snipe123

That is just awesome...hopefully you will get the chance to baptize her...:)

Issac, Yes, I'm new here and did not know any details. Thanks. As a member of the Bishopric in my Ward, I have participated in a number of disciplianary councils, and before that, as the Ward Clerk, I attended and recorded the "minutes" and filled out all the forms that are necessary. Of course those involving a MP holder would get referred to the Stake President, as in your case. I found that I had to make sure that there was a box of Kleenx available because by the end of the council everyone was crying and hugging. In such cases one realizes the real value of the Atonement of Christ in all of our lives. Some think these councils are to "punish" the member, but the Lord, in His wisdom, has incorporated them to help one to get through the repentence process and back on the path to happiness and salvation. Your disfellowshipment gives you time to reajust your thinking and get a good grip on the "iron rod" again so that your view of the "great and spacious building" will be from the outside again. Only the Savior can forgive one's transgressions, but if one comes before Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, forgiveness will come. My best wishes for you and your wife. Old Tex \Yes, the disciplinary council concept is definitely inspired and it was a very good experience for me...difficult to spill my guts so to speak, but all of the men present were so respectful and loving...gave excellent council and encouragement...This is the eperience that most people have who go with the right attitude...people with the wrong attitude generally come away with a bad impression...example:Apostates...For me it was awesome...

Hey PC, I think the problem I have with the notion that God used fallen humanity and ordained the winners at Nicea, is that Nicea was not the final word on this issue...particularly the use of the word Homousius...Succeeding sinods fought over this issue, rejected it, then embraced it, then excused etc...If you read the words of the people involved (particularly Constantine)you will note that none of them claimed any kind of divine inspiration for hammering out these doctrines...They never stated that they inquired diligently at the feet of The Lord for revelation...They basically say we have debated and worked very hard at coming to the same opinions...and Constantine urged them to sign the statements of doctrine (creeds)etc...those who didn't, were banished...nevermind the fact that those decisions "...created a trecherous unity in the false name of peace..." to qoute Arius. They defined the doctrines of the church in commitee and by compromise, as though these doctrines had not already been given to begin with by Christ and the Apostles...Mormons see the synods as a symptom of apostasy...If the doctrine was revealed by Christ and the Apostles themselves, why did they need to make these investigations and introduce such concepts or words(homousius) not previously taught or found in the scripture?...To quote Hugh Nibley: "Did God change his nature so that he needed new terms to describe it?" The answer is no of course...They did it so that they could appeal to, accept, (what was previously accepted on faith) or justfy their beliefs in their Pagan (Greek philisophically trained) minds, and their pagan critics... Hugh Nibley's book: The World and the Prophets has an entire chapter on this subject, but the whole book in general discusses the influence and change that effected the church as established by Christ and the apostles brought on by Pagan philosophers who had converted to christianity only after they had succeeded in Hellenising it...

If you and your wife were sealed (married) by the Holy Spirit of Promise and neither have broken the covenants you made at that sealng, and/or neither of you have requested a cancellation of that sealing, it is still in force. If your names were not removed from the rolls of the Church in SLC, you are still a member. The best thing you can do if you are in doubt about either one is to consult with your Bishop. He is the only one who can get those answers for you. Do you remember the covenants you made concerning your wife when you received your endowment, and she regarding you? If not, I again refer you to your Bishop. It's wonderful that a family is being restored again, and from your question I can see that you may have some reservations about some things that may have happened during the last 3 years. Again, don't just listen to what is advised here, go talk to your Bishop about it. He is the one who holds the keys in your ward as a common judge in Israel and is the only one who can advise you what to do. Don't assume anything. Hey Tex, I think you may have missed my comments on the thread where we talked about reasons for being x'd etc...so i would not expect you to know my circumstances...I shared that after my initial divorce (emphasis on after) I really went off the deep end and did a lot of things I am not proud of...I experienced the best and worst of what the"Great and Spacious Building" has to offer and even left the church and started eventually attending a "non-dnominational" church...At one point before going to that church, if you had asked me if I believed in God, I would have told you "Yes. But he does not deserve my devotion!" I was that angry and felt abandoned by God, even though it was me that had turned away...anyway, that little church changed my perspective on that...eventually through a series of events being bruised and battered in the world I decided I needed to go to the Mormon church...when I walked in the building it felt as though i had walked out of the desert...literally...the second I walked throuhg the door...I just felt a wash of comfort and was nearly driven to tears...i was that starved and immaciated for things of the Spirit...The Spirit was that strong...quite a contrast to where I had been...I loved everything abou that day...It was fast and testimony meeting which used to annoy me...even "that guy" that seems to inhabit every ward (haha) that walks up to you and introduces himself and wants to know everything about you didn't annoy me...i was happy he was there!...anyway I met with the bishop that day and dropped the bomb so to speak...he asked if it was ok to speak to Stake Prez etc...met with him too a week later...had a church disciplinary council 3 weeks later (which was an amazing experience by the way...:)) and I was disfellowshipped...could have been x'd probably, but I had the right attitude...was greatful for the council i received there...from that day forward I have not looked back...my life, friends, activities, attitudes, faith, everything has completely changed...I have not missed a Sunday since April (the first day i walked in) and have experienced a tremendous ammount of healing as I have been repenting and fortifying myself once again... I had about as bitter and nasty a divorce as one can have, (mostly because of me and what i started doing after the divorce) and for a year I could not even talk to my x-wife without screaming at her...we finally got to a congenial, cooperative level last October and where even able to have some friendly talks and participated in the kids activities at school etc...well when I started going back to church she saw the change immedietly and began to be very supportive etc...long story, but in short, we found that we still love eachother very much...met with the Stake Prez together and have been going to counciling etc...we are ready to do it right this time...:) Anyway, thanks to everyone for your kind comments...can't wait until tomorrow...I think the bishop will probably confirm the answers you have all given on the subject...he was going to check on it for us...I will continue to meet with the Bishop and Stake Prez until atleast April or May and then another council will be held, and if all goes well, I will be accepted in full fellowship again...In the meantime, I love the Church, Gospel, and Jesus, and love to talk about them all, so I am glad to have a forum to do that... Blessings to you all! now this makes no sense to me....first line says you have a policy question, and not interested in opinions. at the end you ask "thoughts"? If what you want is policy, then you want a quote from the Church Handbook or some other such document. Asking for thoughts is to ask an opinion, not ask for facts. oh, and congrats to you!!!! Sorry...by "opinions" I meant that I did not want to have people start debating on whether or not I should have to do something, or whether or not the churches policy is correct etc...I just wanted to know what the policy was or if they new of a statement...like the handbook i suppose....in the meantime my bishop was checking on it, but I have been eager for an answer...I just didn't want to spark a debate between folks favorably disposed towards the church and it's marriage policies etc, and those who are not so disposed...:)

Yes, well we prosecuted WWII against the Germans with a little more vigor than the Nazi's considered necessary but.... Sorry - that doesn't even make sense. I do agree that more circumspection (from me) wouldn't be a bad thing. HAHAHA...A bit of diplomacy(not meaning compromise) never hurt anyone Snow, especially when speaking about religious beliefs...:) I like your posts very much, but I think everyone in this forum would be better served if there were less contention, personal attacks, the jumping-down-the-throat-ism at the slightest infraction or missunderstanding that people on here engage in...You know we sometimes express divergent beliefs while sitting in Gospel Doctrine but you seldom see the kind of venom there that we see here...I wish the discussions on the forums were more dominated by the Spirit than the contention which seems to reign supreme... By the way, who is the flaming idiot (hahaha...just joking) that says Joseph was executed for advocating the divine feminine...Oh, wait...it's probably Gaia...nevermind...not even going to touch that idea...I'm with you on your points regarding the martyrdom Snow...

Do Mormons use the "fish" symbol at all? As in the greek word for fish Ichthus as menomic of Ieusos Xristos Theos Uios Soter, literally Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour? The fish symbol is not common, but not forbidden...I personally think it is cool...I have heard that its origin is in the idea that when Christians were being heavily persecuted and two people met for the first time, if one was a Christian, through the course of the conversation they would casually scrape an arch (one half of the fish) in the dirt with their foot...if the other person was also a Christian, they would scrape their own arch in the opposite direction (completing the fish)...In this way, they knew they were both Christians and they could then speak freely...Has anyone else heard this idea? Would like to know for sure...if it's true its like a secret code...very spy-ish...I like it... Old Tex, A living Christ is part of my faith experience. In the words of the hymn.... I serve a risen saviour, He's in the world today. If the atonement is the sheding of blood for the remission of sins, then the scourging, beating and crown of thorns played a part, but the cruxifiction is crux of the event. In someways it could be said that preparing of spotless lamb was a necessary part of the atoning process. So the whole of His sinless life was a necessary part of the atonement. As for Gethsemine my bible reads "sweat was like drops of blood". Luke 22:44. However the textual support for Luke 22:43-44 is very weak, it probably isn't in the original text of the gospel. USB4 (critical greek text) has it as ancient but definitely not part of the gospel. NA omits the verses altogether. The idea that Christ bled in the garden from his pores is confirmed in modern revelation...D&C 19

No, thankfully I did not need to be rebaptized...

GAIA: Hi There, Isaac -- Not really -- let me explain a bit more. That portion of the KFD to which i referred has to do with the eternal progression of the Gods. There are indeed many people who feel that the (D&C 132) scriptural term, "eternal lives" (please note the plural) is directly related to Adam-God, in that the latter tells just how (and why) those "eternal lives" are played out. GAIA: It is certainly your right and privilege to make that decision for YOURSELF -- as it is certianly the right and privilege of other Saints to take as their guidance, the many quotes from General Authorites that encourage the Saints to pray about and receive their OWN inspiration on everything, and be guided by the HOly Spirit in all things. For example, Brigham Young said: "What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150) GAIA: With all due respect, that's an obviously and demonstrably false premise: There are many reasons why doctrines which are true, may no longer be taught or practiced -- for example, Polygamy remains a doctrine of the Church, and we've been told by some GA's that it will once again be practiced by the Saints -- but anyone currently advocating or practicing it risks their membership. It is NOT currently not taught, because it's not true, or unimportant..... GAIA: That's one of the frequently cited objections to the JD, however, it's important to rememeber several things: 1. Those scribes were not just idly recording their haphazard or incidental memories of lectures; they were trained, experienced scribes whose JOB itwas to make official notes; 2. Many of the addresses in the JD appeared first in other official publications of the Church -- including the Deseret News, Millennial Star, Juvenile INstructor, Women's Exponent, etc -- ; thus corrections could have and would have been made before they were printed in the JD; 3. And in fact, we have testimony from Apostle and then President Wilford Woodruff that indeed, Brigham Young had a chance to review the Journal of Discourses, and that he (Wilford Woodruff) had also reviewed his sermons, and that the reporting in the JD was accurate. 4. (then) President Brigham Young said: 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, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. 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. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 13: 95.) 5. Finally, there is the following letter which appears at the beginning of Volume 1 of the JD, over the signature of the First Presidency of the Church: LETTER FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY. Great Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, June 1, 1853. Elder Samuel W. Richards, and the Saints abroad. Dear Brethren--It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography, which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures, &c., delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve, and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these Reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your co-operation in the purchase and sale of the above-named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt. BRIGHAM YOUNG, HEBER C. KIMBALL, WILLARD RICHARDS, First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Blessings -- ~Gaia GAIA: As you may remember from previous messages in this thread, so did i -- i said they are two very different Priesthood Offices, with very different roles. Blessings -- ~Gaia Gaia, Are you a member of the church? Your answers are making you sound more like an apostate from the church, than an active member...I am not trying to criticize you, but your answers in a lot of cases are obviously not in line with the current prophets...What is your affiliation? I am not saying we should not do our own thinking and praying etc...what I am saying is that I believe a current prophet is better qualified to interpret the words of another prophet than I am...and than you are...especially when you are not in line with what the church teaches on this subject... I never said if this doctrine were true it would still be taught, I said that if it were "important" it would still be taught...the same can be said of polygamy...It may very well be practiced again some day, but right now it is not practiced...throughout time, it has been practiced or not practiced according to the direction of the Lord...those who are practicing it now, are not authorized to do so...that is why they are x'd...not because the church rejects it as a true principle, but as part of that priciple it must be done according to the Lords direction and not whenever a man decides it should be so...The Nephites took it upon themselves at one point to have more than one wife and they were condemned by a prophet of the Lord for doing so...That is the priciple you seem to forget... So if there are other reasons why a true priciple might not be practiced, why do you think that This Adam-God Theory is no longer taught? I don't think you have said what your feelings are in regards to the reason for the change, on the subject...You have made much hay in quoting various people and articles but I have not seen what you personally think about why the teaching supposedly changed(though you obviously seem to accept the theory yourself) ...so spell it out for us Gaia...Answer this: Do you think the church has fallen into apostasy since they no longer teach this theory? Have our prophets led us astray and accordingly are no longer prophets? This is an pretty important issue if it is life eternal to know the only true God and Jesus whom he sent, then it would seem if our prophets (current) are somehow wrong on this subject as you seem to be implying(if not stating outright), then they are really leading us astray...So are they prophets or not? Will you answer this, or are you just posting all this stuff on here to knoock the ping pong ball back and forth as some sort of history game?

I have a church policy question...not interested in opinions, I just want to know what the policy is: As some of you know, I divorced 3+ years ago...left the church (not officially)and have now come back to the fold (happily I might add). This Friday I will Be remarrying my x-wife which will be a happy day for our family...Amazing how my life has come full circle...We were married in the temple orriginally and never had that "temple divorce" so to speak...just a civil divorce...our bishop is marrying us in a friends home with our kids present etc...will be awesome...but anyway, I was wondering if there is anything that needs to be done with regards to the temple sealing...its still in effect obviously, but is there some kind of policy that needs to be updated or whatever? confusing questions I know...I have taught the Gospel an aweful lot in various callings but have not had many duties in church administration, so does anyone have experience with this? We asked the bishop and he is looking into it himself having never dealt with this particular scenario...thoughts?

Infobase is a disk set you can purchase at an LDS bookstore or you can probably purchase it online...there are a couple different versions I believe under different names...the current Infobase has 3,600 titles...not all LDS of course...

Read this book: http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=4499076 Its called "Believing Christ" by Stephen Robinson I know of no better book or discussion that better describes our covenant relationship with The Lord and the role of grace...Read it, and you will definitely feel better...it is not a long or deeply theological book...It is excellent and totally changed my attitude on this subject...I consider this to be in my top 5 LDS books, and I have read a lot of them... :)

Hey Doug, Excellent episode! Thanks! :) How do the other characters in this saga (your family) feel about your investigations? They must see some excitement and enthusiasm in you...Is a spirit of change in the air in your home(so to speak)?

All of Hugh Nibleys books are excellent...Also Trumen Madsens book about Joseph Smith...Mormon Doctrine of Diety by B.H. Roberts. Allegory of the Olive Tree...collection of essays put out by F.A.R.M.S.....anything published by FARMS or the Maxwell Institute as it is called now...You could get The LDS Infobase on disk and have literally hundreds of books at your fingertips...but we all like the smell of a good book... Or if your a real fanatic you could read the scriptures...haha...that is what I have been focusing on lately without any kind of commentaries...has been great...

He has an incredible lecture on the atonement, one about Anti-Mormon literature called: How to Write an Anti-Mormon book (awesome) and his Radio lecture series called The World and the Prophets is also out on cd...all his lectures are amazing...His books are as well...

GAIA: Ohpuhleez. Go back and read this entire exchange and it becomes very clear who has done the "attacking" and who has NOT. * * * Hi Rosie -- You make a very good point about this doctrine being relevant to "knowing who we worship" -- and in fact, that's exactly what Brigham YOung said about it: Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God. That will be a curse to many of the elders of Israel because of their folly with regard to it. They yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven. Yet the world holds it in derision. (Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, Oct 8, `1861) Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken. HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the Only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians and non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten of the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. (Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51, 1854) How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me--namely that Adam is our father and God...Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth . . . We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim, "go ye and make an earth." . . . Father adam came here, and then they brought his wife . . . Then he said, "I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh. (Deseret News, June 18, 1873) INterestingly, Joseph Smith said something very similar, and quite relevant to and consistent with this theory/doctrine: If men do not comprehend the character of God they do not comprehend themselves..... Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,--namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one,--from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. GAIA: LOL -- Funny you should say that -- Joseph Smith said just the opposite. IN the King Follet Discourse - -which many say goes hand-in-hand with the Adam-God theory/doctrine, Smith said: Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. The first principles of man are self-existent with God. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement and improvement. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. God Himself found Himself in the midst of spirits and glory. Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest, who were less in intelligence, could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him, so that they might have one glory upon another in all that knowledge, power, and glory. So He took in hand to save the world of spirits. This is good doctrine. It tastes good. You say honey is sweet and so do I. I can also taste the spirit and principles of eternal life, and so can you. I know it is good and that when I tell you of these words of eternal life that are given to me by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the revelations of Jesus Christ, you are bound to receive them as sweet. You taste them and I know you believe them. I rejoice more and more. (The King Follett Discourse: a Newly Amalgamated Text by Stan Larson Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 18 (1977-1978), Number 2 - Winter 1978 204.) GAIA: Oh, let's look at the REST of that story, and make sure that we accurately portray its meaning/ implication: Upon seeing Brigham Young for the first time and while yet some distance away the Prophet Joseph stopped his chopping on a beech log, straightened up, studied Brigham for a moment, then remarked: "There comes the greatest man who ever lived to teach the identity of God to the world, and he will yet lead this people." [brigham Young first met Joseph Smith in September, 1832 in Kirtland, Ohio. He said: "Here my joy was full at the privilege of shaking the hand of the Prophet of God, and I received the sure testimony, by the spirit of pro-phecy, that he was all any man could believe him to be, a true prophet." (Mill Star July 11, 1863, p. 439.) During this visit a meeting was held in which Brigham spoke in tongues. After this manifestation Joseph prophesied: "The time will come when brother Brigham Young will preside over the Church." (See History of the Church 1:297; Mighty Men of Zion, p. 16; Mill Star 21:439; Journal of Discourses 3:51; 4:54; 5:332; 8:206; 9:89, 332; They Knew The Prophet, Hyrum L. Andrus, p. 34.)] GAIA: So when a prophet says, "This was a REVELATION to me, and it is a REVELATION to you", and "this is SCRIPTURE", he culd actually be teaching FALSE DOCTRINE or even be "listening to the WRONG Spirit"? And by "wrong spirit", you mean exactly who -- the Devil? So just to be clear: You are actually suggesting that Brigham Young, sustained as "Prophet Seer and Revelator" was actually listening to the DEVIL (or a "wrong" spirit) when he claimed he had received revelation? If you can't be sure who your prophets are actually getting their revelation from, why bother to HAVE prophets? ~Gaia Finally an unobscure quote the average person can look up without coning the depths of the journal of discourses to discover...The King Folet Discourse has nothing to do with Adam-God...you begin by saying: "IN the King Follet Discourse - -which many say goes hand-in-hand with the Adam-God theory/doctrine, Smith said:" This premise, as are many that you postulate is very flawed...One might say Joseph Smiths King Follet discourse goes "hand-in-hand" if they wanted to use it to prop up their theory to make it sound more legit, but to do so, would do a grave injustice to what Joseph was ACTUALLY saying...The doctrine that Smith revealed to the world in this speach was indeed delicious to the soul, and still is when you read it in context...when read in this context, it has nothing to do with Adam-god-theory that is being discussed...You are way out of line to use it that way...Very interesting retorical trick to use a statement by one prophet to castigate someone for finding your interpretation of the words of another prophet distasteful... I have not said anything on this subject since I have noted that others have done an excellent job...For the record and in summary, I fall into the "A-train" camp (as usual...haha) on this subject...I would also hasten to add that I believe that various prophets commenting on this theory (and condemning it) are better qualified to interpret Brighams words than we are...To me this is the Lords church, and he leads it...If this doctrine were so important, it would still be taught openly, not religated to obscurity... Would like to point out also that The Journal of discourses was recorded by scribes listening to these speaches, so it is conceivable that some of what was recorded is not accurate...a few missplaced words can really distort meaning...others have already commented on interpretation so I will not beat that dead horse...this is not the answer to the whole issue, but it certainly is relevant...

Doug this is the best soap opera ever! Just kidding, but seriously I am sure all of us are eager to hear about how it goes so don't leave us hanging to long! Haha...I suspect that your enthusiasm is quite refreshing for your young missionaries as well, so I am sure they were happy to meet with you after the opposition that they sometimes experience...Always great to find someone who is earnestly seeking the truth as you are...so milk them for all their worth, and they will love you for it! :) I am really happy for you! :)

I have his collected works...they are amazing books...The best one is "The World and the Prophets" which is about the apostasy...absolutely great! It is a series of radio lectures that he gave in the 50's...can also be purchased and listened to on cd...

If it was Hugh Nibley, then chances are this little snipit of information will be the subject of a paper written by a lesser scholar some time down the road, since he is usually the first person to find or come up with an idea...Sometimes he expounds on the topic, and sometimes his small mention of a subject will inspire someone else to study the subject...That is the magic of Hugh Nibley...I have his BofM class on my CHristmas list... :) He was an amazing scholar and man...

"B.H. Roberts left us a marvelous analogy about this approach to truth. Speaking of an anti-Mormon of his day, Roberts said: Mr. Wilson [Or insert your favorite Anti-Mormon here] is as one who walks through some splendid orchard and gathers here and there the worm-eaten, frost-bitten, wind-blasted, growth-stunted and rotten fruit, which in spite of the best of care is to be found in every orchard; bringing this to us he says: "This is the fruit of yonder orchard; you see how worthless it is; an orchard growing such fruit is ready for the burning." Whereas, the fact may be that there are tons and tons of beautiful, luscious fruit, as pleasing to the eye as it would be agreeable to the palate, remaining in the orchard to which he does not call our attention at all. Would not such a representation of the orchard be an untruth, notwithstanding his blighted specimens were gathered from its trees? If he presents to us the blighted specimens of fruit from the orchard, is he not in truth and in honor bound also to call our attention to the rich harvest of splendid fruit that still remains ungathered before he asks us to pass judgment on the orchard? I am not so blind in my admiration of the Mormon people, or so bigoted in my devotion to the Mormon faith as to think that there are no individuals in that Church chargeable with fanaticism, folly, intemperate speech and wickedness; nor am I blind to the fact that some in their over-zeal have lacked judgment; and that in times of excitement, under stress of special provocation, even Mormon leaders have given utterance to ideas that are indefensible. But I have yet to learn that it is just in a writer of history or of 'purpose fiction,' that 'must speak truly,' to make a collection of these things and represent them as of the essence of that faith against which said writer draws an indictment." Picked up the quote listed above from here: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...Propaganda.html Wanted to share it because I love B.H. Roberts (Read his biography if you have not already done so.) and also because I think it is a brilliant analogy...bold print was added for emphasis...

Hey mnn, Are you sure you quoted what you meant to in this post? Not understanding how the quote from my post relates to this topic? Not being critical, just wondering if you made a cut/paste error there...hahaha...just watching your back man...

Still using that extensive Mormon Library of yours Follower? For someone who claims to not have the time to study..."every religion uder heaven..." you seem to spend a considerable ammount of time doing original research...and seem to posess and a great library on the subject of Mormonism...Interestingly enough, you quote things in the exact same way as Anti-Mormon writers do, which is to say that you use elipses in the exact same spots, and quote in such a way to serve your point without regard to context...YOu use half truths, misquoted sentences(deliberately misquoted by the way). If God were inspiring men in love to bring people out of a cult, he would use truth (in its purity) to do it, not by using the methods that anti-writers use and that you by extension(since you are using their books and arguments) are also doing...You refuse to cite your source for your quote...Which I contend, is not the sources your citing...You do not have the Journal of Discourses, The Seer, The Church news, McDonald, Minutes of the School of Prophets, Provo, UT, 1868-1871, p.38-39), Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (particularly retarded use of elipses on that quote by the way...since most Mormons, including me, have this book and can read "The King Folet discourse" in its fullness and in context...great speech by the way...you should read the whole thing and then you might actually understand the Mormon viewpoint on the subject) and I doubt you even have a copy of Mormon Doctrine even though it is a common enough book...I have pointed out to you before that it is not an authoritative source for Mormon thought since Bruce R McKonkie was not an apostle at the time he wrote it and it represents his opinions, not doctrine...the fact that you continue to use it as a source, despite this, shows that you are either ignorant of true scholarship, or you are blatently ignoring the truth in order to find support for your arguments, (although they are not really your arguments since you are simply parroting and regergitating the arguments of someone else)...You continue to cite sources which you yourself have not examined...instead you are using either an anti-mormon book, or website as a source for your quotes (which you do not identify) even though it has been pointed out to you many times that the quotes are being taken out of context...this is dishonest and puts you in the same class or category as Anti-Mormon writers who also borrow from eachother...Just so you know...The word "devil" means "slanderer or "spoiler"...If I were you, I would do your best not to emulate that particular attribute...

Isaac, Just so folks on this thread will know, there is a difference between disfellowshipment and formal probation. If a disiplanary council determines disfellowshipment, the record of the meeting is sent to the stake president and then forwarded to SLC where one's membership record is so noted. This is done so if the person moves into a different ward before the time of the disfellowshipment has ended, (usually one year) the new Bishop is notified by his ward clerk when the record arrives. There is also both formal and informal probation where disfellowshippment if not warrented. But, one thing to remember about any action, it is designed to help one make a needed correction in their life. It is not a "punishment". It is an opportunity given in love to help us stop for a minute and consider where our life is going and to decide if it's going where we really want it to go. If not, we can then make the mid course corrections we sometimes need to get back on the path again. As both a member of the Bishopric, and as a ward clerk for many years, I have been involved in a number of these councils and every time a person would heed the council given, they came out a stronger and more mature person. I know that you will too. I have expressed similar sentiments on other threads...

I am currently disfellowshipped with the same restrictions...I cannot have a calling, take the sacrament, speak in sacrament(give a talk in other words) or give public prayers, but I am allowed and encouraged to participate in class...I told my Elders Quroum President right away, just so he would know and to help avoid embarrassment...Of course on Sunday I was asked to give the closing prayer in Gospel Doctrine...I did it, rather quickly...and have made a note to talk to the teacher to avoid it in the future...feel kinda bad about it, but my prayer is just as good as anothers and I feel to refuse in the moment would have served as a distraction to everyone else who was present...Like I said, this problem should be avoided in the future because I will talk to the instructor in the meantime, I don't think God or The Stake President will be to upset with me...nor do I think he would be with you...But we should take steps to see that the people who need to know are aware so that they do not call on us...

Amen. It seems that questions like the example that A-train formulated here (Very clever wording there A-train...quite amusing...lol) are there just to spark controversy on a subject that is neither decided or voted on by the participants in the discussion...These matters are decided already by God...If I have a problem with it, then I need to make the adjustment, not gripe about it or try to change it...

thank you, I have a sister who died right after she was born (she was born with pneumonia). and that will be so great to know that she will be raised to maturity, and that i have a sister who is saved in the celestial kingdom, I definitely feel I have something to work towards.. The question was about misscarried babies who have yet to recieve a body. I'm not sure, but I would like to think that they will be like anyone under the age of accountability. I have a niece who I know will be there waiting for her family, if they make it. Her death is what started my road back to the church. As an interesting sidenote, I attended a "non-denominational" church for a time and the minister preached that not only do miscarried children go to hell, but so do aborted children...since to believe otherwise would condone the act of murder, and they did not accept Jesus! I was so distracted by the audacity and rediculousness of this idea that I did not pay attention to how he justified it...Is anyone, perhaps from another church background familiar with this idea? Would be very curious to know how this false idea is justified...My immediate response to the preacher had I had a chance to talk to him, would have been..."Since when is the victim of a crime punished for the sin?" and "When and where did the child have an opprotunty to commit sin that justifies eternal damnation or have a right to choose anything?" Thank goodness for the restoration of the Gospel and the understanding we have of the age of accountability!