rameumptom

All I know is here in Indiana, our Religious Freedom Reform Act (RFRA), a response to a judge making SSM legal, opened the door for this: The First Church of Cannabis (Indianapolis)

President Packer passed away today at the age of 90. We will miss him. Elder Russell M Nelson will now become the president of the quorum of 12. President Monson is the last remaining living witness of the 1978 Revelation on the Priesthood. Here are some of my favorite Packer statements/talks: What are some of your favorite quotes or thoughts about Pres Packer?

I'm senior high counselor in our stake. Five years of serving a wonderful stake presidency with assignments as stake director of public affairs and over our area Spanish branch. It is definitely one of my favorite callings. However, my two favorite callings are: GD/Institute instructor and Stake Mission Presidency (now a defunct calling).

For centuries, traditional marriage was solely a religious institution. Government got into the picture, because it just cannot stand to have something being awesome without them regulating it. Anyone required to have a blood test before getting married? I did. I still wonder why the government should force me to get a blood test, just so I can make eternal vows to the woman I love. Marital contracts were done for a long time prior to government involvement. The only part government had was to log the marriage and contract into their log books.

For those without callings, they can make their own "callings". Visit the shut ins. Go out with the missionaries. Do family history. Mow the lawns of the families they home teach. Share the gospel online. Volunteer to help the Scout troop.

Two years ago, the SCOTUS shot down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), because marriage was in the sole domain of the States. Now we have the same 5 judges telling us that marriage is suddenly an issue of the federal government. Time to reduce government, and get them out of the relationship business entirely.

I see it from the perspective of the Savior, who told the Nephites: I fear the Day of the Gentile is now past, or soon to be. Israel (including the Church) will gain in strength, with the elect flocking to the Old and New Jerusalems (Jerusalem and Zion). The Gentiles will be scattered. Only those who repent will have refuge. Are we, as a people, ready to follow President Monson and the 12 Apostles through whatever danger we may be led, so that we can establish Zion?

Unfortunately not. It is one that is not formatted very well, and has no links, etc. The Church has the Engiish version available for free, even at Amazon.com. The spanish is not available at lds.org, and costs 99 cents at Amazon. There is a triple combination at Amazon for 1.99, but it also is not formatted. If I had a clean copy, I would create a better formatted product, but I don't. I don't like using PDF on a Kindle, but sometimes it is the only option.

Yes, we all have a variety of things that identify us; That was not the point of the OP. The point is we tend to over focus and determine who we are by identities of lesser importance. Will our mortal name be what we identify ourselves with in the next life? Or will we remember our name from the premortal existence, which we may have used for thousands or millions of years? As far as we understand, from the Proclamation on the Family, gender was known/assigned/understood in that premortal existence. Of all of our ways to identify ourselves, the most important one is as child of God. When we focus on any other, we lose our eternal perspective on identity. Satan does not want us to remember we are God's children, but instead wants us to find or invent new ones here. So, when Bruce Jenner or others focus on their gender identity, they are looking at something mortal and finite, rather than focusing on the eternal. His gender, male or female, is transigent in some ways. He will be one or the other (or neither?) in the next life, and he may not have the choice. He spends time focused on himself and his own vanity, rather than doing the things to learn what it is like to be a follower of Christ and child of God. Service. Prayer. Scripture Study. Meditation. Sacrifice.

Justification through the blood of Christ makes us sinless. We become eligible for a kingdom of heaven. We are rescued from death and hell. Sanctification is a process through both the blood of Christ and the Holy Ghost. It is not an all or nothing, but a progression. We may be sanctified to a telestial, terrestrial, or celestial level. As we repent and learn to be Christ-like, we are made holy to ever greater levels. The Holy Spirit of Promise seals us to levels of holiness. It is nothing we earn. It is something we become as the Spirit changes us. We have that "mighty change of heart" that King Benjamin speaks of, changing us to ever higher levels of holiness until we become perfected/completed in Christ.

JAG, haven't seen one yet. Hope we'll see one soon.

Alex Boye, LDS entertainer, rocked it on America's Got Talent tonight. I met him in 2004 at the FAIR Conference, and have watched him develop his great talent since. It is exciting to see him excite the crowds with his song "

PC, read Alma 36. Alma has a Near Death Experience, where he begins in Spirit Prison and moves to Paradise. You'll note that he is in God's presence, but from a distance, wishing he could be closer. Also note that in D&C 76, it states that those in higher kingdoms will descend to teach those in the lower kingdoms.

Some of us have worked hard over the years to inoculate the members, especially the youth. I know I've spent countless hours over the past 15 years editing and writing articles for FAIR, More Good Foundation, MillennialStar, and my own blog, trying to bring the Church to light, and bringing its more difficult historical and doctrinal issues to light in a faithful manner. I am so very pleased to see the Church handle many of these things in an official manner, and to actively use those materials to help the next generation deal with questions and doubts in a positive and faithful way.

Justification/Sanctification isn't a one time thing. D&C 93 tells us that Christ went from grace to grace receiving grace for grace. So it is with us. We go from one level of sanctification to the next, reflected in the ordinances we receive. Through Justification and Sanctification, we are made sinless and holy. Both are required for us to first escape death and hell, but also to arise through the heavens and into God's presence. To the level we are sanctified/made holy, we are able to rise through the heavens. Mormon 9:3 tells us that the wicked would be more miserable in God's presence than with the damned souls in hell. This is not because God would make them miserable, but they are miserable in God's presence. In relating Alma 36 and Alma's conversion, he has a near death experience (NDE) in the spirit prison. He is miserable, hating the thought of being in God's presence. Why? Because, though he cannot see it, he IS in God's presence, as God's presence is felt everywhere. When he repents, he is suddenly justified through Christ's blood and made sinless. His misery becomes joy, as the darkness within him dispels and he is able to see and enjoy the light of God. Yet, he is not fully sanctified/made holy, and can only see God from a distance, wishing to be closer. You can see my discussion on Alma 36 in the BoM Sunday School lessons I did a few years ago at my blog, and here at LDS.net

Stephen O. Smoot reviews the new Institute Manual on Church History, which includes Plural marriage, and many other issues of interest. It also has a section on handling one's doubts. Smoot's article can be read here at the MormonInterpreter. Teacher's manual is online here.

PC, you are right regarding the Terrestrial being a place for many Christians and others who are the "honorable men of the earth" (D&C 76). The average Christian (and probably Mormon Christian) will find himself there. Only the very worst, who struggle at repenting and only do so because they suffer pains of guilt in the Spirit Prison (or even here), will enter the Telestial Kingdom. And I agree that for us, it is all about repenting. That is exactly what King Anti-Nephi-Lehi said to his people, "all we can do is repent".

Folk Prophet, Many people care about these things, which is why they are being discussed. The headers being changed is a big thing, because they clarify things that were viewed differently before. Many people were ardently insistent that April 6, 1 BC was Christ's birth, regardless of the archaeological evidence against it (such as Herod dying in 4 BC). It matters when such is taught as doctrine in the Institute D&C manual for decades. I've seen many youth leave the Church over issues like evolution, etc., because leaders taught theories as doctrine. Do not get me wrong. I support and sustain the Brethren. But they are not infallible, and where they went to the edge and tried to establish their theories as doctrine, they were in error. It does matter. If my BYU scholar friends make a remark, anyone can accept or dismiss it. If a leading GA makes a statement, then it is considered doctrine by many, and can hamper spiritual growth. You should read Edward Kimball's story about what Pres Kimball had to do to prepare the GAs and the membership to receive the revelation on the priesthood. It didn't happen over a weekend, but took years of preparation, because it was going against tradition. There are many who agree with me on the changes in view on grace over the years, although a few say it is mostly a change in emphasis. I'm on several private email boards with LDS scholars, where we've discussed just this issue on a few occasions. I'm on my high council, and have been in discussions on Pres Uchtdorf's talk on grace, where others have said it is a key doctrinal change that will affect the church for years to come. If there was no change, why would Pres Uchtdorf have to explain what Nephi meant on "after all we can do"? If you have not noticed, you must be living in a shoe box. The Savior's grace and atonement are core doctrines. How they work may or may not be. Various GAs have used different atonement theories to explain it over the years in General Conference. President Packer usually uses the substitution theory. We do not have a set theory on exactly how the atonement works, we just know there is an atonement. Again, we do not have a theology, per se. The lay membership better understands the true gospel today than ever before. There was a big focus on the Restoration, Joseph Smith, and the Signs of the Times in the 60s and 70s. This is not necessarily bad. However, we have a bigger focus on Christ, the Atonement, and other issues more important than who the Beast in Revelation is. As a Church, we study the Book of Mormon more and have a better testimony of Christ. Our teaching methods are better, especially with the new youth teaching program (coming to an adult Sunday School class nearby, soon). Our methods for missionary teaching are better than the Mr Brown/Senor Garcia manuals we used in my day. The temple endowment change in 1991 improved the overall understanding of the endowment, making it work better for international members and removing the old Masonic points that distracted from the pure gospel teachings in it. These changes all come through modern revelation, which makes the Church and its members better and holier. If not, then why have continuing revelation. Folk Prophet, I am getting bored from your non-responses. You are not really engaging the evidences I have given. You are just denying them, or saying they are unimportant. They are important to me and others in the Church, including several following this post. Unless you can actually contribute to this conversation, I'm going to spend my time doing something more fruitful to me (like wash my hair).

I am not certain about exaltation, per se. I think it is possible. But then, I do believe in progression between kingdoms (as did Elder Talmage), and so do not have a problem with a murderer spending a few thousand years repenting and changing until he is ready for a full inheritance as an exalted being. However, some have insisted that David would not and could not rise above the Telestial Kingdom, and in that I disagree.

The Joseph Smith Papers Project (JSPP) which has led to many of the changes, shows us several things. One big item is D&C 20:1, which Elder Talmage and many others since have insisted says Christ was born on 6 April, 1 BC. The JSPP shows that verse 1 was actually a header put in place by the scribe, John Whitmer (which he did on several of the revelations), but was accidentally added later as part of the revelation and misinterpreted as a revelation on Christ's birth. OD2 now has a header, which it did not have before. Although the ban was lifted in 1978, members and some GAs have continued to insist on Brigham Young's and Joseph Fielding Smith's reasons for the ban (curse on Cain/Canaan). The header now dismisses all the past racist inventions given by member and apostle alike. This does not mean our prophets are not called of God. They are. However, many attempted to establish a Mormon theology, when they were not trained theologians. This is why theology is often best left to the scholars. And this is why the Church leadership changed drastically on this in the early 1980s - apostles were no longer allowed to speak from the hip, but were to witness of Christ, and teach the standard doctrines of the Church. You will not see an Elder McConkie write another Mormon Doctrine, or Alvin R Dyer write about the curse of Ham/Canaan. However you will see BYU scholars writing an Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Yes, apostles do write books, but compared to those pre-1978 revelation, you will see that they are very different. They only write on the doctrines now, they do not speculate. If you are not interested in the debate on whether murderers can repent and be saved by the atonement, why are you so involved in this debate? I agree that the better thing is to not sin. Yet, for many members who have family members that have killed others (and I know some), or to the Jews who believe David was a great ruler and follower of Yahweh, these are important issues to consider. 95 percent of the things the latter-day prophets have said and written is in accordance with one another. But there is that 5 percent. Spencer W. Kimball condemned Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory. Recently, the Church condemned the theories of past prophets and apostles on the priesthood ban. Brigham Young taught that plural marriage was required for exaltation, but we no longer believe that. We also do not agree with blood atonement today. Joseph Fielding Smith insisted that men would not go to the moon, and when they did, he insisted they should not be going there - other apostles disagreed with this concept. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie insisted that evolution was of the devil, a heresy, and members believing it were on the road to apostasy. Yet, we have apostles today who believe in it (note Elder Holland's talk in April Conference, where he insisted that Adam existed, but did not know/care how old the earth is). This all falls back to the concept of Theology. The Mormon Church does not have a Theology. While Catholics and Protestants have well defined theologies that do not change much over centuries, ours is a moving target. We have Articles of Faith that are not required to believe in in order to be a member. We have some basic tenets: God lives, Jesus is the Christ, commandments are important, etc. However, the details are almost all up in the air. We are more into orthopraxy (the doing) than the orthodoxy (the teaching). For this reason, Elders Talmage, Widtsoe, and BH Roberts could believe in evolution and the possibility of progression between kingdoms, while Elder Joseph Fielding Smith and others could be strongly against them. Elders Ezra Taft Benson and Hugh B. Brown struggled with each other's politics. That said, our current leaders are very united, even in light of some of the big changes that have occurred over the past few years (missionary age change, more power for women, LGBT considerations, etc). We believe in continuing revelation. That means there will always be a continuous tension between past and present. With the exception of key/core doctrines, what is "true" today can change tomorrow. Grace is one of them. For those of us who remember the Church 40 years or more ago, we know that grace was rarely taught, and then when it was, it was different from now. Grace meant a free resurrection, but you still had to earn your spiritual salvation. I recall speaking in Sacrament in the 1980s, and asking for a show of hands of how many believed they were saved. Only a couple hands went up. That is a sad indictment. As a knee jerk reaction against "cheap grace", we went the Catholic way and insisted that "saved by grace after all you can do" meant you had to do all you could and Jesus made up the difference. This concept changed little by little over the years, especially as members followed Pres Benson's call to study the Book of Mormon. Stephen Robinson wrote "Believing Christ", which he begins by talking about coming home and finding his wife in shambles, because she cannot be the perfect Molly Mormon (she couldn't do it all, and so felt she couldn't be saved). He taught the parable of the bicycle, which brought us somewhat closer to what grace is about. LDS scholars (including me) have been waiting (sometimes impatiently) for a clear teaching by the Brethren. Better and clearer talks were given in the past 15 years, but it culminated with Pres Uchtdorf's talk on Grace, where he had to explain to the members what "saved by grace after all you can do" really means, that we cannot save ourselves, that we cannot earn salvation, and that obedience and righteous works are an external evidence of the internal "mighty change" within us. These concepts are critical to knowing Christ and the atonement. There was a point many years ago where I wondered why we focused so much on Christ's atonement, when we were pretty much having to do the work all by ourselves. Studying the Book of Mormon helped me to see what it really is all about. Comparing King Benjamin's sermon with some teachings on grace by GAs showed a lot of cognitive dissonance. Yes, obedience is important, but only as an after effect of being changed by the Spirit, not as a list of things to do to earn salvation (as with the Pharisees). We do know and understand the gospel better than we did 30 years ago and more. And I expect many more correct concepts will be revealed in the future that will change our aspect on various teachings. This is one of the reasons I joined the Church when I was 16: revelation from God.

In regards to the Prodigal Son, let's remember that parables are imperfect depictions of a teaching. Can one totally squander away the inheritance the Father offers us? Except for rejecting salvation or exaltation, can we not repent and still be eligible for these? God's inheritance is one that once given is not suddenly no longer available. It seems to be more like knowledge, it can be shared time and again without any loss. Otherwise, Christ would be the only one to inherit anything. Instead, we find that we are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans). We assume the prodigal son receives no inheritance. Yet, if he is brought back into the Father's house, given a party, and is not a servant, has he not received a form of inheritance (whether complete/full or not is beside the question). All we know is the Father is giving all he has to the older son - yet it seems he has enough and to spare in handing out inheritances. If a person spends his life in riotous living, and does not murder, then rejoins the Church a couple months before his death (or becomes active), has he lost his inheritance? Why come back to Church? If one "squanders away" the entire inheritance and then repents, how does one obtain the telestial kingdom? Is that not an inheritance, or at least a portion of one?

In regards to the Prodigal Son, let's remember that parables are imperfect depictions of a teaching. Can one totally squander away the inheritance the Father offers us? Except for rejecting salvation or exaltation, can we not repent and still be eligible for these?

I was saying this somewhat tongue in cheek. I had a stake president and Institute director years ago, who when someone would quote a GA, ask if he had been dead sufficiently long enough. My concern isn't with what the GAs have said in the past. It is that some members do not update their libraries, and so ONLY quote from those in the past. This is true even of some BYU professors, such as Randy Bott, who a couple years ago was quoted in a newspaper article talking about the priesthood curse on blacks. The Church came out openly and stated it does not teach nor believe the old theories. It also added the header to OD2, giving historical background that denounces racist theories. Yet, many members still are not aware of such updates, happy to quote dead prophets' theories on why the blacks were cursed. I still have copies of Miracle of Forgiveness and MD, although I read portions of them with a grain of salt and with newer prophetic teachings at the ready. You'll note that in PH/RS, we are studying the teachings of the prophets. What we're really doing is reading the selected quotes of dead prophets, which go well with our current understanding of the gospel. The Brigham Young manual did not discuss polygamy, Adam-God, or a few other discarded theories he had. Joseph Fielding Smith's manual did not discuss the reasons for the priesthood ban. So, inasmuch as we use their writings to support modern prophetic understanding of scripture and the Lord's will, we gain much value out of it. And this is how Brigham Young would have us do it too, as he was quick to say that the living prophet's words trump the dead prophets. A case in point is Pres Uchtdorf's lesson on grace. While some say that we've always taught what he said, only with a different emphasis, I would disagree. Elder McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and others clearly spoke about earning one's own exaltation. I think Pres Benson's warning to study the Book of Mormon made for a big change our views of grace and salvation. For me, I began realizing that what some prophets taught and what the BoM taught on these items, did not agree. So, do we continue quoting the old stuff, or do we embrace the new stuff and toss the old views in regards to grace and salvation? Ignore their teachings? No. Ensure that we know when old teachings have been supplanted, and no longer use them? Yes.

A problem with some of the verses in D&C and statements from Joseph Smith and others is they can be usually be considered on several different levels. Is it easy for a murderer to repent? Of course not. I would imagine that a little white lie can be sincerely repented of in a very short time. However, King David would require a long period of repentance. Not that he would be paying for his sins, but that the changes required to receive higher levels of salvation would require major change of heart and being. D&C 76 says that for the Sons of Perdition there is no salvation "worlds without end". What does that mean? Does that mean forever? Or does that mean a long period of time? D&C 19 tells us that the Lord used terms like Endless Punishment to scare people into obeying commandments, but was giving the latter-day Saints the full meaning of the terminology: God's Punishment - which does have an end when the person chooses to repent and embrace Christ. Ostensibly, this could apply to all, including sons of Perdition, IF they were to change and repent. For me, the key to reading and understanding these things is based upon the terms faith, grace and repentance. Has the person sufficiently repented of his/her sins so that the atonement can fully save? Or has he/she only done a limited repentance with limited faith, receiving a limited atoning grace that delivers them into a lesser kingdom of glory? Without using that as the tool to understand the teachings given us, I see too many conflicts and disagreements, even within the scriptures. D&C 19 tells us to repent or suffer as Christ did. It does not give a time frame when repentance no longer is possible, only that the suffering will continue until we do repent. The Church went through the scriptural headings last year to fix them, because many need correction. Some were very wrong. They added headers of explanation on OD1 and OD2, for instance that give us very different understanding than what was taught previously. One reading I question is found in D&C 1. "The only true and living Church with which, I the Lord, am well pleased." Too often we cut off the last part and suggest there is only one Church of Christ. We do not ask some important questions: are there any "true and living" churches which which the Lord is mildly pleased? Or annoyed with? Are there some true, but not living churches that God likes? Did that statement apply in Joseph Smith's time, but not in ours? I fear we assume way too many things in the Church, and create doctrines out of traditions and sometimes even fables (curse of Cain, anyone?). We have to ask ourselves: just how powerful is God? And how powerful is the atonement? Can it save and possibly exalt all who fully repent? Or are we putting faith in a Being who may not be as powerful as we need Him to be? I came to the conclusion long ago that if the Calvinist TULIP were true, that would be a God that would not be worthy of my worship. Why not? Because while He is able to save, he chooses to save very few on a whim. And while he creates everyone without free will, he still condemns those who sin, even though he made them that way. God creates and forces them to sin, then casts them to hell. I could not worship such a Being. But the God that Joseph Smith taught is a loving God, who offers a near universal salvation. Only the Sons of Perdition, who love sin and darkness and refuse to repent and embrace Christ will not receive a kingdom of glory. They prefer misery in darkness over dwelling in the light. All others will receive the level of salvation he/she desires, whether Telestial, Terrestrial, Celestial, exalted. While the current gospel does not teach this, I personally believe there may be progression between kingdoms, so that when a person is ready for greater glory, Christ's grace is there to raise him higher. His atonement therefore becomes an eternal event, and eternally worthy of praise. It truly is an Amazing Grace that He proffers us.

And the unpardonable sin is to rejoice so much in wickedness that you declare yourself an enemy to God, and reject Christ's atonement. Few will ever be Sons of Perdition, because they will recognize the love and blessings of partaking of at least a portion of the atonement.