rameumptom

Dale, Just because a person is called by God to a position, does not mean that person will faithfully magnify it. Take Judas Iscariot for instance, or many of the early Church leaders in our dispensation. Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone (Quorum of 70, emeritus) once told me of how he had a not-so-nice bishop. The bishop seemed to hate him. Anytime there was a slimy assignment, the bishop gave it to him. Finally, when it came for the annual building assessment, the bishop called him in and assessed him more than anyone else in the ward, even though they were on the lower end of the salary scale. He went home to his wife to discuss it. They agreed that it was not fair nor right, but they decided to sustain their bishop anyway. They sold their television and other items to pay their assessment. Not long afterward, the bishop was released. Then, brother Featherstone was called as a Seventy General Authority. In his ordination, he was told that this had been a test for him, which he had passed. Had he not submitted himself to the bishop's unfair actions, he would not have been called by God. I learned much from his experience. I've had some leaders in Church that were not wise, and some that were downright mean and/or stupid. But I still did my best to follow them, because they were called of God, and my job is to follow as best I can and let God handle the incompetence and/or wickedness of those he calls.

We have statements from Brigham Young that directly deal with his view on the curse of Cain and a priesthood ban. In 32 years, I have never found anything on Joseph Smith discussing a priesthood ban or imposing such a ban on anyone. Most LDS scholars I know agree that Joseph was not involved in any priesthood ban, regardless of whether he thought the blacks were cursed. And on those scholars that think Joseph felt they were cursed, it was over slavery, not priesthood.

Define "earth" when it comes to Adam. Was it the entire planet, the Garden of Eden, or something in between? Death was on the earth in prior creations. LDS tradition suggests that the earth, or at least the portion Adam was on (the Garden of Eden) was in orbit around Kolob, and that there was a literal fall away from that orbit into the current telestial realm. When one studies the Creation story, it doesn't fit for the Sun and moon and stars to be created, but then for Adam to be in an orbit circling Kolob, unless the portion of the planet he was on, was in a different orbit than the rest of the earth. So, it is very easy to consider that there was no death in the Garden where Adam was in his spiritual-physical immortal state.

New ordinations didn't occur for blacks, primarily because there were so few that had joined the Church. Had God wished to have a ban on the priesthood, he could have commanded Joseph to not ordain Elijah Abel, et al. Even Brigham Young recognized it as a valid ordination, sending Elijah Abel on a mission. However, he did keep him from attending the St George temple when it was completed. (Abel was on a mission when the Nauvoo endowments were occurring, and so did not attend at that time).

I believe that Earth was made for God's creations, but especially for man. And I see that for man to dwell here, we needed prior creations to prepare the earth for us. All of that oil was made from dead and dying dinosaurs. All of that coal was made from dead, compressed trees. The earth had to develop an atmospheric environment (trees, etc) that was good for man. The universe had to settle down some, as it would not have been a good thing to place men on earth back when many comets and meteors were constantly pelting our planet. So, I see God as using these creation/destruction cycles as the way to prepare earth for us, AND to allow all his creations a time upon an earth. Personally, I prefer living here now than during the times of dinosaurs or the Ice Age....

Elder McConkie was an amazing man. When Mormon Doctrine came out, he had done what other GAs had done in writing books: wrote it and published it without the First Presidency's oversight. However, since this book was entitled, "Mormon DOCTRINE" and written in a very authoritative manner, and was selling off the LDS bookstore shelves; Pres McKay asked Elder McConkie not to publish a second issue without his okay. This actually began the effort of having all GA books reviewed prior to publishing. Elder McConkie allowed several years to go by before asking to rework and republish it. He received permission from Pres McKay, had Elder Spencer W. Kimball go over the book and require many changes.

I'd like to note Pres Packer's most recent General Conference talk, where he says that he isn't any more special than any other member that does his/her best to follow God. Remember, The apostolic calling is not to determine things like evolution, but doctrine. As it is, Nibley doesn't state that evolution has occurred. He is stating that there were animals and human-like beings prior to Adam. The LDS scriptures and the dirt tell us that there have been many Creation/Destruction cycles throughout the Earth's history. 250M years ago, over 90% of all animals were destroyed, allowing for dinosaurs to replace them. Then 65M years ago, the dinosaurs were wiped out, allowing mammals to take over the earth. Finally, 10,000 years ago was an Ice Age that wiped out many species, including several human-like species, such as Neanderthals. This would open the door for God to create a special man and woman, Adam and Eve, who would be the ones chosen to bear the priesthood gift to all the world, and through whose loins would be born Jesus Christ.

I've spent decades on research, and I have to say I think the research on FAIR-LDS is rather good. In fact, there was an article written by two evangelical scholars once about "losing the battle and not realizing it", because the common anti/non-LDS level of research was overall very poor compared to the LDS studies. There are many issues that have not been explained, except as "coincidences". When you have two or three things, then it is coincidence. However, when there are 40+ names in the BoM that Joseph hit correctly (unknown in his day), then it is no longer statistically a coincidence. As for the Book of Abraham, it is because you do not understand Joseph's form of "translation." The gold plates were "translated" while usually closed. A letter that the apostle John wrote on parchment and hid under a rock, is "translated" into the D&C. The Bible is "translated", adding new chapters and sections that are not found in any Bible in Joseph's day. IOW, his "translations" were not what we would call a translation, but more of a revelation based upon something he has to ponder. The papyri were a catalyst for a revelation on Abraham, just as the Bible was a catalyst to receive a revelation about Moses and Enoch. As it is, the internal evidence of the BoA shows a knowledge of Abraham's day that at best only a few scholars knew in Joseph's day. No one else knew that there would later be found Egyptian papyri that have Abraham's name on them, for instance. Or that there are ancient legends of Abraham being sacrificed and teaching astronomy to the Egyptians. BTW, Kerry Shirts has some great information on the Book of Abraham and evidences on his website and 3 DVDs available (sold at FAIR). Try watching his DVDs and then state that Joseph was entirely off. You'll be amazed at how correct Joseph really was. It is like trying to explain how the Book of Moses talks of Enoch meeting up with a man named Mahijah in a land called Mahujah. Only in the Dead Sea Scrolls' version of Enoch do we find a man named Mahujah asking questions of Enoch! No where else is this available. Just where did Joseph get such information, when no one else until after 1947 had access to this? To ignore such evidences, or to waive them off, is to suggest that a person really has not done much serious research on these topics, except to justify an already held point of view.

Joseph Smith also drank wine and tea AFTER receiving the WoW. Benjamin F. Johnson was one of Joseph's best friends in Nauvoo-era, and Johnson mentions drinking and discussing the gospel on several occasions. The WoW was not a commandment until Brigham Young made it one in the Utah era (I think around 1857).

I do not read Joseph as believing in a priesthood ban on blacks. He ordained several blacks to the priesthood, including Elijah Abel, and never restricted these men. Only later in Utah, were they restricted by Brigham Young.

Simple. In Joseph's day, it was believed that blacks came from the line of Canaan, and that the curse imposed upon them by Noah was that of slavery. Nothing in Joseph's statement references a ban on priesthood. Joseph knew that it would take a huge effort to end slavery, which is why he prophesied of the Civil War (D&C 87) and that it was based upon slavery.

You will find that most LDS scholars now reject the "Cain curse" ideology that Brigham Young promoted. It was not revealed by revelation, but was established from Pres Young's adapting 19th century Protestant belief to LDS scripture. I recommend the following articles here at the Black LDS website (run by FAIR) Church authorities gave Darius Gray the okay to state: While the ban was not started due to revelation, it was ended by revelation.

As much as I revere the prophets, I take some portions of Doctrines of Salvation with the same grain of salt I take with Mormon Doctrine. Neither book is scripture, and both contain doctrine mingled with lots of personal opinion. The Church's official view on evolution is that it has no official view. There have been apostles that have spoken in favor of evolution, and there are prophets that have taught about "pre-Adamites." All we have to know concerning Adam is that he is the first man chosen of God to hold the priesthood keys on earth. Through him all people are blessed with a chance for the gospel, whether they are biologically descended from him or not. In this same way, Noah and Abraham also become the fathers of all nations. Adam and Eve may not have had genetic mutations, but then perhaps they did. We just do not know how the Fall affected them. At the same time, perhaps they had no mutations or genetic deformities, but others that belonged to Pre-Adamites may have had them. Once again, we just do not know. Me? I keep an open mind, because none of this affects the doctrines of the Church.

While I enjoy the fellowship with the saints, that is not the reason I joined. For most of the 32 years of membership, I have not had a home teacher. With few exceptions, most members have not invited my family and me over to their homes, but on few occasions. I've constantly had busy callings in the Church, but most of my "friendships" only go so far as the connections that occur in the calling I'm in. I can't count the thousands of miles I've driven, the number of times people have dropped the ball for me to pick up, etc. Yet I continue on, not because I'm something wonderful, but because I know it is true. I don't go to Church for fellowship. If I make a friend, that's great. If I don't, I still continue on, because the true fellowship I seek is with God. And there's only one way to obtain it that I'm aware of.

I agree that the Song is a mystical text with much beautiful language. However, that is very different than whether a text is inspired, which was Hemi's statement. I find the Song useful when I'm studying ancient poetic styles and concepts. I do not find value in it when it comes to issues of salvation.

The Johanine Comma is commonly considered an added part to the Bible by Christians that sought to emphasize the Trinity. Some books, such as the book of Enoch, Odes of Solomon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Shepherd of Hermas were considered scripture by early Christians, but rejected by St. Jerome, because he either didn't agree with the teachings within, or could not ensure the provenance of each book. As it is, he almost kicked Hebrews and Revelation out of the official canon, because of questionable provenance, but kept it in because the western Church insisted on them if they were to accept his list of books. So, rather than nit-picking which things are of value in the Bible, we simply use the other LDS scriptures to help us understand and interpret the Bible according to God's revealed knowledge and wisdom.

Lower case does not necessarily mean pagan god. The capital G is normally reserved for the Godhead, and little g for all other instances, whether a member of the divine council or a pagan god. LDS definition of becoming a god is somewhat different than that for a Trinitarian. For one, we believe we are of the same substance as God, and so we are just seeking to grow up to be like our literal Father in Heaven (or Mother in Heaven, for the female persuasion). Second, to be a god means that God gives us a fullness of his grace and light through Christ, making us "heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ." Note, we are still subordinate to God the Father (and probably Jesus, as well). This allows us to sit on God's throne and reign with him, just as John the Revelator tells us. It also means we can continue not only in the family unit, but have eternal increase as we are able to create worlds and expand our own (and therefore, God's) creations- for all that He has, he shares, and vice versa.

I disagree. It is doubtful Elphaba has received the total witness of Christ, nor has she totally turned from God by shedding innocent blood. The only mortal we know about that definitely has become a son of perdition was Cain. In 6000 years and billions of people that is a very low number that have definitely fallen completely from grace. There's a huge difference between rejecting the Holy Ghost and denying the Holy Ghost. Elder McConkie explained (as did Joseph Smith) that to qualify for Son of Perdition, one must receive a fullness of the Priesthood in the Temple, then receive a complete witness of Christ, then choose to love and follow Satan, as did Cain. Remember that Cain gloried in being called "Master Mahan", and believing that in killing Abel he was "truly free." Elphaba comes nowhere near such attitude. She may not believe in God, but she has not rejected the goodness in her life, nor has she turned to worship Satan and commit murder. Finally, she most likely has not had a full witness of the Savior - otherwise she probably would not be an atheist.

I think Tubaloth touches on a thought that I'd hope other religions would speak more about. While LDS believe almost all will be saved through Christ's atonement in a kingdom of glory, there are many religions that suggest, if not outright teach, that those who do not believe exactly as they do will burn in hell forever. Even the TULIP idea of Calvin only allows for a limited atonement (the "L" in TULIP). You are either forcibly changed by God's irresistible grace, or you burn forever. St Augustine taught that babies who die without baptism would burn in hell, causing the Catholic Church to invent Limbo. Of course, Pope Benedict XVI has declared Limbo as non-scriptural, so now the RCC is trying to determine some saving grace for babies that die without baptism. This is very different than our teaching that Christ has paid for original sin, and so babies and small children who die are saved in Christ's grace. With that as an example of background; and note I am not condemning any of these concepts, just contrasting them; how does one take such ideas and fit them into the concept of "God so loved the world..." (John 3:16-17)? Where is God's great mercy, if God makes it near impossible to be saved? What happens to the South American native who never heard of Christ - must he burn simply because God chose to create him somewhere the gospel was not available? How does that suggest a loving and kind God? Why would God create everyone, command a particular faith, then condemn the vast majority who have not had the opportunity to embrace Christ; or worse, predestine them to damnation? In my mind, this is a huge dichotomy. How can a Baptist be saved for professing Christ, but Mormons burn in hell because we believe in some different ancient concepts that also were believed and taught anciently in the Bible (like an anthropomorphic God, divine council, etc.)? Personally, I'll stick with a version that shows God as truly merciful and beneficent, which would require a near universal salvation from death and hell.

Rameumptom: And yet God is ever shown as anthropomorphic in the scriptures. He is not a mortal man, I agree. However, the scriptures continually show God as an exalted man. And most Biblical scholars will agree that he was seen as anthropomorphic by early Jews and Christians. Ram: Ancient Jews believed there was a difference between Sheol and the eternal hell that the evil go to. The early Christian text, Gospel of Nicodemus, is easily seen to be akin to LDS belief in the spirit world. Ram: And this is true after the final judgment. But there is the Spirit World where Peter tells us that Jesus went to preach to the dead. Ram: And we agree with this. Ram: Jesus is the only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, according to LDS belief. Many scriptures note the divine council (Job 1, Isaiah 6, etc) that existed before the earth was. Jesus was there, we agree. As for them being "one in essence" I have yet to find a verse in the Bible that says that. John 17 has Jesus praying that his disciples be one as the Father and Son are one. If we were to interpret this to mean "essence", then we must accept the idea that the resurrection means we all will coalesce into one spirit being. Ram: We cannot save ourselves is true. Jesus' atonement resurrects us and saves us from eternal hellfire and damnation. Still, the scriptures tell us we will be judged for our works, which will determine the level of heaven we will receive (2 Corinthians 12:1-4). Ram: And we agree with this. Ram: And we agree with this. Baptism is an outward expression of our giving ourselves to Christ in faith. We are baptized in order to follow in His footsteps and to proclaim ourselves his children. But it is a necessary outward ordinance, commanded of God that we do, not because it will save us, but because we show our faith and repentance by doing it. To refuse baptism would be to show a lack of love and faith toward God.

MaidServantX wrote: Kathryn Daynes is an Associate Professor of History at BYU. She was a lecturer at a seminar in Indianapolis (IUPUI) in April, entitled: Mormons and the American Life. She lectured on the changing Polygamy Laws of the 19th century, with Sarah (Sally) Barringer Gordon, Professor of Law and History, Univ of Pennsylvania (who I believe is Catholic). Info on the seminar here: http://www.iupui.edu/~raac/downloads/CSRAC.pdf

Signs can change. They are merely symbols of the covenants we make. The oaths are still the same, though worded slightly different in some cases for more clarity in a global church. The things that were removed were merely symbolic points that did not mean anything to the average Tongan or Brazilian member. You seem to miss what the point of the endowment is. It isn't about liturgy or ritual. It is about theophany. The endowment has and does lead us symbolically through the Creation, this world, and into the next life; showing us how we must prepare along the way to stand in God's presence and be like him. The endowment literally is a practice or dress rehearsal for that big day when it really will occur. It fits in perfectly with the theophanies that ancient prophets and apostles had, including Enoch, Isaiah, and Paul, Lehi, and Nephi. Joseph Smith's goal was to have all people receive their own theophany, and the temple rite prepares us for that experience.

We teach that there is truth and light in virtually all churches. We, however, believe that we have been given greater light and truth that other churches have lost and/or rejected. Insofar as they are correct, they and their people are blessed by God, and will receive salvation and a kingdom of heaven. Can you show me these "millions of other people" who have actually prayed about their own churches? Most that I've spoken with have never done so, nor even considered doing so. In fact, some Christian churches do not believe in the modern spiritual gifts of the Spirit (Church of Christ is one of them), and so would not believe that God manifests to them through the Spirit that a specific church is true. Next, many people are satisfied with their religion, and do not seek to determine if it really is true or not. Why ask if Joseph Smith is a prophet, if my current pastor really rocks, and I like the luncheons on Sundays? How many people are ready to accept a higher level of truth? How many people are ready to begin paying 10% tithes, fully keeping the Sabbath day holy, and perhaps go on a self-paid mission? Most people shrink from such things before getting to the point of sincerely asking. Alma 29:8 tells us that God gives to all people the amount of light and truth they are ready to receive. So, if a person is only ready for the things taught by religion X, then why would God give them anything beyond that which would condemn them unnecessarily? Why tell a person through the Spirit that the LDS Church is true, if the person is not interested in the answer and would not change his/her life if they knew that answer? If God truly loves the world, then he wouldn't force upon people a spiritual witness and responsibility that they have neither sought for, nor desired. And he doesn't. You'll recall in the New Testament, it tells us that in some places Jesus was not able to do miracles because of the lack of faith among the people. He did not force miracles down their collective throat to force them to believe. Instead, he preached, and those that did believe were blessed with greater truth and light and miracles. On my mission, we prayed about Joseph Smith once with some Christian preachers we taught. One of them wanted to pray, and so his prayer went like this: "Lord, we know that what we have now is the truth, but if Joseph Smith is a prophet, go ahead and let us know." They got the answer they were looking for. Nothing. Others that I've prayed with do not understand the importance of specificity in prayer. One man asked the Lord to "show him the right way." It wasn't until I explained to him that the right way was in front of him but he still did not know if the Book of Mormon was true that we were able to pray specifically about the BoM and he gained a witness of it. I find that many that do not receive a witness of the LDS Church usually fall into one of these two groups. Either they are not interested in gaining a witness, or they are not asking God in the right way. Finally, God answers those who are ready to change their lives. Why send a spiritual witness to a person who loves his drugs or his sleeping around more than he/she loves God? Only a humble and penitent person, someone without a hardened heart and stiff neck, will gain a witness.

Yes, he is a God of order. But it is God that determines order, not us. And God has to establish that order amidst the chaos of mortality. He is, after all, working with imperfect beings. Joseph started his work with the Urim and Thummim, two shiny stones set kind of like glasses. These U&T were very large, and difficult for Joseph to use. It seems that the Lord provided an easier way for him to do the same work. Jeremiah was commanded to write a book calling Israel to repentance. The king, upon hearing the words, took the book and burned it. The Lord then had Jeremiah reconstruct the book. God is a God of order, but sometimes has to work around the acts and inefficiencies of men. The issue, then, isn't about how many methods Joseph had to translate, but whether God called Joseph to translate and gave him the gift of translation. In this instance, once we have a sure witness of the call, then the process and history just adds more information for us to consider and understand, without being shocked.

I agree with you, Dorsey was rather pungent in his response. As it is, we ALL are ignorant to a point, at least when it comes to spiritual things. For me, Socrates is the most profound philosopher, primarily because he realized he knew nothing. Thing is, he knew more than most, but was humble enough to see that his knowledge of the universe and of God were so small that they bordered on nothing. I try to see myself from that standpoint, as well. Each of us will receive salvation, in the ignorance we currently have.