rameumptom

No, she is not basing this upon her experiences, but upon made up examples. Neither her mother, nor her, have been disciplined in the way she claims, if ever. She rants about how cruel the council must be, how uncaring, that they would misquote the concepts behind it, instead of just asking regarding it. Remember, she's the one that claimed that the council says, "You evil! Off with excommunication!" That is hardly within her realm of experience, as she claims it hasn't happened to her or her mother. I'm glad to answer questions. But she entered here with an antagonistic view on the issue, without first inquiring regarding it. I was just asking that it be a real discussion on what goes on in a council, and not some hyperbole imagined up by someone who didn't have the kindness to first ask about it.

I think I'm done with this discussion, because frankly, Traveler, your definition is beyond comprehension. It makes no sense, given the reality we live in. We do not choose the circumstances we are born into, but we do choose how we respond to such circumstances. Therein lies our free will. Free will is the choice we are given to the choices given us in life. With that, I'm bowing out, because this is a circular, silly discussion.

Traveler, Jesus seemed to discount the notion of pre-mortal events overshadowing the ones here. His disciples saw a man blind at birth, and asked him who sinned: the man in his pre-earth life, or his parents, to have caused this tragedy. Jesus answered that neither was the case, but that through this disability, the power of God may be made manifest. Our situations today are given us that God may work through us. No more. No less. We only get to choose whether God works through us or not.

This is clearly wrong. Period. Over the last 35 years, I've sat in on many disciplinarian councils. Rarely do we excommunicate someone for their first immoral act, unless that person refuses to repent. As for Mary Magdalene, nowhere in the scriptures does it say she was a "whore" or prostitute. The woman caught in adultery was not a whore, but a woman claimed to have been caught in adultery. Anciently and today, 2 reliable witnesses are required to find someone guilty of an act of sin. When all the woman's accusers left, there were no witnesses against her, so Jesus didn't accuse her, either. Yet, he commanded her to "go and sin no more." Without witnesses or the person confessing, there is no council. And when there is, if the person has shown repentance, excommunication becomes unlikely. I've even seen former bishops that have fallen, who were not excommunicated over moral issues. When a person is disfellowshipped or excommunicated, it is not a happy moment for those making the decision. They do not think, "You evil! Off with excommunication!" Instead, they offer love and help, to assist the person to overcome the sin and return back into full membership. My current stake president will often work with the person for several months prior to the council, to get them to a state of repentance, where excommunication is not necessary. So, can we have a real discussion, instead of a false accusation of the Church and its councils?

We agree that our resurrected bodies will be glorified bodies, Stephen. But that isn't the point. It is a glorified physical body, which both the Catholic Church, the Council of Chalcedony, and other traditional Christians agree upon.

From a Catholic view, the Council of Chalcedony disagrees with Stephen. It discusses the dual nature of Christ's body. Although LDS do not agree with this concept, it is the basis for the Trinitarian concept in most of traditional Christianity today. Christ has both a physical and spiritual body. As for denying Christ's physical body runs against the teachings of the apostle John, who in his epistles noted that the person who denies Christ resurrected into a physical body is anti-Christ. Not sure if I want to be in Stephen's shoes here.....

There is good and truth in most churches. It may be that this church may be a stepping stone for your Mom to become more spiritual. You should applaud her for that. As you have this experience with her, you will have opportunities to comment in positive ways about the LDS church. "I agree with their teaching here, as it is also taught by the leaders in my Church." "My church sees it slightly different, teaching us that we can receive even greater blessings by doing this thing the Lord has revealed through modern prophets". etc.

I also believe God is divine. And I believe with Peter that we have a divine nature, with Paul that we are heirs of God, and with Jesus who called us the children of God. To say that God created us in his image and of the same substance he is made of, does not reduce God in any way. Instead, it exalts God in that he has the power and ability to raise his children to be exactly like he is.

Actually, a Theophany is where man experiences God's presence. God can represent himself in other forms, such as a burning bush. However, when discussing an actual theophany, it always has to do with one of two events: the person is carried up to the throne room of God, or God descends to the person. So we find Isaiah in God's throne room, purified and invited to become part of the divine council of angels/seraphim. Moses sees God face to face. Stephen sees Christ standing (STANDING) on the right HAND of God, who is on his throne. Jacob sees a grand staircase, with God's throne at the top and the divine council of angels ascending and descending. He calls the place Beth-El, the House of God for he has seen God. There are several early Jewish and Christian writings that show us more theophanies. In each case, God is anthropomorphic. In the Ascension of Isaiah text, the Trinity are three separate anthropomorphic beings, which the angels and Isaiah worship. The Holy Spirit coming down as a dove and the burning bush are not the standard. They are the exceptions to the rule. The standard rule is: the Father and Son are anthropomorphic or human like.

Stephen, you need to read newer information regarding Asherah. What you quoted is only partially correct. Scholars have since found a lot regarding her as Yahweh's wife. We do not know whether God creates with or without a wife. Your assumption is baseless. The recent studies in archaeology shows that among the Israelites and early Hebrews (not just the pagans), Asherah was consort of both Elohim and Yahweh (depending on the period of Israel). Scholars such as William Dever, Margaret Barker and many others now accept this concept. Reading old archaeology research is like trying to understand the Grand Unification Theory without studying quantum mechanics or string theory. The evidence is very clear that the Deuteronomists, including the priests of the temple in Josiah's day, cleaned many things out of the temple, as they changed the worship. They removed Aaron's budding rod (which also represents Asherah), the Tree of Life, the concept of angels, and the concept that man can see God's face. Again, I recommend you read Margaret Barker's work as a great beginning place for this info. While Baal's version of Asherah as wife, is very different from Yahweh's Asherah in many respects. Try this link for evidence: Asherah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And this link: Asherah and the God of the Early Israelites And this: Images of Asherah: Yahwehs Consort? | The BAS Library There are many more articles by scholars that I could provide, but these should suffice for this discussion. BTW, I am not reading the Bible as a modern newspaper. In fact, I'm the one telling everyone to take the ancient concepts into consideration. Margaret Barker and many other scholars agree that God is anthropomorphic, but was changed by the Deuteronomists. Jesus Christ returned to try and restore many of the ancient concepts, describing God as a "Father" and not just an unknowable spirit. The resurrected Jesus had a body, and showed his apostles that he was not just a spirit, as a spirit/ghost does not have flesh and bone as he had. What is more perfect: Christ with a body, or God the Father without a body? In John 17, Jesus stated that knowing God and Christ leads to eternal life, and then prays that his disciples may be one, even as the Father and Son are one, and that they may be one in Christ, as he is one with the Father. Stephen, you can try and argue old archaeology and personal interpretations of the scriptures, and I'll argue from the standpoint of both archaeology and what the scriptures say, and we'll see who is more consistent. It comes down to this: either the Bible's many mentions of God being anthropomorphic are true, or they are false. If true, then we need to be open to that idea. If false, then we must conclude that Abraham, Moses, Noah (who walked with God), Adam, and all the prophets were liars and we should discard the Bible. Do you believe the Bible is God breathed? If so, then why don't you believe what it says time and again? I believe the Bible is inspired, but not infallible, and yet believe its teachings more than you! And archaeology agrees with me as well.

Run (or limp) faster! Besides, we can always bake you an artificial one, with preservatives and all.

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with viewing things from a modern perspective, as long as we realize that we may not be completely accurate. For example, StephenVH argued with my assessments of ancient things. The claim that Asherah is not found in the Bible as God's wife is because later scribes removed it. Yet in the archaeological record, we find Yahweh and Asherah together frequently. Solomon's temple had a tree in it, representing Asherah, the Mother of Heaven. Jeremiah condemned the Jews in his day, because they began to worship Asherah rather than Yahweh. BTW, Asherah, aka Wisdom, was known in the Bible, and Solomon quotes her in Proverbs. I would recommend to StephenVH to read "Did God have a Wife?" by William G Dever, or a handful of other books that discuss this and how we understand it from within the Bible. StephenVH also does not believe man can see the face of God, or that God has body parts. This is a modern view based upon the Athanasius Creed, but was believed by early Jews and Christians: God has a physical body! Exodus 33 notes that God placed his hand on Moses' face, so he would not see God in all his glory, but could see only his backside. We read there, "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." In Exodus 24, we read: "9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness." They saw God, they saw God's feet. Moses saw God's face. Any other way of reading this is to twist the scriptures into something it is not. As it is, God IS above all others. But we are also of Him, and he has called us his sons, making us heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ of the divine nature. So it is with the issue of sex and God. We can view what the scriptures state, or we can read into them modern ideas that were not there anciently.

But those are modern conceptions you are dragging into this. I'm not saying that God is necessarily one thing or the other. But why should we delimit God, simply because our modern customs move us to do so?

Pam, I saw this and thought of you.... http://assets.amuniversal.com/71ba7c90d3a8012fe4ac001dd8b71c47 GoComics.com

JD, that's usually because we're alternating between fits of laughter and gagging.....

I once used a LDS attorney for some things going on in my life. He sat upon the paperwork for months, without doing anything. I finally had to threaten to sue him to get it done (he had my money already). In the end, because of me and others he'd messed up, he was disbarred. There is the Church and there is business. The two should not be mixed. When it is, we should be charitable, but no more so than we would be to any other child of God. If the person is not performing, we have the right to fire him/her, and find someone competent.

We and God and angels are all part of the same genetic family. Why should we suppose that God and gods cannot have attractions, sexual desire, etc? When we read the scriptures, do we not see God filled with love, mercy, anger, etc? Ancient Israel viewed Elohim as symbolized by a bull, a sign of fertility, and his wife Asherah as a tree - also a fertility sign. Moses saw God's body parts: face, arms, legs, etc. While I do not suppose our mortal bodies are exactly like God's, they are in the same image. Joseph Smith taught that immortals have spirit flowing through their veins instead of blood, so we can suppose they have a circulatory system. The resurrected Christ ate fish with his disciples, so we can suppose there is a digestive system. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we make God out to be something unlike us, when we do not know for certain, and the scriptures denote that we are in his image.

While most sexual assaults are done by friends or family, it can still be a danger with strangers or slight acquaintances. The Elizabeth Smart story is an example of a stranger being welcomed into the home, made a friend, and then he kidnaps a girl later. Those who commit sexual assaults (I'm not talking about the 18 year old boy with the 16 year old girlfriend), have a high recidivism rate, at least here in Indiana. We see about a 60% recidivism, depending on the type of sexual assault (victim type, etc).

Here is the link to dress and appearance from "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet that all youth and parents should have and follow: https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng

I don't usually announce this, but this is a very interesting lesson which may inspire some interesting comment and discussion. I've posted my thoughts on the lessons here: http://www.lds.net/forums/book-mormon/48587-book-mormon-lesson-37-whosoever-will-come-him-will-i-receive-3-nephi-8-11-a.html#post696048 I'd like to know people's thoughts on the section, "Doctrine of Christ" in particular.

Book of Mormon Lesson 37: “Whosoever Will Come, Him Will I Receive” 3 Nephi 8–11 Timelines Most Mormons believe that the destruction occurred, three days of darkness past, and then Jesus showed up for lunch the next day. However, the Book of Mormon’s text actually clues us in on the timeframe involved here. “And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land” (3 Nephi 8:5). “18 And it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold, I will show unto you that the people of Nephi who were spared, and also those who had been called Lamanites, who had been spared, did have great favors shown unto them, and great blessings poured out upon their heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself unto them—” (3 Nephi 10:18). The destructions occurred almost a year before Jesus appeared to the people. Such a time delay would allow Jesus to perform his works in Jerusalem among his apostles after his resurrection, begin the work for the dead in the Spirit World, and organize the work among those who resurrected with him.. The Great Destruction 3 Ne 8-10 We find in the great destruction the probability that it was the result of a volcano, or perhaps several volcanoes erupting at the same time. The darkness that prevented fires from being kindled could come from the thick ash that would float in the air for several days. Volcanic eruptions have been known to cause storms, including tornadoes and lightning. In a significant eruption, earthquakes can cause cities to be buried, covered in ash, or sink into the ocean or a large body of water, such as Lake Atitlan in Central America (where at least one sunken city has been found). Tsunamis along the oceans could occur, destroying or sinking coastal cities. We should note that a list of cities burned by fire, including Zarahemla and Jacobugath, could have been founded in the shadows of volcanoes, or new volcanoes may have arisen at that time, sending smouldering rocks and debris down upon the inhabitants. Sixteen cities are mentioned that were destroyed. Likely, others received damage. This is suggestive of a Limited Geographical Model, wherein the events in the Book of Mormon occurred in a limited area of the Americas, rather than the entire hemisphere. Most LDS scholars today do believe in a limited geography for the Book of Mormon happening in Central America, though some place it elsewhere in the Americas. The New Law of Sacrifice 3 Nephi 9 The Nephites heard a voice in the darkness that spoke to them of what had occurred. The wicked were destroyed, with the remainder surviving only because they did not stone the prophets nor cast them out. Yet the Lord called to them saying that their animal sacrifices were no longer accepted. A new sacrifice would be required of them: “ And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings. And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not” (3 Nephi 9:19-20). We learn a few things here. First, not everyone who is filled with the Holy Ghost recognizes the event for what it is. Often, they just know that something is different, and they believe. But the new sacrifice now required is a change of heart. Humility is required. In Alma 32, Alma noted that the poor were compelled to be humble, but more blessed are those who humble themselves without having to be compelled. Here we see the people have also been compelled to be humble through a great disaster. Now they are commanded to replace their pride and intellect with a recognition that God is greater than them all. King Benjamin’s teaching that we are less than the dust of the earth, comes to mind. It is a broken heart and contrite spirit that lead us to believe in Christ, to repent, and to receive the ordinances and covenants of salvation. It opens us to receiving the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. Such contrition by Alma the Younger caused him to believe and repent, and in so doing, was rescued from hell (Alma 36). We know that the days leading to the Second Coming of Christ will be similar to these events among the Nephites. The sun will be darkened and the moon will turn to blood prior to the Lord’s coming in power and glory (Joel 2:31, Revelation 6:12). Great destructions will occur that will destroy the wicked off of the earth. Only after such horrendous events will those that remain be ready to turn to Christ with a contrite spirit and broken heart, prepared for the long period of peace. The Gathering of Israel 3 Nephi 10 The Lord offers a statement he made to Jerusalem: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!” (Luke 13:34, Matt 23:37)) Matthew notes this in context: “Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Matthew 23:34-35). The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans, which left the place desolate, also came upon the Nephites for killing and persecuting the prophets, shedding innocent blood. We can suppose that this warning equally applies to the Desolation that wiped out the Jaredites, and will destroy much of the earth at the coming of Christ in glory. The Doctrine of Christ 3 Nephi 11 Perhaps the greatest teaching in the scriptures is found in this chapter, and reflected in 2 Nephi 31-33. Both Nephi and Jesus call it the “doctrine of Christ” and it is the foundational doctrine for the entire gospel. We find that the Nephites had been debating over the issue of baptism. Joseph Spencer suggests that the debate involved the differences in baptism taught by Nephi and Abinadi/Alma. Nephi’s baptismal covenant was one that combined everyone into a community covenant with God. Alma’s baptismal covenant was one focused on the individual and his/her actions as a member of the church. The Lord will reiterate Nephi’s teachings. It isn’t that Alma’s baptism was wrong, but perhaps was incomplete. As it is, Jesus called the disciple Nephi forward, giving him authority to baptize (even though he had been baptizing people previously), so they could be baptized into a higher understanding of the ordinance and covenant. We could say that Alma taught baptism on the level of the Mosaic/Aaronic level, while Nephi’s baptism was based on the higher Melchizedek law itself. Alma’s baptism counts, but there is a better way still. Jesus begins by teaching that contention is the doctrine of Satan. He uses contention to divide and conquer. As we’ve seen in previous lessons, the Christian church collapsed because of contention and pride. Jesus teaches the Nephites the correct form for this higher baptism: “Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen” (3 Ne 11:25). This is significantly different than the baptism of Alma and Abinadi: “Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world” (Mosiah 18:13). Jesus then explains the difference between the two baptisms, explaining the Doctrine of Christ: “And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one” (3 Nephi 11:27). Jesus will continue explaining this. In Alma’s baptism, it is a covenant for the individual with Christ. For Jesus and Nephi it is a covenant with the Godhead. In many of the Book of Mormon lessons, I’ve discussed theophanies (man being in God’s presence) as a key theme throughout the book. Here we gain some very important concepts in regards to this.. When Lehi (1 Nephi 1), Isaiah (2 Nephi 16) and others saw God, they often saw him in conjunction with the Divine Council of heaven. God on his throne, surrounded by divine angels. Lehi was invited to join the divine council, when they descended and brought him a book to read, containing his mission call to Jerusalem. Isaiah found himself in the heavenly temple, and once cleansed was able to speak with God, who asked “Whom shall I send”, with Isaiah being part of the divine council in responding “Here am I, send me” (cf Abraham 3:27). Isaiah and Lehi become symbolic of Christ, prophetic messengers sent to deliver a message of deliverance from the divine council. That message is this: the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one. They are united in all things. Christ had “suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning” (3 Ne 11:11). .The Nephites are now called upon to also learn to be one. No contentions. Unified in the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. The baptismal covenant ties the initiate to both the Godhead and the covenant people as one. Only in becoming one as a people, can they ever hope to be one with the Godhead. Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one, even as the Father and Son are one (John 17), in hopes that they would also become a united and holy people. Moses sought such unity of the people, so he could bring them into the presence of God (D&C 84:19-26). Here we see that the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood teach us the “mysteries of godliness” and to prepare to see the face of God. Enoch taught his people diligently until they became Zion: “And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them” (Moses 7:18). Only then was the city lifted up to heaven, because the people were ready to become one with God and the divine council. In the LDS temples, we receive the higher ordinances of the gospel. Baptism is the door to the Celestial Kingdom, and the temple ordinances teach and prepare us further on how to be one with the Godhead and each other. In the temple, we make promises to serve God and to consecrate all we have to God and to Zion. We learn to pray together in one voice. We enter into the Celestial room, representing the presence of God, where we can quietly contemplate his greatness along with others who have entered, representing the divine council of heaven. We are sealed for eternity to our spouses, children, grandchildren and ancestors as one family. We are sealed to God, Christ and the Holy Ghost, being one with them as they are with one another. In the following lessons on Jesus’ teachings, we are going to see that they all focus on creating a united people of covenant, a Zion people. In Jesus’ teachings here, we catch a glimpse of the real promises made to us in baptism and the priesthood and temple covenants, as we learn to become one covenant people, and part of the divine council of God. Bibliography Sunken city at Lake Atitlan: http://www.moon.com/blogs/mundo-maya/documentary-reveal-underwater-maya-city Sunken cities: http://books.google.com/books?id=Eh1WHqo0JN8C&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=sunken+city+central+america&source=bl&ots=Qzssj-h9hY&sig=b-6nk6LWF4oPNKFEih18LxNSPGA&hl=en#v=onepage&q=sunken%20city%20central%20america&f=false http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/media/HTML/z88eycyr/Mysteries%20of%20the%20Mayans%202..pdf?n=0 Limited Geographical Theory/Model: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Limited_Geography_Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_geography_model “An Other Testament: on Typology”, Joseph Spencer: http://www.saltpress.org/

I think Traveler's point is too simplistic, and does not recognize many of the things we can do. Second, he is looking at an immediate balancing of the budget and elimination of all debt. As the economy grows and there is more money coming in and less going out, we can pay much of it off. For example, if we employ 12 million more people and have 12 million less on welfare, we increase the taxation and decrease the amount spent. If we reduce federal government expenditures, we can make a big difference. Even if we hold growth to 1% a year, over several decades an economy growing at 3% a year would balance it out. Inflation can also work to our advantage. There are several other things we can do, wherein a variety of actions can make an impact. But if we just do a one-action concept as Traveler seems to suggest, it does make it harder to manage all of this. But the one-action course then becomes a straw man that is easy to knock down.

Because you still have the choice between the available options. We do not know all things. No one does. None of us knows how what we do today will affect the earth or humankind a century or a millennia from now. We may not understand all the consequences even in the short term. This is why we have a Savior. He takes the responsibility off the ignorant and innocent, and allows those who know better to repent and start over. This allows us to learn from our own choices good from evil. A little baby could not learn to walk or choose to walk (and they choose when they are ready), without using free will - even if they do not understand all of the future implications (walking to school, learning to drive, getting an education, etc). But the choice on such a scale allows them to learn to manage free will on larger scales later.

You are confusing free will with personal accountability. A person has free will to choose. The baby can choose to eat or not eat its veggies. That is free will. The baby is not responsible for consequences or sins, as the atonement takes care of things done in ignorance or innocence.

Short term it seems so big, because the relationship has filled up so much of your life. It hurts. Hurting can be a good thing. We mortals seek happiness, and when it doesn't happen, our lives crash down around us. Instead, we should be seeking meaning, understanding, and wisdom in our lives. In doing so, we can find joy in the happy moments, and peaceful calm in the tough ones. There is much for you to learn from the breakup. Take your time and learn from it. It is okay to cry when you need to, but realize that it hurts a lot now, because it just happened. 20 years from now, you may not think about it much, and be happy in new relationships and experiences.