JohnsonJones

Having seen the actual facsimile's (which is something 99.9% of those making this claim have not), or at least what we have left of them, I disagree with that. There are some things that are obvious (for example, Josephs studying it out in his mind made symbols and ideas of what they might mean, but that is not the actual translation and doesn't follow the translation he actually made in any way or form) which they typically blatantly ignore and try to state it was used or came about in a very different way then it was. It is like stating the Koran is Mohammad's translation of the Old Testament (also, untrue). However, the actual parallels and translations between what is found in the Books (breathings/dead) is an interesting topic, but not one I'm really interested in discussing on this forum or under theses auspices. More over, much as non-Christians would not accept that Babylonian myth, Egyptian myth, and others are taken from Hebraic theology rather than vice versa, the same would probably apply if discussing this item. In that light, though I disagree with your opinion, and my opinion differs, we probably should stick to the topic at hand.

What you are saying is that the world went to the birds a couple million years ago.

Have fun. I've been to the Middle East many times, though I would admit it is NOT my first choice of places to visit. Enjoy yourself and have a good anniversary.

In all honesty, the scriptures do not really go into detail about this. Even the items stated by prophets and apostles tend to be more of the opinion rather than doctrinal analysis or theological ideas (in the similar vein of thinking there were inhabitants living on the moon...which was an opinion that didn't quite turn out like that). We don't really know though many have opinions on it. I don't even really have solid opinions, more like thoughts on the matter. There are those who feel that all sorts of odd things will happen in the millennium. I on the otherhand, feel differently. I think life, as we know it, will largely be in the manner that we see it here today. We will still work, we will still eat, we will still worship. The differences is that because of the righteousness of the people, it will be like the generations of peace after the Savior came in the Book of Mormon where for 4 generations they were at peace, lived the law of consecration, and worshipped the Lord. It did not negate the needs that existed, but they lived a higher law and a higher order. Another difference is that the heavens will be opened. Those that have passed on will be able to have communication and talking to with those still on the Earth. The books of heaven will be open to those on Earth. This actually might be able to happen today if we were righteous enough, but we are not. They will be in the millennium. A Great amount of Temple work will be able to be done. Those who have been translated will be able to also reside on this earth during this time. I do not know how long they will stay here until they are taken off the earth and receive their reward, but they will also be here. I do not think those who have been resurrected will be here. Resurrection is, in a way, part of the judgment and your reward will be decided. This is NOT necessarily the final judgment (it would be the one who receives their reward's final judgment, but not THE final judgment of the Lord). The Final Judgment is where those who are the last are to be judged. There can be others who received their judgment and rewards prior to this event. This happened previously in the original resurrection after the Lord's resurrection, and I expect it will occur during the millennium at times as well. Those who have received their reward may return and visit the Earth if sent on a mission from heaven, but otherwise, it will largely be like it is today with the rules and laws that pertain to us, still relevant. Will there be polygamy? Possibly, but also possibly not. The world is not going to be largely different in and of itself, the inhabitants will be. Those who die will be changed in a twinkle of an eye. There will be no need to linger in the ground. Their resurrection may come quickly, and then they may go onto their final reward, much like what happened to the resurrected during the first go around after the Lord's resurrection. I believe the Book of Mormon to be literal. I also believe it to be allegory of the world's history. In this, we can see the time of the Lord's coming as a parallel to our times and the millennium. We can also see, if we wish to look forward over a thousand years, what the end of the world would be like as it was with the Jaredites and eventually the Nephites. When we go to the Celestial Kingdom, we will still be able to converse with each other, to be friends and to associate with one another, much like we do here on Earth. However, we will be in a much holier sphere. Our primary focus will to honor our Father, and to raise righteous families. Our goals will be similar to what fathers and mothers living in righteousness have here on Earth, except we won't go about it in the same way. Mothers' will be responsible to raise their children in the ways of righteousness. Fathers will be responsible to provide a home and the things needed for life. They will have the power to create worlds and places of safety. Their children will grow up, and eventually need to make choices of their own on whether to be like their Parents, or go their own way. Will there be polygamy there, probably. At the least, those who were joined into polygamous marriages on this earth and had them sealed will practice it. The parents will STILL have their responsibilities, and Fathers will still need to provide for their children and mothers to raise them. Will it be for everyone. As Nephi stated...I do not know the meaning of all things. I do NOT know. I cannot even pretend to know. I have some ideas that aren't even up to the spec of thought, but in all honesty, I have NO IDEA. This is my view of those periods, or at least my thoughts currently.

I'd imagine the same thing they did when Gay Marriage went through the Supreme Court. With that court ruling, there is a MASSIVELY HUGE hole which basically should allow Polygamous marriages, if the church wished to pursue that avenue. I do not imagine that they want to go down that dark path. First, I think that if the church ever reinstituted Polygamy, they'd lost a LOT of members VERY rapidly. They'd get a LOT of bad PR very rapidly. It could be a very bad time for the church. I don't think the membership could take it, and I don't think the church wants to deal with those issues that would arise both inside the church and without in today's climate. Personally (and I've expressed my views on polygamy in other threads), I don't think it's something that really needs to be looked at right now anyways. My thoughts below are probably HEAVILY influenced by my opinions because I am NOT in favor of polygamy (and in fact am probably more against polygamy as a practice than for it). 1. I am happy just having ONE spouse. I can only see detrimental things in my marriage if there was more than one. 2. Why would any reasonable person want more than one spouse? Except for worldly ideas, I cannot think of one. The only real reason I could fathom is if the LORD commanded someone to do so, and in that instance, that is obeying the Lord, not because of worldly lust or other factors. Right now the commandment is to love your spouse and ONLY your ONE spouse in this manner. Thus, there is no reason to look forwards or backwards at the idea of ever being in a polygamous union. We should be concerned with the laws and commandments relevant to OUR day rather than for other times and seasons. 3. Jacob (BOM) stated bad things about polygamy. Abraham had terrible strife in his home due to polygamy resulting in the eventual banishment of a concubine and son. Jacob (Bible) had terrible strife between sisters in his home due to polygamy. David fell despite having polygamy. Solomon had terrible things happen to his faith despite his wisdom due to his polygamy. The Scriptures are rife with more things that are bad that occur in polygamous marriages than positive. I think that's a challenge that many may think they want, but I think many who may want that, may actually be more prone to the faults that we see in the scriptures that occur rather than a more positive experience. There is no reason in our day to seek polygamy nor it's return. 4. When asking what would happen, and why the church would reinstitute the law of polygamy, we need to ask WHY they might do this. It was never actually repealed, just the practice of it among living individuals concurrently. IT originally caused a lot of hardship, turmoil, and grief when it was around in our Latter day. It was a commandment of the Lord and it was a trial for those who were there. In our lives, do we feel we WANT more trials than we already have. To many of those who want it to return, I do not think many see how much of a trial it really is, and want it to return for other reasons than that the Lord commands. However, this is a GREAT trial of faith, and was a hard trial for many in the early days of the church. We, as a church have already gone through this fire and the edge of this trial. Do we really need to have this trial upon the church once again? Nevertheless, as the Lord commands, the church will do. However, as I do not see any great push presently in the LDS church to pursue this course of action, even if the Edmunds act was repealed, I highly doubt the practice of having concurrent living spouses in marriage would be resurrected as a policy or acceptable in the LDS church presently.

Saved apparently means different things to different Mormons. Saved is something similar to every Christian, which is that you are saved from Sin (and Hell) and physical death (hence resurrection). Because of the Atonement we are not automatically going to Hell, and we can be saved from our sins and Hell as well as death itself (resurrection). We are SAVED by the great mercy of the Lord. He is the one that saves us. Using the word in CONTEXT, rather than what some LDS ascribe it to, the word Damn as in the New Testament means condemned to suffer eternal punishment in Hell, or condemned to a spiritual death away from heaven. Yes, we are saved from Damnation in that idea, but that's the same as being Saved from Hell. What SOME Mormons are thinking is more like a DAM (which is something that can hold back water or is a barrier to something) which is a barrier in their minds to eternal exaltation/advancement which is entirely different. The idea of LDS exaltation, as some are using it, is mostly a FOREIGN concept in the Christian world, and some would indicate it would be heresy in most Christian Religions. Salvation on the otherhand, as understood by Christian Religions, which is being saved in the Kingdom of the Lord, or saved from our Sins and Hell is very similar. As per Russell M. Nelson, he explains it thus April 2008 Russell M. Nelson's Salvation and Exaltation And from the LDS org under it's guide to the scriptures it states... Guide to the Scriptures - Salvation Though it appears some may have various definitions and ideas in these regards.

It goes off the verse, In my father's house are many mansions (or rooms, depending on your translation). If I understand Rob correctly, the LDS aim to be in the biggest rooms/top rooms vs. any rooms. In a brief nutshell... In order to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, all one needs to do is acknowledge the Lord and the atonement either in this life or the next. Pretty inclusive, more so than many other Christian sects. Thus, all those who get into the Kingdom of Heaven are saved. However, to be constantly in the presence of the Lord in the next life, or in rooms/mansions closer to his at the top, we need to show that we actually love him, our hearts are towards him, and thus we want to be like him and do what he does. Our actions can reflect this as we obey his commandments. However, in the end, the Lord is the one who knows best and makes those types of decisions. The LDS thus focus on what is hoped for will gain a greater reward then simply what is just enough to get to heaven itself. I think the supposition Rob makes is if instead of focusing on the many different rooms/rewards/mansions in heaven, we instead simply focus on heaven and the love we need to feel towards the Lord, it would be simpler and more straightforward. (is this correct, I could be wrong in interpreting what Rob stated).

Some Baptist actually have a belief that covers this. They base it on Romans 2:12-15 where those who did not hear the law are not bound by the law, but those who do are bound. Basically, the belief is all have the word of the Lord in their hearts, and if they act upon it, and in righteousness, they also can be saved by the Lord's grace. I believe the Methodist also ascribe to this belief, and to a limited degree also the Presbyterians. This does not mean many are saved in this fashion, in fact, it is VERY RARE. However, allows the possibility that one who has never heard of the Lord, but lives in the manner that the Lord expects and in the belief of such, can also be saved.

Late to the party here. If NOT in the US, you can file a police report in some nations. In some nations (especially Europe) What they did was illegal. That may be a little more than one wants to do (pressing charges), but it can be a pretty serious offense. It wouldn't go far in Idaho, Utah, or Arizona, but in some nations, what they did would bring possible jail time. It could be a rather serious offense. I actually have a very different problem. I try inviting the parents to anything and everything (interview, please come with your kids. Activities, I'd LOVE to see the parents). Getting the parents to actually come with their children...I get VERY little to actually do this (and in many cases get a LOT of push back...afterall...why do they need to come with their children. I suppose I should be gratified that they have this much trust...but I know I didn't with my kids).

I think you should put out feelers on how he feels about you. You may feel you want to be around him forever, but if he doesn't feel the same way...could make for an awkward time together later on. It could be familiarity, it could be far more. I think the first thing is to put our feelers (blatantly stating it may not be the best way to go, depending on how he feels about you) and see what his feelings are.

I believe I was directed to this thread from the original. I think there are some misunderstandings between various different ideas and definitions. When working with different definitions of different things, it makes it hard to see when we may be discussing the same thing. Here are some basic ideas of various religions as what I understand them, and how they MIGHT relate to the LDS faith. Baptist - The Lord died on the Cross and saved all men from their sins. All that is required is to accept his grace to be forgiven of these sins and perfected. If you do this, you are saved. This literally means you are then saved to go to heaven. Your sins were already paid for by the Lord, you just have to accept that. How do you know that this has occurred? You will literally have a change of heart. Your entire being will literally be changed. Where you once desired to do evil, now you will only desire to do good continually. Hence, you will be saved, and your change will be reflected in your actions. This will, by default, normally lead to baptism, for as you now are a true follower of the Lord, and your heart has been changed and perfected, you too wish to follow and do what is good. This includes Baptism. Baptism is a choice, and baptism is by immersion. Is Baptism necessary? It depends on the sect of Baptist you are part of, but in general, no. However, if you truly have a change of heart, this change will be reflected in what you do (or as James would put it, works...these will not save you, but are reflective of what you are doing). If one has this change of heart, but does not have the opportunity to show that devotion and acceptance through Baptism, the Lord does not hold that against them. They are still saved. Now, it is possible that the most vile murderer has been saved...we do not know, only the LORD can look upon one's heart and know. However, normally, that change of heart will be reflected in one's actions. Only the Lord and each individual knows whether they have truly been saved or not. How does this differ from Mormons - Mormons believe that the sins of all men were paid for by the Lord. We also believe that we have to accept this. We do NOT believe the change of heart is the same as the Baptist do. We do not believe that we will have this mighty change of heart that leads us to be perfected and do good continually. Instead, we may be guided by the Spirit and have our hearts changed in that way, but we are not suddenly going to be perfect in our hearts and continually desire to do good. We can still be tempted and still can reject the Lord. We also believe that Baptism is a requirement of the Lord (but one that can be waived by the Lord if he so wishes...ala...infant baptism is NOT something the LDS church ascribes to, nor is approval for the heavily mentally handicap who cannot make decisions for themselves...etc...etc..etc) as it is a physical showing of our commitment to the Lord and a covenant of such. One does NOT have to be baptized in the flesh in this life, but at some point will need to accept the Lord and this is symbolized by Baptism. For this reason, we believe they can be baptized by proxy (as per, what we call Baptisms for the Dead) by others in this life as they show the requisite desire to accept and follow the Lord in the next life (or spirit world which is also a totally different topic, but is also something that differentiates Mormons and just about every other Christian religion in their beliefs). General Modern Day Christians (more liberal denomination) - Believe in a round about way of works, but claim to be saved by Grace. In otherwords, they believe that all they have to do is be good. If they are good people, they will go to heaven. Mormons - Believe that we must have faith in the Lord. This leads us to desiring to do what he commands us which leads to Faith, Repentence, Baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end. In otherwords, we believe that doing good is NOT what saves us. Doing good will be a reflection of our Faith, aka...as per James...works without faith is dead...thus we show our faith through our works. Conservative General Christians - Believe in grace. It is only by Grace that one is saved, however, as with Mormons, there are works that indicate that we accept this grace. One is by following the commandment to be Baptized. This can differentiate between congregation to congregation. Some feel that infants need to be baptized. Others, such as Anabaptist do NOT believe this, instead stating that you must make a knowing choice and thus baptism can ONLY be made by someone with full understanding and consciousness in their decision (Anabaptist also tend to believe in Baptism by immersion, though some also believe in sprinkling, and also believe in pacifism). They believe it is Grace that saves them, but that they should show their willingness and faith in the Lord by following his commandments, hence doing good deeds, and other outward indications (Such as participation in Eucharist). Mormons - Ah, this is getting sort of close, probably because it is really really general (as there are a ton of General Christian Sects out there). Mormons do not believe in infant baptism, but believe that we need to follow the Example of the Lord by doing all that our father commanded us. We are not perfect, but we are perfected in Christ, or that through the atonement, our sins can be washed away. We still need to strive individually to keep the commandments and can fall away if we so choose, however, for the most part we can still choose to come back and once again accept the Lord and repent. We also have the very LIBERAL belief that anyone that accepts Christ will be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven (though we separate that out into various different areas, and so they may not necessarily be at the top of the heap there). We also believe that almost everyone will eventually accept the Lord and the atonement. This is actually VERY radical, as most Christian religions do NOT believe this. We do NOT believe that everyone will be with the Lord in heaven, even if they are in the Kingdom of heaven. Some will merely be there and visited by angels. We believe that the LORD chooses who will be with him. Normally however, the intent of our hearts are reflected in what we do. He laid out clearly many different things that can show our intent, such as Baptism, Confirmation, and other ordinances as well as other things that show our intent to follow him and his commandments. In general, these are good guidelines of what he will expect or look for, but in the end, HE IS THE JUDGE and he decides. However, we also know he keeps his promises. Presbyterian - Not as clear with this religion. They believe in Pre-destination. However, it is not as clear cut as some may think. the Lord did NOT pay for everyone's sins. He knew who would be saved and ONLY atoned for THEIR sins. This does not mean someone who is evil and a murderer is saved. What it means is that those who choose to follow him and do the works (Baptism and other such things) in faith were already known to the Lord (as he knows everything) and as such, they are the ones he sacrificed himself for. If you are not trying to follow the commandments and doing all you can to be his follower, chances are you are not part of the flock and were not saved. If you are...well...that speaks for itself. Mormons- Believe the Lord sacrificed for ALL men (and as I said, have that radical idea that eventually, almost all people will end up in the Kingdom of Heaven). There is no such thing as Pre-destination. The Lord knows all, but men have free agency to choose who to follow and what they will do in this life. Now this doesn't cover half of all religions out there, by far...but it's somewhat of a start. Feel free to correct me. I'm LDS by faith, not the other religions, so mistakes are to be expected in my understanding of them.

I think many LDS have this question, and often ask this of themselves. It is probably a common enough question of many Christians. Am I good enough, am I going to heaven? Now, believe it or not, the LDS DO believe that one CAN have a confirmation that they ARE going to basically be assured of going to heaven. It happens rarely (or not, maybe those who have it occur simply do not tell everyone else). They can have a personal visit by the Lord and he can tell them...you will go to heaven. The only way out of it at that point is to commit a sin against the Holy Ghost, which is more than just sinning, it's basically KNOWING the Lord atoned for our sins, than actively rejecting it and shedding innocent blood in order to reject it completely and fight against the Lord doing all one can to destroy his atonement and sacrifice (ala, Judas Iscariot). However, for the most part, I think there are MANY LDS members that wonder if they are good enough. This, in some ways, is an answer to it. His talk seems to be a reassurance that yes, you are good enough. If you repent (apply the atonement to our lives by admitting our sins and that he forgives us of them and trying not to do them again), and do not rebel against the Lord, then yes, you are good enough. We stress too much at times over this question rather than focusing on what we could be doing instead. On an individual level, to be honest, the LDS also have another scripture which points out something I think is far different (and may be different than what you believe yourself). This is my opinion, rather than LDS doctrine In this, I think it is FAR more important what we are thinking and how we feel in our hearts. I think the Lord takes this into account and can see this. No matter what we do, what matters most is our intentions (and yes, I know the phrase, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...but I think it is actually the INTENT that may actually matter, and normally that is reflected in our words and our deeds). That's a personal opinion though, rather than any LDS doctrine.

But you asked the question HERE...and I am addressing YOUR question instead of trying to differentiate what makes MORMONS DIFFERENT. In fact, much of what I see is what makes us very similar to other faiths and that is inside the talk you addressed as well as the items involved. In fact, the great irony is that Runewell basically restated the general idea you stated yourself in your OP in the first paragraph (but differentiated in the second). Even more ironic, I feel the talk is actually focused on something different entirely, which I actually haven't gotten to talk about (but that really wouldn't be on topic in regards to the thread). (That would be more on that I he dealt more with other items with a focus on grace rather than what WE can do...which obviously isn't coasting, but it isn't relying on what we do or our works either, but more putting the atonement at work in our lives in application each day, and stop trying to make excuses). PS: You keep commenting to a thread in another forum. I am now guessing you put a sub thread in the Christianity forum and that's the one you are referring to? I sort of talked about it prior, but that is a GUESS on my part.

Meaning you of course. (as for Pam, I may have misunderstood, but seeing how much flak was being tossed at someone unnecessarily, it seemed to me more centered around that then the actual topic that was being discussed). I understand where you are coming from, but I also see at the beginning of his talk, right at the front where they summarize what he is writing, something that you mentioned you had difficulty agreeing with and felt he said something different. That statement right there at the talk actually agrees more with what Runewell stated...and that statement from his talk is this Though he admittedly has this added part at the end, which basically, if one understands the idea of accepting the Lord and having one's heart turned towards the Lord, would mean we would not rebel if we were truly saved in the first place (as per other doctrines outside the LDS church), it is basically still saying something very similar when he states...

I agree. WE, in and of ourselves are definitely NOT good enough. Even with one sin we are absolutely not even close. The story of Job is a good example of this. I also agree, we can make it with faith in our Lord. I think in many ways, we are MORE closely aligned in our thoughts to the protestant ideas of grace and faith than many realize. To often people want to emphasize works and what we do, rather than how totally and completely reliant we are on the atonement of the Lord. It is the atonement that is the central aspect of our faith, and why we can even be saved. Without the Lord's grace and salvation, we would all be condemned to hell.

I think you misunderstand the story to a little degree. In the LDS beliefs, there are those that do NOTHING (not even repent) who attain salvation. Little children and those who are like little children (normally these are disabled, even to adulthood) who are saved simply by the atonement of the Lord. There is NOTHING expected of them. The idea, is that it is the LORD that now owns this debt. He is the one that determines the standards of repayment. This can be nothing for some individuals. In the LDS belief, a little child does not even have to BELIEVE in the LORD (which is even far less than many other religions which would be scandalized by this thought) to be saved. The Lord normally requires us to at least accept this gift, as one would put it. However, how does one know if one truly accepts or believes this? It is then, as per James in the Epistle of James, where works are not what saves us, but are indicative of our faith for that salvation. Do we have faith that the Lord's atonement really does apply to us and are we truly willing to accept his as our Savior (as per James in the New Testament). The most famous of these is James 2. However, the item that the Mormons and Baptist take issue with is the interpretation that it is the WORKS that save us, rather than faith. However, the way I can understand it is that it is by works that our faith is demonstrated. If we have faith, by default works will follow (and not necessarily ordinances, but as James lists, those items which show we are true followers of the Lord). However, I utilize the story of the individual on the Cross to show that it is the LORD who makes the judgement call. He can decide whoever and whatever he wants in regards to who gets Salvation. We need to accept him (and hence his teachings and his example) and his sacrifice for us. Who would you say truly accepts the Lord, the one who says they are saved, but then goes and murders their family, robs a bank, and then proceeds to support prostitution and all manner of evil...or the one that says they accept the Lord, goes to church, aids the poor, and does all manner of good to others? This explanation, though not from an LDS site, is a good explanation of James 2 and a link to the original site and full article James and Faith As you can see, works basically show that we DO have faith, and that is the faith in the Lord that is necessary, because without that faith that he did atone for our sins, there is no faith that we can be saved from them.

I may have read it too hastily, but from what I read, Runewell was right in their statements. I saw people flagrantly picking on Runewell and tearing down LDS doctrine, but Runewell's actual statements were relevant to the OP's statements and questions. I am of the opinion that OTHER people were in the act of actually trying to tear down what is actually pretty clear LDS doctrine on the matter (in my understanding) and felt many of the comments tossed at Runewell were probably misplaced and caused undue tension in a thread where we should be agreeing that there is NOTHING we can do that merits us salvation under justice. We do not merit it. It is a gift that is given freely to us if we choose to accept it. Of course, our actions will show that faith (as per James) and our works reflect our belief. The story by Boyd K. Packer demonstrates this particularly well. This may seem counter to the "works" that we are taught to do in the New Testament, but this does not negate the idea that the ONLY one to judge is the Lord when determining our salvation. He is the one that sets the terms and that can be anything from simply being childlike to be covered under the atonement with nothing else required, to looking in our hearts to see with what intent we do. In my OPINION In truth, no works (or ordinances), actions on our part, or anything else does one lick to save us unless we do it with the right intent. He can see if we have good in our hearts and are truly his followers, and it is HIS choice and decision on whether we receive salvation or not. I tend to lean that he is far more forgiving than many give him credit for (and feel that as he says, if we ask, we shall receive, especially in regards to repentance in general, though some sins may require a tad more faith than others as shown in action and deed) but in all honesty, the only one whose judgment really counts now, is the Lords. I think the atonement IS a particularly vital and important part of LDS discussion. I think Pam would agree (I am not Pam, so not positive, hence why I think) and probably feel she was discussing the unnecessary antagonism that arose in the thread when instead we should be discussing the merits of the atonement and the love of the Lord rather than tearing down someone for perceived misunderstandings of belief or writings, or perceived slants against each other.

I would consider Boyd K. Packer's statements and comments as relevant to LDS discussion. Pam Stated I AM LDS, and what I wrote WAS reflective of my understanding of LDS doctrine. I feel this IS the appropriate forum, and Boyd K. Packer's statements probably belong FAR more in this forum than the general Christian forum.

I think part of this is where you place is in the company and who is over the company. If the individual is NOT working under you, I would let whoever they ARE working under handle it. In this way you do not get involved in a family complication that can leave bad feelings (and sometimes, family feuding can be the worst type of feuding...afterall, after a little research on the clip that mordorbund posted...though I'm not positive as I haven't seen the movie, it appears that clip is where Fredo is being marked for death and he is killed shortly after that?...family feuding is the worst)... If they are under you...good luck. Bad feelings in a family is something one probably wants to avoid...that can be a tough situation. Glad I've never had to deal with it personally.

This is LDS doctrine. NOTHING we do or can say or any works or actions will save us. This is one of the basic ideas of LDS Doctrine. I find it hard to believe that any on these forums that are LDS are arguing against this. Instead quickly agree and go on in regards to LDS doctrine itself and further in regards to it. In this, I absolutely agree with runewell. Salvation IS a gift that CANNOT BE EARNED. You actually do NOT have to repent (though some would say this is part of accepting it), all you need to do is accept the salvation that is freely offered you by the Lord. There is NOTHING you can do to EARN or DESERVE IT. Runewell's statement is 100% in accordance with what we believe in the LDS church. However... There is another aspect that seems to go counter to this. Most religions when they discuss works are talking about required ordinances. This is what they hold against the Catholic Church when they talk about works vs. grace. In this is the discussion that works are required and grace cannot be sufficient. This means that one must needs be Baptized to be saved. These things are such ordinances as Baptism, Confirmation, Mass (or the Sacrament in the LDS church), and other such ordinances. The LDS church ALSO believes that such ordinances are essential to salvation. For some, these can apparently contradict each other, so how is it that the LDS can have BOTH as doctrine? There is a story in Gospel Principles (which in turn was taken from a General Conference Talk) that I think well illustrates this matter. Before discussing it, I would like to point a few other items. The Lord has said that we are NOT TO JUDGE. That means we do NOT know who is or is not going to receive salvation or going to heaven. IT is the LORD who is the ONLY judge in this regard. He is our judge, and the one who gets to decide. He can do what EVER he desires and choose HOWEVER he wants. I think the story illustrates WHY (and I am going to post the story). Overall, I do NOT feel it is how much we give to the poor (though we should give to the poor), how many prayers we say, how many meetings we attend that determine if we are saved or not. It is not how many ordinances, or how many times we do our hometeaching, or if we are a Bishop, Stake President, or other position. I feel that the Lord can see the true intentions of our hearts, the true feelings that we intend, and the true emotions and thoughts behind our actions. It is, indeed not just our actions, but as inferred by Benjamin in Mosiah...it is also our thoughts. Anyways...onto that story Gospel Principles chapter 12 the Atonement It is HIS Grace and mercy that saves us. HE is the one that sets the terms. IF he so decides that nothing more is needed (for example, little children are sinless and are saved without any ordinances or Baptism needed), than HE is the JUDGE. He sets the terms. We show our faith BY our works, and he can see with what intent we do them. We need to try to fulfill our part of the bargain, to fulfill the demands of justice, and it is to fulfill these requirements that are laid down (but remember, HE, not WE, is the final Judge on what he actually will require of us, for some less, for some perhaps more). Wonderful story that I think demonstrates the LDS thoughts on how justice and mercy are both fulfilled.

Isn't the opposite of fall...climb or ascend? However, in regards to falling in love... Depends on how deep the pit is. If you fall deep enough, there is NO climbing out of that one. I fell pretty deep. Glad of it too. Just hope it's deep and steep enough that my wife can't climb out of it.

It actually started around 300 years ago, but gained more and more influence until the mid 19th century. At that point, it was mostly about love in western society and has continued to expand into other cultures and societies in the 20th century. This change in the view of Marriage has also given rise that we are all allowed to marry whomever because of WHO or WHAT we love (hence why Gay Marriage is accepted in our modern world, where it would not have been a valid reason or valid idea in centuries prior to this).

There are various ideas in this regard. This is rather...questionable as follows, and perhaps would disturb some, so I say it with some hesitancy, but it was one that has been partially shared by the Mckonkies occasionally if I recall... The Lord was married. It is possible that the Mary he showed himself to was his spouse. When he states, touch me not, it is because she wished to embrace him in a way that was more as per what a man and wife would embrace. It is also possible that there are multiple other ideas and reasons (as this thread so fully shows and explains), all of which are probably viable. The bigger question I have always had is what if Mary HAD touched him? What would have happened then. Of course, this is fruitless, and I am probably fallen for simply pondering such a thing, but I wonder (rarely) what might have happened if she had touched him or attempted to touch him? Would he have whisked away before she could have? Or, what if she had successfully touched him...then what? Pointless things I wonder at times.

This depends on how you view those who are not married in this life. It also depends on how seriously you take the idea that marriage is something that occurs in this life, not the next. Someone did a sort of math a LOOONG time ago...but I cant' recall all their sources right off the top of my head. It went something like this though... If those who die without marriage that are men are NOT married in the next life, it changes the numbers If all woman, who choose to do so, will have the opportunity to be married in the next life, can, it changes the numbers. (there have been statements that imply this idea. I can't go into it in depth in public, but the idea is because of the nature of certain covenants, where woman are accountable in a different way then men, in essence most of them will actually end up being able to go to the Celestial Kingdom, whilst men may be delegated to the Telestial or Terestrial dependant on their choices in this life...which puts a WHOLE new perspective on why those in the Telestial and Terestrial would not be able to have eternal offspring even if they wanted to or have the organs to do so). This mean, right off the bat, we have at least 40% out of the picture due to early death. We then have 30% men and 30% woman (approx. 50/50). If we look at it that 1/3 of men will be righteous enough or make it to the Celestial Kingdom, that still leaves 20% that will not attain exaltation. That means you have 10% (not sure if that was the actual percentage, but it was pretty low overall) of the population of men who have the exaltation there, another 20% in the Celestial Kingdom itself, but unmarried. That leaves 50% of the population, or those that are woman, who may want to be married with a celestial marriage, but who cannot be married in a 50/50 ratio. How then do you account for that discrepancy in this scenario? A DIFFERENT situation, once again, presented to me. Imagine that every LDS man was excessively righteous. Imagine again, that for the most part, in the pre-existence we had a choice on whether we would have the opportunity to be a member of the LDS church and attain a celestial marriage. We know this is just imagining, because currently, it's no where close to that, but just for numbers sake, imagine these things. Now, look at the demographics of righteous woman to righteous men in the LDS church. The numbers can be somewhat staggering, and they change as individuals get older. The older the group, the more heavily leaning towards woman that percentage becomes. There is a HUGE amount of righteous woman in regards to righteous men in the church. Now, we can add one more imaginary thought, what if, due to the way the Lord has salvation differently for woman than men (as expounded in some holy places), that in total, a majority of woman on this planet are able to get to the Celestial Kingdom. If we just go with the members in the church, there will be more woman than men in the Celestial Kingdom. How then, is exaltation going to be achieved if every one of those woman desire to have exaltation? If we go with the world population, right now we have ~15 million members in the LDS church. We'll say, for ease of numbers, 7 million of those are men. There are around 7 Billion people in this world, that is 3.5 Billion woman. That is 500 woman for every man. If even 1/10 of those woman attain the celestial kingdom...Those numbers can be staggering. This of course, is done with the idea that OUR CHOICES in the pre-existence have a DIRECT relation to our opportunities in this life. There are MANY variations on these ideas. That said, I, myself, am not in favor of Polygamy (as I have stated multiple times I believe). This is NOT what I necessarily think, but more postulation on what happens IF polygamy really IS something that is asked in the hereafter (and I am not necessarily of the opinion that it is. My own opinion is that the original idea that polygamy may not be that major of a thing in the hereafter, could be correct, in that in heaven they are not given in marriage. What you are stuck with in this life is what you get, and as a majority [by a large margin] are NOT in plural marriages, it is NOT an issue most will deal with). That said, in regards to the actual topic... These situations and others could create a quandary. Looking at numbers, how does one resolve these issues? Even if we say people have a choice to move around in the millennium (and that's not exactly an accepted conundrum that many believe), how are the numbers going to match up in any of these situations? Why would ANY woman (or man for that matter, except for worldy reasons, is there really any man that truly would want to have more than one wife? How are you going to be best friends with multiple wives? That defies description, as you can only have ONE BEST, not multiples) want to share their husband or have a husband with more than one wife? This is where the gospel doctrine of the Lord comes into play. 1. Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, might, and strength. You are to love the Lord MORE than your spouse, and that means your husband and wife. 2. Love your neighbor as yourself. In this observation, with rule number 1, your love for all will increase. Your selfishness will decrease. Your desire to have your fellowmen (and woman) be able to have all the blessings that they are able to will abound. Instead of jealousy and selfishness, you'll only have love for others. In this way, the first commandment is invariably bound and united with the second commandment, because as you work on the first, you become more like our Lord and your love for all increases. In this way, we will be willing to love those that love us, and share our lives with others and they with us. It is because such worldly desires are done away with that we will see Exaltation and plural marriage (if it is there) as something to be celebrated rather than how the WORLD sees it. Once again, that said, I'm going to reiterate... This is NOT what I necessarily think, but more postulation on what happens IF polygamy really IS something that is asked in the hereafter (and I am not necessarily of the opinion that it is. My own opinion is that the original idea that polygamy may not be that major of a thing in the hereafter, could be correct, in that in heaven they are not given in marriage. What you are stuck with in this life is what you get, and as a majority [by a large margin] are NOT in plural marriages, it is NOT an issue most will deal with).

So, just recently we had a ward youth temple trip. While I was in the temple, I reflected on what a blessing trying to be righteous and endure to the end is. Because I was doing all I could to be righteous and be worthy of my temple recommend I was able to be there in the temple with the youth that day. What was an even greater blessing was being able to help out with the Baptisms and confirmations. What some of us take for granted when we are able to go to the temple is a GREAT blessing, and even more so in that we can bless others. The Youth Baptisms were a great thing in two ways, first that we can be a blessing to those who have passed on, and also we can aid the youth in the work of the Lord. I felt very blessed myself that day because I was able to be there, and had the opportunity to participate. While there, a topic particularly specific to LDS culture came about. We had a member there who had grown up in Europe and they mentioned that the Youth there did 10-15 baptisms each, while those in Utah and Idaho only were doing around 3 to 4 each. We pondered together on this idea. Perhaps others know better. My thoughts may be flawed in the matter. I was of the idea that with all the youth that visit the temple in the Utah and Idaho areas, with the names allocated to temple baptisms, the youth end up doing 3-4 names. However, with the same number of names, but less numbers of youth in some areas of Europe, that amount of names done per youth would increase. Not positive that is logical or reasonable thinking however.