Aelswyth

I just want to say, as a woman who has been in some dark places and made some pretty big mistakes, that these women are not necessarily BAD. They are human beings living in spiritual ignorance and probably in a lot of inner pain and turmoil. I found my way out of it, and hopefully the other women mentioned on this thread will also come into the light at some time in their future lives. It is hard to find any empathy for someone who has hurt and betrayed you, but please know that the sinner is also suffering for what they do, and very rarely is she (or he) a truly bad, evil person. Just someone lost and grabbing onto anything that seems like it might help (although it never does).

I wonder why the Church doesn't sponsor a new translation by LDS scholars? They can certainly afford it. They could retain the King Jamesian language but use current levels of scholarship to render the meaning of the Scriptures in a much truer fashion, akin to that found in other modern Bibles. That would create a perfect Bible for the Church. If the quotations in the Book of Mormon are an issue, all they would have to do is update them to match the new translation (it's still from the same Hebrew original), and voila! No problem, and a much clearer and more accurate version of the Scriptures.

Sorry, I'm an aspie. Both seriousness and grammatical finickiness are part of my nature. :)

How do you think professionals get to be that way? Are they born professional? No, they strive to gain recognition by sharing their talent and hope to be "discovered" by somebody in the business. Go back 150 years and there were no "recording artists", and no such sharp distinction between "amateur" and "professional". Just good singers who entertained people. In other cultures where music still belongs to the people, where they aren't told to "leave the singing to the professionals", almost everyone can sing. Singing is part of everyday life. It's never entered their mindset that only a small number of special people can sing well, so there's no reason for them not to. Personally, I'm pleased to hear anyone who sings harmoniously and with feeling. It is a gift from God and should be passed on to the world, not kept to one's self, regardless of professional status.

This is why I have trouble with the idea that Adam and Eve were immortal in the Garden. The Scriptures describe God as evicting them from the Garden so that they don't eat the fruit of the tree of life and thus BECOME immortal. So how could they already be immortal? The idea of a tree bearing fruit that grants immortality has been preserved in multiple mythologies around the world. It was known to the Celts, whose paradise was called (among other things) the Isle of Apples, where the brave and virtuous could live forever. The Scandinavians had a goddess Idunna who was the keeper of the golden apples which kept the gods young, healthy and immortal. Once, when the gods couldn't get the apples, they began to age and get sick. The Greek gods had to eat a substance called "ambrosia" to maintain their eternal and perfect condition. So one can see that the basic idea did survive in several forms through the ages. Remember that God never told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of life; He only warned them away from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So I don't think they were inherently immortal, but had the ability to be immortal as long as they stayed in the Garden and could eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Their immortality depended on the fruit. But they chose to eat the other fruit, and so were then denied the chance at "easy immortality" and left to their physically mortal condition in order to pass the test they had (perhaps unwittingly) chosen. God would not allow both; it had to be one or the other. Our first parents chose the hard way! :)

Well, then, I guess the same should apply to The Holy Bible, also. How many people do you hear arguing over whether "Bibles" is correct or not? None. Because they have better things to worry about. According to your argument it should not be "Bibles" but "copies of The Holy Bible". Sounds a bit goofy to me. I'm not convinced that the same kind of titling conventions apply to scriptures as to regular books. "The Book of Mormon" is more of a descriptive term than an actual title. Just like the name "Holy Bible" means "sacred book", the name "Book of Mormon" is just describing it as a book written/compiled by the prophet Mormon. We use the description of what it is as a title, because as a volume of sacred scripture it HAS no title, just like the Bible. The true equivalent wouldn't be the title, "Alice in Wonderland" but rather the descriptor, "the book of Lewis Carroll". And also, going back to your list of books, the established convention in the English language is to treat the title as a whole and put the pluralizing "s" on the end, like so: "Hey, Eddie, how many Curious George Learns the Alphabets do you have over there?" So, if "The Book of Mormon" is indeed a title, the folks who say "Book of Mormons" would be in the right. But, if it is not a title but a descriptor, then the folks who say "Books of Mormon" would be right. It all comes down to whether you see it as a title or as a descriptor. That's the essence of the disagreement.

Interestingly, there are many translations now that actually have better renderings of verses from a Mormon point of view. They really clarify things that support Mormon doctrine, which are almost completely obscured in the KJV. Isn't one of our Articles of Faith that we believe the Bible is the word of God as far as it translated correctly? Leaps and bounds have been made in Biblical scholarship and translation work over the last few decades, much of which corrects and clarifies erroneous translations in the KJV, and bolsters the Scriptural support for LDS doctrines. I'd think the Church would be all over that! Especially since more accurate translation means it's closer to being the true word of God, just as our Articles of Faith so boldly points out.

You're not answering my points, you're merely restating what you've already explained. You are explaining the OLD Aaronic priesthood as it operated under the Mosaic Law. No one is disagreeing with you that that is no longer relevant. What I'm pointing out is that just because it no longer operates under the same laws DOES NOT mean it no longer exists. When a company restructures, does it cease to exist? No. You have failed to address my basic argument that Christ has modified the law, rendering the sacrificial elements obsolete and overhauling the priesthood rather than eliminating it altogether. Please show me the Scriptures which disprove this argument. I don't believe there are any. Once again, no one is disagreeing with this premise; where we differ is only in our belief in the continued, though modified, existence of the Aaronic priesthood alongside the Melchizidek. Okay, this is where some basic Biblical and historical knowledge comes in handy. First of all, every Scriptural reference to "the resurrection" logically indicates that there is a spirit world where we wait for that resurrection. This place is referred to variously as Sheol (the grave/underworld), Abraham's bosom (i.e. the place where our ancestors await us), and Paradise. "Paradise" comes from a Persian word meaning a walled garden - it's basically the Persian version of the Garden of Eden (the Hebrew phrase "gan 'eden" is literally translated as "enclosed garden of delight"). "Paradise" does not refer to the place where God is (Heaven), it refers to the pleasant place where good folks go after death and before resurrection; there also is the unpleasant "spirit prison" for those who are bad. There are cognates in the Eyptian "Reed Fields" and the Greek "Elysium", both sections of the underworld set apart as places of delight for the spirits of the virtuous dead. Among early Christian Fathers, both Irenaeus and Origen made the distinction between "Heaven" and "Paradise", with Origen describing Paradise as "an earthly 'school' for souls of the righteous dead, preparing them for their ascent through the celestial spheres to heaven." Christ did not ascend to his Father on the day he died; he descended to Sheol, Paradise, the spirit world of the ancestors, where he preached to the spirits in prison. That is what he meant by telling the thief he would be with him that day in Paradise. He did not ascend to his Father until after he was resurrected and appeared to the disciples. So would you then make Christ a liar? Yes, according to Scripture, Christ's death and resurrection brought about what is known as the First Resurrection, which consisted of all those in the spirit world at that time. The Second Resurrection, which is all the rest of us, will occur when he returns at the Millennium, after which will be the Day of Judgment. All of these concepts have a sound scriptural basis. If you are unable to find the references yourself, I may be able to post them all for you if I have the time.

Also, the Law of Moses mandates that a man marry his dead brother's widow, regardless of whether he is already married; and also that a man must marry a girl he has seduced, whether he is already married or not. At least two instances where God COMMANDS men to enter into polygamous marriage, to provide for women who are in a bad situation and have no one else to take them in and provide for them. Clearly, God does not have qualms about introducing polygamy when it becomes necessary for one reason or another. Scripture does state that the ideal arrangement is one woman and one man, but that there are times when a polygamous adaptation is advantageous for achieving God's purposes, no matter how inscrutable to us here on earth.

I feel I should point out that if those women were not actually sealed to their husbands in a temple, then their marriages were not necessarily "valid", unbreakable ones in the eyes of the Lord. If they were sealed to their husbands, then Joseph Smith would certainly have been doing wrong in having them sealed to himself. But I believe the marriages were common ones, not eternal ones, so I don't see how Joseph Smith did anything wrong in this matter. Especially if he didn't even engage in physical intimacy with these women. It seems the sealing was intended to make them his wives after death, not take them away from their husbands in this life.

Modesty is relative. It depends on the cultural context. In modern America, you are modest if you keep your cleavage and your upper thighs covered. In Victorian times, you were IMMODEST if you revealed your ankles (even though a little cleavage was okay). In tribal societies that wear little clothing, it is possible to be perfectly modest by adhering to the standards of your tribe. Your buttocks and privates may be mostly exposed, but if you lose your little tied-on leaf, it's absolutely shameful and very, very embarrassing! I'll always remember seeing the movie "The Emerald Forest" about a group of Amazonian Indians. They went about mostly naked but for their necklaces and little loin-cloths. There was nothing unclean or impure about their nakedness. Some of the women were captured by white men and put to work in a brothel. One could not help noting the contrast between their innocent nakedness earlier and the carnal, provocative clothing they were forced to wear in the brothel - short skirts, tight tops, high heels, lingerie, whorish makeup. It was very sobering. When they were rescued, the first thing the women did was tear off the hated, corrupt clothing and put back on their badges of pure and modest womanhood: their necklaces and their loin-cloths. It was really a very striking scene, and said more about the true meaning of modesty than anything else I can think of. So, real modesty is not so much about how much we wear and what is covered, as much as it's about whether the covering and uncovering is provocative or deliberately enticing. It's about our inner attitude towards our bodies and our intent. If we were all truly "like little children", we would not care about nudity and would not have such impure minds as to think "SEX" at every inch of uncovered skin. Sometimes I really think it's the covering up of things that MAKES them enticing. It is the forbiddenness of nudity that drives the pornography market, the "dirtifying" of the human body. Primitive tribal people don't have porn. Give an Amazonian Indian a Victoria's Secret catalogue and he'll find it amusing enough for a few minutes, but then chuck it away and forget about it. Most of them find such things peculiar and think our society extremely weird for our sex-obsession. The human body is nothing new to them, they care about what's inside, not the flesh. Surely if we were all just naked the novelty would soon wear off, and we would be like the folks in the jungle, becoming attracted to one another for who we really are, not out of lustful curiosity about what our bodies might be like under our clothes. For example, in Western countries where breasts are routinely covered up, they are perceived as sex organs and are objects of lustful thoughts, to the point where some twisted individuals even think feeding a little child is indecent exposure! In some other parts of the world, it is much more relaxed. And in yet other parts, such as certain areas of Africa and South America, where women regularly go topless, the people laugh at our men and think them immature and unmanly because they are obsessed with women's breasts. To them, breasts are simply mammary glands, there is nothing sexual about them whatsoever. They find it hilarious that white men are "like babies". Men are NOT hardwired to be sex-obsessed and driven to madness by the sight of a woman's uncovered skin. Such extreme reactions are the result of a culture that uses clothing to cover up certain parts of the body and entice and allure. This can be amply demonstrated by a broad overview of societies on both ends of the spectrum. Such a survey shows a dramatic correlation between the level of comfort with nudity and the healthy expression of the sex-drive at appropriate times, with no mental obsession in between. In societies like ours, where nudity is feared and disapproved (yet clothing is used to emphasize sexuality), men are constantly thinking about sex even when they're not directly engaged in it. That's the twisted result of our Puritan heritage and has nothing to do with men's hardwired nature, as suggested by some.

It's just another example of followers mimicking the actions of their prophet and/or teacher and turning it into a "rule". Same thing with Muslim prayer: because the prophet Muhammed curled his toes a certain way when prostrating, everyone has to do it, or you're not praying right. The Muslims especially have "idolized" every little quirk of the prophet Muhammed, as though there must be some deep significance to all his habits and idiosyncrasies. When I was practicing Islam I must confess I thought it all a bit silly. I mean, what if he just had a bunion and had to put his toes that way to be comfortable? :)

Hehe. Actually a good place to start would be their website. I investigated them as well as the LDS Church when I first started out, trying to decide which was correct. Anyway, on the site you can find information about their history and their presidents (under "History" on the drop-down menu "Our Faith"), and if you choose "Online Resources" under the drop-down menu "Tools for Ministry", you will find a fairly extensive list of stuff, including (under D) a few of their added Doctrine & Covenants sections that differ from those of the LDS Church. The Community of Christ article on Wikipedia is also pretty comprehensive, and here is the article containing information on the different versions of Doctrine & Covenants. This Religious Tolerance website also contains a good history.

Interestingly, there are some who believe that this prophecy did come true in the person of Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith. I'm not really convinced by their arguments, but there are some fascinating parallels between his life and the various prophecies of Christ's coming. There is a paper somewhere online called "Latter-day Saint (Mormon) Prophecies Fulfilled by the Baha'i Faith". It's an interesting read, though as I said, I'm not convinced by a long shot. Some of it seems like a bit of a stretch.

Are you talking about the Community of Christ? Used to be the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Actually, after re-reading your post, I believe we are basically saying very similar things; we both believe in the chicken and the egg, where we differ is in our opinions of which comes first. Either way, I think it's safe to say that the two in co-existence (intellectual knowledge and faith) support and continually give birth to one another, all things being ideal. I'm still not sure, though, that I agree with your idea of scriptural history showing a progression from evidence-based belief to faith-based belief. In most scriptural accounts, evidence was provided to those who showed themselves worthy by having at least enough faith to fill a mustard-seed. Meaning, yes, one must at least believe in the possibility of such things, otherwise one is unable to perceive them. Those who don't believe they can be healed, cannot be healed. "No sign will be given to this evil and adulterous generation." But still, evidences are provided for those that deserve them. After all, the Father and Son appeared in the flesh to Joseph Smith, which I think is a far greater manifestation than the simple burning bush which Moses first saw. Joseph Smith and others saw many physical manifestations and heard audible voices. They saw Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, multiple angels, and multiple resurrected prophets. I don't consider that to indicate progressing towards faith without evidence. I do, however, think that that viewpoint is one that could be espoused by the mainstream churches who no longer believe in visions, manifestations and miracles - those who "have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof". It would certainly be necessary for them to believe that evidences are no longer given, because otherwise they would be faced with the plain fact that God is just not revealing himself to them because they don't deserve it. (Not to claim that I've seen any manifestations or out-of-the-ordinary miracles myself; I'm probably as undeserving as the next person in that regard!)

Well, I'm sorry, but I am above all a rational person. That is simply who I am, and my post was about my experience of faith, and my process of coming to and nurturing that faith. It was not intended to be a how-to guide for anyone else. If, as you seem to imply, my approach to faith is less perfect than it ought to be, then that is my own failing and a function of my nature, which at this point I cannot remedy. Perhaps I need to work on that. But I feel that my faith is strong, and I stand by my assertion that we are given rational minds and intellect for a good reason, and that we are to use these in the exercise of our faith, both the cultivation of it and the exercise of it in our everyday actions. Of course, that is simply my opinion, which I happen to consider to be just as good as that of any other common human being. :)

Whenever I read these things, I always think about them in the context of ethnicity; I mean, what about other cultures with traditions of piercings and tattoos? For example, I have Maori ancestry and am a member of the Ngaapuhi tribe of Aotearoa/New Zealand. Among the Maori tattoos are sacred and an important part of ethnic identity, and also play a major part in recording tribal affiliation, ancestry and personal history. Many other ancient peoples had traditions of tattooing, including the Celts, the Japanese, the Egyptians, and several other Northern European and Middle Eastern peoples. Since it does not seem to be a moral issue, is it fair to say that these ancient traditions should be abandoned because in our culture they are viewed negatively? Since this is supposed to be a global Church, shouldn't there be some leeway when it comes to allowing people to hold onto their cultural and ethnic heritage rather than demanding they adopt American cultural ideals when they join the Church?

Considering John's reference applies to "this book", it's obvious he's referring to the book of Revelation itself, not the entire canon of scripture, which was not even nearly formalized at that time. Also, if it DID apply to the entire canon of scripture, then the Protestants would be just as guilty, since they quite summarily removed SEVEN Deuterocanonical books plus various parts of other books, all of which can still be found in Catholic Bibles. Obviously the only folks who would have any case here would be the Catholics! But, since it doesn't refer to the canon but to the book of Revelation, it's really a moot point.

Actually, a remarkable number of cultures and peoples have "come up with" the same God. All Indo-European peoples believed in a supreme Heavenly Father. In most of the Indo-European languages, his name means exactly that (Tiwaz Fader in German, Faeder Tiw in Old English, Jupiter in Roman, Zeus in Greek, Dyaus Pita in Sanskrit, Tyr in Norse, Dievas in the Baltic, Dagda in Gaelic, Dazbog in Slavic, Dispater in Gaulish...). There was also a supreme Heavenly Father in ancient China (Shang Di/Tian Zhu, meaning "King Above" and "Sky Lord" respectively), and in Polynesian mythology there is a Sky Father named Ranginui and an even higher Heavenly Father named Io. There is also the Sumerian Anu, the Australian Aboriginal Altjira/Baiame, the Finnish Ukko, etc. These are all names for "Heavenly Father" or "Sky Father". In most cases He is considered the greatest of gods, the king of gods, the father of gods and men; however, in a very few (such as in the Norse mythology), the Heavenly Father has been pushed into the background by the sacrificial/savior god (in this case, Odin), who is quite clearly a stand-in for Christ, somewhat twisted by the passage of time and the influence of other elements; or by another more accessible god who acts as intermediary and messenger between Heavenly Father and mankind (such as Tane, the forest god in Maori mythology, who climbed to the highest Heaven and received from Io the Three Baskets of Knowledge to bring to humanity). It's really quite astonishing the amount of consistency one finds among so many of the "pagan" and "heathen" religions. I find it eminently probable that these reflect the memories of an ancient knowledge that became distorted over time.

To me, all faith starts out with an intellectual conviction of some kind. One cannot just "have faith" based on nothing at all; that is why we have been given scriptures, prophets, even scholarly research, to help us begin to exercise faith - to give us something on which to base it. Some people, it seems, can simply decide to believe something regardless of whether it's logically or rationally tenable, and continue to do so no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, usually by wearing a big pair of blinders. :) But I think most people need some kind of basis and confirmation for the things they believe to be true. I certainly do. I believe in this Church because of a spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost, but also because of my own purely mental conviction that, from a rational and logical standpoint, it doesn't make any sense for these things to have been falsified or invented in some way. I find there is too much corroborative evidence from multiple sources to dismiss the claims of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Church. So I have faith in that which is unknown, because I am convinced by that which IS known. To me, faith can be of two kinds. There is the kind of faith which is choosing to trust despite one's doubts. Then there is the kind of faith which is absolute perfection of belief, unwavering trust in the truth of something. The first is the kind that gets you through the tough times. The second is the kind that makes miracles, the kind that Jesus compared to being like a little child, the kind which we are all exhorted to attain to. And that is by far the harder one to achieve. Sometimes I get there; but much of the time my faith is closer to the first kind. It's something that must be continually worked on and watered and fed and nurtured, or it will atrophy and die. That's one of the main reasons why the General Authorities of the Church are so concerned that we consume faith-building materials rather than faith-destroying materials, because they know that when your faith is fragile, all it takes is one little pin to burst the bubble. Those with strong faith may find challenging viewpoints to be actually faith-strengthening, but I don't think many of us are that solid all the time, especially when we lack the knowledge to refute the arguments against us. The nourishment of faith-building materials is essential to achieving that perfection of trust which is asked of us by the Lord. My personal acts of nourishment include reading Scripture and other inspirational publications, praying to Heavenly Father, reading scholarly studies on the FARMS and FAIR websites, attending sacrament meeting and performing acts of service to others. On the other side of things, if I do read something negative, I immediately counteract it by searching out the LDS response to whatever the criticism is. I always come away satisfied that there is a logical defense and strengthened by the information obtained. This keeps me from spiraling down into doubt and possibly (worst-case scenario) losing my testimony. God willing, that will never happen to me.

I think these kind of scriptures are generally accepted as referring to living the Gospel, meaning, following Christ's example of righteousness. Christ refers to it also in Matthew 11:28-30: "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." His "yoke" and "burden" are the same as his "cross"; they refer to the responsibility of righteousness. He is calling all who are burdened with the guilt of their sin upon their conscience, and with the yoke of the Mosaic law upon their shoulders, to lay these burdens at his feet, rest in his salvation and righteousness, and live under the yoke of his law and ordinances, which, unlike the burden of the Mosaic law, is easy and light, borne with joy. Alma, in 39:9, is telling his son to take up the responsibility of righteousness that he has forsaken and bear it as befits a man in his position.

I've never heard these things from the Church or from active, involved members... but I have heard some pretty crazy things out of the mouth of my mother-in-law, who was raised in an inactive RLDS family ("jack mormons"). She says a lot of the same weird things I hear from anti-Mormons, so perhaps a few decades back there were some strange little pockets of inactive Mormons who had a lot of peculiar folklore but not much actual doctrine..? Also, much of what my mother-in-law knows about the LDS Church comes from the RLDS and is therefore negative and skewed, and some just outright false. Things like bishops asking for your tax returns to make sure you're really paying a full tithe, and forcing you because you are under a contract. Also a lot of dubious, eyebrow-raising stories about Cain's exploits in the land of Nod, etc. Just really weird stuff I've never heard from any official sources or even from individual members who are active in the Church. So, that stuff IS out there, and perhaps there are some out-of-the-mainstream little communities and/or families who perpetuate these things out of true ignorance of the truth, so that their kids grow up believing these are real Mormon doctrine and beliefs. I don't know.

On this one, I can only speak for myself. And I like Catholics and Catholicism. My grandmother is Catholic, she converted against her father's wishes when she was in her late teens. If I didn't know about Mormonism, I'd probably be a Catholic, because I've always liked the rituals, the piety, and the social strength of the Catholic Church. But, since I do know about LDS and know in my deepest heart of hearts that its doctrines and revelations are true, well, that leaves me no choice! I believe there is truth in every religion, just not the whole truth. So I don't have anything against anyone of any faith, as long as they don't have anything against me and mine. :)

As for this, you misunderstand the statements about immortality. Yes, people will be mortal in the Millennium, but when they "die", instead of going to the spirit world to wait for the resurrection, they will be instantaneously transfigured into their immortal bodies. It's really just the skipping of the middle step of waiting in the spirit world for resurrection. People will still be just as mortal as they are now, until they die and that transfiguration takes place. So then, yes, there will be a mixture of mortals and immortals, as the Millennium goes on.