JonboySquarepants

lds perform marriages for people who are dead? how do you marry people who are dead?

now i'm confused. the doctrine of polygamy is an eternal covenant, isn't it? though the practice of polygamy was stopped on earth, for whichever reason you choose to believe, it is still true and practiced in heaven, isn't it? i don't recall the church ever stating that polygamy was wrong and is not doctine.

this is because lds, as far as i know, believe that polygamy is an eternal principle. just because it is no longer practiced on earth, does not mean that it is done away with, and that they do not still believe in it. a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but a woman cannot be sealed to more than one man.

NormalMormon, i think you may be looking at this 'problem' the wrong way. you say that "... now she has been sealed to THREE men, with children from each of them." it's my understanding that a woman cannot be sealed to more than one man. so, unless the first sealing was canceled, she would still only be sealed to the first man/husband she was sealed to. a woman can marry again, but she is not also sealed again for time and eternity with the new man unless she first gets a temple divorce with the first husband.

jenamarie, thanks for the link. :) nobody ever told me that before. it's good stuff to know. thanks again.

if community of christ owns the copyright, then why do lds have copies of it in the back of all their bibles? and, so what about controversy? if it's the more correct bible and the true words of God... why not publish them proudly as you do with the book of mormon? oh well.

this is going back to i think the second post about the JST. why isn't the JST the official version of the bible for the lds church?

for the person who mentioned dreaking non-alcoholic beers, it was my understanding that even thoughs contain a small amount of alcohol. they're deemed as non-alcoholic because that amount is so small, but still won't be sold to people under 21. that's what i was taught anyway.

why would someone refer to 'the mormon church' as 'the true church of jesus christ' if they don't believe that 'the mormon church' is in fact 'the true church of jesus christ'? ----- and the answer to hemi's question is that the mormon church does believe they need baptism in order to be saved. if they don't receive baptism on earth, they they will either need to be baptized by proxy or be baptized during the millenium. lol, but if i'm speaking out of turn in this answer or just plain wrong, i'm sorry and i'll edit it out. :)

does the church break its membership numbers down by country/continent? i thought that 12/13 million was the count for the church as a whole.

i don't see how disobeying God could ever be good/righteous. the church believes it was a great thing that adam and eve ate the fruit. God didn't want them to eat the fruit, so how is them eating it a good thing? them eating the fruit was bad but God sending Jesus was good. that's how i see it.

"And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:" ----- this will have to go down in the archives as one of those passages we disagree one. :) i read it as saying that the vision of all is what became as the words of a book that is sealed. what does that mean? it means they were put in a deep sleep and had no vision. it says that in the verses before it. so, yeah, he couldn't read it when asked to because he had no vision. but then when the unlearned man was asked to, he couldn't read it either. that's what i got from the passage. it doesn't say that it was shown to an unlearned man and he said "even though i am unlearned, i can read this," no it tells us the unlearned man simply said "i am unlearned." where do you get that he read it? you're just putting that in there. however, in JSH charles anthon was reading the stuff. he said, 'yes, this is a correct translation... these are real characters'. but the sealed portion of the book was never brought to charles anthon. he never had a chance to look at that. he simply was told a portion of the book could not be brought to him(could not be brought to him) because it was sealed and then charles said 'i cannot read it, it is sealed'. in isaiah they could not read stuff because the vision of all had become as the words of a sealed book. in JSH, charles anthon was reading the stuff, saying it was correct, but was never brought the sealed portion of the book. sounds like two different things to me.

what did it fulfill? *adding edit* "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:" this verse says the 'book' was delivered unto the 'learned' man and that he couldn't read it because it was sealed. according to JSH, the 'book' was never brought to the 'learned' man, so... how is that the same prophecy?

ok. i think i understand where you're coming from. where did you get that 2/3 of the plates were sealed up and not translated? that is something that i either forgot or haven't heard before.

first off, i'll start with why i say "in the bible of book of mormon"; why wouldn't i? lds believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. lds believe the book of mormon to be the word of God. the bible and book of mormon are records of what was taught and believed, right? so why wouldn't all lds doctrines be found in them? i can understand why they wouldn't be in the bible because lds believe it is not fully correct and is full of errors. but the book of mormon is the word of God without question. it is the most correct book. it is what is given to people to read and pray about whether the teachings found in it are correct and of God, and if so, that makes J Smith and the church true. so, did God forget to teach those ancient people that there is more than one God? yes, i think there are verses that teach that the Father and Son are one in purpose. however, i also think there are verses that teach there is only one God. i'm just asking for verses where God teaches the people, both ancient and present, that there is more than one God. or the verses that teach there is an eternal line of Gods past, present, and future, instead of there being just one eternal God. i think it's pointless for anybody to argue over this whole issue because we read the same verses and get two different interpretations. when i see "one God" i understand that as meaning literally only one God. when you see "one God" you understand that as meaning more than one God but one in purpose. you mention stephen seeing jesus standing on the right hand of God. you understand that as stephen seeing two men, one standing next to the other. when i read "on the right hand of God" i understand that as a position of authority; his relationship towards the Father. I think God is a spirit, and thus stephen did not see two men with bodies, but he saw the glory of God, and jesus on the right hand of that. so, i guess my answer is that stephen didn't see two individuals and neither did God lie. God in the lds church is a man who is easy to understand. there are so many attempts at "desciribing the trinity" because how are we to put into words an incomprehensible God? all i can really do is try to convey my understanding of the trinity to people who are curious.

"...Father, Son, and Holy Ghost which are/is one God..."-- not an exact quote, but paraphrasing of different scriptures. i would like to thank rameumpton for saying "But I agree that logic cannot explain the Trinity, which is why it is understood as a mystery." it is a mystery and is an impossible task to put a incomprehensible God into terms so that we can fully understand His nature. i look at it in this way though. if there is more than one God, wouldn't God have once said in the Bible or book of mormon, "...which Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit are three Gods..."? lds believe that the Father is a God, the Son is a God and the Holy Ghost is a God. so, when you throw that into the comparison of God being like a bishopric or stake presidnecy, it's like saying there are three bishops or three presidents when there really is not.

i think some people just don't like how that sounds and thus try to make it mean something else; something that they believe.

a-train, just one correction i have is in d and c. i don't think it is incorrect to say "when we/they become gods..." because d and c 132:19-21 says just that. ----- 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. 21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory. ----- i don't see this as 'gods' being a certain species. mormons believe that God is a man. mankind is the species of the gods in mormonism. through this passage i see 'gods' as a level of glory, and exaltation is that glory. just my thoughts.

lol, whoa! i don't know. that was just my take on what i read. i wasn't agreeing with it. :)

:) thanks! it's great exercise. i just don't think one would have to repent for obeying God.

stampede, if God commands people to kill other people, however rare it may be, why would they need to repent? why would God need to forgive them? God doesn't command people to break his commandments and then judge them for obeying, does he? on the other hand, i think lds believe he does do that, so maybe i'm just trying to swim up a waterfall.

i think shadow may have been saying that once we die we too are outside of time. it does not govern us anymore. it still runs things in order for people on earth, but not people who are dead. the rest of the world would be as the blinking of an eye to the dead. so, judgement may happen right after we die because we're not constrained by time anymore. it's not that it's a judgement for each individual person after each person dies, but it would seems as though as though once we die, that's it. we aren't gonna be up there watching the rest of the world go on and live on for how ever many years, may it be one year or three thousand years, until the second coming. once we die, we're outside of time, and thus onto the next step, i.e. judgement. i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything said, and maybe i read that wrong, but that's what i understood it to say.

one hundred and one could also be written 100.1 ( one hundred and one tenth)

that doesn't make any sense. it's a better deal at $7 a report to only give them $35(5 copies of the 'special report'), than to give them $150 for $10 a report(15 copies of the 'special report'). lol, if they're trying to sell these things, i think they have it a little backwards. aren't people supposed to get a little discount if they spend more?

i've always thought this was an interesting topic for discussion. as i see it, the lds and lds scriptures both teach that God pretty much commanded adam and eve to sin. of course, lds con't call it a sin, they call it a transgression. they directly violated a commandment of God, which they understood, and that's not a sin? it's all interesting.