rosie321

Just give me one more moment to see your face behind the veil of darkness called death. To see that you're alright, surrounded with joys untold. If only.... Just one more moment. Some pains will never go away on this earth.

GAIA: Rosie, i think you may have misinterpreted. I already gave several reasons why that (above) is an INCORRECT reading / interpretation of this teaching. Let's try again: In the Church, "Brother Smith" can hold several positions at different times, or even at the same time. He can be a HomeTeacher, a Husband and Father, and an Apostle -- at all the same time (although generally, Apostles probably are not called as Home teachers!) but stay with me on this, please. When Brother Smith goes to Conference, he may participate in several different ways: He might drive the family to the Taberacle -- thereby acting as a Father; He might hold the door open for his wife -- thereby acting as a good Husband; He might say the opening prayer -- thereby acting as a member of the Church; He might give an address -- thereby acting as an Apostle. EAch of these roles has different responsbiilites, authority, power, and obligations attendant with them. It is wrong to say that as a part of his duties as an apostle, he gave the opening prayer, or held the door open or drove the family car. Apostle is not the same thing as Home TEacher -- but those positions/ offices / callings might be held by the same person! Similarly, "Michael-Adam" is NOT the name of an individual, it's an OFFICE in the Priesthood - -like "Christ". NOw, what the Adam-God principle is saying, is that it's pssible the same person might fulfil the role of "MIchael-Adam" who at another time and place, fulfilled the role of "Heavenly FAther". But they are NOT "the same thing." They have DIFFERENT roles, responsibilities, obligations, authoriy and power. It is NOT correct to say that "Adam is God" anymore than it is to say, "Members are apostles" -- Do you see what i mean? ~Gaia From study, I understand what you are saying-or so I believe I do;) Adam signifies an office or position. As indicated in another post somewhere in the Lion Witch and Wardrobe for example the children were referred to as the sons of Adam. So Adam refers to something beyond an actual person. But there is another Adam referred to. There was an actual man named Adam who was the first on earth-correct? I'm thinking of the whole Adam and Eve story. We will not be punished for Adam's sin...... Those outside the church may have difficulty with the language of seeing the position vs. the person. There are lots of names for positions and priesthoods in the LDS faith.

Could this be why you are not LDS anymore? Could this be why you are not LDS anymore? Just to assure everyone no offense was intended-just a little light hearted humor to break up the intensity of the posts.

Not everything every prophet has said, or will say or teach is true. they are just susceptible to temptation and listening to the wrong spirit as any one of us. If you are sensitive Holy spirit, you are just as sensitive to the spirit of the devil. If you are in-tune with the promptings of the Holy Spirit you will not be decieved. but you have to remain that way or you can easily be decieved. Thanks for your response. I can accept it up to a certain level. I'm not seeking to stir up trouble with my response here but isn't there a difference between ignorance and deception? Why isn't it important to understand something as important as the concept of God? Most people follow religion and seek to do right by God. The knowledge of God is of primary concern to those in and out of church. For this is life eternal that ye might know God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. When someone challenges the LDS belief in God there should be adequate knowledge weaponry to combat the evil"anti" doctrine in an individuals mind. Otherwise it seems to be an open invitation to the spirit of the devil If the "anti's" state that the LDS believe in another God or defines him for a member or investigator who lacks the knowledge of that topic, and the person looks back to early church writings and sees reasons why the anti's are saying such things it can cause distress. If they ask questions from people in the church and are labeled with some derrogatory label for asking questions- how is that fostering the Holy Spirit? Aren't members taught they can know the truth of all things? Shouldn't members be prepared to face the opposition whether or not they ever use their knowledge or not? It seems that by not addressing this topic it is opening the door to the spirit of the devil It seems members are prepared in other important doctrinal matters such as the trinity why not this area

Do we believe Adam is God (the father)? What definition of "god" did BY and other church leaders intend? I'm interested in reading others ideas. It seems clear to me through scriptures and writings that Adam is not God (the father). Starting in Genesis and Moses God placed Adam in garden to rule over it. As stated in another post anti's would interpret our early history as though we believe Adam is our God. "the only God in which we have anything to do" Do you have some sources that might clarify LDS belief and what was intended?

I'm sorry but If Adam -God was taught and the lack of obedience to it forced people to be removed from the church then I do not understand why it can't be a viable matter for discussion. Truth should be able to withstand all-correct? There is great diversity of opinion in the church on this matter. Should we not be of one faith? It seems more divisions are created by not addressing it. "if any man lack wisdom..." This topic does seem to involve some very "meaty" areas so I would agree caution is needed when addressing it. Hearing an explanation given such as, as you grow you will understand this doctrine better. There are a few concepts you need to understand better first-such as patriarchal order etc. Denial of things that were said or unwillingness to discuss percieved historical doctrines generates fear and divisions. There's too many different faith variations out there for some to blindly trust.

I've read some of the back and forth on this issue. This is my summation and thoughts regarding it (for whatever its worth). In the history of the church something was mentioned about Adam/God. Though the facts of what was actually stated seems to be in disagreement here, there seems to be no disagreement that it was a part of LDS history. The church does not like to address this issue even though it was an important issue in the past. Anti mormons like to discuss it. I have to agree with GAIA here I'd much rather see this point addressed by the church then by anti's only. This was a matter that was important to early leaders. Maybe this site is not the appropriate place to do so but I do think it is an area that should be understood by members and not so easily written off. Those who ask questions should not be identified as anti's. Talking to your bishop about it usually does no good. First of all the bishop has enough other commitments and the mere discussion of this material is considered anti as shown on this board. Maybe this whole topic could be discussed in gospel doctrine classes or other times where stronger members could feel comfortable talking about it but would put it in an understandable and positive light It is understandable why one would not want to discuss such matter with people who do not understand basic church concepts but why can't it be discussed among members? Why does there seem to be fear over discussing it? .

Sorry for the chills. What I meant to say is that the knowledge of a Heavenly Mother might actually be a blessing for some and provide greater understandings for some sisters.I can understand your concern though. Expressing a desire to know more of a Heavenly Mother if there is one does not have to diminish the roles of Heavenly Father or Christ (whom we will ultimately have to be judged by). It would help put the mothering aspect into perspective. As far as relief society presidencies go. They are here to help us. But just as in the case of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ I would place Heavenly Mother in a totally different realm After all look who she has to put up with

I have heard views like yours expressed of keeping the idea of Heavenly Mother sacred. But due to our doctrines, sisters have a hard time with this. Since both men and women have their own specific roles it would be great to have a role model that could understand the needs specific to each and be sensitive to them. There are some things which are easier discussed amongst females I have heard views like yours expressed of keeping the idea of Heavenly Mother sacred. But due to our doctrines, sisters have a hard time with this. Since both men and women have their own specific roles it would be great to have a role model that could understand the needs specific to each and be sensitive to them. There are some things which are easier discussed amongst females The above being said. If we are to trust the authority of the church there must be some reason why there is little to no mention of a Heavenly Mother. Keeping it sacred is as good a view as any. Many times trouble is started when someone brings up "your mother this or your mother that."

Thanks Gaia! :) Your posts on this topic were very beautifully and thoughtfully written. Your posts help to simply explain what goes on in the temple and the value of it.

Sad to see them do that. By apologizing they are admitting blame and are opening themselves up for multimillion dollar lawsuits, recalls, resourcing anyway. Is their hope just to buy time? What kickbacks are they getting back from the chinese goverment? Or are they hoping that people can not see the common denominator with the majority of the recalls within the last year or so? I hope that the consumer is not dumb enough to fall for it. BTW is Mattel apologizing for the pet food too? The lawyers want to know where to address their lawsuits. Its time for another Made in the USA movement.

The loss of my (eye)glasses sure would be great! I'm not really liking all the rest of the options though :)

For the purpose of this discussion here are some Priesthood questions. I would appreciate discussion and clarification on the difference between traditional christianity and LDS thought For LDS is the priesthood is eternal? Did it exist in the premortal life? Did women have the priesthood in the garden? If so what was it like? What was lost in the garden? Was that the blessings of the temple? Has the curse been removed or is that eternal? (The priesthood ban was removed in 1978 for some though it was considered a curse that would not be removed until all Abels descendents).

is there ever a good time to have kids? You will never have enough time, money or patience Having them now (or anytime for that matter) will teach you a great deal about faith. The thing that concerns me right now is that you are not financially stable to support a child, nor do you have medical insurance. You are also counting on your family to kick in. Can you really handle that? Sometimes using family relationships in this way can cause problems. On the other hand some people try to plan everything just right before having kids. In our economy you could have a job today with benefits and be jobless and penniless tommorow. One of the blessings of children is that they force you to turn to HF a lot to ask for guidance and help and learn to trust in his provisions. It sounds like you really want children now and feel as though thats where you are being led so you'll have to ask God. All these little things may be God showing you.

snow-doesn't your eye get tired from blinking so much? lol As far as the priesthood topic goes... I've avoided going here up to this point since I'm most likely going to get in trouble from everybody Are women upset that they don't have the priesthood. To some degree I would say yes, but not for the reasons mentioned. Many of the ones as discussed already are stereotypical exagerations. Why? Because it involves much trust and power that some men have abused. Not every man loves his wife or the people he serves as Christ does. That creates problems. Women want to serve God and want to have the freedom to do so. They don't want to be unrighteously controlled. Also we did not remember doing anything to make us "lesser" in male eyes. As far as women recieving the priesthood I find myself asking when will the curse be lifted? I think men having the priesthood goes back and is established in Genesis. Did Eve have the priesthood before the fall? If so or what one, I'm not sure. Was it like in the temple? She saw God and was in direct communication. Only after the fall and God kicked them out he told Eve in Genesis 2:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." This was the punishment or God's way of slowing things down a bit so women didn't do it all :). Many verses in the bible and scriptures for thousands of years continue on this theme of women being submissive, the weaker vessel. These verses have been interpreted and used to hurt women over the years. 1 Peter 3:1 ,7 1st Peter 2:11-23 1st Timothy 8-11-15 The scriptures and many religious leaders have made it clear that women are in a submissive position to the husband (priesthood) Christ. One thing that is sometimes forgotten is that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Its not an unrighteously dominating, selfish relationship as some men have interpreted it throughout history though. Ok running to take cover now

LOL! One of the apologists I correspond with on occasion once told me that one year there was a group of atheists protesting the protestors. I imagine that the protestors probably saw that as further proof of just how heretical Mormons are. I mean, if atheists are willing to take your side… I would love to hold up a big huge sign with an arrow pointing in a way so that it is pointing at a protestor that says "Modern day Celsus" in reference to the early anti-CHristian writer who used terrible tactics similar to anti mormons of today...or I could stoop real low and make a sign with an arrow that says "I'm with stupid" Prisonchaplin How could you even suggest such a thing? This is just way too funny You have me rolling on the floor laughing. Stop it I've fallen and can't get up lol lol:excl: When I can stop laughing hard enough you can have a This is great :lol: Do it. Do it! I double dare you. You'd probably get some LDS funders for your cause, after all and think of all the lessons you'd teach on world peace just for being "nice". Thanks PC I really needed this

Sounds good. That would be a great thing to keep in focus. There are so many different topics here that can bring out the fighting spirit from different people at different times. In the battle for truth and right (and each one holds their own "truth" and beliefs dear) it can get really messy :) Maybe some can only hope for Snoopy Christmas's? " (like the christmas song) here on this site. Brief moments of respite from battle to celebrate christmas and peace on earth.

Good points Shantress. I by no means think this post is going to solve anythings. My thinking was that if enough of the regulars can come to some agreement or area of acceptability then it would be easier to accomodate other newbies. Also it is good for everyone to have awareness of what and how they say things so as not to fuel the fire and make it easier for things to be resolved. In the end I agree we just have to agree not to agree or like things at times. Cuz that's just the way it is thanks Dr T. You illustrated what I was trying to say. As a major poster even you wrestle with that question. Who would think? :) I'm of the belief that just the mere wrestling with that question will help. It will make you more concious of what you say and do. It will be interesting to read others comments. it would probably be a really boring site too :)

Help! I want some thoughtful discussion! I have a difficult time putting things into understandable words but seeing the posts lately I feel I have to make a post for all, including myself of course, to consider. There are so many strong opinions on this board and so many different personalities that express views. Each person communicates from their point of view . I personally enjoy reading comments from a number of people and hearing strong opinions from different people. I really appreciate all the regular posters here. Even the ones that get me riled up in sensitive areas and the ones I've "fought" with. It's sad to see people upset so much. Instead of learning and growing we attack or walk away so as to not be harmed or harm others . I posted this post to see if there is a way we can get along better and allow everyone the freedom of speech. Whether we agree or not. How can this really be done? Graciously Heather has allowed us all here into her site and the mods give up much time to the site. I'm sad to see people going personally after others. There are a lot of strong opinions here and strong differences in beliefs. There are the rules of the site and its design of respecting one another. Yet it seems that this is not happening. How can we personally integrate the rules into our posts and express diverse ideas without offending or driving others away? Some views are in direct opposition to others. How do you express opposition to an idea without providing offense to a person? In the context of this site, how do you think it should be done? Sometimes respecting others and following the ideal of the site is a hard goal to achieve in practice due to strong passionate views or because someone is struggling with a matter. Others might be blinded to how it may come across and some may take offense. The status quo answers may not be good enough for some and they may push things farther than appropriate. Sometimes hearing different opinions no matter how wacky they might be can lead to appreciation of the truth. For example, since this a predominantly LDS site, those not LDS may want to hear more thoughts then read about it and pray about it. They may need sources especially if their heart is leaning them differently. Yet LDS posters may be troubled because this is what you do. You are lacking faith if you don't. So it may come across that LDs don't care or don't have any validity. LDs may see a trouble maker in the midst rather then learning from others and loving one another warts and all. Recently I personally have done a lot of posts on the priesthood. I clearly state that I admire all the sacrifices and hardwork that is done by it, though I question some of the things done, its ability to handle everything as one person and changing doctrines. I respect the church but expressed my opinionated voice that things were not as perfect as they might be others jumped down. I fought back. Meanwhile a person who expressed her concerns and could have used some support was hurt in the process. It troubles me how far the discussions went and the tone that things went to. Can't we learn to take more from one another and help each other more even if we disagree? Or at least agree that at the end of a skermish to walk away shaking hands? Sometimes even opinions, when expressed as such can be helpful. Newbies or people dealing with things will probably come across strong. Can the regulars do a better job of recognizing this tendancy and steer others to positive things rather then pouncing on it? There are others on the boards who like to rile feathers to get people thinking and on their mind track. Patience and tolerance is needed for those who express them in that manner also. There are many who express themselves in varied ways. Point being, everyone deserves respect. I believe effective communication of your ideas and opinions is an art. There are some on this site who are more eloquent at expressing themselves. I beg for patience from those who are to the rest on this site who are not. Communicating electronically necessitates an added complexity. People miss out on the non-verbal communication and things can be taken differently. Before taking offense can we seek to clarify. Can't we try and get along..please? I like it when people state their disagreement or explain why. I don't mind to see posters take things out of control a little when they are too passionate about something. Sometimes I push people farther than liked to find out more , if others do not seem to understand what I am saying, or its on a matter I really care about. I am a true believer that things will balance out if we get along and the people are open. It can be a beautiful thing to see all the views and forms of expression and see how God is able to shape things over time.. Some people go a little too far at times (I put myself at the front of that line sometimes:() So.... How can we post dissenting opinions without offending others? Where do you draw the line between humor and offense? How can we better show compassion and care in the posts while still being true to your beliefs? Sometimes the truth is offensive. Is there a way to make it more palateable? (like flavored medicines?) If I dish something out can I take whatever comes back? [b]Can we all just get along now? .

False. No one is questioning the validity of the Journals of Discourse. What we Mormons understand is that the Journals, however good, enlightening, illuminating or interesting, are not part of the Standard Works and do not represent official doctrinal pronouncements. Ahh... yes the standard works-"as far as they are translated correctly" (but then again should we even be concerned about what the Articles of Faith say? UNBELIEVABLE: Why didn't you tell us before that Elder Watt had developed a skill in phonography and that we was going to publish information in England. Why - this changes everything. * * * So what. It's irrelevant. irrelevant? a prophet speaking is irrelevant? People were taught in their day that this was a standard work. Tomorrow the Bible is irrelevant too. Well actually Joseph Smith STARTED to correct it.. [ Two questions: 1. Exactly how many of those sermons did BY correct? Which ones? 2. Does the Prophet and 12 Apostle believe that the JoD are the same as scripture? I am looking forward to your answers. Brigham Young doesn't seem to be the apologetic type . I don't believe he really corrected anything did he? However, the church has done a lot of editing and damage control post B.Y. The Prophet and 12 apostles do all they can do to distance themselves from the J&D because of the controversies that have arisen from it. While it might be good to steer away from the controversy I can understand the view of people who feel that the apostles are changing things. If theses truths were as powerful as BY. and others proclaimed at that time then I would think it would remain as important today. How can something referred to as scripture one day become worthless another.

thats just it crimsonSnow said..., brother so and so said... I missed their names in the canon. There are more quotes in scriptures that indicate otherwise. The D&C says, as above, that what men speak in the spirit is scripture. The priesthood SHOULD be acting with the spirit all the time or their actions to the contrary clearly made known. The writings in the canon indicate that we should trust their word and authority not just at certain times. That when they speak it is as the Lord has spoken it. The Bible doesn't spell out the specifics of it is the "standard for truth" or gospel law when this or that happens. Instead it is indicated what comes out should be trusted. As far as the conference goes I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard around conference time that people are instructed to go because the words spoken there is the scripture God is giving us for our day.

Right now it is made clear women do not have the priesthood and are taught as lesser beings dependent on the brethren. WHAT?Where is it taught that women are lesser beings dependent on the brethren exactly? This is absolutely false! I hasten to add that it is one of the most ignorant, and retarded statements I have seen in these threads. As far as the post quoted above I refer back to oft quoted scriptures thrown out and to the current church operation. The way our church exists without the priesthood no ordinances be performed. Relief society is UNDER the Priesthood and the priesthood must approve of what goes on there and in all auxillaries. Since no women are in the priesthood I would say that makes the women dependent on the man The established spiritual thoughts whether truly under the direction of God or whether dependent on the mans interpretation or own desires it is expected to be followed. If a brethren says something it is so. But if a sister says something is it? No. So in the church women are dependent on the man. I have more to say but don't have time to respond adequately to your post now Snow I do know what the J&D reference points to. Rather than type out the whole section here is a link to the J&D http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.p...10004&REC=4 The early church was taught the J&D and valued it as scripture and the word of God. Many doctrines were presented to people during that time. They were expected to follow it as it was spoken by God itself. Though this is not gospel look up J&D under Wikipedia. It brings up some thoughts in this regard and a statement by Elder Cannon who ranked it as one of the standard works (I did not look back at his statement in the J&D). I have read journals and writings by early members of the church who did express belief in the words. As I said many rank the conferences (from the local levels up to the general conference) as scriptures I would ask that you at least consider the confusion created if its scripture, no its not, or only when in written in the name of the Lord, or in the spirit. Some have been instructed that what is spoken by leaders are words to be followed as gospel or modern day revelation only to seem to have that recinded at a later time or translated in a different way by a priesthood holder.

I'm stepping into this discussion late but I have to take huge issue with your quote above because I have also been taught within the church differently. Around each conference time, members are instructed that what is taught there is modern day scripture. I've been looking very indepth at the priesthood and modern day revelation due to some posts. Here are some references to look at: Joseph Fielding Smith - "What is Scripture? When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today ( I would take that as priesthood) , and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church." Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 186 (1954) In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. 'We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God' (Articles of Faith 1:9)." Gospel Principles, p. 55 (1992) D&C 68:3-5 "... if the Prophet of God should tell me that a certain principle or theory which I might have learned was not true , I do not care what my ideas might have been, I should consider it my duty, as the suggestion of my leader, to abandon that principle or theory." Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 83 (1857) "What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens?" Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 127 (1867) "I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of nations -- that Brigham Young has said 'when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.' I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God." Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264 (1870) "I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom ... I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men , that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95 (1870) "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan — it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way." Desert News, p. 5 (May 26, 1945) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Right now it is made clear women do not have the priesthood and are taught as lesser beings dependent on the brethren. As far as women in the priesthood who knows what the future will bring? Blacks were not supposed to hold the priesthood either until the revelation came down allowing them to hold it.

How come when I tried, all I could do was picture the Church Lady (Saturday Night Live) asking....is it SSSAAATTTTAAAANNNN???? Wow that brings back memories. I loved the Church Lady! Yes .... I can defineately see that too.... SSSSAAATaann? Yes, I got the idea it was a joke. Just had to try and have a little fun too.