Truth? Is Scripture - Scripture

[Traveler]

My love, respect and knowledge of God began when I was very, very young actually, long before I discovered the treasures found in the Scriptures.  :)  Easy misunderstanding since I apparently quote too much Scripture for your taste.  The past year and a half has brought me on an incredible journey of fully, discovering this treasure, among others, and answering Gods call.  He is so so beautiful!! I am often times brought to tears of joy for what He has done for me, and I know now there is absolutely nothing in this world I wouldn't do for Him.  And everyone's journey is different and unique, ours are completely different, as they should be, separated by time, location, memories, knowledge, family life, etc.  No two people are the same, which is why we are told to not judge one another, that alone is Gods job.  And true love, respect, and knowledge of God is also brought by personal experiences and study, you are not the only one my friend   :)

 

Concerning disagreement of Scriptures, I agree that too many groups of people lay claim to the true interpretation, yet allow their disagreements to lead to anger and division.  Which is why Christ did leave a visible Church, with His authority to teach, until the Parousia.  In Luke's Gospel, (this will be the only biblical quote, I promise) Jesus says to His disciples, "Whoever listens to you listens to me.  Whoever rejects you rejects me.  And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (Luke 10:16).  Notice the direct line of authority, the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the Apostles w/His authority, such that listening to them, and the men they in turn authorize, is equivalent to listening to Jesus and thus also to the Father.  Jesus desired his believers to be one, and not divided, why would he therefore leave his followers w/ambigious teachings? 

 

But it is curious to me that you think (at least this is what I understand from your post), that Jesus did not identify any particular interpretation, except by the love shown by his disciples (which btw, there was only one interpretation at the time, the Apostles and their disciples, you know, the teachings received directly from Jesus, so who else would He point to?).  Do not Baptists love one another?  Do not Catholics love one another?  What about Presbyterians, Pentecostals, non-denomationals and Lutherans?  What about the LDS and their love for others?  And of course, Buddhists, Muslims and everyone else?  You can not just simply place entire groups under some large all-encompassing umbrella labeled "not enough love to be up to Jesus' par".  There will always be great saints and great sinners, with everyone in between, in each group.   

 

Your church was founded in 1830, "restored", correct?  Why is it now visible and hierarchal and definitive in its interpretations?  The members of your church, must believe and practice what the prophet teaches in order to be worthy of the Temple, and reach the celestial kingdom, right?  Why is now so different than when Jesus was here?  Is Jesus now pointing only to the LDS interpretation, along w/love for one another?  Do your church leaders appreciate members coming forward w/different interpretations and leading others in error to believe them over the leaders?  What exactly would happen in such situations, would the leaders not warn the member and eventually excommunicate that person for leading others away from truth into heresy?  What about all the schisms and splinter groups which broke off your church when Smith died, all claiming to be the true branch of LDS with the true authority?  You're right, these things are not a recent and new phenomenon, nor will they ever stop happening due to the sinful nature of man. 

 

What I have found over the years, through personal experience and studying Church history and the writings of the some of the greatest saints in history, is that those who are dedicated to Scripture, lovingly, joyfully, and beautifully submit themselves to the Word of God in His Church, and are some of the most compassionate and loving people who have ever walked this earth.  There are many, many, many exceptions to your general rule, and I am so sorry that you have come to such an unsatisfactory conclusion of those who love Scripture.  God bless Traveler :)

 

I will try to respond as best as I can to your questions.  In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there is not so much “official doctrine” as there is in many churches.  There is no real theology and thus there is not much in the way of scholarship or official scholars.  There is some doctrine but the reality is that, though the doctrine is somewhat different than most religious thought, there are very little doctrinal specifics.  Like scripture; though there is a tapestry of principles in doctrine the specifics are vague.   In essence LDS are very behavior oriented and specific but at the same time dogmatically vague.   It has been expressed that in such matters the effort is to teach correct principles and have people govern themselves.  Thus the church mission is in essence upside down and it is believed that the church structure and hierarchy is temporary and instituted to support and prepare the family (not individual per say) that we believe the family is what is eternal both in principle and actuality.   Thus the LDS understanding is that there is no place for an individual in heaven – that without family and relationship within that divine family (or if you will – oneness in the family of our Father in Heaven) it is impossible for heaven to exist.

 

Excommunication is not so much because of doctrine or to protect doctrine or to protect the church but to protect the family and ensure it is eternally viable and sustainable.  Thus excommunication in purpose is intended not to punish but to wipe an individual slate clean, to allow a reset and start over for an individual to repent and establish a new, one’s place in their family covenant before G-d.  In essence the single purpose of the church is to prepare a people (family including ancestors and descendants) to dwell forever in the society of G-d.  Also realizing that every individual person descended from Adam and Eve is ours and G-d’s family.

 

Since family is central to my understanding of G-d, his purpose, mercy, compassion and goodness – I see the history of the world much different than you do.  Thus Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not great leaders as they were great family men dedicated to preserving the eternal family covenant and example of family.  Other individuals of history focused on doctrine and theology – I do not see of much importance unless their efforts are in the sustaining, even by example, the family covenant – that I believe is important and the essence of true religion and understanding and believing in G-d as our Father.

 

Thus my general rule is about families – those that use scripture and other excuse to displace themselves or others from family – are not much use to me.  But those that dedicate themselves by covenant to family – I believe are rich soil for the seed of G-d otherwise hidden in scripture and in all creation that brings forth and adds to life.

[faith4]

I will try to respond as best as I can to your questions.  In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there is not so much “official doctrine” as there is in many churches.  There is no real theology and thus there is not much in the way of scholarship or official scholars.  There is some doctrine but the reality is that, though the doctrine is somewhat different than most religious thought, there are very little doctrinal specifics.  Like scripture; though there is a tapestry of principles in doctrine the specifics are vague.   In essence LDS are very behavior oriented and specific but at the same time dogmatically vague.   It has been expressed that in such matters the effort is to teach correct principles and have people govern themselves.  Thus the church mission is in essence upside down and it is believed that the church structure and hierarchy is temporary and instituted to support and prepare the family (not individual per say) that we believe the family is what is eternal both in principle and actuality.   Thus the LDS understanding is that there is no place for an individual in heaven – that without family and relationship within that divine family (or if you will – oneness in the family of our Father in Heaven) it is impossible for heaven to exist.

 

Excommunication is not so much because of doctrine or to protect doctrine or to protect the church but to protect the family and ensure it is eternally viable and sustainable.  Thus excommunication in purpose is intended not to punish but to wipe an individual slate clean, to allow a reset and start over for an individual to repent and establish a new, one’s place in their family covenant before G-d.  In essence the single purpose of the church is to prepare a people (family including ancestors and descendants) to dwell forever in the society of G-d.  Also realizing that every individual person descended from Adam and Eve is ours and G-d’s family.

 

Since family is central to my understanding of G-d, his purpose, mercy, compassion and goodness – I see the history of the world much different than you do.  Thus Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not great leaders as they were great family men dedicated to preserving the eternal family covenant and example of family.  Other individuals of history focused on doctrine and theology – I do not see of much importance unless their efforts are in the sustaining, even by example, the family covenant – that I believe is important and the essence of true religion and understanding and believing in G-d as our Father.

 

Thus my general rule is about families – those that use scripture and other excuse to displace themselves or others from family – are not much use to me.  But those that dedicate themselves by covenant to family – I believe are rich soil for the seed of G-d otherwise hidden in scripture and in all creation that brings forth and adds to life.

 

Well put Traveler :)  I recognize my Church in your description of your own church as well, for the family is also very important to us.  I'm including a link to Familiaris Consortio, an Apostolic Exhortion written by St. John Paul II, on the role of families in our society.  I'm sure you are a very busy man, but if you have the time, please read it, though it is a bit long, yet quite enriching and profound. 

 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

[Guest]

Well put Traveler :)  I recognize my Church in your description of your own church as well, for the family is also very important to us.  I'm including a link to Familiaris Consortio, an Apostolic Exhortion written by St. John Paul II, on the role of families in our society.  I'm sure you are a very busy man, but if you have the time, please read it, though it is a bit long, yet quite enriching and profound. 

 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

 

Unless you want to be a Priest or a Nun... then your vow of celibacy precludes you from having a family.  It is a contradiction.  Yes, yes, your bride is the Church in Religious Order and Jesus did not get married... or did he?

 

Truth.  How elusive you are when we have but one stick to base it upon...

 

At least the Catholics and the LDS agree that the Bible cannot be the sole basis of truth.

[faith4]

Unless you want to be a Priest or a Nun... then your vow of celibacy precludes you from having a family.  It is a contradiction.  Yes, yes, your bride is the Church in Religious Order and Jesus did not get married... or did he?

 

Truth.  How elusive you are when we have but one stick to base it upon...

 

At least the Catholics and the LDS agree that the Bible cannot be the sole basis of truth.

 

Lol, no, not a contradiction!    Weren't you once Catholic?!  Although celibacy is the standard, and has been for a very long time, it is not dogma, so who knows, maybe someday it will change.  Protestant pastors who convert (mostly Anglicans/ Epicsopalians) can become priests, even though they are married, in fact, I have met a few in my own diocese.  And for married women, we can join a third order carmelite if we choose, in order to follow a more disciplined rule, which some people do better with that than others. 

 

Marriage is a vocation and considered a Sacrament, good and holy.  It is precisely in this holiness and goodness found in marriage that makes celibacy also good and holy b/c it is a sacrifice of one's whole self.  "The value of fasting from food is not derived from a belief that food is evil.  Rather, fasting from food is commendable and spiritual b/c it is the sacrifice of something good for an even greater good.  God asked the Israelites to sacrifice only the strongest and healthies animals-not the worst.  When a man sacrifices the prospect of marriage and a family, he is not rejecting sex as something vile and evil.  Instead, he is making a substantial sacrifice." Taylor Marshall, The Crucified Rabbi. 

 

I don't see religious celibacy as a contradiction, they give themselves wholly to the Lord and His Church, our Family in Christ, to help teach and lead us to God.  :)

[Guest]

I don't see religious celibacy as a contradiction, they give themselves wholly to the Lord and His Church, our Family in Christ, to help teach and lead us to God.  :)

 

Yes, I was once Catholic... and that's why I say, it's a contradiction.  It is.  You can't explain that away by that cop out line above...  it's like saying, "Family is very important in God's Kingdom but giving yourself to your Family is not giving yourself wholly to the Lord and His Church".  Surely you see how illogical that is... It's like Family is a hindrance to full service to God and His Church.

[faith4]

Yes, I was once Catholic... and that's why I say, it's a contradiction.  It is.  You can't explain that away by that cop out line above...  it's like saying, "Family is very important in God's Kingdom but giving yourself to your Family is not giving yourself wholly to the Lord and His Church".  Surely you see how illogical that is... It's like Family is a hindrance to full service to God and His Church.

 

Say what you might like, it's not a cop out line to me and I don't see it as illogical at all :)  I am a married woman, my vocation in life, my calling, is to be a mom.  My "cross" consists in me living this married life and bringing up children, with patience, humility and love.  I can give myself to God in this vocation, by just being a good mom, constantly showing Gods love to my husband and children through my actions of caring for them, and vice versa with my husband, who shows Gods love and faithfulness to me and our boys.  It's not always easy (as I'm sure you know, being a mother yourself), but I offer each day as a prayer, and this is how I serve Him.  My family is not a hindrance, it is my vocation, and I give myself wholly to it.   

 

But there are people who don't feel called to be a parent. Just b/c they aren't parents doesn't mean their daily life of sacrifice and work, also done in humility and love, is any less acceptable to God. In fact, to believe otherwise is to judge those people, believing that what they're doing w/their life is illogical and therefore unacceptable. 

 

Jesus Himself taught that celibacy is granted by God to certain individuals.  "He [Jesus] answered, "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted.  Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." (Matt 19:11-12).  

 

Check out 1 Corinthians 7 as well, St. Paul goes over this very topic and he makes it quite clear that not everyone is called to marriage, and that is a good thing for those who accept it. 

 

"Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of a kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows I say:  It is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do...Only everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one...Are you bound to a wife?  Do no seek separation.  Are you free of a wife?  Then do not look for a wife...I should like you to be free of anxities.  An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.  But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he ma please his wife, and he is divided...I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction." 

 

I hope your day is going well, God bless :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Thus excommunication in purpose is intended not to punish but to wipe an individual slate clean..

 

I've heard this before -- in church nonetheless. However, it is inaccurate per the various reasons given for excommunication. It is also inaccurate doctrinally. Excommunication does not wipe one's slate clean. Is simply doesn't. Only repentance does that.  One of the purposes of excommunication is very clearly and definitely to punish in order to motivate change.

[Traveler]

I've heard this before -- in church nonetheless. However, it is inaccurate per the various reasons given for excommunication. It is also inaccurate doctrinally. Excommunication does not wipe one's slate clean. Is simply doesn't. Only repentance does that.  One of the purposes of excommunication is very clearly and definitely to punish in order to motivate change.

 

Having been involved in church courts that brought about excommunications - I have experienced otherwise.  Having reviewed carefully counsel and revelation given to assist in such courts I have come to realize that if punishment is divinely intended then G-d would be unjust.   Because not all are punished equally or the same for similar matters - even in the light of motivating change.  Many infractions are ignored for reasons that have little to do with motivating change.

 

But as I have already posted in this thread - the exact application of excommunication (as with other doctrines) is vague and left to individuals involved to apply principles rather than specifically defined procedures.  If punishment is metered out through such things, it is because of individual interpretation and not by principle of policy.

[Guest]

I've heard this before -- in church nonetheless. However, it is inaccurate per the various reasons given for excommunication. It is also inaccurate doctrinally. Excommunication does not wipe one's slate clean. Is simply doesn't. Only repentance does that.  One of the purposes of excommunication is very clearly and definitely to punish in order to motivate change.

 

I disagree with excommunication being a punishment.  Yes, it can feel as such for the person excommunicated, but that's not one of its purposes.  The purposes of excommunication is 1.)  Protect the congregation, 2.) release the person from his covenants.

[Traveler]

Say what you might like, it's not a cop out line to me and I don't see it as illogical at all :)  I am a married woman, my vocation in life, my calling, is to be a mom.  My "cross" consists in me living this married life and bringing up children, with patience, humility and love.  I can give myself to God in this vocation, by just being a good mom, constantly showing Gods love to my husband and children through my actions of caring for them, and vice versa with my husband, who shows Gods love and faithfulness to me and our boys.  It's not always easy (as I'm sure you know, being a mother yourself), but I offer each day as a prayer, and this is how I serve Him.  My family is not a hindrance, it is my vocation, and I give myself wholly to it.   

 

But there are people who don't feel called to be a parent. Just b/c they aren't parents doesn't mean their daily life of sacrifice and work, also done in humility and love, is any less acceptable to God. In fact, to believe otherwise is to judge those people, believing that what they're doing w/their life is illogical and therefore unacceptable. 

 

Jesus Himself taught that celibacy is granted by God to certain individuals.  "He [Jesus] answered, "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted.  Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." (Matt 19:11-12).  

 

Check out 1 Corinthians 7 as well, St. Paul goes over this very topic and he makes it quite clear that not everyone is called to marriage, and that is a good thing for those who accept it. 

 

"Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of a kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows I say:  It is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do...Only everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one...Are you bound to a wife?  Do no seek separation.  Are you free of a wife?  Then do not look for a wife...I should like you to be free of anxities.  An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.  But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he ma please his wife, and he is divided...I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction." 

 

I hope your day is going well, God bless :)

 

Pleas do not take this as criticism of you personally.  I do enjoy your input - especially because you bring things to the table differently than those things I usually consider - and I do not want to change that you see things differently than me but at the same time I also want to make certain things I understand as clear as possible. 

 

As best as I can determine the first commandment G-d gave to our very first parents was to be fruitful and to multiple and replenish the earth.  I believe that the way and means to be obedient to G-d and his commandment is to marry and have children.  Because of my belief in that G-d that gave that specific commandment - I personally believe that for my self or any one that respects that G-d that they will reject any teacher that refuses to respect that commandment and that G-d that gave that commandment.   In short I do not believe that one can devote themselves to the G-d that created Adam and Eve and commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth, through celibacy.  It is an obvious and blatant contradiction.  Or as Christ said - If you love me (G-d) keep my commandments.  Those that do not keep G-d's commandments do not love him.  The doctrine that anyone can devote themselves to G-d to any degree; by ignoring his first commandment ever given to man - have been deceived.

[The Folk Prophet]

I disagree with excommunication being a punishment.  Yes, it can feel as such for the person excommunicated, but that's not one of its purposes.  The purposes of excommunication is 1.)  Protect the congregation, 2.) release the person from his covenants.

 

According to Handbook 1, there are, actually, three specified reasons for church discipline. 1. Save the Souls of Transgressors. 2. Protect the Innocent. 3. Safeguard the Integrity of the Church.

 

The first one (Save the Souls of the Trangressor) is wherein church discipline can be considered "punishment" in that the means whereby excommunication (or disfellowshipping or informal disciipline) is used to save the soul of the transgressor is in "...helping transgressors recognize and forsake sin, seek forgiveness, make restitution, and demonstrate a renewed commitment to keep the commandments."  Furthermore, the Handbook goes on to state, "...in some instances the only way to encourage true repentance is to convene a disciplinary council and consider formal discipline. Without formal discipline, some transgressors may never experience the change of behavior and change of heart necessary to qualify them for redemption through the Atonement, for “none but the truly penitent are saved” (Alma 42:24)." The obvious read here being to "discipline" them in order to motivate them to repent.

 

As to whether you call it a "punishment" or not it doesn't really matter, but to argue against it being a punishment seems a bit silly to me in that the primary definition of "discipline" is "punishment". They are synonyms. It is called church discipline for a reason.

 

But let's step back here a sec and really look at what is being implied. Are you saying that the excommunicated person is now less accountable because of the excommunication and the removal of covenants? This is what I am reading from the various statements I've seen and heard in this regard, and this is what I am speaking against, ultimately. If this is not what you (and others) are saying, then it is coming across that way and perhaps some clarification is in order. But the removal of covenants is not a reason for excommunication. It is a result. And excommunication in no way makes the person less accountable.

[Traveler]

According to Handbook 1, there are, actually, three specified reasons for church discipline. 1. Save the Souls of Transgressors. 2. Protect the Innocent. 3. Safeguard the Integrity of the Church.

 

The first one (Save the Souls of the Trangressor) is wherein church discipline can be considered "punishment" in that the means whereby excommunication (or disfellowshipping or informal disciipline) is used to save the soul of the transgressor is in "...helping transgressors recognize and forsake sin, seek forgiveness, make restitution, and demonstrate a renewed commitment to keep the commandments."  Furthermore, the Handbook goes on to state, "...in some instances the only way to encourage true repentance is to convene a disciplinary council and consider formal discipline. Without formal discipline, some transgressors may never experience the change of behavior and change of heart necessary to qualify them for redemption through the Atonement, for “none but the truly penitent are saved” (Alma 42:24)." The obvious read here being to "discipline" them in order to motivate them to repent.

 

As to whether you call it a "punishment" or not it doesn't really matter, but to argue against it being a punishment seems a bit silly to me in that the primary definition of "discipline" is "punishment". They are synonyms. It is called church discipline for a reason.

 

But let's step back here a sec and really look at what is being implied. Are you saying that the excommunicated person is now less accountable because of the excommunication and the removal of covenants? This is what I am reading from the various statements I've seen and heard in this regard, and this is what I am speaking against, ultimately. If this is not what you (and others) are saying, then it is coming across that way and perhaps some clarification is in order. But the removal of covenants is not a reason for excommunication. It is a result. And excommunication in no way makes the person less accountable.

 

I think that the thinking of discipline as punishment is unfortunate.  Jesus called his followers disciples which has the same root meaning as discipline.   I do not think of a person that is disciplined as someone that punishes themselves.  I do not think we punish ourselves to learn but I do believe that we learn through discipline.  I also think that going to church and worshiping on the Sabbath is a discipline but I do not believe going to Church and worshiping on the Sabbath is punishment.

 

I realize that the overlap of the definition of punishment and discipline can cause confusion but I do not believe that in the context of finding our way to G-d that we should think of discipline as a punishment.

[Guest]

But let's step back here a sec and really look at what is being implied. Are you saying that the excommunicated person is now less accountable because of the excommunication and the removal of covenants? This is what I am reading from the various statements I've seen and heard in this regard, and this is what I am speaking against, ultimately. If this is not what you (and others) are saying, then it is coming across that way and perhaps some clarification is in order. But the removal of covenants is not a reason for excommunication. It is a result. And excommunication in no way makes the person less accountable.

 

No.  He is not less accountable.  Knowledge is knowledge - covenant or no - and he is accountable according to that knowledge.

 

Removal of convenants is saving the soul of the transgressor because it gives him the chance to start over and qualify for baptism again just like an investigator after a period of repentance.

 

Excommunication is not punishment.  I don't even know how this would logically apply.  This is not like a kid who got put in the corner for bad behavior.  The consequences of sin on one's soul is the punishment.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think that the thinking of discipline as punishment is unfortunate.  Jesus called his followers disciples which has the same root meaning as discipline.   I do not think of a person that is disciplined as someone that punishes themselves.  I do not think we punish ourselves to learn but I do believe that we learn through discipline.  I also think that going to church and worshiping on the Sabbath is a discipline but I do not believe going to Church and worshiping on the Sabbath is punishment.

 

I realize that the overlap of the definition of punishment and discipline can cause confusion but I do not believe that in the context of finding our way to G-d that we should think of discipline as a punishment.

 

Unless, of course, it IS, actually, a punishment. Utilizing the meaning of discipline as the positive enforcement of behavior (either by oneself or by another) would make little sense in the term "church discipline". A disciplinary court is ultimately held to determine guilt and pass sentence -- well qualifying the term as punishment. Being overly sensitive to the word "punishment" doesn't change the reality of what it is or is not. What you're saying would be like a parent arguing that they aren't punishing their children when they give them a time out. Uh....okay.... But yes they are.  Over-sensitivity to a word or concept does not negate that word or concept. And excommunication is, unquestionably, a punishment, regardless of whether people "feel" like it's a punishment or not. It simply is what it is. Yes, it should be done with love. Yes, it should be done for the betterment of the transgressor, the church, the congregation, etc. What excommunication does not do is " wipe an individual slate clean, to allow a reset and start over".  What it does do (among other things) is knock the transgressor over the head a bit to jolt them into a realization of the seriousness of what they have done. As a general rule, as you well know, excommunication is usually avoided whenever possible. In most cases other forms of discipline are proper. But there is a time and a place where excommunication becomes necessary. The most common is when the individual is defiant and unrepentant. Hence, the head-knocking.

 

Would you also contend that putting someone in jail is not a punishment because it is for their betterment, and for the safety of society and community? The fact that there are other, valid purposes for church discipline does not mean that it is not also a punishment.

 

There seems to be an underlying idea that thinking of excommunication as punishment is somehow damaging. As if this realization means there is less love involved or something. I reject that thinking. I also find it decisively harmful to allow those excommunicated to think that the purpose of their excommunication was to make them less accountable for their sins. In fact, this is practically opposite of the intent of church discipline. It is, rather, to show how serious, indeed, transgression is, and how accountable individuals are for their choices.

 

Excommunication is a threat...and a serious one. It is a temporal threat that stands proxy for an eternal one. It is a reminder that sin has consequence. It is, absolutely, a punishment.

 

I have said my peace and I do not wish to argue it further. I'm making a strong effort to not have the spirit of contention. So I will bow out of further "debate" on the matter, but do look forward to reading your responses.

[The Folk Prophet]

No.  He is not less accountable.  Knowledge is knowledge - covenant or no - and he is accountable according to that knowledge.

 

Removal of convenants is saving the soul of the transgressor because it gives him the chance to start over and qualify for baptism again just like an investigator after a period of repentance.

 

Excommunication is not punishment.  I don't even know how this would logically apply.  This is not like a kid who got put in the corner for bad behavior.  The consequences of sin on one's soul is the punishment.

 

We mostly agree, except the not like a kid put in the corner thing. It is like that in many a ways. And, logically, the consequence of sin is whatever happens to you because of that sin. If that includes excommunication then it is, indeed, part of the consequence of that sin, just like being addicted to something is part of the consequence of some actions, getting thrown in jail is part of the consequence of some actions, and getting shot down by the police is part of the consequence of some actions.

 

Edit, see my above last line to Traveler. I've said my thoughts. Won't argue further. I appreciate your insight though.

[Guest]

We mostly agree, except the not like a kid put in the corner thing. It is like that in many a ways. And, logically, the consequence of sin is whatever happens to you because of that sin. If that includes excommunication then it is, indeed, part of the consequence of that sin, just like being addicted to something is part of the consequence of some actions, getting thrown in jail is part of the consequence of some actions, and getting shot down by the police is part of the consequence of some actions.

 

Edit, see my above last line to Traveler. I've said my thoughts. Won't argue further. I appreciate your insight though.

 

I'm not arguing.  I'm simply explaning why I don't think the excommunication is the punishment.  The consequences of sin is the punishment.

 

We, as a church, do not have the authority for that kind of judgement.  That Priesthood Authority is reserved for Christ.  Therefore, we have no authority to punish somebody for sin.

 

Excommunication/putting in the corner/putting in jail are not logical equivalents.  Putting a kid in the corner and/or putting someone in jail is a punishment - it's what we judge is payment for bad behavior - depriving someone of what someone wants.  Putting a person in jail who wants to be in jail will not be a punishment.  We put them in jail because we know most, if not everybody, desires freedom.  I have a kid that has no problem with being the corner - he welcomes the corner.  So, I don't punish him by putting him in the corner.  I take away his toys instead.  This is not the same as excommunication - we don't excommunicate because we want to deprive somebody of what they want.  Even those who desire to leave the church can be excommunicated - this would then not be a punishment but a welcome relief for the transgressor.

 

I'll tell you something that is the logical equivalent to excommunication:  I've mentioned I go on a rage spell sometimes.  So, when I get on this craziness, my husband would sometimes physically restrain me.  When he is physically restraining me, he is not punishing me.  He is preventing me from hurting him, my children, or myself.  That's excommunication.  When I finally calm down and I get back to my senses, my remorse for the incident is so painful I would go on a depression stage for a spell.  This is the punishment.  It's self-realized.  The physical restraint can't be the punishment because it does not relate to the pain of punishment. 

 

Make sense?

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not arguing.  I'm simply explaning why I don't think the excommunication is the punishment.  The consequences of sin is the punishment.

 

We, as a church, do not have the authority for that kind of judgement.  That Priesthood Authority is reserved for Christ.  Therefore, we have no authority to punish somebody for sin.

 

Excommunication/putting in the corner/putting in jail are not logical equivalents.  Putting a kid in the corner and/or putting someone in jail is a punishment - it's what we judge is payment for bad behavior - depriving someone of what someone wants.  Putting a person in jail who wants to be in jail will not be a punishment.  We put them in jail because we know most, if not everybody, desires freedom.  I have a kid that has no problem with being the corner - he welcomes the corner.  So, I don't punish him by putting him in the corner.  I take away his toys instead.  This is not the same as excommunication - we don't excommunicate because we want to deprive somebody of what they want.  Even those who desire to leave the church can be excommunicated - this would then not be a punishment but a welcome relief for the transgressor.

 

I'll tell you something that is the logical equivalent to excommunication:  I've mentioned I go on a rage spell sometimes.  So, when I get on this craziness, my husband would sometimes physically restrain me.  When he is physically restraining me, he is not punishing me.  He is preventing me from hurting him, my children, or myself.  That's excommunication.  When I finally calm down and I get back to my senses, my remorse for the incident is so painful I would go on a depression stage for a spell.  This is the punishment.  It's self-realized.  The physical restraint can't be the punishment because it does not relate to the pain of punishment. 

 

Make sense?

 

This comes across as word play to me. Punishment is penalty for offense. The perception of the receiver doesn't come into the definition at all. And this: "We, as a church, do not have the authority for that kind of judgement." is inaccurate.

 

By way of not arguing the point further myself, please read THIS from the D&C student manual. It contains several quotes as to how this all works, the responsibilities and authorities of those who discipline, and clarifies things quite well. Note, also, the clear use of the terms "penalty" and "punish".

[Traveler]

Unless, of course, it IS, actually, a punishment. Utilizing the meaning of discipline as the positive enforcement of behavior (either by oneself or by another) would make little sense in the term "church discipline". A disciplinary court is ultimately held to determine guilt and pass sentence -- well qualifying the term as punishment. Being overly sensitive to the word "punishment" doesn't change the reality of what it is or is not. What you're saying would be like a parent arguing that they aren't punishing their children when they give them a time out. Uh....okay.... But yes they are.  Over-sensitivity to a word or concept does not negate that word or concept. And excommunication is, unquestionably, a punishment, regardless of whether people "feel" like it's a punishment or not. It simply is what it is. Yes, it should be done with love. Yes, it should be done for the betterment of the transgressor, the church, the congregation, etc. What excommunication does not do is " wipe an individual slate clean, to allow a reset and start over".  What it does do (among other things) is knock the transgressor over the head a bit to jolt them into a realization of the seriousness of what they have done. As a general rule, as you well know, excommunication is usually avoided whenever possible. In most cases other forms of discipline are proper. But there is a time and a place where excommunication becomes necessary. The most common is when the individual is defiant and unrepentant. Hence, the head-knocking.

 

Would you also contend that putting someone in jail is not a punishment because it is for their betterment, and for the safety of society and community? The fact that there are other, valid purposes for church discipline does not mean that it is not also a punishment.

 

There seems to be an underlying idea that thinking of excommunication as punishment is somehow damaging. As if this realization means there is less love involved or something. I reject that thinking. I also find it decisively harmful to allow those excommunicated to think that the purpose of their excommunication was to make them less accountable for their sins. In fact, this is practically opposite of the intent of church discipline. It is, rather, to show how serious, indeed, transgression is, and how accountable individuals are for their choices.

 

Excommunication is a threat...and a serious one. It is a temporal threat that stands proxy for an eternal one. It is a reminder that sin has consequence. It is, absolutely, a punishment.

 

I have said my peace and I do not wish to argue it further. I'm making a strong effort to not have the spirit of contention. So I will bow out of further "debate" on the matter, but do look forward to reading your responses.

 

Perhaps between you and me it is semantics.  I think of punishment as revenge or a matter of getting even - giving someone an extra dose of what they deserve.  I also do not think of justice as punishment even though we will sometimes say justice is its own punishment or reward.   There are consequences or results - I do not consider a result or a consequence a punishment.  To me punishment is something extra going out of one's way to bring about revenge beyond the consequence that must follow it's just course. 

 

In my thinking - there cannot be mercy in punishment and that punishment is counter to mercy.  To me punishment is a manufactured consequence.  "Manufactured consequence" being an obvious oxymoron.  To me there is agency and consequence - exercising of agency must according to justice always end in the exact same result.  If not then there is no justice nor is there agency.

 

Let me compare this to taking a test in college for a particular subject.  Punishment is - you failed to answer enough questions correctly so you not only fail the course but you are no longer considered worthy to continue with a college education.  I see excommunication as saying that someone answered too many questions incorrectly.  But what we are going to do is allow someone to start over and retake the particular class - their previous performance in the  class will not be held against them (no punishment).  Therefore they will not get any credit but be allowed to start over and if they pass the tests - answering the questions correctly their record will no longer show failure - if they drop out it is not because they were not given opportunity but rather chose to disassociate themselves with their studies.  They were not punished for not answering the questions correctly but given a chance to start over without extra punitive or additional requirements that anyone taking the course of study is not required to complete. 

 

Please note that when I said they have their slate wiped clean - I did not say they were forgiven - what I intended is that they do not have additional commandments or requirements.  Only that they do what they should have done in the first place.  To me punishment is something that must be completed - outside of the requirements of everybody working to accomplish the same thing.

 

I apologize if I have not explained this as well as I understand the principle.  Or if I have not understood you well enough in what you mean by punishment - thinking that you view punishment as a requirement beyond just consequence in a manner you really did not intend.

[faith4]

Pleas do not take this as criticism of you personally.  I do enjoy your input - especially because you bring things to the table differently than those things I usually consider - and I do not want to change that you see things differently than me but at the same time I also want to make certain things I understand as clear as possible. 

 

As best as I can determine the first commandment G-d gave to our very first parents was to be fruitful and to multiple and replenish the earth.  I believe that the way and means to be obedient to G-d and his commandment is to marry and have children.  Because of my belief in that G-d that gave that specific commandment - I personally believe that for my self or any one that respects that G-d that they will reject any teacher that refuses to respect that commandment and that G-d that gave that commandment.   In short I do not believe that one can devote themselves to the G-d that created Adam and Eve and commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth, through celibacy.  It is an obvious and blatant contradiction.  Or as Christ said - If you love me (G-d) keep my commandments.  Those that do not keep G-d's commandments do not love him.  The doctrine that anyone can devote themselves to G-d to any degree; by ignoring his first commandment ever given to man - have been deceived.

 

I do not take your beliefs to be a criticism, I also enjoy a good conversation in which differences in beliefs can be respectfully spoken of.  :) 

 

The very first command was indeed to be fruitful and multiply, although, in your belief, that was actually a command that could not be fulfilled unless they transgressed another command, which was to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  So in order to be blessed and respect Gods first command, they first had to disobey Him and introduce death and sin. 

 

Now, do you think Mother Theresa didn't respect God?  Should she have been rejected by the people she served b/c she didn't have children of her own?  And what about St. Maximilian Kolbe, who offered his life in exchange for another man, who had a family and who was chosen to die in a concentration camp by starvation?  I'm pretty sure somewhere in the Bible Jesus says that there is no greater love than to lay down ones life for a friend...well how about dying for a stranger b/c of your love for God?  And in the cell which St. Max was placed w/other men condemned to die by starvation, he taught and ministered to them w/o fear, showing them Gods love.  He didn't die of starvation however, one of the last men left alive in the cell, the nazi's killed him w/an injection of carbolic acid. And, how about the young missionaries serving in your church?  They devote 2 complete years to their work, and they aren't married w/children yet.  In fact, their personal life at home is strictly limited so that they can focus on their missionary work.  Is it an "obvious and blatant contradiction" for these missionaries to live celibate lives during this time?  I guess, according to your own statement, they can't possibly devote themselves completely to God during these two years, which require celibacy.       

 

Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander of the Seventy spoke of the importance of obeying the mission rules: “Mission rules are important in the same way commandments are important. We all need to keep them, understanding that they give us strength, direction, and limits. The smart missionary will learn the intent of the rules and make them work for him. Your mission is a time of discipline and single-minded focus." (in Conference Report, Oct. 1991, 59; or Ensign, Nov. 1991, 43).

 

Missionary Handbook:  "As your call letter states, you are expected to devote all your time and attention to serving the Lord, leaving behind all other personal affairs," the Missionary Handbook indicates. "Do not become preoccupied with communicating with family and friends."

 

Hmmmm...now imagine how wonderful it would be to devote your entire life to a life of discipline and the single-minded focus of serving God, however God so chooses.  It takes a humble heart and a strong will to say "yes" to God and live a life of celibacy.  "And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life."  Matt 19:29.   

 

"some [are celibate], because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever can accept this ought to accept it".  Matt 19:12

[Guest]

I do not take your beliefs to be a criticism, I also enjoy a good conversation in which differences in beliefs can be respectfully spoken of.   :)

 

The very first command was indeed to be fruitful and multiply, although, in your belief, that was actually a command that could not be fulfilled unless they transgressed another command, which was to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  So in order to be blessed and respect Gods first command, they first had to disobey Him and introduce death and sin. 

 

Now, do you think Mother Theresa didn't respect God?  Should she have been rejected by the people she served b/c she didn't have children of her own?  And what about St. Maximilian Kolbe, who offered his life in exchange for another man, who had a family and who was chosen to die in a concentration camp by starvation?  I'm pretty sure somewhere in the Bible Jesus says that there is no greater love than to lay down ones life for a friend...well how about dying for a stranger b/c of your love for God?  And in the cell which St. Max was placed w/other men condemned to die by starvation, he taught and ministered to them w/o fear, showing them Gods love.  He didn't die of starvation however, one of the last men left alive in the cell, the nazi's killed him w/an injection of carbolic acid. And, how about the young missionaries serving in your church?  They devote 2 complete years to their work, and they aren't married w/children yet.  In fact, their personal life at home is strictly limited so that they can focus on their missionary work.  Is it an "obvious and blatant contradiction" for these missionaries to live celibate lives during this time?  I guess, according to your own statement, they can't possibly devote themselves completely to God during these two years, which require celibacy.       

 

Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander of the Seventy spoke of the importance of obeying the mission rules: “Mission rules are important in the same way commandments are important. We all need to keep them, understanding that they give us strength, direction, and limits. The smart missionary will learn the intent of the rules and make them work for him. Your mission is a time of discipline and single-minded focus." (in Conference Report, Oct. 1991, 59; or Ensign, Nov. 1991, 43).

 

Missionary Handbook:  "As your call letter states, you are expected to devote all your time and attention to serving the Lord, leaving behind all other personal affairs," the Missionary Handbook indicates. "Do not become preoccupied with communicating with family and friends."

 

Hmmmm...now imagine how wonderful it would be to devote your entire life to a life of discipline and the single-minded focus of serving God, however God so chooses.  It takes a humble heart and a strong will to say "yes" to God and live a life of celibacy.  "And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life."  Matt 19:29.   

 

"some [are celibate], because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever can accept this ought to accept it".  Matt 19:12

 

Faith4, I don't think you're understanding what we're trying to say here.

 

First of all - we have a different understanding of marriage than you.  We believe that Marriage is Eternal just as Families are Eternal.  You believe that ALL Marriages end in death.   We believe that all marriages EXCEPT those sealed by proper riesthood authority end in death.   So, that difference, first and foremost, makes words we use (like marriage and family) mean different than your usage.

 

Mother Teresa - for a Catholic led an exemplary life.

 

If she was Mormon - she would lead the same exemplary life and have a family of her own.  There was nothing in Mother Teresa's circumstance preventing her from having her own family and still accomplishing the great many things she accomplished - except for the vow of celibacy she took at 18 as per Church policy.

 

LDS Missionaries come in many types - the 18-25 year olds who are single, the elderly empty nesters, and everything else in-between.  Each phase in life comes with their own sets of responsibilities - all honoring and glorifying God.  When a young man enters missionary service at 18, he cannot marry until he leaves the mission.  It is not that he is commanded not to marry - just not yet.  It is not that he is serving God fully at 18 and then not serving God fully when he gets married.  He is still serving God fully in all facets of life.

 

Unlike Catholics, LDS believe that marriage is an eternal covenant NECESSARY for exaltation.  But yes, marriage is not just an earthly institution - it is an eternal institution as Family is Eternal.  Therefore, there are those that may not have the opportunity to get married in this life out of no fault of their own (homosexuals who choose to be celibate is a good example, people who die before they get married is another, people who are looking but just can't find a person to marry is another) who are still serving God Fully as mentioned in Matthew 19:12.  They will have the opportunity to have eternal companions after death.

 

Therefore, in one's life - we glorify God in all manners of service - FULLY.  One cannot say - you must remain celibate to serve God fully.

 

Now, was Jesus Christ married?  Catholics believe, of course not!   LDS believe - we don't know.  Nothing in scripture says he is, nothing in scripture says he's not.  Did Jesus find an eternal companion after death?  Same answer - we don't know.  Nothing in scripture says yes or no.  But, we are clear that Jesus Christ never commanded his Apostles/Disciples not to marry - only that they leave their family behind while they serve - but that he commanded that we marry.

 

Hence, we believe  “Whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man”.  A church, therefore, cannot forbid man to marry and claim that it is for the purpose of glorifying God.  Because, Eternal Marriage is essential to Christian life.

[Traveler]

I do not take your beliefs to be a criticism, I also enjoy a good conversation in which differences in beliefs can be respectfully spoken of.   :)

 

The very first command was indeed to be fruitful and multiply, although, in your belief, that was actually a command that could not be fulfilled unless they transgressed another command, which was to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  So in order to be blessed and respect Gods first command, they first had to disobey Him and introduce death and sin. 

 

Now, do you think Mother Theresa didn't respect God?  Should she have been rejected by the people she served b/c she didn't have children of her own?  And what about St. Maximilian Kolbe, who offered his life in exchange for another man, who had a family and who was chosen to die in a concentration camp by starvation?  I'm pretty sure somewhere in the Bible Jesus says that there is no greater love than to lay down ones life for a friend...well how about dying for a stranger b/c of your love for God?  And in the cell which St. Max was placed w/other men condemned to die by starvation, he taught and ministered to them w/o fear, showing them Gods love.  He didn't die of starvation however, one of the last men left alive in the cell, the nazi's killed him w/an injection of carbolic acid. And, how about the young missionaries serving in your church?  They devote 2 complete years to their work, and they aren't married w/children yet.  In fact, their personal life at home is strictly limited so that they can focus on their missionary work.  Is it an "obvious and blatant contradiction" for these missionaries to live celibate lives during this time?  I guess, according to your own statement, they can't possibly devote themselves completely to God during these two years, which require celibacy.       

 

Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander of the Seventy spoke of the importance of obeying the mission rules: “Mission rules are important in the same way commandments are important. We all need to keep them, understanding that they give us strength, direction, and limits. The smart missionary will learn the intent of the rules and make them work for him. Your mission is a time of discipline and single-minded focus." (in Conference Report, Oct. 1991, 59; or Ensign, Nov. 1991, 43).

 

Missionary Handbook:  "As your call letter states, you are expected to devote all your time and attention to serving the Lord, leaving behind all other personal affairs," the Missionary Handbook indicates. "Do not become preoccupied with communicating with family and friends."

 

Hmmmm...now imagine how wonderful it would be to devote your entire life to a life of discipline and the single-minded focus of serving God, however God so chooses.  It takes a humble heart and a strong will to say "yes" to God and live a life of celibacy.  "And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life."  Matt 19:29.   

 

"some [are celibate], because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever can accept this ought to accept it".  Matt 19:12

 

As a young man I served both as an LDS missionary and in the military during the Vietnam conflict.   Both were acts of service and I consider both to be out of balance (lacking to fulfill all G-d's commandments) with the overall eternal purpose that G-d created man.  In addition I have met many individuals that have committed themselves to incredible acts of services for noble causes.  However, there is something that I believe to be more important in understanding G-d.  Anatess addressed much in this regard.  However I believe that the prophet Samuel said this better than I or Anatess may express:

 

 

And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

 

It is not my intent to take away any "good" that anyone has done in service of others like Mother Theresa, St. Maximilian Kolbe, Mahatma Gandhi or even Siddhartha Gautama (more famously known as Buddha).  G-d  created many good people that we can all learn from and enrich our lives as we experience our temporary mortality.   But there is a difference between recognizing and honoring the good in other humans (which we ought to and should do) and in being obedient to the voice of the L-rd.  I do not believe it necessary to neglect one in order to obey the other.   I am concerned to you deeply believe differently or at least appear so to me.

 

But there is something even more important - regardless of our religion and personal beliefs - every individual will someday stand in the presents of G-d and make an account for our life.  One thing I believe you and I must account for is what we told others concerning G-d and his commandments to us and them.  I am sorry but I believe that you error in testifying that celebicy is a commandment from G-d of greater service to him than marriage.   I honestly believe that you as a mother do greater things of eternal consequence in the eyes of G-d than Mother Theresa - especially according to his first commandment to mankind.  And if you do not believe that - I have great concern for you soul when you stand before G-d and account for your choice to be a mother - believing in you heart that other things are more pleasing and acceptable to G-d.

[Guest]

But there is something even more important - regardless of our religion and personal beliefs - every individual will someday stand in the presents of G-d and make an account for our life.  One thing I believe you and I must account for is what we told others concerning G-d and his commandments to us and them.  I am sorry but I believe that you error in testifying that celebicy is a commandment from G-d of greater service to him than marriage.   I honestly believe that you as a mother do greater things of eternal consequence in the eyes of G-d than Mother Theresa - especially according to his first commandment to mankind.  And if you do not believe that - I have great concern for you soul when you stand before G-d and account for your choice to be a mother - believing in you heart that other things are more pleasing and acceptable to G-d.

 

Traveler, faith4 does not say that becoming a nun as Mother Teresa is more pleasing than Motherhood.  In Catholicism, Marriage and Holy Orders are equally desirable to God just like motherhood and becoming a nun (vow of celibacy as well) are equally desirable.  One is not more than the other.  I actually agree with the Catholics on this... except, that I believe that one does not have to sacrifice marriage to be a bride of Christ... and not only that, I believe it is against God's will to demand that one sacrifice marriage to be a bride of Christ.

[Traveler]

Traveler, faith4 does not say that becoming a nun as Mother Teresa is more pleasing than Motherhood.  In Catholicism, Marriage and Holy Orders are equally desirable to God just like motherhood and becoming a nun (vow of celibacy as well) are equally desirable.  One is not more than the other.  I actually agree with the Catholics on this... except, that I believe that one does not have to sacrifice marriage to be a bride of Christ... and not only that, I believe it is against God's will to demand that one sacrifice marriage to be a bride of Christ.

Thanks for your help.  What concerns me is that despite what Jesus taught concerning serving two masters there is logical belief that G-d makes himself into two masters for his followers to believe - one being a G-d that ordained marriage the other being a G-d that ordained celibacy.

[faith4]

Faith4, I don't think you're understanding what we're trying to say here.  From your response, I don't think you understand what I'm saying either, but that is understandable, since we belong to different faiths and have different beliefs.  As a Catholic, I am merely responding to your accusation that celibacy is a contradiction, and somehow Catholics, therefore, don't love family life b/c of it.  I'm not trying to disprove your beliefs.  I expect that you would do the same if our positions were swapped.    

 

LDS Missionaries come in many types - the 18-25 year olds who are single, the elderly empty nesters, and everything else in-between.  Each phase in life comes with their own sets of responsibilities - all honoring and glorifying God. Then we agree. When a young man enters missionary service at 18, he cannot marry until he leaves the mission.  It is not that he is commanded not to marry - just not yet.  It is not that he is serving God fully at 18 and then not serving God fully when he gets married.  He is still serving God fully in all facets of life.  Again, we agree.  As a mother, I am fully serving God in the vocation He has chosen for me. 

 

Therefore, in one's life - we glorify God in all manners of service - FULLY.  EXACTLY...  One cannot say - you must remain celibate to serve God fully. No one in the Catholic Church says that, that is your own churchs misunderstanding.  Again, I can serve God WHOLLY in my vocation as a mother, as a man can as a father, brother, son, uncle etc.  Anyone, can WHOLLY serve God in their life, with humility, joy and love.  A Priest or nun who gives up marriage and children to serve God, do so WHOLLY in their vocation.  The fact that they don't have children to provide for, gives them more time to serve their parishioners.  I understand you don't believe this and can't comprehend it due to your beliefs, but nevertheless, it does not make a celibate life a contradiction.  A person who is half-blind to a belief cannot lead others to a clearer understanding, since they themselves cannot comprehend it.  A priest or nun can serve their church family and neighbors with just as much love, humility and joy as a father can his own children, and just as a missionary can during his 2 years.     

 

Hence, we believe  “Whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man”.  A church, therefore, cannot forbid man to marry and claim that it is for the purpose of glorifying God.  Because, Eternal Marriage is essential to Christian life.  The Church does not forbid a man to marry.  Any man who wishes to enter the seminary and become a priest, does so on his own account, he is not forced.  He freely chooses a life of celibacy.  Same with the women, they choose this.  During seminary, a man has several years to discern if this is something he wants, if this is truly his vocation.  He can always leave seminary, he is not forced to become a priest.  After years of discernment, a man or woman take their final vows, but again, they are not forced. 

 

I have already cited biblical verses which do uphold that this is a good and acceptable teaching.     

[faith4]

As a young man I served both as an LDS missionary and in the military during the Vietnam conflict. Thank you for your service!!!  Both were acts of service and I consider both to be out of balance (lacking to fulfill all G-d's commandments) with the overall eternal purpose that G-d created man. Your vocation is fatherhood.  In addition I have met many individuals that have committed themselves to incredible acts of services for noble causes.  However, there is something that I believe to be more important in understanding G-d.  Anatess addressed much in this regard.  However I believe that the prophet Samuel said this better than I or Anatess may express:

 

We fully agree with this verse :)  Obey God in all He asks of us.  After all, your church doesn't deny or question that God told Smith to practice polygamy, it was made acceptable in order to fulfill a new covenant.  You can so easily accept more than one wife as a teaching, and not celibacy?  What about the polyandry Smith also practiced, yet wasn't a command from God? 

 

It is not my intent to take away any "good" that anyone has done in service of others like Mother Theresa, St. Maximilian Kolbe, Mahatma Gandhi or even Siddhartha Gautama (more famously known as Buddha).  G-d  created many good people that we can all learn from and enrich our lives as we experience our temporary mortality.   But there is a difference between recognizing and honoring the good in other humans (which we ought to and should do) and in being obedient to the voice of the L-rd. And yet you do not recognize the good which comes from celibacy, and how a man who is called to the priesthood (or a woman) is being obedient to the voice of the Lord.  St. Faustina, a mystic and prophet, is one example of a person who was called to this way of life.  She wasn't forced and she didn't have to obey, but her great love for Jesus (who appeared to her many many times) caused her to do His Will, and she received many graces for her obedience and love for God.  I do not believe it necessary to neglect one in order to obey the other.   I am concerned to you deeply believe differently or at least appear so to me.

 

But there is something even more important - regardless of our religion and personal beliefs - every individual will someday stand in the presents of G-d and make an account for our life.  One thing I believe you and I must account for is what we told others concerning G-d and his commandments to us and them.  I am sorry but I believe that you error in testifying that celebicy is a commandment from G-d of greater service to him than marriage. It is not greater, just another way to serve Him.  I honestly believe that you as a mother do greater things of eternal consequence in the eyes of G-d than Mother Theresa - especially according to his first commandment to mankind.  And if you do not believe that - I have great concern for you soul when you stand before G-d and account for your choice to be a mother - believing in you heart that other things are more pleasing and acceptable to G-d.  Mother Theresa was called to serve the poorest of the poor, and I am called to be a mother and wife, no vocation is greater than another, what pleases God our humility and love for Him.  She pleased God with her "yes", and I hope to continue to please God with my "yes".

 

Thank you for your concern, Traveler, but I do not believe in my heart that other things are more pleasing to God, we are each called for a specific purpose, and God wishes us to be like children, trusting in His Divine and Holy Will.  Just as each body part has a specific purpose, so do we, each called to fulfill a purpose.  I'm sure this is something you also believe.  But, how can I be like a child for Him if I can't trust in His written word, His Divine guidance?  (Going back to the OP).  But I know that I can.  I trust Him with my whole heart, for He has revealed Himself to me in many ways since I was a child, most of the time unexpected, only to be seen in hindsight.  Other times, it was very obvious!!!  Everything He has done for me has helped me become who I am today, and I know that I can trust in Him, in everything.  Do not worry for my soul, for that would be judging, but please pray for me and I will pray for you :)