ether-ore

The Lord accepted the words of Alma inasmuch as the Spirit of the Lord was upon him and inspired him to say what he said. We, of course, follow the revelation given to us in the D&C.

As I went through those philosophers you just outlined (good job by the way), I came away with a similar sense of frustration with the unanswerable, I thought studying these guys would give me some insight into proof of God and "beginnings". Now that I have that degree, I'm fully qualified to ask if people want fries with their happy meal. To compound the problem, I've tried sifting through the implications of some of the things Joseph Smith has said as well as the implications of the Pearl of Great Price. Ok, so Joseph Smith says that as man is God once was and as God is, man may become. This suggests a chain of Gods back through infinity without beginning. Comparing that with our own genealogy which can be traced back to a pair of beings (Adam and Eve); it doesn't seem to work. Can the Gods be traced back to a single pair? I can't imagine that it does. That would imply idleness on the part of the Gods for the eternity prior to the decision to create anything... which itself makes no sense. The alternative would suggest and infinite number of pairs 'giving birth' to an infinite number of spirit children; a process which never began nor will exhaust itself. It simply boggles the mind.

I think you are hitting on the very argument used by Satan himself. I don't and never did think that Satan ever said, 'join me, I'm evil'. I rather believe that he said just what you are suggesting (among other things); that he would take care of use from cradle to grave and all we had to do was give up our agency... or that the group was more important than the individual. (Funny how that sounds so very much like socialism). I think the piece that is missing from Satan's argument is that on acceptance, we could not ever make it further than perhaps the Terrestrial Kingdom where we would always be subject to our "savior". The Celestial Kingdom is for those who are worthy of exaltation. Something which could not be achieved through Satan's plan. When you say that it was understood that not all would make it; I don't think any individual considered that that might mean them. All who chose to accept God's plan desired the opportunity for exaltation. On coming to earth in mortality, exaltation is as much a matter of choice now as it was then. We are free to choose eternal life through the mediator of all men, or to choose death (spiritual death) by following Satan.

My own personal belief is that even though there are few requests for name removal, there will be (approx.) 50% who will leave the church. I base this belief on the parable of the ten virgins. From that parable, we know a couple of things; that it applies to the last days (because of the reference to Christ's (the bridegroom) return), that the word 'virgins' applies to members of the church, and 50% because of the five out of ten ratio. I believe that the reason for this is that the foolish virgins are designated foolish because they will choose mammon over God. They will be forced by circumstances to make that choice. Mammon in this case will be the politically correct issues of the day as well as issues about the church which have nothing to do with salvation but which nevertheless cause doubt and dissent.

I think you are correct. My understanding is that even the Telestial Kingdom is a step up from what was had in the pre-existence. For one (obvious) thing, physical bodies will be had.

The LDS church accepts the truth of three fundamental degrees of glory. To be assigned to any of these is, as far as I understand, considered a 'salvation'. Eternal Life is only to be had in the Celestial Kingdom since that is defined as an eternally married couple will have eternal progeny and increase. Other kingdoms do not have this. All others are immortal, but immortality and eternal life are not the same thing according to LDS theology. Many, if not most Christians do not believe in marriage in heaven because of Matthew 22:30: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Some may believe otherwise, but unless they are referencing LDS doctrine, there is no Biblical basis for their belief. So, given what other Christians believe, they will receive the salvation that they believe they will get. They will be saved, unmarried and be able to dwell in the presence of Jesus Christ. LDS call this, the terrestrial kingdom, not the celestial.

In making the connections from various scriptures, I've come to understand that God didn't create the laws that He Himself abides. Joseph Smith tells us that as man is, God once was... etc. The point is that the laws existed for God when He was a man and His Heavenly Father was abiding the same laws. If one understands that the word 'God' is not a name but rather, it is a title that can and has been applied to many beings from all eternity, then one can understand that The Laws; the objective moral code,is as eternal as the title of God is. It was never created. It always existed just as the title of God has always existed because there was always someone to carry the title. For God to be God, He must abide the Law. There are comments in scripture that suggest that if God did so and so, He would cease to be God, but that He doesn't cease to be God... Why? Because He abides the Law.

I have always been taught that one of the reasons we are here in mortality is not only to gain a body, but to learn how to control it. This body is after all, very new to us. There exists a continual conflict between the desires of the body and the needs of the spirit. The goal is to subject the desires of the body to the will of the spirit. However, as observation will indicate, the spirit is in many instances subdued and over shadowed by the demands of the carnal. What do the scriptures say?... to be carnally minded is death and to be spiritually is life eternal. Giving in to the carnal desires contrary to law is sin. We want things and in giving in to them contrary to the law is what sin is. A choice is always involved. Making this choice constitutes the use of agency. I don't think it is inevitable that we sin in the sense that we have no choice in the matter. We always have a choice and acting on either obedience to the law or the desires of the flesh is what agency is. As an aside; Claims by some that they are just being who they are when they do behaviors contrary to God's law are saying that they have capitulated to the desires of the flesh and at that point they are indeed being who they are. They are being who they have allowed themselves to become as a consequence of acting on their choices. Actions have a tendency to cement character traits. The atonement's ability to save such an individual depends on the individual's ability to overcome years and years of repeated behavior through repentance.

I think the problem here is with the definition of the "church". The church are those people (living or dead) who have accepted the testimony of Jesus Christ just as Peter did. The Holy Ghost bore witness to them that the gospel was true and that Jesus is the Christ. The gates of hell will never prevail against that or them. This says nothing about the gates of hell not prevailing against apostates.

We have very little description of how Joseph did the work of translating. Most of what we have is from people who were said to have observed. We have a story about him using his own seer stone in a hat. We have a story about him using the Urim and Thummim and either way with the plates under a cloth on the other side of the room. Here's the thing: God called Joseph Smith to do the translation and as far as I am concerned, how brother Joseph did it is really between God and Joseph. Throughout scripture, the Lord has used multiple ways of communicating with His prophets. Nobody seems to question that God spoke to Moses out of a burning bush and Moses then wrote it down, It is said that God spoke into the minds of other prophets and they wrote it down. The how doesn't matter. The only question is, after reading it, did the Holy Spirit testify to your soul that it was true. Questions about how Joseph did the job the Lord gave him (not us) to do is like asking God for proof other than the testimony of the Holy Ghost. All of this is another example of people outside the church asking the church to "prove it". If the Holy Spirit will not satisfy, nothing else will. This is what I would tell my children.

There are no "thought police" in the church unless you want to call a Bishop who is a common judge in Israel evaluating the situation according to church policy as thought police. The Bishop is called and the Lord qualifies Him, so I think it improper to call him "thought police" since he is on the Lord's errand. Members are not "thought police" either. That is just a back handed way of saying you disagree with them and that they, in your view, have no right to comment. I am not thought police. I have no power to do anything to anyone for what they may think or say, so wherein is my power to police. I am just of the opinion that if one claims to support the church in proclaiming the gospel and promoting the eternal ordinances, that it makes no sense to at the same time to be supporting behaviors contrary to that or that will not result in an eternal family. I call that straddling the fence or trying to serve both God and mammon. Jacob's admonition comes into play here: "choose you this day whom ye will serve".

I think the things to consider are diversity as it relates to unity or 'oneness'. Diversity can mean different things to different people. My opinion is that within the church's society, diversity has to do with the variety of talents that exist and not so much with a variety of lifestyles. Everyone has their likes and dislikes, but those kind of things are incidental in that they really have no bearing on one's salvation. Salvation is dependent on oneness with Jesus Christ. The Protestant bumper sticker provides a good question: WWJD (what would Jesus do?). Christ came to earth to provide an atonement, but He also came to set an example as to how we should behave. All scripture is about teaching us children how we should behave in order to become one with Christ. Salvation is dependent on becoming one with Christ. Indeed, Christ says that 'if ye are not one, ye are not mine'. Of course I could be mistaken, but the tenor of your original post was to the effect that you are conflicted about becoming a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (through baptism) because of some of your political/social views. Specifically, that your are a feminist and may believe that the church's treatment of women is not what you would like it to be or think it ought to be. Also, you may think that the church has the wrong position on the issues involving the LBGT+ 'community'. As you may be aware, the church holds women in the highest esteem, both in terms of the skills and talents that they can bring to the table as well as the observable fact that women are the glue that holds any society together. I have read some of the feminist arguments (from women associated with the church) in favor of women holding the priesthood. In the first place, it is not the men of the church that are preventing women from holding the priesthood (temple functions notwithstanding). That is the Lord's decision, not man's. If one cannot believe that Jesus Christ is the head of this church, then I don't see how one can believe this is the true church. My own belief is that women have power that men can never have and that is natural influence and natural social skills. Men do not have the affinity with children that women have, and children will go to their mother's long before they will turn to their fathers. Women, as I said, are also the glue that holds society together. An example: during my family reunions, in one room, all the women are chatting, sharing, socializing and having a wonderful time with each other. In the next room, all the men are sitting in chairs, reading books or newspapers and no one is saying a word. Of course, that is just my family, but I hope you get the idea. Men are given the priesthood to teach them how to be of service and to give them something significant to do for the family; something that women naturally do. If women held the priesthood, there would indeed be little if any need for men to be around. The thing to remember that in the Celestial Kingdom, it is all about family. In terms of the LBGT community: if it is the function of he church to prepare God's children for eternal marriage and eternal families (and it is), then LBGT folks have no access to that by reason of their behavior. It is simply not compatible. If the Celestial Kingdom is all about families (and it is), LBGT folks by their choices, have removed themselves from that possibility. There will be no adoption or IVF in the Celestial Kingdom. There is no way for them to be part of a family there. They will have as the scriptures say: "neither root or branch" (no ancestry or posterity). You say that you feel drawn to the LDS church. I would take that to mean that that is the Holy Spirit calling you to join. It is an invitation if you will. But as I said, members of the church must conform to what Christ has said is the path, that is, to become one with Him and not assume that we can do or support something to the contrary and still be accepted by Christ.

I believe the parable of the Ten Virgins is about to be fulfilled. I suspect there will be some members of the church (the virgins) who will forced into a position of having to choose between God and mammon. Will they support church policy or will they support political correctness?

In the 76th Section of the D&C, speaking of those that will inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom (as opposed to the Celestial Kingdom), verse 74 says these are they "Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it." My own understanding of this is that it refers to those that had the opportunity to accept it in mortality but did not. This does not refer to those who did not have the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel. Does this answer your question?

Speaking from a "been there, done that" position, I suffered from an addiction as well. I also went through the twelve step program. My experience was that the adversary knew I wanted to repent and in my struggles, and he was constantly after me. The more effort I made, the more effort he made to tell me I will never be worthy. I was constantly racked by guilt and sometimes I still feel a degree of guilt. My sins are so many, I told myself; I don't see how God could ever forgive me. This lack of faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ kept me from feeling the spirit. But I kept working at it. One of counselors running the twelve step program took a special interest in me and we had one on one meetings apart from the regular twelve step meetings. This helped me to open up more. His love was the Holy Spirit manifesting Himself. My father was also a big help. We had daily devotionals together. We sang a hymn, we prayed together, we read chapters from several of the scriptures and other good books like biographies of the prophets. These devotionals would often take a couple of hours because we would also discuss what we read. Then we had a closing prayer. These devotionals helped me to learn that God did love me and that the Holy Ghost was there. More than this however, I came to understand that just quitting my addiction wasn't enough. I had to do something good to take its place, so I got involved in doing family home indexing. It is still not over for me. I still feel some resentments which means that I'm lacking in charity. I know I need to get over this in order to become one with Christ. Forgiveness and confidence in being saved only come if one is one with Christ. Oneness only comes if one has charity. As a character from "Night Court" said: I'm feeling much better now". The key to it all has been for me, to follow the recommendation in one of our hymns which is to "wake up and do something more than dream of your mansions above". Addiction has to be replaced with something in the way of service to others. Deliberate acts of love are the key to feeling the Spirit. I'm feeling love right now as I write this. I know the church is true and it only has the keys that will allow me to return to my Father in Heaven; but the keys only unlock the door, I have to actively walk through. Persevere my fiend. What you desire, feeling the Holy Spirit, will come. If something you did for someone else (even if that person is dead) makes you smile to yourself... That is the Holy Ghost telling you that you did good.

There are a couple of sayings I think are applicable. "Your wish is my command" and 'He that must be commanded in all things is a lazy and a slothful servant'.

For me, it comes down to this: The purpose of the church in terms of two of its three fold missions (i.e. to proclaim the gospel and perfect the saints) is to prepare God's children for temple blessings; specifically eternal marriage/eternal families. As members, it becomes incumbent on us to support that effort. By a member of the church supporting gay marriage, they are in effect supporting something not only contrary to the purposes of the church, but something that is contrary to God's will for His children. There is no place in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage for a homosexual union. If a member of the church cannot find it within themselves to promote the gospel and the eternal ordinances, it seems to me, the least they could do is not support something to the contrary.

I'm new and just wanted to say hi all. I'm LDS and I live in Virginia.