they will receive baptism themselves during the millennium. Again, I'm not sure.

I know that, but I'm wanting to know more about what non-LDS believe compared to what we believe. If they believe Jesus had the same body then as he does now, that's a significant difference in theology. It would also affect the "only begotten" doctrine.

To non-LDS, did Jesus have a physical body before he lived on Earth that is just like the one he has now after his resurrection and ascension?

PC, Without LDS theology about the nature of God some things become confusing to me. One of the biggest ones is what's the deal with Jesus's body? We know his body served the purpose of allowing him to come teach us, suffer and die for us, and to conquer death. But, is there a reason for the body now? Does Jesus still reside in a body now and will he always? If Jesus didn't have a body before but has one now, how does this fit with the teaching that God never changes (incidentally, an argument others use to dismiss LDS theology)?

I'm not PC, but that can easily be explained as foreknowledge. God has a foreknowledge of things. As PC pointed out, most explanations if you take into account the background of the interpreter are not too unreasonable. This discussion led me to think about what leads us to knowledge of doctrine. Here are some (not all) of them: Prayer "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God" (James 1:5)Apostles, prophets, etc. (and the church) "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; ... Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God" (Ephesians 4:11-14) And, Ephesians 3:2-6 provides an example of doctrine not understood by the disciples while Christ was on the earth, but revealed later to the church through apostles and prophets.Righteousness "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine" (John 7:17) See also 2 Peter 1:5-9.All Scriptures "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine" (2 Timothy 3:16) See also John 5:39.Underlying all of these, is Revelation "the things of God knoweth no man, but [by] the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11-12) and "the Spirit of truth ... will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13)The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restoration of Christ's church, and has provided needed apostles and prophets, valuable scripture, and the opportunity for its members to receive more revelation through the authorized gift of the Holy Ghost. God has provided a way for us to receive more knowledge of doctrine via his restored church than we could ever have without it.