rameumptom

I'm glad you were able to assist her to perhaps find a way to actually help women. I agree that there are some terrible things done to women. Sadly, while we are more aware of it today than before, I believe it is more prevalent in our society now than before, even with greater rights for women. While there were many issues then and now that displace many women in society, the ERA was not the program to fix it. Since then, we've seen how poorly or generically written laws can later be twisted to mean almost anything. Had the ERA been written to ensure equal pay and rights under the law for women, I do not think the Church would have had as much of a problem with it. But Pres Kimball warned how it would open the door for sinful lifestyles to obtain legal, and even preferred, preference. How else do state Supreme Courts make decisions that go against the will of the people (as in the case of same sex marriage in California)? Whether one agrees or not with how far marriage should be allowed, it should be the people and not the courts to determine new laws. Busing children was a feel good requirement from the Supreme Court. What did it accomplish? It caused whites to move to the suburbs and send their kids to private schools, leaving African Americans to manage with even worse schools and neighborhoods than before. Such meddling by well-intentioned courts have left our inner cities as ghettos, with fatherless families, welfare-minded mothers, drug dealers on every street, and kids having kids. Roe v Wade has eliminated a generation of people that would have filled more than our largest US city. When our nation is wondering who will support the retirees on Social Security, they can thank such court actions for eliminating a major source of laborers from the work force. And returning all the children back to the FLDS compound was a serious mistake IMO. This would undoubtedly include teens that were pregnant, would it not? Yet, we have a court that feels that having them back in the compound was of greater import. I would have granted a return with stipulations of the men leaving the compound, or the mother taking them elsewhere approved, and that the kids could not leave the state. I do not think these were agreed to prior to the children's return to potential harm. Anyway, back to the issue at hand. LDS were the first to have women voting in Wyoming and Utah. Many LDS have promoted true rights for women, but also establish a moral compass for the nation. There's two sides of the story, and history has shown that poorly considered laws and edicts have ended up hurting society, rather than moving it forward. Sonia Johnson could have sought a different vehicle than the ERA to promote women's rights. And she definitely pushed the Church leaders to the limit with her public demands that made the Church seem incorrigible, antiquated, and prejudice - when it was none of the kind. I hope such people as she can find peace in their lives. But few seem to do so, as their radicalism tends to consume them until there is nothing left to reclaim.

Elder Spencer W. Kimball described the difference between unpardonable and unforgiveable sins in Miracle of Forgiveness, at least as he then understood it. Unpardonable means a person cannot receive a kingdom of glory. Unforgiveable means a person cannot receive exaltation (although some read it as meaning a telestial glory only). I think our understanding of gospel principles have moved further along since the 1950s and 1960s, when much was written in authoritative voice that may or may not have been completely accurate (hence each author claims responsibility for his own writings). I think most members are now moving on from the Hemispheric Geography Model, to the Limited Geography Model for the Book of Mormon, for instance. While those early books often focused on obedience over faith/grace, and often focused more on the restoration than on the atonement, we have returned to a better and more accurate balance in gospel thinking. While many General Authorities taught and understood the atonement in the Penal Substitution theory taught by the Reformers. As we obtain better critical contextual studies of LDS scripture, we are now looking at new theories that tend to fit LDS writings much better (Book of Mormon, D&C 17, 88, 93, etc.). These theories include Blake Ostler's Compassion Theory, and other Divine Infusion type theories. Most of these see Christ's atonement as infusing us with the Light of Christ, which purifies us and makes us holy. The more we approach God, we move from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace (light infusion) (D&C 93). Eventually, at the last judgment, we will be judged by the amount of light we have received into our lives - or what we've become. Becoming Christ-like is a key here, not just obedience. Christ condemned those Jews who did marvelous works, but did not become as he was. And lately, Apostles are speaking about our need to become, such as Elder Bednar, and Elder Nelson. Given King David's entire life, and the years of repentance in sack cloth and ashes he experienced after his terrible sins and crimes, I do not believe he will be left in the Telestial Kingdom. Now, can he merit exaltation? I do not know. However, I must believe that Christ's atonement can atone even for murder. The question is whether after such a crime, can we become holy enough to be like Him. And that is a question we just cannot answer here, as that info has not been revealed.

And I have no problem with this version of how God organizes intelligences. As Abraham 3 suggests, there are intelligences that are organized (spirits), and so there could be intelligences that are not yet organized (as spirits). Just as the body is formed little by little in the womb, so can God form the spirit bit by bit. Whether the spirit is formed in Heavenly Mother's womb or by another process, is immaterial to me. That we are formed/created by God is what is "material" to this discussion.

When a mortal child is born, just how much of the body was created ex nihilo by father or mother, and how much of the child was formed in the womb? If a requirement to be a parent is to create from nothing, then no one or nothing is a father. I see God as organizing Intelligences from lower form to higher forms. Atoms are organized into molecules with new properties and characteristics. Such are then formed into more complex intelligences, until intelligences with personality and individualism are formed: called spirits. We then are brought to mortality to continue growing as intelligences, as a higher form still. finally, we will resurrect into a higher form after this life. God has formed us from scratch with raw materials, much as the mother's womb nourishes and organizes the male and female DNA that will form the fetus. In such a way, he IS a Father, as creating life forms requires a Creator. And the Creator often views his creation as a child.

I think Johnson went further than to ask for a friendly two-way dialogue. And Church leaders felt so, also. You can read a little on it at Wikipedia. Of course, since Church court records are sealed, there mostly is just one side we can hear about on this. So, here's Sonia's own words:

Tubaloth, could you provide us with references to the hell being during the Millennium? My studies of the gospel suggest it is ongoing for the unrepented, until they fully repent of their sins.

Rameumptom: Ministers are those who teach higher truths to those awaiting more knowledge. Celestial beings will descend to the terrestrial kingdom to teach them, while terrestrial beings will descend to the telestial to teach them. In this way, all have the ability to learn and grow within their sphere of glory. Rameumptom: Most Church leaders today agree there is no progress between kingdoms. Still, there is no definitive scriptural statement establishing it one way or the other. It may be there is, but we are not taught it now, as many would consider it a second chance to exaltation, while having this world as a place to be riotous. As it is, since we do not know if progression between kingdoms is real or not, it is best to think there isn't progression, so as not to mistakenly lead oneself down a primrose path to a lower kingdom.

I am not convinced that King David will only obtain a telestial glory. Has he lost his exaltation? Probably. But I believe that the atonement is stronger than some members tend to think. David spent long periods of time repenting, and while he did some terrible things, I also believe that he did many great things. I do not believe one or two acts determines a person's eternal outcome. I believe it is a life long determination. When the books are opened and we are judged for our works, we will be judged for all our works, including our repentance.

Ankh, Let me throw in my 2 cents worth, which is about all I can afford due to gas prices.... D&C 88 and 93 tell us about Intelligence, light and truth. It seems to me that as we move toward God or away from him, we gain or lose light and truth in ourselves. God sends throughout all of space the Light or Spirit of Christ. This is His power that allows all things to organize and function. The more we are infused with the Light of Christ, the more God-like we are. Jesus and the Holy Ghost became so God-like in the premortal existence that the infusion of God's light in them (indwelling, if you will) that they had already received the power and ability to be God-like. Still, we see with Jesus that he not completed (exalted) as of yet, because he still required mortality, a body, and resurrection. Obviously, there are levels of godhood. Many, including me, read Abraham 3 in this way. Those surrounding God were the "great and noble ones", not just the average spirit (organized intelligence). These were gods before the Earth was formed, though they were not yet exalted. The term "Father" requires defining. Jesus is both the Father and the Son, according to scripture. Just as I am both a father and son, depending on the role I am playing at the moment, so is Christ the "very Eternal Father" as well as the Son of God. Our Father in Heaven is also our Father, due to the role he plays as our Creator, and Benefactor. Even if we weren't created in the way mortal children are born, fatherhood is still a term that applies. I am a step-father and an adoptive father, and have been a foster father in the past. While I haven't been involved in the biological creation of these children, my actions and efforts have still given me that title. God's goal is to save his children in the family unit, with as much joy and truth and light each is willing to receive. Whatever amount of light and truth the Spirit of Christ has infused us with will determine what glory we will receive. All will return to be his family in a kingdom of glory, except for sons of perdition. Now, depending upon the amount of glory an individual is willing and able to receive will determine the glories, responsibilities and opportunities given in the next life, but they are all still His children.

Rameumptom: I agree that there is some amazing teachings in them. And they both are strong evidences of Joseph Smith's call as a prophet. Ram: I see things as TomK does. While the scriptures do not go in depth on what an Intelligence is, it is described as "truth and light", among other things. D&C 88 and 93 are perhaps our best sources of info on these. Joseph Smith, Elder Orson Pratt, and others have suggested that Intelligence is any matter that has been organized to a specific level. For example, an atom is made up of electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., which were made up of quarks and other sub-atomic particles. As these are formed into atoms, they obtain greater capabilities than before. Then, as atoms are organized into molecules, we get even new capabilities. H2O is more than the sum of its parts. Oxygen and Hydrogen do not have the same abilities alone that they have together. Eventually, God can organize matter (both physical and spiritual) into highly organized beings that are self-aware. These we call spirits. It is just another step to adding a body, and then having the body/spirit (soul) combined into an eternal being. Ram: There is nothing more wicked than sons of perdition. A world that would crucify Christ definitely leads the way when it comes to being wicked. Whether there are any works that are almost as wicked, we do not know. We do know that other worlds will have telestial beings on the level of Adolf Hitler. That, in and of itself, is quite a terrible evil to have loose upon an earth! Ram: The answer to this is: maybe. While this earth is the most wicked in some senses, it is also the most righteous, in that this is where Jesus and some other terrifically wonderful beings have dwelt in mortality. The thing is, it really does not matter when or where we are born, just as it doesn't matter what callings we receive in this life. What matters is HOW we live our lives. Are we becoming Christ-like in our lives, so that when we see Him, we will be like Him? Are we developing a Christ-like divine love and service for those around us? Are we faithfully and gratefully following in His footsteps? Rameumptom

I think that we need to use caution on what we determine to be a good or bad form of government. While I am no socialist, I also have problems with a Libertarian view, as well. Freedom in a society is only as useful as the people's righteousness allows it to be. Our (USA) Constitutional Republic is designed for a moral people, and will not do for any other. Instead of using freedom to promote good things, we now use freedom as a vice, beating up on other virtues. A wicked people can only be ruled with a strong arm, or they will fall into chaos and anarchy. Why is our nation shifting towards socialism? Because the people have lost their desire for freedom in righteousness, and now want blessings in their wickedness. They seek after benefits they have not earned, thinking the world owes them a living. Suddenly, the masses have found that they can borrow entitlement money through their congressperson, and not have to worry about the personal cost. Or so they think. This lust for getting gain causes a loss of freedom and imposed expectations in exchange for those entitlements. Freedom is given so that people can create and build a great society. But if the people are no longer creating and building, then they are using up resources on their own lusts. Hugh Nibley warns about the society that stops progressing because the people are no longer inventing and creating. He suggested that Rome collapsed, at least in part, due to the Romans no longer growing their empire and seeking to spend their time in riotous living, instead. Something to definitely think about.

I would add that there is a major difference between personal beliefs that may differ somewhat from the Church's and publicizing differences. Sonia Johnson promoted the Equal Rights Amendment, contrary to the Church's stance. The Church did not prevent her from doing so, until her public statements spoke out against Church principle: she told people to not allow missionaries into their homes as a form of boycott. Suddenly, she went from disagreeing in an open discussion to a point of rebellion that risked people's salvation. Today, the Church is more open than it has been in a long time. I'm refreshed with scholarly books that are changing the tone set 50 years ago in the Church. When I joined the Church and someone asked me if I were saved, I would answer that I hoped so. 32 years later, I am able to say that I am definitely saved, and so are most people upon the face of the Earth! Our understanding of salvation and grace are transforming the Church to a better understanding of all the principles as a whole. These are things found in the scriptures, but it took Pres Benson encouraging members to study the Book of Mormon for us to find out that it really does teach a covenantal grace. We enter into the covenant with Christ with no requirement but faith. Then, to remain in the covenant, we continue to display our faith by being obedient to the commandments. Obedience does not save us, but it keeps us holy and growing in the covenant of Christ.

We must remember the importance God placed on the Brass Plates of Laban. They were so important that the Nephites take them into the wilderness that God commanded Nephi to slay Laban for them. Lehi studies them and prophesies. Nephi discusses the importance of the writings are, and how he likens them to his people so that they may understand them (2 Ne 4). He even gives strict instructions on what to write in the small plates and to whom they are to be passed down. Clearly, the writings of Isaiah were important to Nephi and the Savior, who also commanded the people to study Isaiah's words.

I personally believe that God can inspire more than one prophet to say the same thing. Otherwise, I would have to disbelieve either Micah or Isaiah for plagiarism (compare Isaiah 2 and Micah 4) Would it make a difference if I noted that Isaiah and Deuteronomy are quoted in the New Testament more than any other books, and they are quoted or referenced in the BoM more than any other Old Testament books, as well? Oh, and that is also true in the Dead Sea Scrolls, too. Are we seeing a pattern here? Was Joseph plagiarizing (a very poor way of doing it, since he notes Isaiah, which means he wasn't really plagiarizing, but quoting), or was he following an ancient pattern? BTW, Nephi's Psalm (2 Ne 4) follows the pattern of a psalm in the DSS Community Rule. Since the DSS were found in 1947, how could Joseph have known to follow such a pattern, unless they both followed a similar, older pattern? Given such ancient patterns, I tend to think Joseph must have been either a great guesser, or an inspired prophet.

To add to what Hemi gave, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Jeremiah/Lehi's time actually uses the term "land of Jerusalem" to reference the area. More info here

Nephi wrote out the portions of the book of Isaiah for a few reasons. First, he stated that there were three eye witnesses to the coming Savior: Nephi, his brother Jacob, and Isaiah. Nephi includes Jacob's witness in his writings, and so it becomes necessary to include the third witness, as well. Next, Isaiah includes prophecies that Nephi felt applied directly to his people, the Nephites. He started with Isaiah's writings, but then "likened" them unto his own people in the following verses. His explanations would not make as much sense without first quoting Isaiah, to give his reader a reference point - and he did not know if future peoples would have Isaiah or not available at hand to refer to. Reading Nephi's Midrash of Isaiah, would have been a very common thing in his time. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls and writings of the early Jewish scholars, we come across many Biblical readings that are then interpreted. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can read the Commentaries on Hosea (4Q166-7), Micah (1Q14), Nahum (4Q169), Habakkuk (1QpHab), and Psalms (4Q171, 4Q173); as well as a Midrash on the Last Days (4Q174), among others. Each of these commentaries quotes portions of the text, and then explains it. This is exactly what Nephi does. Yet, the Dead Sea Scrolls were not available for Joseph Smith, and so knowing that this was an ancient practice was probably unknown to all but the Midrashic scholars of his day. So, what you view as a problem, I view as evidence that the Book of Mormon is authentic.

The Celestial Kingdom is ruled by only a few laws: The law of Celestial Love, and the Law of Priesthood. Nothing else is required, as those who live by these Celestial laws need no others. Those in lower kingdoms require more laws, as they are not ready to live these two laws in their fullness.

Actually, we have no idea what Michael Quinn is doing in his bedroom. And it is not my concern. What we can discuss, however, is his public statements and writings. Those can be objectively discussed in relation to the gospel and commandments. If Quinn writes a book suggesting some early 20th century Church Leaders were not heterosexual and we should allow the same, do we not have the right to disagree and condemn his views from an LDS viewpoint? After all, just what 20th century LDS writings promote any other lifestyle outside of traditional marriage? I don't see it in LDS scripture, either. Seems to me that the Proclamation on the Family does not invent new doctrine, but only clarifies it and brings it all together into one place for easier reading and understanding. No one asked Quinn to write a book on alternative lifestyles. Nor did anyone ask Quinn to announce his preferences. Those were things he did himself in a public setting. If there is discussion, it is because he placed it in the public discourse. You'll notice no one on this list, that I'm aware of, has asked anyone else what their lifestyle preference is. Personally, I don't want to know. However, if someone were to announce it on a public forum, wouldn't that seem to be an open invitation into that person's personal life (and bedroom)?

Thanks for the correction. I know it was a tough time for both sides of the aisle in 1993 when these things were occurring. While I understand, from your explanation on Quinn's view to publish regardless the cost, I'm a strong believer in following my Church leaders and letting God handle their mistakes and bad judgments. Sometimes it is easy to forget that the Church is not a social club. The Church leaders, under God's guidance, make up the rules, whether we always agree with them or not. It is our choice to humbly submit or to reject their counsel. Either way, there are consequences we have to deal with. I do think it is sad that had he waited a decade, his book possibly would not have come under so much fire. Still, his current lifestyle would prevent his membership.

I made no claim. I stated that it was my understanding, but I also stated I could be wrong on what happened almost 20 years ago. I bear no burden of proof, because I registered an opinion, not a statement. As it is, Quinn has written some very good stuff, and some not so good things (I'm skeptical about his Jupiter-talisman claims, for example). But then, I could say the same thing about JFS' "historical" writings that make Joseph Smith and his successors seem like they could do no wrong. And as I stated, Quinn still professes belief in the gospel, though he is not obliged to live it right now. To me, it is immaterial what he was excommunicated for, as I was not in the counsel that did it. If he publishes quality stuff, I'll use it; and if he writes trash, I won't.

I hope Snow does not choose to climb upon me. BTW, you misspelled "Rameumptom." It's a common thing. Sadly, Mormons are not known for their proper grammar, and the Internet has often lowered the level of discourse to correcting others' statements - both logically and etymologically. As for the Mighty Quinn, my understanding is he lost his membership due to changes in his lifestyle. Those knuckleheads that insist that the September Six were all innocent and pure followers of the LDS Church and that offered up flowers to bring both sides together, really do not understand the Lord's Church. There are standards. This includes both commandments and doctrines. While Quinn was often controversial in his writings, I believe that he fell due to commandments. There were others that fell due to the pride they had in their own teachings, such as praying to Mother in Heaven; but I don't think he was one of them. As I understand it, he still believes in the Church, even though he does not follow all its commandments or precepts. If I'm wrong in this, please, someone, correct me.

I also think Joseph saw more than we are aware of. Having said that, I also realize it was based upon his personal understanding. When Joseph translated the BoM, and read where it mentioned the walls of Jerusalem, he asked Emma if it really did have a wall. When she said it did, he was glad because he was afraid he was misinterpreting the scriptures. Lehi and Nephi both had the Vision of the Tree of Life, but only Nephi noticed that the river of water was dirty; and so stated to his brethren that their father had not noticed its filthiness because he was caught up considering other things. Often our understanding of a vision or revelation tends to be buffered by our understanding, or lack thereof.

No, academia cannot read a prophet's mind. However, they can research his writings. Some of the prophets, including David O. McKay actually had the records researched to determine when the priesthood ban occurred, and if it was by revelation. No where could they find a revelation from God initiating the ban because of any curse or any other reason. In fact, Pres McKay used this fact to lift the ban from all dark-skinned groups outside of Africa. I recommend the bio on Pres McKay that was written a couple years ago by the grandson of Pres McKay's personal secretary (using her notes). Also, I recommend Elder McConkie's statement on the ban. Forget everything stated prior to June 1978 on the subject, for it is wrong. Regardless of any reasons God had for the ban, it is now past. And we must move past it, which requires we must be willing to let lie any supposed reasons that Brigham Young and others gave for it. If we keep insisting that there was a curse on the blacks, we will only hurt future missionary efforts among peoples that are worthy to receive all the blessings of God. Finally, I think we should focus on the blessings of current revelations, and not on beliefs of the past that do not agree with current revelations. The priesthood ban, for whatever reason is now 30 years past. Let us move on to discuss the blessings.

Last time I looked, Brigham Young, Spencer Kimball and Parley P Pratt were also Seers. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, another Seer, has also written that the rib was figurative and not actual. The symbolism is that we have fallen and with the fall been separated from one another and from God. It is our goal to become one again, even though our physical bodies may be separate. Here are a few quotes on the subject. One more thing, Elder B.H. Roberts was not an apostle. He was a president of the 70.

My understanding is that they did have the Holy Ghost. For example, after proclaiming him the Christ, Jesus told Peter that he had a testimony not of man, but from Father in Heaven. Having stated this, I will note that there is a difference between a testimony and conversion. While both are from the Holy Ghost, the conversion is a complete changing that occurs within a person. The resurrected Christ told Peter, "when you are converted, strengthen your brethren." Jesus knew that Peter had a testimony, but was not converted - which was why he waivered in denying Jesus three times. Yet, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost burned within him and made him a lion. No longer did he fear man, but God. He was changed in the same way we see conversion from the Holy Ghost changed the Lamanites, Alma, Paul, and others.