[Cyber Ward] Sunday School Gospel Doctrine: Lesson 20
Craig Olson
lessons for real people. So here's one to start off with. As Peggy commented,
quite often even a well prepared gospel post generates some thought but not
necessarily a great deal of posted replies. If possible, I would appreciate
it if you find some value in this lesson to send in a reply to this post
with some comments on the lesson, so others who might think about posting
would have some encouragement to do so.
Also, I would consider it a personal favor if we could keep strong opinions
out of this and any similar [Cyber Ward] threads. These are for the fellowship
of the saints, not for winning debate points. Let me offer the following
quote from Benjamin Franklin as a style guide to consider for that fellowship:
I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradictions to the sentiments
of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbade myself
the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a
fixed opinion, such as "certainly", "undoubtedly", etc. I adopted
instead of them "I conceive", "I apprehend", or "I imagine" a thing to
be so or so; or "so it appears to me at present".
When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself
the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing him
immediately some absurdity in his proposition. In answering I began by
observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be
right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to me some
difference, etc.
I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the
conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in
which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less
contradiction. I had less mortification when I was found to be in the
wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes
and join with me when I happened to be in the right.
-Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
I'd like to welcome you all out to Sunday School this morning/afternoon/evening.
Dealing with the practicalities of our distributed nature, we'll skip the
Opening Prayer and jump right into the lesson.
Today's lesson is Lesson 20 in this year's course of study for the Gospel
Doctrine class. Lesson 20 is titles The Kingdoms of Glory.
If you want to prepare yourself with a little individual study, read
Sections 76, 131 and 137 and verses 19-24 in Section 132.
I am not going to get all the way through this lesson in this one post,
but I am going to start the discussion with the kingdoms as described in
section 76.
Please read the introduction to Section 76 to get the background of this
section. Joseph Smith was just returning from one of his missions (he
went on several missions during his life, as far away as Canada, and
this revelation came shortly after one of them), and he had resumed the
"translation" of the New Testament when questions arose that prompted
the revelations that were recorded as this section.
The introduction includes some comments about an insight gained during the
NT work: "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that
many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the
Bible, or lost before it was compiled." Does anyone else find it significant
that this explanation includes the phrase 'or lost before it was compiled'?
I think, in part because of the influence of AoF 8, church members tend to
put an emphasis on the "taken from the Bible" part and not enough on the
alternative explanation.
This section of the Doctrine and Covenants is called "The Vision" (though
it really contains six separate visions).
If we had been following the lessons in order, we would have learned last
week that there are really three phases to this existence of which we are
aware from our current mortal viewpoint: Pre-mortality, Mortality, and
Life after Death.
Who was the central figure in Pre-mortal life?
Who will be the central figure in our Life after Death?
Consider D&C 76:19-24. Who is the central figure of this revelation?
Who should be the central figure in your mortal life?
---------
We learn from Section 76 that there will be four basic divisions or
destinations after the Judgment. These are the Kingdoms of Glory:
Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial and the Kingdom of Darkness: Perdition.
Let's start at the lowest extreme and consider outer darkness. What do
we know about those who will inherit this kingdom?
Refer to Section 76:31. What do we know about those who qualify to become
Sons of Perdition? How many do you think there will be who receive this
lack of reward? Will you be able to count them on your fingers? Or will
there be dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Billions?
What does it take "know [the] power [of God], and have been made partakers
thereof"? Can a simple testimony that Jesus lives and is your Savior be
enough? Are all of us potential Sons [and Daughters, or is that possible?]
of Perdition, or only a select few?
My personal opinion is that it takes a great deal to fall this low. Joseph
Smith made a statement (which I don't have in front of me) in the context
of his remarks that all sins will be forgiven except sin against the Holy
Ghost, and that this sin requires that one have a sure knowledge Jesus as
the Christ and then turn completely from him, to see the sun shining and
yet deny that there is any light. I see this situation as similar to the
temptation of Christ, where one with a personal witness of Jesus (i.e., a
personal vision, visit, or some other undeniable experience) who then
decides that what Satan can offer has more value and who then begins to
work actively against God. [/opinion]
Now consider the Telestial Kingdom.
Could we have someone read D&C 76:102-103? Read loud enough that those
in the back can hear you.
Thank you. What do yo think it means that these people "will not be
gathered with the saints"? It could mean that there is going to be
a gathering of the saints, and Christ is not going to invite these low
types to join. Or does it mean that when Christ invites all to come
in to the gathering of the saints that these are the ones who choose
not to come, or who delay coming until they finish one more game of pool,
one more drink, one more sales presentation?
The Book of Mormon talks about the natural man being an enemy to God.
Is this the kingdom for those who see the natural man as their friend?
We also hear about weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth on one hand,
and we talk about these and being Kingdoms of Glory on the other. Is
it possible that the Telestial Kingdom could have both glory and eternal
reward _and_ bitter wailing too? Have you ever known a group of people
who delighted in complaining about their situation, who were so negative
they seemed to actually wallow in their misery rather than stand up and
so anything about it?
-------------
[more to follow in Part 2 ...]
Liz
response no later than Tuesday.
I'm not sure I'll be successful keeping my opinions at bay, however I'm not so
in love with them that I feel the need to win points. I've been known to make
attitude adjustments.(Really!)
Maybe your quote from Ben Franklin should be a periodic post.
As for the lesson, I enjoyed the way you wrote it.
Again, I'll have to do more preparation before I can give a more reasoned
response.
MaxLMore, who did not skip the opening prayer
Craig Olson
Continuing with our study of the Kingdoms of Glory, let's start with a
story.
[story mode=ON]
Stan, the nice man who lives a couple of blocks over from you, dies and
goes to [someplace]. Stan has led a good life, has been a good man, has
studied the Bible and come to a personal conviction that Jesus is the
Christ. He has accepted Christ as his Savior, not in some wordy, showy
way but in a personal, pragmatic way that Stan has carefully integrated
into the way he lived his life, worshiped God, and served others. At
some point [time being irrelevant] following his death, Stan finds
himself before a marvelous being of light who, without him saying
anything, Stan recognizes as the Lord. They have a warm and wonderful
conversation about Stan's life and, after some tears and some joyful
moments, they both agree that -- all in all -- Stan has had a good life,
and has earned his heavenly reward.
Stan steps through the gates and enters a realm of glory. There are
parks and streets and dwelling places in radiant, scintillating colors.
Paths gleam as if they were formed from beaten gold; gemstones line the
paths, sparkling in hues and shades that are beyond mortal description.
Ahead of Stan is a large, open air cathedral with a choir of thousands
singing hymns of praise to God in the highest. Though he has never
heard the song before, Stan finds he instinctively knows the words, can
anticipate the chord changes and harmonies. For the first time that he
can remember, he joins comepletly in the singing and joyously blends his
now perfected voice with the others, adding to the praise. Those around
him nod and smile in appreciation of his contribution.
Time passes, minutes or years, it just doesn't matter. Stan sees
another group of individuals seated on a low hill just beyond the
intersection of two paths. He leaves the choir and joins the group,
which is seated in a rough semi-circle. At the center of the circle sits
Jesus Christ. "Tell us about yourself," a red-haired girl seated in
front of Stan says to Jesus. Christ smiles and, even though he has been
asked this same question very often, answers with loving patience, "I am
Jesus Christ, the Eternal Father. Even the very Eternal Father of
heaven and earth, and creator of all things which in the were are are.
I am the beginning and the end, the first and the last. I am the Spirit
that lighted the souls of all mankind. I am he that ascended on high and
descended below all things that I might be in and through all things."
As Stan hears the words of the Savior, he feels his soul expand with
joy. These are the words he has longed to hear, the voice he has sought
to find, this is his God. A big guy with a crooked grin leans over to
Stan and says "We must be in Heaven, man." Stan, and all those sitting
near him, turn to the man that spoke and smile and nod agreement.
"Heaven," Stan thinks, "is everything I expected it to be."
[story mode=OFF]
And it is everything that Stan expected. He is dwelling with God, who
is the Eternal Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He has the chance to
worship God and to be in his presence. He is surrounded by people like
himself who gave themselves to their love of God as mortals and who now
serve him as immortals. He is saved, by grace, to a state of
everlasting glory. He has everything he ever wanted.
And he is located smack in the middle of the Terrestrial Kingdom.
Could someone read D&C 76:72-77? <listen closely, please>
Thank you. So who inherits the Terrestrial Kingdom?
There's a question in the back [by Oregon]: "Wait, this says those that
died without the law? Didn't Stan have some laws he was accountable
for?"
Good question, and not one I have a snappy answer for. The scripture
includes those you describe, but also includes honorable people who
accepted Christ but not the fulness of the gospel. I take that to mean
good people who came to testimony of Christ in this life or in the next
and who embraced all the concepts of Christianity that are commonly
accepted in the world today. But these individuals could not accept the
parts of the Gospel that they saw as needless additions, as pointless
ritual, as meaningless ordinances and valueless convenants. When told
that they could avail themselves of vicarious temple work that others
had performed in their name and on their behalf, they saw no reason to
accept them. they had reached Heaven, why need they look further?
Yes? You had your hand up?: "I don't get it. Those in the Terrestrial
Kingdom won't be in the presence of God, the Father -- only Jesus
Christ. How can you say it will be like Heaven?"
The answer, as I see it, is that the God they worship is Jesus Christ.
Who does Christ say he is in the scriptures? He says he is both the
Father and the Son. When Christ appears to an individual who worships
either the God of the Old Testament or the God of the New Testament
[after every knee has bowed and every tongue confessed that Jesus is the
Christ, meaning that even the Covenant People will understand the role
of Christ as the Messiah], they will see him as their God. The only
quibble I see is over the role of the Holy Ghost, but that can we worked
out as well. To non-LdS, the Holy Spirit is one member of the trinity,
and inseparable part of the being that created the earth and redeemed
the dead. LdS believe that one of the important aspects of Jesus Christ
is to act as a guide and a comfort in the form that the church calls the
"Light of Christ". It could be, in reality, that what non-LdS refer to
as the influence of the Holy Spirit could be the Light of Christ. This
would mean that every aspect of God-ness that Stan expected to see in
God, he sees when he looks at the immortal Christ.
Another question? Go ahead: "Not gonna work for me. My God is
uncreated, not some new-born spirit child of some resurrected man from
another planet."
Careful now, let's make sure we don't get too close to debate in this
thread. Still, you raise a good point. I think if Stan, while visiting
with Jesus Christ on the side of that hill in the Terrestrial Kingdom,
were to ask Christ if he was created, he would reply that he is from
everlasting to everlasting, that in the beginning there was God, and he
is God and was with God. I think Stan will find the answer he receives
matches what he believes.
What? I can hear some spluttering over on that side of the 'net. Do you
have a comment or question: "Yes, I do. Look at verse 79. If, and
that's a big if, I buy what you're saying about this seeming like
Heaven, how come it says the people who get there weren't valiant in the
testimony of Jesus? I see a lot of this Stan guy in me -- and let me
tell you, bub, I am darn valiant in my testimony!"
I am sure you are, and I would not want to have anyone infer that I am
impugning their valiant efforts. But what I see is that -- from an LdS
point of view -- the testimony of Jesus is the whole gospel. The Plan
of Salvation, the Council in Heaven, the Role of the Savior, the Need
for Ordinances, the Importance of Temples, the Everlasting Covenant of
Marriage, and so on. For those who choose to accept only portions of
this testimony, even when faced with the grand vision of all we can see
from the other side of the mortal veil, then this is a choice to be less
than completely valiant in that testimony. Something, perhaps pride,
perhaps hubris, perhaps stubbornness, keeps the larger principles
forever in the spiritual blind spot for these people.
But it really is okay, as they are where they want to be. Perhaps in a
fleeting, uncharitable minute one of them might look around and seeing
no faithful LdS in their midst think "So the Mormons were wrong after
all -- none of them are here!" But of course such thoughts don't belong
in the Terrestrial Kingdom.
[Serious mode=ON]
And, if you really think about it, such thoughts don't really belong in
this lesson either. Who is going to end up where? Is this poster going
to the Telestial Kingdom for being so clueless? Is that poster going to
the Celestial Kingdom for being so perfectly right all the time? Is
some other poster going to the regions of darkness for never posting
anything on topic?
It is none of our concern.
LdS, Critic, Bystander, Lurker: I can't read these verses and tell one
iota about where you might spend eternity.
What each of us can do, and I would encourage you to do, is to read the
verses of Section 76 that describe the Kingdoms and Glory and as you
read the descriptions of the people who may be found within each -- ask
yourself: Is this me? Is this what I am like? Does this describe how
God sees me? Is this how I want to be?
I would challenge each of you in class to take the assignment to do just
that, and see if you come up with any inspiration on things to change in
your life to improve your relationship with God and your fellow man.
And rather than take the risk of using his name without proper respect,
I will simply say that most of you know in whose name I leave this
challenge with you,
Amen.
JMO
> A big guy with a crooked grin leans over to Stan and says
> "We must be in Heaven, man." Stan, and all those sitting near
> him, turn to the man that spoke and smile and nod agreement.
Then someone shrieks "Nooooo!" and starts sobbing. Everyone runs
to his side to lend aid and comfort to the tortured man. Then the
almost valiant LDS man sobs something about the celestial kingdom
and that his' eternal progression has been damned. Confused and
bewildered, the terrestrial citizens turn back towards Jesus, and
ask Him about the sobbing man and words he has spoken.
It is hard to think that Stan will remain ignorant for long.
Craig Olson
Good point. However, consider a couple of things, not all of
which I personally hold as sacred, but I offer as mind mints.
First, how do you think Christ would answer that question in my parable
realm? Would a loving God who loves each one of us say "Oh, yeah, I
guess I didn't mention that there's another place that you all should
have gone to if you hadn't been so pig headed and slammed the doors
on the missionaries every time they tried to tell you about it and
now you're Dammed For All TIME! <cue the music> Ha! Ha! Ha!"?
Somehow I don't see it that way. Remember that this is a Kingdom
of Glory -- everlasting glory, nit just glory until you figure out
that there's a man behind the curtain, stage left.
If Christ were to explain that there are, indeed, many mansions and
since this is heaven, some people have decided to spend eternity doing
some things that they choose to do in their mansions.
Second, I don't think for a minute that anyone will be in the least
surprised at where they spend eternity. This isn't like a pop quiz
where you think you guessed right on a couple of the answers. This
is your whole doggone life weighed against a set of standards - and
everyone will know the standards with perfect clarity.
And then there is the one last wrinkle. Is it possible for a temple
endowed LdS member to get to the Terrestrial Kingdom? Isn't this a
rather lukewarm spot to be? And what happens to people that aren't
hot or cold? Perhaps, once you convenant in the temple to do those
extra credit questions, you either get an A or no credit. It may be
that LdS will either make the Celestial or Telestial Kingdom; there
may be no middle of the road space left over to drive on by then.
Craig
David Bowie
<snip most of an eminently print-outable lesson>
Yesterday we had this lesson in our GD class in my ward. It's a room with
really bad acoustics and too many people packed into too little space, so
there really isn't the sort of discussion i would like to have if i were the
teacher. (I'm not the teacher, though, so it's not that much of a stress.)
As a result, though, sometimes when comments get aired they can't be
discussed like they *should*. There were two such comments that fit in with
this reply, and i'd like to get other people's takes on them.
: We learn from Section 76 that there will be four basic
: divisions or destinations after the Judgment. These are
: the Kingdoms of Glory: Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial
: and the Kingdom of Darkness: Perdition.
: Let's start at the lowest extreme and consider outer
: darkness. What do we know about those who will inherit
: this kingdom?
: Refer to Section 76:31. What do we know about those who
: qualify to become Sons of Perdition? How many do you think
: there will be who receive this lack of reward? Will you be
: able to count them on your fingers? Or will there be dozens?
: Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Billions?
Comment 1: One person in the class said, as i've heard from elsewhere, that
only members of the church will be able to be condemned to Outer Darkness.
This seems kind of strange to me, if only because it would seem to require,
for the sake of symmetry, that only members of the church can make it to the
Celestial Kingdom, and we know from elsewhere in the canon that that's not
the case. What do other people think? Can those who aren't members of the
church fall to the level of Perdition? Those of you who have facility with
the various CD-ROMs out there, what have church leaders said on this
subject?
<snip>
: Now consider the Telestial Kingdom.
<snip>
: We also hear about weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth on
: one hand, and we talk about these and being Kingdoms of Glory
: on the other. Is it possible that the Telestial Kingdom
: could have both glory and eternal reward _and_ bitter wailing
: too?...
<blatant opinion>I see the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth as
being limited to the time before they are redeemed from the devil (D&C
76:85); after that, given the implications of D&C 88:33, i'd say that they
are removed from their pain and brought into joy and glory.</blatant
opinion>
<snip>
The other comment that came up in class yesterday that i'd like to raise
here: Someone said that "Joseph Smith said somewhere" that there will be
more individuals in the Telestial Kingdom than in any of the others. Given
D&C 137:10 and the historical rates of infant and child mortality i rather
doubt that, but does anyone out there know where the claim comes from? Did
Joseph Smith actually say such a thing? If not, did another church leader?
What has been said on the relative number of individuals who will be
consigned to each kingdom?
David, who finds the concept of rulership in D&C sec. 76 fascinating
--
David Bowie Department of English
Assistant Professor Brigham Young University
db....@pmpkn.net http://humanities.byu.edu/faculty/bowied
The opinions stated here are not necessarily those of my employer
JMO
> JMO wrote:
> > It is hard to think that Stan will remain ignorant for long.
>
> Good point. However, consider a couple of things, not all of
> which I personally hold as sacred, but I offer as mind mints.
>
> First, how do you think Christ would answer that question in
> my parable realm?
I don't know. The point was for you to consider the plausibility
of the story.
I have heard this story before. Very good people who end up in
the terrestrial kingdom and love every minute of it because they
have received exactly what they expected to receive. They have
made it to their heaven, totally ignorant of their damned condition.
(a.k.a. ignorance is bliss.)
Could this story even happen in the MSOT? In the MSOT, will not the
veil be removed from these people's minds? Won't they remember the
preexistence, the plan, choosing sides in the battle in heaven, and
their Father & Mother? The second they arrive in the terrestrial
kingdom, won't they realize that they have failed to make it home?
I think the real question is, who is this story suppose to pacify
and why is it being told?
John Johnson
"David Bowie" <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote in message
news:L5uX6.90318$jN1.2...@news.easynews.com...
> "Craig Olson" <cr...@olSsoPnhAomMe.com> wrote...
>
> <snip most of an eminently print-outable lesson>
<snip>
> Comment 1: Can those who aren't members of the
> church fall to the level of Perdition?
I'd think so.
The requirement for becoming a "son of perdition" isn't membership in the
Church, it's sinning against great truth and knowledge. The Church teaches
that all men are able to receive revelation, so I can think of no good
reason why somebody else couldn't fall to the level of perdition.
>Those of you who have facility with
> the various CD-ROMs out there, what have church leaders said on this
> subject?
No CD-ROM, but from the church website, here's a couple of quotes that could
go either way:
Joseph Smith, from the King Follet discourse:
"All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for
Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to
commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the
heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man
has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has
got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny
Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the
plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time
he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Joseph F. Smith also said:
"If any people on earth are capable of committing the unpardonable sin, you
will find them among those who have, or will, come to a knowledge of the
truth. . You and I have received the light. We have received the Holy
Priesthood. We have received the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and have been
brought from death unto life. Therefore, we are now on very safe or on
dangerous ground,-dangerous if we are trifling with these sacred things that
have been committed to our care. Hence I warn you, my brethren and sisters,
especially my brethren, against trifling with your [priesthood]. . If you
do, as God lives He will withdraw His Spirit from you, and the time will
come when you will be found kicking against the light and knowledge which
you have received, and you may become sons of perdition. Therefore, you had
better beware lest the second death shall be passed upon you. "
It's not clear whether you need to be a member of the Church to be able to
commit the unpardonable sin. What *is* clear is that you must have received
great light and knowledge and then turn around and deny that, to the point
that you actively fight against it.
--
John Johnson
"A cry in the dark . . ."
http://johnajohnson.diaryland.com
John Johnson
"Craig Olson" <cr...@olSsoPnhAomMe.com> wrote in message
news:2ZeX6.66416$jN1.1...@news.easynews.com...
<snip story and rest of lesson>
> I would challenge each of you in class to take the assignment to do just
> that, and see if you come up with any inspiration on things to change in
> your life to improve your relationship with God and your fellow man.
I know for myself, that I think I may be a bit more like Stan than I would
like. I do have a testimony of Christ and the Savior, but am I valiant in
that testimony? Remember, the parable of the ten virgins is directed towards
members of the Church, and I think that a great many of us may be left
wondering what happened.
It takes a lot of work to gain exaltation. My mission president used to
classify the CK as "The kingdom of sacrifice and obedience," while the
Terestial is "the kingdom of law and order".
I think these classifications make a great deal of sense. It will take
incredible scracifice and obedience to achieve salvation, anything else
would be a mockery of the Atonement. I seem to remember a quote from Joseph
Smith, who in talking to the Brethren said something like "Brethren, the
Lord will reach into your hearts and twist your very heartstrings,"
essentially saying that each of us must face our own, personal, Gethsmane. I
believe that is what is required to enter the Celestial Kingdom.
John Johnson
"Craig Olson" <cr...@olSsoPnhAomMe.com> wrote in message
> Please read the introduction to Section 76 to get the background of this
> section. Joseph Smith was just returning from one of his missions (he
> went on several missions during his life, as far away as Canada, and
> this revelation came shortly after one of them), and he had resumed the
> "translation" of the New Testament when questions arose that prompted
> the revelations that were recorded as this section.
One of the things I thought was interesting about this account is a comment
made in verse 18:
"Now this caused us to marvel, for it was given unto us by the Spirit,"
commenting on Joseph and Sidney's meditation on John 5:29.
Does the Spirit then cause a person to ponder and meditate, thus opening
them up to more light and knowledge? I was always under the impression that
we sat and pondered, and *then* the Spirit enlightened our understanding,
but apparently it can work the other way too; the Spirit can cause us to
ponder, which will put us in the right frame of mind for additional light
and knowledge.
Just thought I'd toss that in the mix.
John Johnson
"Craig Olson" <cr...@olSsoPnhAomMe.com> wrote in message
news:tS6X6.54191$jN1.1...@news.easynews.com...
> I'd like to welcome you all out to Sunday School this
morning/afternoon/evening.
> Dealing with the practicalities of our distributed nature, we'll skip the
> Opening Prayer and jump right into the lesson.
What? No Opening Hymn either?
I think "If You Could Hie To Kolob", would be rather appropiate, considering
the subject material of the lesson.
> If you want to prepare yourself with a little individual study, read
> Sections 76, 131 and 137 and verses 19-24 in Section 132.
>
> I am not going to get all the way through this lesson in this one post,
> but I am going to start the discussion with the kingdoms as described in
> section 76.
> The introduction includes some comments about an insight gained during the
> NT work: "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent
that
> many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from
the
> Bible, or lost before it was compiled." Does anyone else find it
significant
> that this explanation includes the phrase 'or lost before it was
compiled'?
> I think, in part because of the influence of AoF 8, church members tend to
> put an emphasis on the "taken from the Bible" part and not enough on the
> alternative explanation.
With the discovery of other manuscripts, I think this comment is important.
> This section of the Doctrine and Covenants is called "The Vision" (though
> it really contains six separate visions).
> If we had been following the lessons in order, we would have learned last
> week that there are really three phases to this existence of which we are
> aware from our current mortal viewpoint: Pre-mortality, Mortality, and
> Life after Death.
> Who was the central figure in Pre-mortal life?
Christ.
> Who will be the central figure in our Life after Death?
Christ.
> Consider D&C 76:19-24. Who is the central figure of this revelation?
Christ.
> Who should be the central figure in your mortal life?
Christ should be the central figure in our lives. As verse 24 points out
"That by him, and through him, and of him the worlds are, and were created,
and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters of God."
> ---------
>
> We learn from Section 76 that there will be four basic divisions or
> destinations after the Judgment. These are the Kingdoms of Glory:
> Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial and the Kingdom of Darkness: Perdition.
> Let's start at the lowest extreme and consider outer darkness. What do
> we know about those who will inherit this kingdom?
> What does it take "know [the] power [of God], and have been made partakers
> thereof"? Can a simple testimony that Jesus lives and is your Savior be
> enough?
I guess it would depend on the power of that testimony wouldn't it? I don't
think that a person needs to actually see God or Jesus Christ and then rebel
to end up in perdition. I'm reminded of what Bruce R. McConkie said in
April, 1985 conference about the testimony of the Holy Ghost.
"In speaking of these wondrous things I shall use my own words, though you
may think they are the words of scripture, words spoken by other Apostles
and prophets.
True it is they were first proclaimed by others, but they are now mine, for
the Holy Spirit of God has borne witness to me that they are true, and it is
now as though the Lord had revealed them to me in the first instance. I have
thereby heard his voice and know his word."
It seems that Elder McConkie was of the opinion that the testimony of the
Holy Ghost was enough to testify that the Lord had revealed it to him in the
"first instance."
> Are all of us potential Sons [and Daughters, or is that possible?]
> of Perdition, or only a select few?
If becoming a son or daughter of perdition is conditioned on your knowledge,
then I suspect that we all have that potential, because we can all receive
that kind of knowlege.
> My personal opinion is that it takes a great deal to fall this low. Joseph
> Smith made a statement (which I don't have in front of me) in the context
> of his remarks that all sins will be forgiven except sin against the Holy
> Ghost, and that this sin requires that one have a sure knowledge Jesus as
> the Christ and then turn completely from him, to see the sun shining and
> yet deny that there is any light. I see this situation as similar to the
> temptation of Christ, where one with a personal witness of Jesus (i.e., a
> personal vision, visit, or some other undeniable experience) who then
> decides that what Satan can offer has more value and who then begins to
> work actively against God. [/opinion]
I don't necessarily agree with this statement, but I've adressed it above.
I think that a person can have such a strong testimony borne of the Holy
Ghost, that when (or if) they do sin against that testimony they qualify as
sons of perdition.
> Now consider the Telestial Kingdom.
>
> Could we have someone read D&C 76:102-103? Read loud enough that those
> in the back can hear you.
> What do yo think it means that these people "will not be
> gathered with the saints"? It could mean that there is going to be
> a gathering of the saints, and Christ is not going to invite these low
> types to join. Or does it mean that when Christ invites all to come
> in to the gathering of the saints that these are the ones who choose
> not to come, or who delay coming until they finish one more game of pool,
> one more drink, one more sales presentation?
I imagine it'll be the latter, since Christ has specifically invited all to
join him at the feast. Of course, the verses describing that could simply be
referring to partaking the gospel on the earth, and not the final reward . .
.
> The Book of Mormon talks about the natural man being an enemy to God.
> Is this the kingdom for those who see the natural man as their friend?
Makes sense to me.
Craig Olson
> Craig Olson wrote:
<snip>
> > First, how do you think Christ would answer that question in
> > my parable realm?
>
> I don't know. The point was for you to consider the plausibility
> of the story.
The main point that I consider outside the realm is that someone would
suddenly discover that their eternal reward is something other than
they thought it was.
Do you think people will be tricked or duped into accepting some
eternal destination? I don't.
> I have heard this story before. Very good people who end up in
> the terrestrial kingdom and love every minute of it because they
> have received exactly what they expected to receive.
Just goes to show that the Greeks were right: every story line that
could every be used has already been used. I cut my parable from
whole cloth; I had never considered how the situation would look through
other eyes until I started working on this lesson.
> They have
> made it to their heaven, totally ignorant of their damned condition.
> (a.k.a. ignorance is bliss.)
You see, this is where you and I are going to disagree on terminology.
I think [and the law and the prophets seem to back me up on this] that
there will be only one group of damned individuals: those that dwell in
Perdition.
For them, it would be better if they had not been born. These individuals
will have been mortal, had temples of flesh, known pleasure, known pain,
and -- most important of all -- known God, known the plan of salvation,
and known without a doubt the richness of the potential eternal reward
awaiting them. They will be surrounded by Satan and those willfully
ignorant spirits who thought to overthrow God. This group of spirits
will never have tasted physical reality, so they are going to be just as
miserable as they now are. The damned who deny Christ in this life will
be far worse off than the minions around them, as they will tangibly know
what they had within their grasp and discarded.
That is what a damned condition is like.
Will those individuals God chooses to reward in a kingdom of glory feel
damned? God forbid.
I trust in God, I believe in Christ, with their surpassing understanding
of man, mortality and immortality that when God tells me that these will be
rewards, that these will be glorious, that these will be Heaven that God has
taken all things into consideration in constructing our eternal homes.
Rather than "sob[bing] something about the celestial kingdom and that his
eternal progression has been damned", I see the individual in your extension
to the story weeping with gratitude for the grace God has shown to him.
> Could this story even happen in the MSOT? In the MSOT, will not the
> veil be removed from these people's minds? Won't they remember the
> preexistence, the plan, choosing sides in the battle in heaven, and
> their Father & Mother?
Won't they also remember the eternal scope and depth of the plan, and
the reason that all creation works in harmony for the glory of God? Do
you really think that after the veil is removed, the gospel grokked,
the entire span of existence is laid bare from eternity to eternity that
any one of the redeemed, who has been purchased by the blood of the Lamb
is going say: "Enough about you, now -- Let's pay some attention to *me*!
> The second they arrive in the terrestrial kingdom, won't they realize
> that they have failed to make it home?
(a) I think they will know long before they arrive, that they have
developed a terrestrial pattern of belief and adherence to plan.
(b) I continue to rely upon agency as the methodology of God; I think
the reason that they "arrive" in the terrestrial kingdom is that
it will be the place that they choose to be.
> I think the real question is, who is this story suppose to pacify
> and why is it being told?
I hadn't intended it to pacify anyone. This is a [Cyber Ward] thread
where we are conducting a regularly scheduled meeting of the saints who
read this newsgroup. I don't think they need pacification, unless they
start to get fussy.
The story is being told to shovel a glimpse into the ditch of what the
degrees of glory might mean. I find that these lessons too often slide
off into discussions of who gets to go where and who doesn't. What the
story attempted to do was show that we need to adjust out perception of
exactly the "damned terrestrial dwellers" issue that you brought up.
Questions for thought:
Will dwellers in the Terrestrial Kingdom will be unhappy with their lot,
will see themselves as damned?
If they will, wouldn't those in the lower 2/3s of the Celestial Kingdom
also have a reason to grumble? Won't they, day-after-day, have to look
at those in the top third and rage against the Deus ex Machina that put
them down below the glory they coulda, woulda, shoulda had?
What about the lowest of the low? Those untouchables down yonder in the
Telestial Kingdom? Are they also wishing they could curse God and die?
Doesn't this create a whole new problem with God's shortsightedness? How
could He be so silly as to think anyone would be happy with anything but
the highest of the highest, the creme de la creme, the top of the pops?
While debates have come and gone over the Problem of Evil, doesn't this
raise a whole new Problem of Damnation that takes precedence (at least
alphabetically) over the POE?
Ann Porter
news:POAX6.99753$jN1.2...@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Craig Olson" <cr...@olSsoPnhAomMe.com> wrote in message
> news:tS6X6.54191$jN1.1...@news.easynews.com...
>
> > I'd like to welcome you all out to Sunday School this
> morning/afternoon/evening.
> > Dealing with the practicalities of our distributed nature, we'll skip
> > the Opening Prayer and jump right into the lesson.
>
> What? No Opening Hymn either?
>
> I think "If You Could Hie To Kolob", would be rather appropiate,
> considering the subject material of the lesson.
Only if we have a string quartet play it, and nobody sings along. "There is
no end to...." indeed.
This is on my list of 10 least favorite hymns.
If you sing it, I'll roll my eyes and say something rude.
Best,
Ann
Craig Olson
<snip>
> It takes a lot of work to gain exaltation. My mission president used to
> classify the CK as "The kingdom of sacrifice and obedience," while the
> Terestial is "the kingdom of law and order".
>
> I think these classifications make a great deal of sense. It will take
> incredible scracifice and obedience to achieve salvation, anything else
> would be a mockery of the Atonement. I seem to remember a quote from Joseph
> Smith, who in talking to the Brethren said something like "Brethren, the
> Lord will reach into your hearts and twist your very heartstrings,"
> essentially saying that each of us must face our own, personal, Gethsmane. I
> believe that is what is required to enter the Celestial Kingdom.
I this is exactly right. I think we will have to reach a point in our
personal relationship with God where we have to take ourselves to the
next level. I had a Bishop that talked about this a series of giant
stair steps. We cruise along the tread, making great "progress",
perhaps strolling, perhaps jogging or riding on a bike, maybe even
zipping along in a sports car with the wind in our hair when out of
nowhere _*wham!*_ we hit the riser.
To progress, we've got to get up this wall. But to do so means changing
our mode of transportation. We've got to leave the bike or the car behind,
no matter how nice they were, and start getting up that wall. In most (all?)
cases, the only way we will ever get up to the next level is through God
lifting us up. Each time we move up a level, we've got to go through the
process of setting ourselves right with God and seeing what he needs from
us to make the transition.
I like the analogy, and know that it seems to fit a lot of my
experiences.
I suspect that each of us will face one (or more) challenge that feels
like a personl Gethsemane; where we will struggle so hard that we wish
that this cup would be taken from us. Perhaps at some point we will all
be able to take the bitter cup, perhaps at some point we will all fail at
least once and have to rely upon grace to carry us past that test. But
tested we all will be, in one form or another.
Craig
"If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?
And if I am only for myself, then what am I?
And if not now, when?" -- Rabbi Hillel
Craig Olson
>
> "Craig Olson" <cr...@olSsoPnhAomMe.com> wrote...
<snip>
> As a result, though, sometimes when comments get aired they can't be
> discussed like they *should*. There were two such comments that fit in with
> this reply, and i'd like to get other people's takes on them.
I know there are times that people even in our ward (which is pretty open
and supports free flowing discussions) will sit and talk after the lesson
for a few minutes sharing ideas they didn't want to bring up in class.
Maybe, if this [Cyber Ward] experience continues to work, this could be a
forum for those types of comments and types of folks to find some space.
<snip>
> Comment 1: One person in the class said, as i've heard from elsewhere, that
> only members of the church will be able to be condemned to Outer Darkness.
> This seems kind of strange to me, if only because it would seem to require,
> for the sake of symmetry, that only members of the church can make it to the
> Celestial Kingdom, and we know from elsewhere in the canon that that's not
> the case. What do other people think? Can those who aren't members of the
> church fall to the level of Perdition? Those of you who have facility with
> the various CD-ROMs out there, what have church leaders said on this
> subject?
First, of course, I have to have my normal allergic reaction to any narrow
interpretation of "member of the church". OT1H, if member is defined as
one-who-is-baptised then [with few exceptions, perhaps] all will be members
at some point in the vicarious scheme of things. OTOH, if "member" means
LdS then this is plain silly as Peter and Paul would be non-members. On the
gripping hand, if "member" means beliver-in-Christ then every soul will
qualify as every tongue will bow and knee confess or something like that.
So talk about "members of the church" without better qualification really
is noise once you move into the realm of Judgement and Heaven (or...).
If we mean the say "only people who have accepted temple covenants", then we
are at least making some reasonable distinction. Okay, allergic rant done.
Second, I would have to say that what we know from canon and discussion is
that you have to have an undeniable personal testimony of Christ and then
deny it to be relegated to Outer Darkness. Does this mean you need to see
God face-to-face, as did Moses? That would seem to qualify. Does it mean
any one of us who has (at one time or another) felt the power of the Holy
Ghost testify to them of the truthfulness of some precept or another? That
might qualify, though I would deny it. [Ooops! Hope that didn't just put
me over the edge.]
I don't think you need to be a member of any organized religion [Will Rogers'
comments about being a democrat comes to mind here] to be eligible for
Outer Darkness. I don't think you need to have been to the temple. I
think you need to be a witness of [for?] Christ who then turns to work
against all things Christ-like. But I don't have any basis in CD-ROM
literature to support that.
> <snip>
>
> : Now consider the Telestial Kingdom.
>
> <snip>
>
> : We also hear about weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth on
> : one hand, and we talk about these and being Kingdoms of Glory
> : on the other. Is it possible that the Telestial Kingdom
> : could have both glory and eternal reward _and_ bitter wailing
> : too?...
>
> <blatant opinion>I see the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth as
> being limited to the time before they are redeemed from the devil (D&C
> 76:85); after that, given the implications of D&C 88:33, i'd say that they
> are removed from their pain and brought into joy and glory.</blatant
> opinion>
I'm with you there. I think the lamantations will take place during the
period that follows death and preceeds reward. I do not see any reason
to gripe after that.
> The other comment that came up in class yesterday that i'd like to raise
> here: Someone said that "Joseph Smith said somewhere" that there will be
> more individuals in the Telestial Kingdom than in any of the others. Given
> D&C 137:10 and the historical rates of infant and child mortality i rather
> doubt that, but does anyone out there know where the claim comes from? Did
> Joseph Smith actually say such a thing? If not, did another church leader?
> What has been said on the relative number of individuals who will be
> consigned to each kingdom?
I have never seen such, and would find it difficult to understand. I have
heard speculation about the numbers, but the basis of some of these seem
to be "But there are so many stars, and the TlK is the glory of the stars,
so ..." which strikes me as muddled thinking.
Craig, I think; isn't it?
Branden Morris
(speaking of "If You Could Hie To Kolob")
: This is on my list of 10 least favorite hymns.
For a completely light and fluffy thread, how about people's favorite
hymns or least favorite hymns? I love listening to music, but can't play
/ sing any of it, and honestly have a hard time remembering hymn names.
I'd love to see what others enjoy or dislike.
Some of my favorites include (just in numerical order from the hymnbook,
not in preference):
The Spirit of God
High on the Mountaintop
Israel, Israel God is Calling
Come, Ye Children of the Lord
Glory to God on High
Press Forward, Saints
How Firm a Foundation
For the Beauty of the Earh
Lead, Kindly Light (my favorite, I think)
I Need Thee Every Hour
Nearer, My God, To Thee
Be Still, My Soul
Abide With Me
Christ the Lord is Risen Today
Angels We Have Heard on High
Some of my least favorites (again, strictly in numerical order):
Come, Follow Me
Did You Think To Pray?
As Now We Take the Sacrament
I Stand All Amazed
Lord, I Would Follow Thee
Love At Home
Familie Can Be Together Forever
I Am A Child Of God
The ones I don't like aren't for doctrinal reasons or necessarily the
'message' of the song. I just either don't like the music, or more
frequently, can't sing them or don't like the way that they're arranged
or led. Perhaps it's just been the wards that I've been in (or maybe
it's just me :-)) but it seems like there are many songs that I want to
sing a little faster then how they're usually led.
Oh well. I'm glad that there's a variety. Songs I used to like, I can't
stand now -- and there are some that I've grown to love, for various
reasons. I really enjoy music as a part of our worship, even though
those who sit near me probably don't enjoy it during congregational
singing ;-)
-Branden
--
Branden Morris bmo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Peggy Rogers
> Questions for thought:
>
> Will dwellers in the Terrestrial Kingdom will be unhappy with their lot,
> will see themselves as damned?
Is it time for me to re-post my story about Doug Brewster, the guy who ended
up running the best brewery in the Telestila Kingdom, and couldn't have been
happier?
> Doesn't this create a whole new problem with God's shortsightedness? How
> could He be so silly as to think anyone would be happy with anything but
> the highest of the highest, the creme de la creme, the top of the pops?
Personally, I'm at a point in my life and perceptions that the Terrestrial
Kingdom would suit me just fine (as long a Craig bops down for a visit every
couple of millenia!) I enjoy being quietly in the background (though, if our
current scheme of things is any indication, that's what Mothers in Heaven
tend to do anyway) rather than the One that everybody is paying attention
to, and has all the responsibility for everything that goes on. Maybe those
Celestialites would even send down for some of the designs for fractal
butterflies that I'll be working on. Immortality in a relatively pleasant
place would be quite good enough for me (and a pleasant surprise, since I'm
not actually expecting any sort of afterlife.)
Peggy
Gregg Smith
: Will dwellers in the Terrestrial Kingdom will be unhappy with their lot,
: will see themselves as damned?
Dwellers in the Terrestrial kingdom will feel that they were
given much more by the Father than they deserved.
Dwellers in the Terrestrial kingdom will be more comfortable
in the Terrestrial kingdom than they would be in any other
kingdom.
Dwellers in the Terrestrial kingdom will be full of joy
about their eternal state.
: If they will, wouldn't those in the lower 2/3s of the Celestial Kingdom
: also have a reason to grumble? Won't they, day-after-day, have to look
: at those in the top third and rage against the Deus ex Machina that put
: them down below the glory they coulda, woulda, shoulda had?
Ditto comments about the Terrestrial kingdom.
: What about the lowest of the low? Those untouchables down yonder in the
: Telestial Kingdom? Are they also wishing they could curse God and die?
Ditto comments about the Terrestrial kingdom.
Gregg
Gregg Smith
: It will take incredible scracifice and obedience to achieve salvation, anything else
: would be a mockery of the Atonement.
Let's please use the proper terminology to distinguish
between 'salvation' and 'exaltation'. Salvation comes to all
men (save the Sons of Perdition) through the grace of
Christ. Exaltation is reserved for those who are specially
obedient to the Lord.
Gregg
Gregg Smith
: I don't think you need to have been to the temple.
I agree.
: I think you need to be a witness of [for?] Christ who then turns to work
: against all things Christ-like.
I think that attempting to lead others astray from the
fullness of the gospel after having had a witness sure
oneself is sufficient grounds for becoming a Son of
Perdition. That is, after all, what Perdition did.
Gregg
Peggy Rogers
> David Bowie wrote:
> > The other comment that came up in class yesterday that i'd like to raise
> > here: Someone said that "Joseph Smith said somewhere" that there will be
> > more individuals in the Telestial Kingdom than in any of the others.
Given
> > D&C 137:10 and the historical rates of infant and child mortality i
rather
> > doubt that, but does anyone out there know where the claim comes from?
Did
> > Joseph Smith actually say such a thing? If not, did another church
leader?
> > What has been said on the relative number of individuals who will be
> > consigned to each kingdom?
> I have never seen such, and would find it difficult to understand. I have
> heard speculation about the numbers, but the basis of some of these seem
> to be "But there are so many stars, and the TlK is the glory of the stars,
> so ..." which strikes me as muddled thinking.
This is a question that I was also wanting to bring up, since I noticed this
verse in Sec. 76:
109 But behold, and lo, we say the glory and the inhabitants of the
telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament
of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;
Of course, this is reminiscent of God's statement to Abraham that his
descendants will be as numerous as "the stars of the heaven, and as the sand
which is upon the sea shore." My feeling is that the inhabitants of the
Celestial Kingdom may all be considered descendants of Abraham, in one way
or another (though of course it's entirely possible that some of his literal
descendants may end up elsewhere) so it would seem that we have a Celestial
infinity and a Telestial infinity, which about balance each other.
So maybe the Terrestial Kingdom will be the least crowded -- yet another
reason for me to go there!
On the other hand, a thoughtful friend once suggested that maybe the three
kingdoms of glory are not so much separate places as different states of
being. Perhaps people from all three kingdoms could live in the same
neighborhood -- even the same apartment building -- bu the differences would
be in what they perceived, due to the kind of being they were. I remember
William Blake saying something like (I wish I could find the exact quote)
"When most people look at the sun they see a burning disk of fire, but I see
myriads of angels singing Glory, glory, glory to God in the highest." And
yet, ordinary people, who had never seen an angel, probably lived in the
same neighborhood with Blake. I think I like this vision of heaven better
than the three different heavens on three different planets that we are
given in the standard flannelboard explanation of the Plan of Salvation.
Peggy
PS Does anyone have a clue how many total humans have lived on the earth
since Adam? Since Lucy? What proportion of them are alive at the moment? I
expect the information is out on the web somewhere, but I can onoly find the
current population.
Craig Olson
>
> "Craig Olson" <cr...@olSsoPnhAomMe.com> wrote :
>
> > Questions for thought:
> >
> > Will dwellers in the Terrestrial Kingdom will be unhappy with their lot,
> > will see themselves as damned?
>
> Is it time for me to re-post my story about Doug Brewster, the guy who ended
> up running the best brewery in the Telestila Kingdom, and couldn't have been
> happier?
I would think it a good corollary to my post on Life in The Terrestrial
Kingdom.
> > Doesn't this create a whole new problem with God's shortsightedness? How
> > could He be so silly as to think anyone would be happy with anything but
> > the highest of the highest, the creme de la creme, the top of the pops?
>
> Personally, I'm at a point in my life and perceptions that the Terrestrial
> Kingdom would suit me just fine (as long a Craig bops down for a visit every
> couple of millenia!)
[A small voice squeaks through the floorboards of Peggy's Telestial Design
Studios] Hey, Peggy! I'm down here! Stop by when you've got a minute.
Oh. And bring a light, it's rrrreeeaallll dark out here.
<snip>
> Immortality in a relatively pleasant
> place would be quite good enough for me (and a pleasant surprise, since I'm
> not actually expecting any sort of afterlife.)
This is the great part, isn't it? This is like the ultimate detective novel.
Do we continue to exist? How? Where? What's it look like? Feel like?
Sound like? Can I still play CDs? Will John Lennon write more lyrics to
"Imagine"?
It will be fascinating to find out.
The interesting part, to me, is: if I'm dead wrong (so to speak) I'll never
know it.
Cool! No one to say [big basso profundo echo-y voice:] "I told you so".
Maybe all we hear is Leonard McCoy saying "[S]He's dead, Jim" and then
total oblivion.
Craig, obliviously
John S. Colton
[snip]
>PS Does anyone have a clue how many total humans have lived on the earth
>since Adam? Since Lucy? What proportion of them are alive at the moment? I
>expect the information is out on the web somewhere, but I can onoly find the
>current population.
It looks like the data you want can be determined from these two
tables:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
Historical Estimates of World Population
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html
Population for the World: 1950-2050
Let's see, they give number of people per year, so I guess the thing
to do is to integrate to get the total number of people-years lived,
then to divide by some estimate of the average lifespan to get the
total number of people.
Oh, you don't want to do that? OK, I will.
>From the first reference, the total number of "people-years" from
-10000 to 1950 is by my calculation 9.70605 x 10^11 people-years.
>From the second reference, the total number of "people-years" from
1950 to 2000 is 5.95462 x 10^11.
I can't find historical life expectancy figures anywhere with a quick
search, so I'll just to a "back of the envelope" calculation, and make
a guess. I'd say something reasonable would be maybe 35 years for the
first era, and 60 years for the second.
Using those estimates, I get 2.8 x 10^10 people living in the first
era, and 9.9 x 10^9 people living in the second. (Of course, most of
those people would still be alive.)
So where does that leave us with your question?
Adding the two together, I estimate that there have been about 3.8 x
10^10 people alive since Adam/Lucy, of which 6.2 x 10^9 are alive
today. That's something close to 20% of all the people.
ObLDS: Let's tie this into proxy temple ordinances. If a large amount
of people join the church after Christ's second coming, so that the
number of temple ordinance performers approaches maybe 1 percent of
the current world population, then it would only take 500 proxy
ordinances per person to get all the temple work done for every single
person who ever lived!
*****
John's new usenet motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
John S. Colton
[snip]
>PS Does anyone have a clue how many total humans have lived on the earth
>since Adam? Since Lucy? What proportion of them are alive at the moment? I
>expect the information is out on the web somewhere, but I can onoly find the
>current population.
It looks like the data you want can be determined from these two
John S. Colton
[snip]
>PS Does anyone have a clue how many total humans have lived on the earth
>since Adam? Since Lucy? What proportion of them are alive at the moment? I
>expect the information is out on the web somewhere, but I can onoly find the
>current population.
It looks like the data you want can be determined from these two
Ann Porter
news:qxKX6.112307$jN1.2...@news.easynews.com...
> Come, Ye Children of the Lord
Sung to the tune of "Carmen, Ohio," the School Song for Ohio State
University. When I lived in Westland Michigan (not far from Ann Arbor, home
of Ohio State's arch-enemies, the foul-smelling Michigan Wolverines), I did
this song two or three times in just six months in sacrament meeting;
because I could (I was the chorister), and because they didn't know what
they were singing. Great song.
> How Firm a Foundation
Another fun story. Calvin says that in the old hymn book, the line "Who
unto the Savior, Who unto the Savior..." was "You who unto Jesus, You who
unto Jesus." It became known as the "Yoohoo" song. Sing it through with
the old words. What fun!
> Abide With Me
One of the best phrases in any hymn, "Change and decay in all the world I
see. Oh thou, who changes not, abide with me." A fine example of "the song
of the heart is a prayer unto me."
> Oh well. I'm glad that there's a variety. Songs I used to like, I can't
> stand now -- and there are some that I've grown to love, for various
> reasons. I really enjoy music as a part of our worship, even though
> those who sit near me probably don't enjoy it during congregational
> singing ;-)
I would add to the favorites list:
All Creatures of Our God and King
For All the Saints, especially the last verse (tie in to the kingdom's
discussion)
Prayer of Thanksgiving
Jesus, Lover of My Soul (interesting title...)
The Lord Is My Shepherd (great alto line)
How Gentle God's Commands
Sweet Hour of Prayer
There Is a Green Hill Far Away
He Is Risen!
Praise God, from Whom All Blessings Flow - no matter how rushed you are, you
can always sing the whole song.
As Zion's Youth in Latter Days - the words are just OK, but the tune is
splendid
Hark, All Ye Nations!
O Love That Glorifies the Son
I tried to get it down to 10, but couldn't.
The song, "Home Can Be a Heaven on Earth" was the source of a funny incident
for me several years ago. My daughter sings soprano, and I sing alto.
We're both pretty good (not great, but pretty good). This was during a
"difficult" time in our relationship (she was not quite 16, and had, for
lack of a better description, gone berserk). During church (this was when
she was still going) they sang this song as a rest hymn. We stood next to
each other and really sang out. When we got to the line "parents teach and
guide the way; children honor and obey," we both lost it. We burst out
laughing (not silently) and had to stop singing and sit down. It was quite
a bonding experience for us. I still chuckle whenever I hear that song.
Thanks for a fun topic switch!
Best,
Ann
Rob Perkins
<annyal...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> How Firm a Foundation
>It became known as the "Yoohoo" song. Sing it through with
>the old words. What fun!
I like the old words better.
>> Abide With Me
>One of the best phrases in any hymn, "Change and decay in all the world I
>see. Oh thou, who changes not, abide with me." A fine example of "the song
>of the heart is a prayer unto me."
Agreed!
>I would add to the favorites list:
>All Creatures of Our God and King
Alleluia!
>The Lord Is My Shepherd (great alto line)
I'll say.
>How Gentle God's Commands
I sing this as a lullaby from time to time.
>Hark, All Ye Nations!
Only in the Original German does that song really pack the oomph the
lyricist originally intended.(it's *really* popular in German LDS
congregations, and E.T. Benson (or was that T.S. Monson, I cain't
'member) loved it too!) As missionaries in Switzerland, I found it in
the English book before other missionaries did, and started singing
the English translated lyrics. I got so many double-takes. :-)
I cannot do without:
Our Savior's Love
Lead, Kindly Light
...among others.
I can absolutely do without any hymn which carries a military metaphor
throughout the lyric; I don't think mortal armies are a good metaphor
for work in the Gospel. And, I don't care to sing "Ye Elders of
Israel" anymore, for reasons that should be obvious to any "Elder of
Israel."
Rob
Peggy Rogers
(Brent is a guy who thinks that life in a place like the LDS Telestial
Kingdom would be hellish, because people wouldn't be all-powerful and able
to do the same sorts of stuff that God does. Doug Brewster thinks otherwise.
Maybe God does, too.)
When he thought about his former life (and it wasn't often) the last
thing that Doug Brewster remembered was climbing into his green Pinto,
pulling out of the parking lot of Last Chance Tavern, and heading home. Of
course he'd had a few beers--it was Friday night, wasn't it? and his job at
the steel mill was dry work. He deserved a little recreation.
Next thing he knew, Doug was sitting in what seemed to be a very
comfortable chair. It was hard to see anything that was around him, though,
because the room (or whatever it was) was so bright that it hurt his eyes.
Then he was aware of a presence in front of him, and a low, peaceful voice
spoke: "Douglas James Brewster?"
Doug promptly rose to his feet. "Sir, yes, sir!" he said. Doug had
spent some time in the navy, and recognized a Personage of authority when he
encountered one. But he could hardly look at this particular Personage,
whose brightness and glory defied all description.
The Personage spoke again, this time kindly. "Douglas, how would you
like to start learning about how beer is made?"
"Well," Doug replied, "Beer sure is one of my favorite things. I've
always thought that when I retired from my job at the steel mill I'd like to
try my hand at a little home brew. Never had the time or energy, though,
what with all the stuff Edna wanted me to do around the house."
"Excellent!" said the Personage. "From now on, beer _is_ your job."
Not long afterwards, Doug met Gunter Memling. Gunter had lived all his
life in a small city in Bavaria, where he had risen to be the manager of the
best brewery in that part of the world. Now he was running a micro-brewery,
and Doug became his assistant. As time went on, Doug learned about hops,
barley, malt, and the conditions needed for fermentation. In the evenings,
he and Gunter would sit in the little pub attached to the brewery, and
sample their wares. Along with a friendly cohort of folks who wandered in
(most of them regulars) they'd discuss the subtleties of bitterness, mouth
feel, aroma, and head. Once in a while they'd close down the pub and go off
to a movie with a few of their friends. The movies were better than the ones
he remembered watching before, and so were the foot-ball and basketball
games that they sometimes went to. But what Doug enjoyed most was his work
in the brewery, and the satisfying fruits of those labors.
At one point some visiting professors came to town, and offered to
teach a few extension classes. (They were visitors from what LDS would call
the Terrestrial Kingdom.) With a little encouragement from Gunter, Doug
decided to sign up for a class in chemistry--hoping it would help him
understand the processes that went on in the brewery. To his surprise, the
class was nothing like the classes he remembered from high school. (Doug had
never been exactly an honor student.) At every class session there was
something fascinating to learn. And as a result of the things he learned, he
was able to make some suggestions for changes at the brewery that really
made a difference.
It seemed to Doug that he had been working at the brewery for about
three years. Actually, according to our calculations of time, it had been
more like three thousand years. Doug realized, though, that he was just
beginning to scratch the surface of learning about beer and everything that
went into its production. Sometimes he was able to visit different breweries
to see how things were done.
As it turned out, Gunter had been taking a class in watercolor
painting, and he decided that he would take a break from the brewery
business and travel around the world--painting landscapes and portraits and
anything else that struck his fancy. He left the brewery in Doug's very
capable hands.
Doug learned some things about interior design, and re-decorated his
little pub so that it was even more cozy and inviting. He learned about
marketing and distribution, and started to sell more of his beer in
neighboring communities. He experimented with new recipes, and started
making different kinds of stouts, ales, and porters. In time he had to build
a large annex on to the original brewery. Not only did it have all the
latest equipment and methods, but the whole place was designed by an
artist/architect who was one of the regulars at the pub, so it was beautiful
to look at as well. There was also a little gym attached where Doug and some
of the guys could work out with weights. He'd been getting a bit of a beer
belly, and decided it was time for him to get into better shape.
It had been a long time since Doug had thought about his wife, Edna.
But when the new annex of the brewery was finished, he thought how nice it
would be to show it to her. After all, she _had_ been awfully pleased with
some of the building he'd done around their old house. "I wonder what's
become of ol' Edna?" he thought.
Just then there was a knock at the door, and who should be standing on
the other side but Edna! Edna looked terrific--with the fresh complexion and
slender figure of the girl he'd fallen in love with. It occurred to Doug
that he wouldn't mind a bit giving Edna a tumble for old times' sake. But
no, when he glanced at her again, he saw that she had that "touch me not"
look that he used to notice sometimes after she came home from church.
What's more, she had that same glow about her that he'd learned to associate
with people who came, like his chemistry professor, from some other world,
or kingdom, or something.
While talking to Edna, Doug found out that she was a member of some
choir that was famous in the place where she lived. In fact, she was here on
tour with them, and that was why she'd been able to come by for a visit. She
started listing off the musical instruments that she'd been learning how to
play--oboe, harpsichord, cello, ukulele, harp, psaltery, dulcimer. And she
didn't just play them--she'd also started learning about composition. In
fact, the choir would be using one of her melodies in the concert tonight.
Doug remembered, now he thought about it, that she'd always had the radio or
the phonograph playing in their house while she cooked or did the dishes.
But it had never occurred to him that she might have any musical talent, or
that she might want to do something besides listen. He enjoyed showing Edna
around the brewery, and promised to use the tickets she gave him to her
concert.
As Doug sat in the audience that evening, listening to the glorious
music that poured from the stage, he thought, "Hmmm...harps, choirs,
beautiful dresses. I'll bet old Edna thinks that she's died and gone to
heaven." Then he thought about his little pub, his buddies, his new brewery,
his plans for the future, and he thought, "But she's wrong. _I'm_ the one
who's died and gone to heaven."
And he had. In time, he realized that there were other parts to this
"heaven," but he was always supremely satisfied with the part where he found
himself. The beer just kept getting better and better, and his palate kept
getting better and better, until he could taste nuances so subtle that he
had never guessed they existed. He started to take an interest in
agriculture, helping a neighboring farmer to develop new varieties of barley
and hops. After a few million years, almost everyone agreed that Doug
Brewster brewed the best beers in the Telestial Kingdom--and that meant the
best beers in that part of reality, since most of the
Terrestrials preferred wine or whiskey, and the busy-body Celestials
stuck to unfermented fruit juices.
William Blake wrote:
To see a World in a Grain of Sand,
And Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
But Doug Brewster found _his_ eternity in a mug of beer.
John Johnson
"Branden Morris" <bmo...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu> wrote in message
news:qxKX6.112307$jN1.2...@news.easynews.com...
<I like "If You Could Hie to Kolob, and Ann doesn't>
> Some of my favorites include (just in numerical order from the hymnbook,
> not in preference):
> Lead, Kindly Light (my favorite, I think)
I agree. I think the arrangement on this is beautiful
> Be Still, My Soul
This is my favorite, especially if done in 4-part male acapella harmony.
Another of my favorites is Dear to the Heart of the Shepherd. There are some
beautiful hymns in the hymnal, and some of the most beautiful are the ones
that are sung least often. I think we LDS tend to stick to a certain
repetoire of hymns, which I think is a shame.
Craig Olson
>
<snip: I've got to go get a hymnal to participate for real>
<But I wanted to get down to this before I forgot>
> (she was not quite 16, and had, [...] gone berserk).
^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^
Having successfully [1] raised three daughters, I would point
that the DSM V will like "she" and "16" as causes of the clinical
condition known as "berserk".
Craig
[1] successful means we are all still alive. We even speak.
Sometimes. :^\
Craig Olson
> "Craig Olson" <cr...@olSsoPnhAomMe.com> wrote :
> > David Bowie wrote:
>
> > > The other comment that came up in class yesterday that i'd like to raise
> > > here: Someone said that "Joseph Smith said somewhere" that there will be
> > > more individuals in the Telestial Kingdom than in any of the others.
> > I have never seen such, and would find it difficult to understand. I have
> > heard speculation about the numbers, but the basis of some of these seem
> > to be "But there are so many stars, and the TlK is the glory of the stars,
> > so ..." which strikes me as muddled thinking.
>
> This is a question that I was also wanting to bring up, since I noticed this
> verse in Sec. 76:
>
> 109 But behold, and lo, we say the glory and the inhabitants of the
> telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament
> of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;
See! I knew I heard it someplace.
Actually, I recall pondering this one time and deciding [for myself, not
a doctrinally secure source] that what was as innumerable as the stars
were the levels or degrees of glory within the Telestial Kingdom.
Within the other three (counting the region of darkness known as Outer),
it sounds like there is a pretty uniform level of glory. An great deal,
a lot, and none, respectively. Betweem the Kingdom With A Lot of Glory
and Outer Darkness there is an infi^H^H^H^H^H very large number of hues
of glory.
> Of course, this is reminiscent of God's statement to Abraham that his
> descendants will be as numerous as "the stars of the heaven, and as the sand
> which is upon the sea shore." My feeling is that the inhabitants of the
> Celestial Kingdom may all be considered descendants of Abraham, in one way
> or another (though of course it's entirely possible that some of his literal
> descendants may end up elsewhere) so it would seem that we have a Celestial
> infinity and a Telestial infinity, which about balance each other.
I'm holding out for something between a Poisson and a Gaussian distribution.
<snip>
> On the other hand, a thoughtful friend once suggested that maybe the three
> kingdoms of glory are not so much separate places as different states of
> being.
<snip>
> I think I like this vision of heaven better
> than the three different heavens on three different planets that we are
> given in the standard flannelboard explanation of the Plan of Salvation.
Me, too. I think overlapped existence makes a great deal of sense, from
a cosmological point of view. Perhaps cosmologically, all space/time is
warped into a relatively small radius, God is Omnipresent because we all
are, we just can't perceive it.
> PS Does anyone have a clue how many total humans have lived on the earth
> since Adam? Since Lucy? What proportion of them are alive at the moment? I
> expect the information is out on the web somewhere, but I can onoly find the
> current population.
The number I have used in the past is that in 1950, 1 out of 20 of the total
population to that point was alive. At 2 and a half billion then, that would
put the total up to 1950 at 50 billion.
Craig
John Colton
Morris) wrote:
[snip entire post]
Here's some of my favorites:
An Angel from on High
A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief
All Creatures of Our God and King
On This Day of Joy and Gladness
A Mighty Fortress Is Our God
Sing Praise to Him
How Great Thou Art
For the Beauty of the Earth
Prayer of Thanksgiving (We Gather Together)
Lead, Kindly Light
Nearer, My God, to Thee
Jesus, Lover of My Soul
The Lord is My Shepherd
The Lord My pasture Will Prepare
Hmm. I was leafing through the book numerically, and I'm only to hymn
#109. Maybe I should stop here before the list gets completely out of
control. I'll admit I tend to choose favorites based more on the music
then on the words.
John
JMO
> You see, this is where you and I are going to disagree on
>terminology.
I was using "damned" in the modern LDS sense. It means to have
your eternal progression stopped.
If you want to use "damned" to mean a son of perdition, I could
use "to have your progression stopped" or some phrase like that.
> I think [and the law and the prophets seem to back me up on this] that
> there will be only one group of damned individuals: those that dwell in
> Perdition.
WHAT IT MEANS TO BE DAMNED. What is damnation? It is being
barred, or denied privileges of progression, because of failure to comply
with law. All who fail to enter into the celestial kingdom are
damned, or stopped in their progression, but they will enter into
some other glory which they are entitled to receive.
Joseph Fielding Smith, "Doctrines of Salvation" p.277
> Will those individuals God chooses to reward in a kingdom of
> glory feel damned? God forbid.
I don't know how they will feel. But whether they feel great or
feel terrible, they are still damned (having their eternal
progression stopped) in the MSOT.
> Questions for thought:
>
> Will dwellers in the Terrestrial Kingdom will be unhappy with
> their lot, will see themselves as damned?
Certainly the LDS ones will see themselves as damned. The rest
might be disappointed that they will never get to see their Father again.
> If they will, wouldn't those in the lower 2/3s of the Celestial
> Kingdom also have a reason to grumble?
Since not making it into the top level of the Celestial Kingdom
stops your eternal progression, they might feel damned and grumble.
In reality, they are damned whether they grumble or not.
> What about the lowest of the low? Those untouchables down yonder
> in the Telestial Kingdom? Are they also wishing they could curse
God and die?
I don't know. I guess it would depend upon their perceptions. I
am not really concerned so much about how they feel as to whether
or not they can progress.
> Doesn't this create a whole new problem with God's shortsightedness?
It seems to create a whole new problem to me. I don't assign the
shortsightedness to God though.
> How could He be so silly as to think anyone would be happy with anything
> but the highest of the highest, the creme de la creme, the top of the
pops?
It is sort of silly, isn't it? I am inclined to think that the
problem is with the doctrine, instead of with God.
Rob Perkins
<john.j...@idf.centerpartners.com> wrote:
>Another of my favorites is Dear to the Heart of the Shepherd.
As long as you use the cadence called for in the music, instead of the
funeral-dirge tempo we sang it in last week, I'm with you.
Rob
Lynn Gazis-Sax
> Branden Morris <bmo...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu> wrote in message
> news:qxKX6.112307$jN1.2...@news.easynews.com...
> > Abide With Me
> One of the best phrases in any hymn, "Change and decay in all the world I
> see. Oh thou, who changes not, abide with me." A fine example of "the song
> of the heart is a prayer unto me."
Yes! This is also my favorite phrase.
[snipped]
> For All the Saints, especially the last verse (tie in to the kingdom's
> discussion)
This is the one hymn I ever learned to play completely (that is, all
the chords, not just one finger playing the melody) on the piano.
When I was a child, a pet mouse belonging to one of my brothers died,
and we kids all decided to have a funeral for the mouse, and I played
this hymn on the piano, and then we all went out in back and gave the
mouse a proper burial (I think marking the grave with a little twig
cross).
It looks as if at least five or so of the other hymns mentioned so far
are also in the Episcopalian hymnal.
--
Lynn Gazis-Sax
http://www.notfrisco.com or http://www.alsirat.com
Craig Olson
>
> "Craig Olson" <cr...@olSsoPnhAomMe.com> wrote:
> > thereof"? Can a simple testimony that Jesus lives and is your Savior be
> > enough?
>
> I guess it would depend on the power of that testimony wouldn't it? I don't
> think that a person needs to actually see God or Jesus Christ and then rebel
> to end up in perdition. I'm reminded of what Bruce R. McConkie said in
> April, 1985 conference about the testimony of the Holy Ghost.
>
> It seems that Elder McConkie was of the opinion that the testimony of the
> Holy Ghost was enough to testify that the Lord had revealed it to him in the
> "first instance."
I agree with that statement to a point. I know in my experience that there
are degrees of witness I have received, everything from a mild chill to
an intense tangible presence. Based upon the principles of grace and love,
I think one would have to have a very strong witness from the Holy Ghost.
I think you need to have an undeniable witness, and then deny it to earn
eternal condemnation.
> > Are all of us potential Sons [and Daughters, or is that possible?]
> > of Perdition, or only a select few?
> If becoming a son or daughter of perdition is conditioned on your knowledge,
> then I suspect that we all have that potential, because we can all receive
> that kind of knowlege.
One of the [subtle] points I was trying to raise was: Are there Daughters of
Perdition? Or only Sons?
And yes, I suspect we all have the potential of gaining the knowledge
needed to become an heir to Perdition, but that may be a lot like saying
Anyone can become President. True, but academic.
Craig, uncomfortable with denying people the ability to deny the deniable.
John S. Colton
[snip]
>It looks as if at least five or so of the other hymns mentioned so far
>are also in the Episcopalian hymnal.
This is one area where I'm afraid our Mormon education is incomplete.
Most members probably have no idea how many of our hymns are found in
other Christian hymnals.
This may be a good opportunity for ecumenalism-- would you (or other
nonLDS) like to point out which hymns people have listed as
"favorites" are common to other churches?
I note that the way the hymns are arranged in the LDS hymnbook, many
of those hymns are right next to each other.
John
iphigenia
: For a completely light and fluffy thread, how about people's favorite
: hymns or least favorite hymns? I love listening to music, but can't play
: / sing any of it, and honestly have a hard time remembering hymn names.
: I'd love to see what others enjoy or dislike.
Hymns I like:
-Abide With Me; Tis Eventide
- and, Abide With Me!
-Lead, Kindly Light
-Be Still, My Soul
(I'm trying to practice the above for use as lullabies...they calm me, they
should calm an infant, right?)
-Come, Come Ye Saints. I've found inspiration from this song more than once
when I was feeling world-weary. Probably helps that, being outside of the
West, I'm not inundated with pioneer-mania every summer.
-How Firm a Foundation. I like the third verse especially. I'm a little
confused, though, on how to sing the last lines of the 5th, 6th, and 7th
verses.
-Christ the Lord is Risen Today. The alleluias rule, even if the alto line
isn't as much fun as the soprano...
-And of course anything with an interesting alto line...
Hymns I have a harder time appreciating:
-Hie to Kolob (sorry! I just don't like the tune, and the last two verses
sound like W.W. Phelps ran out of lyric ideas)
-Where Can I Turn for Peace
-Home Can Be A Heaven on Earth
-In Our Lovely Deseret (of course! Remember the Eliza R Snow discussion?)
-And, my least favorite of all time, Ring Out Wild Bells. Our ward sings
this on the first Sunday of every new year. I find it horribly dirge-like
and depressing. Just what we all need when suffering from post-holiday
let-down! ; )
Last, although I have no strong feelings about the hymn itself, I hate
singing "God Be with You Till We Meet Again" since in every ward I've sung
it in, everyone gets the last line of the verse wrong. "God" and "be" are
both E, then "with" is an A. But people always seem to sing "be" as an F or
G. Just bugs me.
: Perhaps it's just been the wards that I've been in (or maybe
: it's just me :-)) but it seems like there are many songs that I want to
: sing a little faster then how they're usually led.
I agree, I'd probably like Where Can I Turn for Peace more if it were sung a
little faster.
--
iphigenia
who has laryngitis and can't sing right now anyway
Branden Morris
: One of the [subtle] points I was trying to raise was: Are there Daughters of
: Perdition? Or only Sons?
A number of years ago, someone posted an excerpt of Orson Scott Card's
"Saintspeak: A Mormon Dictionary" to s.r.m. The copy I kept was just the
text, with no attributions. However, one of the entries is:
> Son of Perdition:
> Judging from the fact that the Lord hasn't mentioned any
> daughters of perdition, this looks like one more position
> only men can hold.
Not a doctrinally-secure source, I know.
Craig Olson
>
<snip>
> William Blake wrote:
>
> To see a World in a Grain of Sand,
>
> And Heaven in a Wild Flower,
>
> Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
>
> And Eternity in an hour.
>
> But Doug Brewster found _his_ eternity in a mug of beer.
Great story, Peggy. Maybe there just could be something good in
a Kingdom of Lesser Glory after all. :^)
Shall we all meet at Doug's in a couple a centuries for a quick
drink? (Don't worry; any decent brewery should be able to do a
respectable root beer, so we can all find something to imbibe)
We can catch up with each other, and see how the whole afterlife
thing turned out for everybody. C'mon, y'all, the first round's
on me.
Craig
Ann Porter
news:NE2Y6.13230$f76.3...@news.easynews.com...
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:28:17 GMT, Lynn Gazis-Sax wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >It looks as if at least five or so of the other hymns mentioned so far
> >are also in the Episcopalian hymnal.
>
> This is one area where I'm afraid our Mormon education is incomplete.
> Most members probably have no idea how many of our hymns are found in
> other Christian hymnals.
That's easy! The good ones....
Best,
Ann (ducking and running)
Lynn Gazis-Sax
[snipped]
> This may be a good opportunity for ecumenalism-- would you (or other
> nonLDS) like to point out which hymns people have listed as
> "favorites" are common to other churches?
"If You Could Hie to Kolob," "Follow the Prophet," and "In Our Lovely
Deseret." :-)
Seriously, the ones I recognize (all of them in the Episcopalian
hymnal, and at least some of them also in the Quaker hymnal used in
Pacific Yearly Meeting, and also in the Catholic hymnal) are:
For the Beauty of the Earth
Lead, Kindly Light
Nearer, My God, To Thee
Abide With Me
Christ the Lord is Risen Today
Angels We Have Heard on High
For All the Saints
There Is a Green Hill Far Away
Praise God, from Whom All Blessings Flow
A Mighty Fortress Is Our God
I'm curious how many of my favorites, not mentioned so far, are in the
LDS hymnal. Some of my favorites (in no particular order), some from
the Episcopalian hymnal, some from a Quaker hymnal, and some from
both, are:
Morning Has Broken
The Spacious Firmament on High
Brightest and Best of the Sons of the Morning
Holy, Holy, Holy (this one mentions Trinity, so probably not in the
LDS hymnal)
Crown Him with Many Crowns
Glorious Thing of Thee Are Spoken
Lord of All Hopefulness, Lord of All Joy
All Things Bright and Beautiful
Jerusalem the Golden
Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones
Welcome Happy Morning
Hail Thee Festival Day
Spirit of God, Descend Upon My Heart
Tis the Gift to Be Simple
There's a Light That Is Shining (this one has Quaker specific
language, so you probably wouldn't have it)
I Come to the Garden
Softly and Tenderly, Jesus Is Calling
Dear Lord and Father of Mankind
Oh Master Let Me Walk With Thee
Gonna Lay Down My Burden
Open My Eyes That I May See
Seek Ye First the Kingdom of God
When Morning Gilds the Skies
Amazing Grace
I guess that's a long list already, so I will stop.
How do LDS handle their music? Episcopalians have organs and choirs,
and often the music is well rehearsed. Quakers have a period of
singing before Meeting for Worship, which a few people will show up
for, but no singing during Meeting for Worship, except occasionally
when someone is moved to do it. There's generally a piano, but not an
organ.
John S. Colton
[snip]
>I'm curious how many of my favorites, not mentioned so far, are in the
>LDS hymnal.
[snip]
This is probably a mistake, but I'll try to go through them without
aid of a hymnbook. A general rule of thumb, is that if the hymn was
composed later than 1830, it's probably not in the LDS hymnal unless
it was written by LDS people. Personally, I think that is a strange
rule, but there you have it.
Ones which you listed, which are in LDS hymn books:
Morning Has Broken
Glorious Thing of Thee Are Spoken
All Things Bright and Beautiful (in the children's book)
Ones which you listed, which are not in LDS hymn books:
The Spacious Firmament on High
Brightest and Best of the Sons of the Morning
Holy, Holy, Holy
Crown Him with Many Crowns
Lord of All Hopefulness, Lord of All Joy
Jerusalem the Golden
Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones
Welcome Happy Morning
Hail Thee Festival Day
Spirit of God, Descend Upon My Heart
Tis the Gift to Be Simple (although I've sung it in a church choir--
last year, actually)
There's a Light That Is Shining
I Come to the Garden
Softly and Tenderly, Jesus Is Calling
Dear Lord and Father of Mankind
Oh Master Let Me Walk With Thee
Gonna Lay Down My Burden
Open My Eyes That I May See
Seek Ye First the Kingdom of God
When Morning Gilds the Skies
Amazing Grace
>How do LDS handle their music? Episcopalians have organs and choirs,
>and often the music is well rehearsed. Quakers have a period of
>singing before Meeting for Worship, which a few people will show up
>for, but no singing during Meeting for Worship, except occasionally
>when someone is moved to do it. There's generally a piano, but not an
>organ.
Musical numbers are done by congregation, choir, and individuals.
Generally speaking, there will be these congregational hymns: an
introductory hymn, a sacrament hymn, and a closeing hymn. There's
usually 2-4 speakers between distribution of the sacrament, and
closeing, and typically an additional musical number is done in the
middle of the speakers. That musical number can be provided by any of
the three groups. I'd say roughly speaking once a month it's by the
choir, once a month it's by an individual, and twice a month it's an
additional congregational song.
There are no musical numbers in the Sunday School portion of the
meeting. Priesthood/Relief Society meetings conversely do open with
hymns (and sometimes close?).
Choir practice is held once a week; typically on Sundays, right after
church. Anyone who wants to can join.
This is the current version; in the past some things have been
different (eg. for a time there was a "hymn practice" portion of
Sunday School).
Most LDS meetinghouses have both pianos and organs; organs are used
for congregational hymns; for the others, either organs or pianos are
used.
Quality of all musical numbers (choir, congregation, and individual)
varies widely from ward to ward.
John "collector of old hymnals of both the LDS and nonLDS variety" C.
Ann Porter
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:16:41 GMT, Lynn Gazis-Sax wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >I'm curious how many of my favorites, not mentioned so far, are in the
> >LDS hymnal.
> [snip]
>
> This is probably a mistake, but I'll try to go through them without
> aid of a hymnbook. A general rule of thumb, is that if the hymn was
> composed later than 1830, it's probably not in the LDS hymnal unless
> it was written by LDS people. Personally, I think that is a strange
> rule, but there you have it.
I don't know that that particular rule applies to the current hymn book. I
found a bunch of hymns that I'm pretty sure are Catholic or Protestant hymns
written after 1830.
Battle Hymn of the Republic
God of Our Fathers, Whose Almighty Hand (I remember this one from when I was
a Catholic)
God of Our Fathers, Known of Old (I've never heard this one, but Rudyard
Kipling wrote the text)
How Great Thou Art
For the Beauty of the Earth (is this an LDS song? I don't think so...)
Prayer of Thanksgiving - this is an old song, but the translation in the
hymn book wasn't made until 1851. Since the original language was Dutch,
though, perhaps some informal translations were kicking around New York
before then.
I Need Thee Every Hour
God Be with You Till We Meet Again (again, is this LDS? no copyright...)
Several of the Christmas songs
Because I Have Been Given Much
Our Father by Whose Name - I bring this up because I don't think it's an LDS
song, but I'm not sure. The song is from The Hymnal, 1940. Copyright is
owned by The Church Pension Fund. Wonderfully cryptic - which church
pension fund?
Children of Our Heavenly Father
Rise Up, O Men of God (our tune; the Presbyterians own the words)
and America the Beautiful
Also, Ralph Vaughan Williams wrote or arranged the music to four additional
hymns. The tunes are all borrowed from The English Hymnal and are used by
permission of the Oxford University Press; "Making copies without written
permission of the copyright owner is prohibited."
These tunes are:
I Saw a Mighty Angel Fly
All Creatures of Our God And King
For All the Saints
and
drum roll.....
If You Could Hie to Kolob!
I think it's really interesting that we are not permitted to make
photocopies of "If You Could Hie...," because we don't own the copyright of
the arrangement of the tune. It's my understanding that the tune itself is
an old English folk song. Sounds like Sir Ralph (he was a "Sir," wasn't he)
hit pay dirt.
> Ones which you listed, which are in LDS hymn books:
> Morning Has Broken
I think you mean "The Morning Breaks." Or maybe "The Day Dawn is Breaking."
Cat Stevens wrote "Morning has Broken." Not a likely candidate for the LDS
hymn book. Although maybe somebody else wrote another version.
Robert Kirby once wrote that the ideal sacrament meeting would have Brother
Slowhand Clapton playing "Knocking on Heaven's Door" for a special musical
number.
> Amazing Grace
How that song was left out of our hymn book is beyond me.
Best,
Ann, who used a hymnbook extensively for this post...ah, the advantages of
working part-time.
Ann Porter
news:YsmY6.45392$f76.1...@news.easynews.com...
> How do LDS handle their music? Episcopalians have organs and choirs,
> and often the music is well rehearsed. Quakers have a period of
> singing before Meeting for Worship, which a few people will show up
> for, but no singing during Meeting for Worship, except occasionally
> when someone is moved to do it. There's generally a piano, but not an
> organ.
John summarized how our music is organized very well. I would like to add,
though, that there is enormous variation in music from ward to ward. The
two wards I was in before had very strong music, and, as a result, the music
was a powerful tool for inviting the spirit. For the time (so far) that I
have been in my current ward, that has not been the case. We have some new
music people now, and so things might get better.
I think it's especially important that the music go with the topics
discussed in the meeting. That hasn't happened ever in this ward, and I
find it incredibly frustrating to sing "Firm as the Mountains Around Us,"
when the topic of the meeting has been completely unrelated, and there are
no mountains (or even hills) for many, many miles.
Best,
Ann
Hedgehog
<annp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I don't know that that particular rule applies to the current hymn book. I
> found a bunch of hymns that I'm pretty sure are Catholic or Protestant hymns
> written after 1830.
Any chance of any hymns by Isaac Watts in the LDS hymnal?
Peace,
Hedgehog
who figures it would be at least one way to make amends.
John Colton
wrote:
[snip]
>Any chance of any hymns by Isaac Watts in the LDS hymnal?
There are 9 Isaac Watts' hymns in the hymnal.
They are:
O God Our Help in Ages Past (included in the first LDS hymnbook)
Praise Ye the Lord
With All the Power of Heart and Tongue
Great God Attend While Zion Sings
>From All That Dwell Below the Skies
Come We That Love the Lord
Sweet Is the Work (2 arrangements, one for SATB, one for 4 part women)
He Died! The Great Redeemer Died (included in the first LDS hymnbook)
Joy to the World (included in the first LDS hymnbook)
I'd say that numbers 1,6,7,8,9 on the list are well-known and sung
fairly often. Numbers 2,3,4,5 are not sung very often.
Many of these had modern (say, post 1830) tunes.
John
John Colton
<annyal...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>I don't know that that particular rule applies to the current hymn book. I
>found a bunch of hymns that I'm pretty sure are Catholic or Protestant hymns
>written after 1830.
[snip]
OK, I'm likely wrong. Isn't the first time!
>God of Our Fathers, Known of Old (I've never heard this one, but Rudyard
>Kipling wrote the text)
The text is pretty famous: "Lest we forget/Lest we forget". I see the
music was copyrighted 1948 by an LDS composer.
[snip]
>If You Could Hie to Kolob! ... It's my understanding that the tune itself is
>an old English folk song.
It is an old English folk song. I've heard it called "The Star of the
County Down", but it likely has other words as well.
[snip]
>> Morning Has Broken
>
>I think you mean "The Morning Breaks."
Yes, that's the one I was thinking of.
[snip]
>> Amazing Grace
>
>How that song was left out of our hymn book is beyond me.
Here, here!
John
David Bowie
: John Johnson (john.j...@idf.centerpartners.com) wrote:
: : It will take incredible scracifice and obedience to achieve
: : salvation, anything else would be a mockery of the Atonement.
: Let's please use the proper terminology to distinguish
: between 'salvation' and 'exaltation'. Salvation comes to all
: men (save the Sons of Perdition) through the grace of
: Christ. Exaltation is reserved for those who are specially
: obedient to the Lord.
Curiosity: Where does this distinction come from? I know that it's the
common usage among English-speaking Mormons nowadays, but the translations
of the scriptures we have seem to speak of what we call exaltation with the
word "salvation". Why have Mormons developed such a usage?
David, who doesn't research coinages or semantic drift
--
David Bowie Department of English
Assistant Professor Brigham Young University
db....@pmpkn.net http://humanities.byu.edu/faculty/bowied
The opinions stated here are not necessarily those of my employer
David Bowie
: Craig Olson (cr...@olSsoPnhAomMe.com) wrote:
: : Will dwellers in the Terrestrial Kingdom will be unhappy with
: : their lot, will see themselves as damned?
: Dwellers in the Terrestrial kingdom will feel that they were
: given much more by the Father than they deserved.
As will those who receive *any* place in a kingdom of glory. After all, King
Benjamin points out that our very existence is more than we deserve.
: Dwellers in the Terrestrial kingdom will be more comfortable
: in the Terrestrial kingdom than they would be in any other
: kingdom.
Possibly. I personally like this idea, but i'm not sure that i see where
such a POV is mandated.
: Dwellers in the Terrestrial kingdom will be full of joy
: about their eternal state.
Absolutely agreed here, though.
<snip>
David, who wonders where the Siamese fighting fish will go
Rob Perkins
wrote:
>Curiosity: Where does this distinction come from? I know that it's the
>common usage among English-speaking Mormons nowadays, but the translations
>of the scriptures we have seem to speak of what we call exaltation with the
>word "salvation". Why have Mormons developed such a usage?
If we accept that most active priesthood holders have served missions,
then perhaps the usage developed from memorizing missionary lessons,
which contain the distinction. Of course, this means that the
distinction was developed and promoted by the Missionary Committee,
led by one or more apostles, with the common consent of all of them.
Rob
John S. Colton
Actually, I don't think the missionary discussion divide things that
way (but I may be wrong).
Don't they teach something like this:
Salvation from physical death: a gift given to all men
Salvation from spiritual death: made possible by the atonement of
Christ, but there are some things which we need to do (i.e., the first
principles and ordinances of the gospel are faith, repentence,
baptism, gothg) to take advantage of it
Thus, it seems to me that the missionary discussions put salvation
from spiritual death into the "obtaining the celestial kingdom"
category. That more closely follows what David's referring to as
"exaltation", rather than "salvation" (which in his discussion means
obtaining any of the kingdoms of glory).
So am I misremembering? Is there really anything in the missionary
discussions which equates "exaltation" with CK and "salvation" with
anything other than OD?
This is kind of close to the heart of the salvation from spiritual
death confusion I was having a week or two ago-- I think the way the
missionary discussions put it is much closer to "salvation from
spiritual death" = "CK", rather than "salvation from spiritual death"
= "CK, TK, or TK".
John, starting to babble
Lee Choquette
Ann Porter <annp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I think it's especially important that the music go with the topics
Does your ward assign topics to the speakers? It's hard for the organist and
chorister to prepare appropriate music if nobody knows what the speakers are
going to talk about until they step up to the podium.
Lee
Rob Perkins
Colton) wrote:
>Actually, I don't think the missionary discussion divide things that
>way (but I may be wrong).
>
>Don't they teach something like this:
>Salvation from physical death: a gift given to all men
>Salvation from spiritual death: made possible by the atonement of
>Christ, but there are some things which we need to do (i.e., the first
>principles and ordinances of the gospel are faith, repentence,
>baptism, gothg) to take advantage of it
That's the way discussion 2 puts it, using the word "salvation" in
both instances.
"Exaltation" is first introduced as a term in Principle 2 of the fifth
lesson, and I'm sure it's re-iterated in the 6 post-baptism
discussions, but I can't find those books just now... In the 5th, it
goes:
"The privilege of dwelling with our Father is his greatest gift to us.
We call this gift exaltation, eternal life, or salvation."
This points up the usage as a synonymnous thing, that is, the reward
of living with Father= exaltation = salvation, in LDS usage. But the
discussion goes on to use "exaltation" as the term of choice.
If we parse, it seems like the discussions solve nothing in terms of
getting a clean definition of "salvation" as something less than
"exaltation". If we don't parse as carefully, we can agree on such a
distinction.
What does it say in the Bible Dictionary? Anyone have that close?
Rob
Ann Porter
news:tmQY6.6253$Ga.2...@news.easynews.com...
Amen. I don't know if they do (the only times I've given a talk in the last
three years, I picked the topic myself). So, maybe that's the problem.
I have an idea that perhaps I could pick some totally whacked out theme and
expand on it for 20 minutes. Then, maybe they'd start picking the topics...
Best,
Ann
Jeff Shirton
news:SmQY6.6262$Ga.2...@news.easynews.com...
> What does it say in the Bible Dictionary? Anyone have that close?
There is no entry for "exaltation" in the BD.
> Rob
Jeff Shirton
Craig Olson
>
> "Gregg Smith" <gre...@vcd.hp.com> wrote...
>
> : Dwellers in the Terrestrial kingdom will be full of joy
> : about their eternal state.
>
> Absolutely agreed here, though.
I think it is a fair description about all eternal rewards.
> <snip>
>
> David, who wonders where the Siamese fighting fish will go
To individual, glass-walled Kingdoms of Glory Water.
Craig
David Bowie
: (Hedgehog) wrote:
: >Any chance of any hymns by Isaac Watts in the LDS hymnal?
: There are 9 Isaac Watts' hymns in the hymnal.
: They are:
(I've added numbers to the following to make the references easier to
follow.)
: 1. O God Our Help in Ages Past (included in the first LDS hymnbook)
: 2. Praise Ye the Lord
: 3. With All the Power of Heart and Tongue
: 4. Great God Attend While Zion Sings
: 5. From All That Dwell Below the Skies
: 6. Come We That Love the Lord
: 7. Sweet Is the Work (2 arrangements, one for SATB, one for 4 part women)
: 8. He Died! The Great Redeemer Died (included in the first LDS hymnbook)
: 9. Joy to the World (included in the first LDS hymnbook)
: I'd say that numbers 1,6,7,8,9 on the list are well-known and sung
: fairly often. Numbers 2,3,4,5 are not sung very often.
There's a *lot* of regional variation in which hymns are sung in Mormon
services, though. In my growing up in the mid-Atlantic region, we sung
2,5,7,8,9 lots, and the rest not really at all, except for a time that there
was a chorister who'd get us to sing 6 at least weekly (or at least that's
what it felt like to the prepubescent me).
<snip>
David, who notes that this complicates discussion of "popular" hymns
David Bowie
: John S. Colton <col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil> wrote...
<snip>
: > Amazing Grace
: How that song was left out of our hymn book is beyond me.
It's not in the current hymnal? It was in the previous one, but only the
really weak one-verse translation rather than the really cool five-verse
translation i've seen elsewhere.
David, who'll have to dig up the old _Armed_forces_hymnal_ he owns
John Colton
Perkins) wrote:
[snip]
>What does it say in the Bible Dictionary? Anyone have that close?
As close as the internet...
http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/contents
Unfortunately it doesn't have an entry on salvation, nor on
exaltation.
John
Hedgehog
<db....@pmpkn.net> wrote:
> : > Amazing Grace
> : How that song was left out of our hymn book is beyond me.
> It's not in the current hymnal? It was in the previous one, but only the
> really weak one-verse translation rather than the really cool five-verse
> translation i've seen elsewhere.
If it were taken out for doctrinal reasons, my guess is that the song is
too Augustinian in its moral theology for such a Pelagian church as the
LDS church.
What's the general feeling in the LDS Church about singing hymns not in
the Hymnal? In other words, did the people who compose the current hymnal
just figure Amazing Grace was readily available elsewhere and the space in
the hymnbook could be better used to showcase uniquely LDS hymns?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Providance Program
> >If You Could Hie to Kolob! ... It's my understanding that the tune
itself is
> >an old English folk song.
>
> It is an old English folk song. I've heard it called "The Star of the
> County Down", but it likely has other words as well.
>
> [snip]
Hey - it's my favorite song - (I didn't care much for the old version--music
was kind of ditsy for me...) But I looove this one!
This is definitly an old folk song arranged by Ralph Vaughn Williams (That's
pronounced 'Rafe' for all of us non-Kings-English speaking people). He
arranged it off of old folk songs - He did that a lot. Check out the
classical "Five Variants of Dives and Lazerus" which is the official version
of the music--it is WONDERFUL! Incidently, RVW is also "All creatures of
our God and King" another one of my favorites along with 2 or 3 others in
the hymnbook. (I have decided that I simply like his style of music.)
By the way, any votes for The Spirit of God?
Lisa - always and definitly a music lover. Please may I sing with the
choirs of angels after I die? 'cause I don't have much of a voice now...
Peggy Rogers
complain and say something non-faith-promoting?
Today in Young Women we sang "As Zion's Youth in Latter Days." Mostly
harmless, and I wouldn't be objecting except for the beginning of the second
verse:
The truths and values we embrace are mocked on every hand.
Does anyone out there think that this is actually a true statement? Which
truths and values are these? The divnity of Jesus Christ? The existence of
God? The importance of forgiveness? (the topic of a Sacrament Meeting talk
today) The need for strong families? The desire to have bodies free from
harmful substances? Boy, these are a lot of really wacko,
out-of-the-mainstream truths and values, aren't they?
I mean, sure, there's the occasional young person who's subject to ridicule
because she turns down a beer, or because he believes that Joseph Smith is a
prophet. But the people who say "Hey, it's great that you have principles!"
or "Whatever floats your boat!" or "Who cares?" probably outnumber the
mockers by at least fifty to one. So how about:
The truths and values we embrace are occasionally mocked by weirdos who
need to get a life.
Do we really need to imbue our young people with this sort of siege
mentality?
Peggy
Gerald G. Fuller
<pro...@xmission.com> wrote:
Snip
>Today in Young Women we sang "As Zion's Youth in Latter Days." Mostly
>harmless, and I wouldn't be objecting except for the beginning of the second
>verse:
>
> The truths and values we embrace are mocked on every hand.
>
>Does anyone out there think that this is actually a true statement? Which
>truths and values are these? The divnity of Jesus Christ? The existence of
>God? The importance of forgiveness? (the topic of a Sacrament Meeting talk
>today) The need for strong families? The desire to have bodies free from
>harmful substances? Boy, these are a lot of really wacko,
>out-of-the-mainstream truths and values, aren't they?
>
Indeed, depending on you viewpoint, I suppose, that is true. How many
people do you think in the entire world, or in your own country
whatever it is (mine is the United States of Americal) truly beleve
beyond mere lip service, in the divinity of Jesus Christ? If they did,
would they use that name as merely an expletive? How many do you think
truly believe that God lives as a person and not as some mere symbol
akin to Santa Claus? Is forgiveness truly important to a nation that
probably spends more money on imprisoning "wrong-doers" than on
educating children? How much is the need for strong families honored
when the divorce rate is half or more of the marriage rate, and when
many of the television shows which show families at all show those
with adulterous spouses and rebellious children? How much is the
desire to have bodies free from harmful substances honored by those
who still advertise said substances and agitate for legalizing even
more such substances?
I don't know what your mainstream is, but mine certainly is not made
up of masses of people outside the Church who honor (do not mock) the
Word of Wisdom and other teachings of the Church.
Gene
Rich Wales
> Holy, Holy, Holy (this one mentions Trinity,
> so probably not in the LDS hymnal)
True -- although I've heard a version of this hymn in which the
trinitarian lines were replaced by something more palatable to LDS.
Unfortunately, I can't recall the changed lyrics at the moment.
Rich Wales ri...@webcom.com http://www.webcom.com/richw/
John S. Colton
>Lynn Gazis-Sax wrote:
>
> > Holy, Holy, Holy (this one mentions Trinity,
> > so probably not in the LDS hymnal)
>
>True -- although I've heard a version of this hymn in which the
>trinitarian lines were replaced by something more palatable to LDS.
>Unfortunately, I can't recall the changed lyrics at the moment.
Yeah, you may be right; something rings a bell.
I am against the "LDSizing" of hymn lyrics to make them singable by
LDS choirs. If the lyrics are bad enough to make you want to change
them, just sing something else! There's plenty of good music, with
perfectly acceptable lyrics.
Case in point: something really upsets my stomach when I hear the
Tabernacle Choir sing the words "Heavenly Father" in place of "Ave
Maria". Not that I would want them to sing, "Ave Maria", necessarily,
mind you, but even so...
John
John S. Colton
[snip]
>What's the general feeling in the LDS Church about singing hymns not in
>the Hymnal? In other words, did the people who compose the current hymnal
>just figure Amazing Grace was readily available elsewhere and the space in
>the hymnbook could be better used to showcase uniquely LDS hymns?
First, it's my opinion that A.G. was left out because of (perceived,
not real) doctrinal problems.
Anyway, regarding singing hymns not in the hymn book-- sure, it's done
all the time by choirs and by individual musical numbers. (For obvious
logistical reasons, it's not done in congregational music.) Generally
speaking, the musical numbers are approved by the ward music
chairperson, and perhaps in theory by the bishopric. Supposing I
wanted to perform Amazing Grace as a musical number, I'd say that I
would seek the approval of the bishopric first. Probably some bishops
would give an "OK" and others would not (again, because of perceived
doctrinal problems).
Ann Porter
news:7DAZ6.19452$Uj2.4...@news.easynews.com...
> Lynn Gazis-Sax wrote:
>
> > Holy, Holy, Holy (this one mentions Trinity,
> > so probably not in the LDS hymnal)
>
> True -- although I've heard a version of this hymn in which the
> trinitarian lines were replaced by something more palatable to LDS.
> Unfortunately, I can't recall the changed lyrics at the moment.
I heard it at a Tabernacle Choir Broadcast of Music and the Spoken Word when
I was in Utah on my honeymoon.
"God in his Glory, blessed deity."
Best,
Ann
P.S. I love that song
Ann Porter
> I am against the "LDSizing" of hymn lyrics to make them singable by
> LDS choirs. If the lyrics are bad enough to make you want to change
> them, just sing something else! There's plenty of good music, with
> perfectly acceptable lyrics.
>
> Case in point: something really upsets my stomach when I hear the
> Tabernacle Choir sing the words "Heavenly Father" in place of "Ave
> Maria". Not that I would want them to sing, "Ave Maria", necessarily,
> mind you, but even so...
Why can we sing songs about Joseph Smith but not songs about Jesus's mother?
That has always seemed odd to me.
Best,
Ann
Bart Burk
had it changed because the word isn't Biblical. I think
it was something like "blessed overall," but I'm not sure.
I would bring in "Amazing Grace" and "It is Well with My
Soul." I would get rid of "O My Father" which ruins
Mother's and Father's Day for me. Why we have to have
a non-scriptural mention of Heavenly Mother in a hymm
is beyond me. I'm sure others of you would disagree.
And if a hymn really is like a prayer unto God we're
directly praying to Mother in Heaven in the hymn. That
ought to be enough to knock it out right there.
Bart Burk
ri...@webcom.com (Rich Wales) wrote in message news:<7DAZ6.19452$Uj2.4...@news.easynews.com>...
blwrjw
I Believe in Christ
Praise to the Man
High on the Mountaintop
God Speed the Right
O My Father
Come Listen to a Prophet's Voice
If You Could Hie to Kolob
Come Come Ye Saints
Roughly in that order
I know, these are more melodic than harmonic, but they're the ones
that get me.
I also don't really have a problem with Snow's other stuff (although
'O My Father' is the only one on my list), and I flat out *like*
McConkie's stuff (even when he added to existing hymns).
B.
David Bowie
School Gospel Doctrine: Lesson 20)"
"Peggy Rogers" <pro...@xmission.com> wrote...
<snip>
: Today in Young Women we sang "As Zion's Youth in Latter Days."
: Mostly harmless, and I wouldn't be objecting except for the
: beginning of the second verse:
: The truths and values we embrace are mocked on every hand.
: Does anyone out there think that this is actually a true statement?
: Which truths and values are these?...
I agree with the whole rest of the post, BTW.
There was a family in a previous ward i was in who had eight children (most
of them adopted). Most of them spoke in sacrament meeting one Sunday and it
was a pretty good set of speeches, but at one point the mother said
something that kinda bugged me; i'll paraphrase here:
Families are under attack from every side. I know this from
experience--i'll take my family to the grocery store, and i'll
get comments on how many children i have and questions like
"Are all these *your* children?" or "Isn't it hard with so
many children?"
She then went on to an entirely different subject.
Now, let's assume that what she reports are actually negative reactions
rather than simple comments from people making conversation (although i'm
not convinced of that). Since when are comments like these proof that the
family is "under attack"? I'm sure she's gotten compliments on her family;
do those stand as evidence that the family is under preservation?
What does it mean when people in church say "the family is under attack",
anyway? (This is a serious question, and one i'd like to hear answered.)
>From my observation, it seems that the family is doing quite nicely,
thankyouverymuch, but apparently a lot of other Mormons don't see it that
way.
<snip>
David, who recognizes this may hinge on defining "family"
Bart Burk
the word Trinity? The word Trinity can be found as applied to Father,
Son and Holy Ghost in LDS talks and writings of General Authorities
all the way through 1978. In fact Talmadge in his book "Articles of
Faith" refers to Father, Son and Holy Ghost as a Trinity. Even if
you just consider them three persons united in one Godhead that constitutes
a Trinity. Even Joseph Fielding Smith used the term in his writings! And
we're afraid to sing it in a song ...
"Ann Porter" <annyal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<lDHZ6.8626$Zt4.1...@news.easynews.com>...
Rob Perkins
wrote:
>Now, let's assume that what she reports are actually negative reactions
>rather than simple comments from people making conversation (although i'm
>not convinced of that). Since when are comments like these proof that the
>family is "under attack"? I'm sure she's gotten compliments on her family;
>do those stand as evidence that the family is under preservation?
1 -- It occurs to me that in the U.S. today, there is only one group
left which doesn't seem to get the full tolerance of the people,
through the entertainment and news media. In the media, how many times
in the last six weeks or so have you (any one of us) been able to
identify a definite complimentary thing said about the
judaeo-christian ethic, or the notion that a family-centered and
family-faithful outlook works as a *cause* for good in the world?
(Posts from LDSnews don't count! Well, they do, but keep a sense of
perspective about it.) How many comments in the media, in comparison,
serve to denegrate that ethic or that outlook?
I'm wracking my brain, but the best I can come up with is that the
last show to promote that the idea of judaeo-christianity as helpful
was M*A*S*H, with its Catholic chaplain character. And, it occurs that
the last moral co-habitation sit-com must have been "Mork and Mindy".
The last family-friendly show, maybe "The Cosby Show". "Rosanne"?
Maybe, with the appropriate pair of glasses on.
I certainly can't think of any television from the '90's that
supposed, from the get-go, that a life led morally could be funny in
any way, except for that strait-laced agent from Salt Lake City
depicted on "Frasier", but that was more or less a mockery, rather
than a deliberately funny character; the jokes came at the expense of
the character, or through the reactions of the main cast.
2 -- Outside of the context of the Church, without exception so far,
when my wife reveals that she's a stay-at-home mom (usually to
government functionaries or survey takers), by deliberate choice, and
that she cares for three children, all under the age of 6, the
virtually universal response is, "...Oh." or "My, that's a lot of
kids!" or such.
Let's face it. To the people of *my* generation (early childhood in
the '70's, know all the lyrics to "Schoolhouse Rock" etc.) "Homemaker"
is congruent to "Failure" or "Underachiever". In one fell, society has
relegated my wife to the stupid person bin, without once considering
her Bachelor's of Science degree, cum laude, her deep-seated talents
WRT design and graphic art, her ability to comprehend most any book
worth comprehending, and a sense of the world that lets her balance
priorities in a way I never could, etc, etc, etc.
All swallowed up and dismissed by applying the title "Housewife" to
her.
Just two data points. There are others.
>What does it mean when people in church say "the family is under attack",
>anyway? (This is a serious question, and one i'd like to hear answered.)
I think, in a nutshell, what it means is that the things we LDS value,
and the people who think like us tactically, are getting no press
time, no credit for any good any more, and no respect. The "good
people" as defined by whichever intelligensia happen to be in power,
appear to be promiscuous but well-informed "about the dangers",
single, career-ambitious, ultimately tolerant and permissive of every
idea and practice aside from blatant dishonesty or capitalism,
ultimately intolerant of anyone who is not that permissive, and so
forth.
Many surely feel that it's only a little way from general assumptive
denegration of these values to a deliberate general vocal denegration.
This article informs a bit (another one by Card), and explains all the
reasons why a marvelously entertaining movie like _Pleasantville_
throws the baby out with the bathwater. He doesn't have much good to
say about it.
From: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/reviews98/movies_worst.shtml
__begin quote__
The reason why they had to go to the fifties soon becomes clear,
however. For this is not a satire on television. It is a satire on the
values of the fifties. The point of the movies Pleasantville is not
just that people caught in a television show need to discover reality,
it's that people who think the fifties represented a better time in
American culture than today are completely wrong. For even though
today has problems, those problems come from freedom and change, and
change is inevitable and freedom is irreversible, and anyone who tries
to return to those old values or cling to the few that survive is a
bigot and a fascist-to-be.
__end quote
Rob
Ann Porter
news:D3MZ6.13615$Zt4.3...@news.easynews.com...
> What does it mean when people in church say "the family is under attack",
> anyway? (This is a serious question, and one i'd like to hear answered.)
> >From my observation, it seems that the family is doing quite nicely,
> thankyouverymuch, but apparently a lot of other Mormons don't see it that
> way.
I think while our values are no longer looked upon as odd or extreme, they
are not lauded as "this is how things should be." Just as there are actions
that are morally neutral, there are attitudes that are neutral. People do
not have to admire our values to agree that they can serve us well. These
people do not attack our values, nor do they share them. But because they
don't have the same values we do, some LDS see them as our "attackers."
Sometimes, I think, because our standards are different, we think that
people who don't share them are "less righteous." An example is how we
dress. The dress standards we ask of our youth are stricter than many
non-LDS youth adhere to. However, just because a young woman wears a
sleeveless top and shorts that hit her mid-thigh does not make her a tramp!
Perfectly nice, Christian girls wear clothing like that all the time. That
doesn't make their standards "lower" than ours - just different.
Further, I think there are LDS who think that unless you are persecuted for
your beliefs, you can't be a "real" saint. So, they see persecution where
there is none.
We are building a temple here in Lubbock. Lubbock is a very aggressively
Christian community - prayers before football games, before PTA meetings,
prayer boxes in the school office, etc. "Where do you go to church?" is a
common question among people getting to know each other, because everyone
goes to church. We had been anticipating some opposition about the temple.
We haven't heard a word. Not a word. Nobody cares! Some local members are
disappointed at this.
Best,
Ann
Hedgehog
rob_p...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 1 -- It occurs to me that in the U.S. today, there is only one group
> left which doesn't seem to get the full tolerance of the people,
> through the entertainment and news media. In the media, how many times
> in the last six weeks or so have you (any one of us) been able to
> identify a definite complimentary thing said about the
> judaeo-christian ethic, or the notion that a family-centered and
> family-faithful outlook works as a *cause* for good in the world?
Our local newspaper runs a religion page every Friday.
I went to the newspapers website and did a search for "Christian" and the
first article I turned up was:
Which includes a reference to the fact that LDS growth is outpacing that
of mainline Christian denominations and that "strict" churches are growing
faster generally.
That's from March 16, so it is technically outside your time limit.
Looking at last friday, they have a blurb on Billy Graham speaking in
Kentucky; an announcement on the Orthodox Peace movement; a story about
people in Indiana placing signs with the Ten Commandments on their front
lawns. See for yourself:
http://sunspot.uniontrib.com/news/uniontrib/fri/currents/index.html
The Articles of Faith say: "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of
good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things". It doesn't
gurantee they will all be on the front page.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Colleen Porter
>anyway? (This is a serious question, and one i'd like to hear answered.)
>From my observation, it seems that the family is doing quite nicely,
>thankyouverymuch, but apparently a lot of other Mormons don't see it that
>way.
To me, a major form of attack is that parents have been
stripped of control and responsibility for their children,
and yet mom and dad are still the first targets of finger-
pointing when something goes wrong with our youth (e.g.,
Columbine.)
I won't be notified if my 14-year-old checks into a drug
rehab program. Or if my 15-year-old wants to carry on an
online correspondence with a militia group using a terminal
at the public library. Or if my 16-year-old wants to have
an abortion. Or if my 17-year-old is tested for HIV.
As a mom, I would want to be told in all those cases. Not
only do I love and care about my children at any age, but I
will have to pick up the pieces if things go wrong. I hope
to help them effectively, not ruin or run their lives.
The American Library Association's policies I find
particularly upsetting. They do not discriminate on the
basis of age. This means that minors get unfettered access
to the Internet and can check out X-rated videos. And the
parents have absolutely no say. Public libraries are no
longer a family-friendly place.
I consider it an attack on the family when a basketball
coach talks the English teacher into a passing grade so the
team could win the champtionship (and mom and dad never
found out about all those half-finished essays.) When
society "protects" minors from their parents, the effect is
also to prevent families from learning to cope.
And then there are things like inappropriate cable channels
coming unsolicited into the home, going shopping and not
being able to find a dress that doesn't look like a
prostitute, things like that.
I'm not nostalgic for the 1950s, as I actually remember
them, the racism and sexism and lack of diversity and
choice. But I do think that it was easier to raise kids
then--and I know that my parents didn't have to work as
hard at it as we do.
I can't quite buy the "all is well in Zion" refrain on
this one. But then, some folks would say it is because
I don't live in Zion.
Colleen Kay Porter
Robb L. Robertson
> What does it mean when people in church say "the family is under attack",
> anyway? (This is a serious question, and one i'd like to hear answered.)
I'm sure I am oversimplifying your question, but, if we take the stance that
what that sister perceives is
a "bad" thing, isn't your question merely another form of "doesn't sin
permeate all corners of human existence"?
To which scripture replies: "yes". Following this reasoning, I would argue
that that particular sister is also an attacker, since she (and I and you)
are sinful. Of course, we make mistakes as parents (maybe having a load of
kids is one of them; my own folks have said as much in having 7).
Robb, who opines that the family is also "attacked" from within the walls of
the home.
Raymond Bingham
[snip]
>coming unsolicited into the home, going shopping and not
>being able to find a dress that doesn't look like a
>prostitute, things like that.
This is all too true. My wife, Sondra, is so frustrated
with young girl clothes. It takes a lot of effort just
to find something with sleeves, covers the navel, and
doesn't stop covering at about mid-buttock.
Its one reason that jeans are so nice, if you can find a
nice comfortable pair for girls (not the straight jacket
type, which can't be comfortable, let alone modest. ;),
because at least they cover things.
Anyhow thanks for your notes about the library. I take
my children there, but I don't think I am comfortable
just leaving them unsupervised. In our library, I've
noticed there's a lot of literature on "diverse lifestyles"
which don't coincide with practicing LDS stuff. A lot
of those lifestyles are cultivated in secret, away from
parental intervention, and without parental consent.
Heck, that could be said about a lot of stuff, I suppose.
Best regards,
--
Raymond Bingham | 100 % PURE Uninformed Unabashed Opinion
"A good rule of thumb: Never give Microsoft root access."
Raymond Bingham
>> What does it mean when people in church say "the family is under attack",
>> anyway? (This is a serious question, and one i'd like to hear answered.)
>> >From my observation, it seems that the family is doing quite nicely,
>> thankyouverymuch, but apparently a lot of other Mormons don't see it that
>> way.
>I think while our values are no longer looked upon as odd or extreme, they
>are not lauded as "this is how things should be." Just as there are actions
>that are morally neutral, there are attitudes that are neutral. People do
>not have to admire our values to agree that they can serve us well. These
>people do not attack our values, nor do they share them. But because they
>don't have the same values we do, some LDS see them as our "attackers."
Another approach might be that the extended family is becoming more
and more streamlined. There was a time when family name was more than
just a few letters you tacked onto the back of your own individual
identifier. In some cases it was downright brutal to cross family names,
and dishonor the 'bingham clan' (or whatever).
I do think "the family is under attack" holds meaning, if it is a bit
overused. I find it increasingly difficult to remain close to my
own immediate family members. In the US, there is financial pressures
to have both parents working to live up to a world's standard of living.
Children are given entertainment devices to compensate for living
parents. Heck, they have video programs for infants now, now the whole
family can ignore one another in front of the Teevee.
There are a lot of choices we can make to indulge ourselves. I have a
friend who is "in the world" and would like nothing more than to settle
down with a young woman and get married and have a family. He frequently
expresses his frustration to me, and explains that we Mormons are lucky
to have such a positive cultural current. He can't find a girl willing
to do that. They have their career, and having children is the farthest
thing from their minds. (It appears young women of the world are
about as bad as young men now... ;)
Even "family entertainment" seldom if ever, depicts a family in any
form. (Except for the Sopranos... ;)
Rob Perkins
wrote:
>In article <9JOZ6.16195$Zt4.3...@news.easynews.com>,
>rob_p...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> 1 -- It occurs to me that in the U.S. today, there is only one group
>> left which doesn't seem to get the full tolerance of the people,
>> through the entertainment and news media. In the media, how many times
>> in the last six weeks or so have you (any one of us) been able to
>> identify a definite complimentary thing said about the
>> judaeo-christian ethic, or the notion that a family-centered and
>> family-faithful outlook works as a *cause* for good in the world?
>
>Our local newspaper runs a religion page every Friday.
You mean, people still read the newspaper?
In my little rant, I was referring more to television and news media
than print media, which I hardly give a second thought to, anymore,
truthfully speaking.
But let's take it a little farther. That first article you turned up
was a highlights-and-summaries column, fine in and of itself,
reporting accurately, neutral for the most part, etc.
When was the last time any news media, print, TV, or otherwise,
actually printed an article where it was clear that the editorial
staff and reporters believed that values like the LDS values were the
ones to have?
Who with great influence in the media, advocates for the tactical
things we LDS and others who think like us espouse?
There have been hints of it from our President in the U.S.; It's well
known that he advocates faith in God and Christ, and "traditional
family values," but the press coverage of that part of his person has
been, in my observation, skeptical and standoffish. [Actually, the
press coverage of the President has been consistently skeptical and
standoffish, which is a little irritating to me; noone is that
consistently a buffoon. But, I digress.]
Let's go a little farther. Sure, you can find a religion page in every
newspaper, but their overall circulations, nationwide (U.S. again,
sorry I don't have info for the rest of the world), are *decreasing*.
Couple that with the virtual absense of faith-based programming on
mainstream television (When was _Touched by an Angel_ cancelled?).
Combine that with a list of the movies you last saw that went out of
their way to tell a story about a family and how their unity as a
family brought them through some crisis, fictional or not. (I can't
think of any recent ones; was _Poltergeist_ really the last one like
this? That was 1983! And even in that movie, the parents were doing
drugs...)
(We can be glad for cable and satellite, I suppose, though I *REALLY
REALLY WISH* that BYUTV would air some programming that wasn't already
20 years old...)
Now, compare the lyrics from Debbie Gibson's old songs to the lyrics
in Christina Aguilera's. Compare their dress, and manners onstage and
off, then and now. Is there a difference?
What was generally acceptable "then"? What is "now"? Does the change
indicate a direction towards a family-oriented society, or away from
it?
What was generally acceptable in schools "then", and what is "now"?
Are drugs a worse problem, or not? Violent crime? Out-of-wedlock
pregnancies?
(14 years ago, when I was finishing high school, there were, I think,
three Senior girls at the school with out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
Today, there's a daycare center right on campus.)
I think it's safe to say that there is little active promotion of
family-centered ideals in the entertainment and news industries (ranta
bene: is there a difference in the U.S. anymore?) The shift in
emphases just in the last 15 years has been a telling thing.
I think Ann's comments are reasonably accurate. There is no movement
against LDS and Christian family values today. But, there is no longer
any real movement for them. And, IMO, the trend is developing against
them.
>The Articles of Faith say: "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of
>good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things". It doesn't
>gurantee they will all be on the front page.
Sure! It's getting more difficult as time goes on, though.
Rob
Vincent Woolf
jobs, marriage, etc. modern techology made it much easier to remain close
to family. Email instantly connects family in Arizona, Utah, Texas,
Maryland, and Northern Ireland. And deregulation and competition means
that it now costs less for me to phone Arizona from Europe than it did 5
years ago to phone from Texas.
Not arguing that there aren't problems for families these days, just
pointing out that modern developments aren't all bad.
Vincent Woolf
Hedgehog
rob_p...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Our local newspaper runs a religion page every Friday.
> You mean, people still read the newspaper?
> In my little rant, I was referring more to television and news media
> than print media, which I hardly give a second thought to, anymore,
> truthfully speaking.
Hmmm, where did those goalposts go? I thought they were around here
somewhere. :)
As far as TV goes, it seems to me that almost anytime I watch network TV
there are little public service announcements encouraging parents to read
to kids, encouraging parents to ask their teenagers where they have been
and to whom they have been talking, showing kids how to say "no" to drugs,
etc.
I think it was just a week or two ago when Millionaire had a week of shows
where parents and kids played the game together.
Mormons are not happy with all that?
> When was the last time any news media, print, TV, or otherwise,
> actually printed an article where it was clear that the editorial
> staff and reporters believed that values like the LDS values were the
> ones to have?
I do have to admit it was probably ten or fifteen years ago when the local
newspaper stopped running a daily prayer on the editorial page.
I can't justify what anyone else watches on TV. Last night when I turned
the TV on, I had the last 15 minutes of Jeopardy, though mainly I was
typing on the computer. Then I switched to PBS and Antiques Roadshow was
on. I suppose on one level Antiques Roadshow promotes a greedy grasping
mentality about personal possessions, but often the appraisers freely
admit that the true value of an item is its relevance to family history.
Then after Antiques Roadshow, Gormengast was on. I guess that is family
oriented in about the same way that King Lear or Hamlet is. But it
certainly isn't about unbridled lust and drug use. The one young woman
who had sex out of wedlock died unattended in the woods when she was
giving birth. That's moral, isn't it? ;)
Anyway, I think the point is you have a knob on the TV to switch channels
and another one to turn it off. The LDS have no excuse but their own
agency if they watch horrible TV.
> Who with great influence in the media, advocates for the tactical
> things we LDS and others who think like us espouse?
At this point I think the goal posts have been moved just too far. I
don't happen to know the names of that many TV executives anyhow.
> Couple that with the virtual absense of faith-based programming on
> mainstream television (When was _Touched by an Angel_ cancelled?).
Long after MASH. I am a bit suprised you mentioned MASH as a positive
show, given that it tended to wink and smile at Hawkeye's alcoholism.
> Combine that with a list of the movies you last saw that went out of
> their way to tell a story about a family and how their unity as a
> family brought them through some crisis, fictional or not. (I can't
> think of any recent ones; was _Poltergeist_ really the last one like
> this? That was 1983! And even in that movie, the parents were doing
> drugs...)
How about Pay It Forward?
> Now, compare the lyrics from Debbie Gibson's old songs to the lyrics
> in Christina Aguilera's. Compare their dress, and manners onstage and
> off, then and now. Is there a difference?
Didn't Christina do one of the songs for Mulan? Wasn't that film about
family values? Other than that all I can say is people have been
complaining about this sort of thing since Elvis' pelvis.
> What was generally acceptable "then"? What is "now"? Does the change
> indicate a direction towards a family-oriented society, or away from
> it?
There was once a Quaker author who wrote that he didn't want to be the
sort of Quaker who appeared to have been weaned by sucking spiritual
persimmons.
> (14 years ago, when I was finishing high school, there were, I think,
> three Senior girls at the school with out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
> Today, there's a daycare center right on campus.)
Which is vastly preferrable to back alley abortions done in the 1950s.
Sorry, Rob, but I can't see childcare as anti-family.
> I think Ann's comments are reasonably accurate. There is no movement
> against LDS and Christian family values today. But, there is no longer
> any real movement for them.
It is an unprofitable servant who must be commanded in all things.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Providance Program
Maria, etc. The words DO NOT need to be changed. (This per Michael Moody -
formerly head of Church music). I think, personally, that all the changes
were for the benefit of the church members--who probably cannot handle
certain words (please don't get me started on that one!) Trinity is an
appropriate word, however, it can lead people to think of the Catholic (or
other) churches (per my stake leaders--and if you've read my recent
questions about women in the church, you know that they are not infallible.)
So in my humble opinion, we can sing what we think is pleasing to God.
Including Latin or other languages. Per Michael Moody, if the song is in
latin (as is Ave Maria) just have someone say the words in English--like a
poem--prior to singing the song. I think that they changed Ave Maria to
English, just for fun or ease in listening to. Not because the words
referring to the mother of Jesus were offensive.
Anyway, I have sung it in choir in church and loved it.
Lisa - who is always opinionated when it comes to church music!
Melissa
Providance Program wrote:
> In reference to what is appropriate to sing in church - i.e. trinity, >Ave Maria, etc. The words DO NOT need to be changed.
This whole thing comes as a surprise to me, not that the words don't
need to be cahnged, but that they HAVE been changed in cases. I guess
it's mostly a shock because it's been sung without word changes or any
explanations in two of the last wards I've been in. My only problem with
it actually is that I'm getting sick of hearing it over and over.
Melissa
(who likes the newer Primary Christmas songs including When Joseph Went
to Bethlehem)
Ann Porter
news:VL%Z6.28221$Zt4.8...@news.easynews.com...
> This is all too true. My wife, Sondra, is so frustrated
> with young girl clothes. It takes a lot of effort just
> to find something with sleeves, covers the navel, and
> doesn't stop covering at about mid-buttock.
I would like to go on record as saying there is nothing sinful about
shoulders or belly buttons. Or the three inches above an adult's knee, for
that matter.
Best,
Ann
Ann Porter
news:ZR%Z6.28378$Zt4.8...@news.easynews.com...
> I think Ann's comments are reasonably accurate. There is no movement
> against LDS and Christian family values today. But, there is no longer
> any real movement for them. And, IMO, the trend is developing against
> them.
Promise Keepers? Dr. James Dobson's "Focus on the Family"?
Some of these movements have had significant positive impacts on
individual's commitments to their families.
Best,
Ann
fmhlaw
Ann Porter wrote:
There's nothing inherently sinful about breasts, or genitalia. But whether to
display those body parts is a question of modesty, self respect, treating the
body sacred as a temple, etc.
Rich Wales
> The words [to "Holy, Holy, Holy"] DO NOT need to be changed.
> (This per Michael Moody - formerly head of Church music.)
I must disagree -- even if this means I'm disagreeing with Michael
Moody. The word "trinity" is too firmly associated with traditional
misconceptions about the nature of God to be suitable for LDS use.
> Per Michael Moody, if the song is in Latin (as is Ave Maria)
> just have someone say the words in English-- . . . .
In general, I don't have a serious problem with the idea of singing
a song in a foreign language, provided a translation is supplied.
But I don't really think "Ave Maria" is a good example to use here,
since this particular text is a prayer to the Virgin Mary, asking
her to intercede on our behalf (something which Catholics believe
in doing, but which LDS do not).
Ann Porter
news:zH8_6.39445$Zt4.1...@news.easynews.com...
> There's nothing inherently sinful about breasts, or genitalia. But
whether to
> display those body parts is a question of modesty, self respect, treating
the
> body sacred as a temple, etc.
So the display of shoulders shows lack of self-respect and immodesty? I'll
be sure to tell that to the next lovely Baptist woman I meet who's wearing a
sleeveless shirt.
Best,
Ann
Gerald G. Fuller
Snip
>So the display of shoulders shows lack of self-respect and immodesty? I'll
>be sure to tell that to the next lovely Baptist woman I meet who's wearing a
>sleeveless shirt.
Pleasse do so! She obviously will thank you for your kindness and
courtesy!
Actually, those of you who think a lot of it deals with the culture in
which we find ourselves are probably correct. But the culture (or lack
of it) that we now have, exploits the human body, especially the
female body.
Gene
Gerald G. Fuller
>"Lisa" wrote:
>
> > The words [to "Holy, Holy, Holy"] DO NOT need to be changed.
> > (This per Michael Moody - formerly head of Church music.)
>
>I must disagree -- even if this means I'm disagreeing with Michael
>Moody. The word "trinity" is too firmly associated with traditional
>misconceptions about the nature of God to be suitable for LDS use.
>
Yes, the word is associated with misconceptions. That does not in and
of itself make it a bad word.
Many of our past leaders have properly used it. One example is Hugh B.
Brown one time counselor in the first presidency. Here is an example
>In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost-in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages. This is one dist
inguishing and, to some, disturbing doctrine of the Church. We do not believe that He is incomprehensible, immaterial, and without body or parts. While we agree that finite man cannot fully comprehend God, there is ample support in the Bible for our fait
h that we may progressively increase our knowledge and understanding of Him. In fact, our eternal life is dependent upon our knowing Him. Note the words of Jesus:
Quote
In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal
Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost-in other
words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are
separate and distinct personages. This is one distinguishing and, to
some, disturbing doctrine of the Church. We do not believe that He is
incomprehensible, immaterial, and without body or parts. While we
agree that finite man cannot fully comprehend God, there is ample
support in the Bible for our faith that we may progressively increase
our knowledge and understanding of Him. In fact, our eternal life is
dependent upon our knowing Him. Note the words of Jesus:
End Quote from the book "The Abundant Life"
Stephen E. Robinson in his book "Are Mormons Christians" had the
following to say:
Quote
7 The Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God
It has been said that since Latter-day Saints do not accept the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it follows that they cannot be
considered Christians. Here again the heart of the argument lies in
the definition of its terms. Specifically the logical problem with
this argument is that non-LDS Christians usually define the term
trinity ambiguously. They habitually, and most often unconsciously,
equate the biblical teaching on the nature of the Godhead with the
later philosophical statement formulated at the Council of Chalcedon
in A.D. 451-the Nicene Creed.1 But these two ways of perceiving God
are simply not equivalent.
What Is the Trinity?
If by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the New Testament
teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of
whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine
of the Trinity. It is as simple as that. The Latter-day Saints' first
article of faith, written by Joseph Smith in 1842., states, "We
believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and
in the Holy Ghost." Baptisms in the Church are72
performed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost" (see D&C 20:73). The prayer of blessing on the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper is addressed to God the Eternal Father in the name of
his Son, Jesus Christ, to the end that those who partake may have his
Spirit to be with them (see D&C 20:77-79). Latter-day Saints
thoroughly agree with the biblical doctrine of the threefold nature of
the Godhead and of the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost.
However, if by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the doctrine
formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon
by subsequent theologians and councils-that God is three coequal
persons in one substance or essence-then Latter-day Saints do not
believe it. They do not believe it, because it is not biblical. Words
central to the orthodox understanding of the Trinity-words like
coequal, consubstantial, and circumincession, or the word trinity
itself, for that matter-are not found in scripture.2 The term trinity
(Latin trinitas) was first used by Tertullian around the beginning of
the third century A.D.3 The Nicene and Chalcedonian Fathers tried to
find scriptural terms for their new formulae but were unable to do so.
The scriptures themselves do not offer any explanation of how the
threeness and the oneness of God are related. The biblical writers
were singularly uninterested in that problem or in questions dealing
with God's essence, his substance, or the philosophical definition of
his nature. These later concerns are elaborations upon the biblical
doctrine of God, elaborations formulated to answer in philosophically
respectable terms the questions and objections of Hellenistic thinking
concerning the primitive Christian doctrine.4 Christian intellectuals
of the fourth and fifth centuries felt that the biblical language was
too unsophisticated and inadequate for this purpose, and so they
attempted to supplement and improve it with their own best efforts.
End Quote
So all I am saying is that we don't need to throw out the baby with
the bathwater. We know that there are three members of the Godhead who
all work together, each accomplishing His own functions. That makes a
trinity whether or not others believe or understand it.
I was familiar at one time with a change in "Holy, Holy, Holy" in one
denomination which made it read "God over all, blessed eternally". But
that denomination had a bit of trouble thinking of Jesus Christ as
being God in any way and certainly not as the Jehovah of the Old
Testament.
Are there perhaps more important things to emphasize in our true
religion and undefiled than how we differ from some others in our
understanding? Maybe this needs to be considered. Maybe it even needs
to be emphasized at certain times and places, but I am not at all
sure. Maybe all that we need is to be very sure that we know what is
true and believe it, and try to teach it to others withoug worrying
about their past errors.
> > Per Michael Moody, if the song is in Latin (as is Ave Maria)
> > just have someone say the words in English-- . . . .
>
>In general, I don't have a serious problem with the idea of singing
>a song in a foreign language, provided a translation is supplied.
>
>But I don't really think "Ave Maria" is a good example to use here,
>since this particular text is a prayer to the Virgin Mary, asking
>her to intercede on our behalf (something which Catholics believe
>in doing, but which LDS do not).
Which is intersting in and of itself, in fact. Many of us seem to
think that our departed dead may intercede in our behalf, such as
coming to us to tell us all is welll with them, to give us warnings,
etc. Now, if that is true, who better to do that than the Mother of
Jesus Christ in the flesh? However, I basically agree with you that we
have been taught to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ.
Not to Mary or even through her.
Gene
Rob Perkins
<annyal...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Rob Perkins <rob_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ZR%Z6.28378$Zt4.8...@news.easynews.com...
>
>> I think Ann's comments are reasonably accurate. There is no movement
>> against LDS and Christian family values today. But, there is no longer
>> any real movement for them. And, IMO, the trend is developing against
>> them.
>
>Promise Keepers? Dr. James Dobson's "Focus on the Family"?
I had forgotten about Promise Keepers, which appears to be all but
gone from the public mind these last three years, AFAICT. Is it? Dr.
Dobson's thing I hadn't heard of, but I might not have been paying
attention. :-)
>Some of these movements have had significant positive impacts on
>individual's commitments to their families.
OK.
Rob
Gerald G. Fuller
You and I are in agreement on that. In fact there is nothing that I
know of that is sinful about total nudity under the right
circumstances and in the right places. However, as a man, who has some
understanding of the matter, and who has read and heard other men's
reactions, I can say that the sin exists in the temptations that men
allow themselves to entertain and the thoughts that arise in their
"hearts and minds" when they see these things under incorrect
circumstances and in incorrect places.
We have been told since almost time immemorial to cover out bodies.
That provides protection from the elements, of course. It also
provides a certain amount of protection from "lustful eyes".
I have always ratehr disliked the use of the word "modesty" to refer
to the covering of the body, but on the other hand some of the things
that are worn by both male and femal are anything by modest in the
sense that they are a blatant advertisement of availability. They are
a blatant attempt to advertise publicly that which truly should be
held sacred.
Gene
iphigenia
:
: So the display of shoulders shows lack of self-respect and immodesty?
I'll
: be sure to tell that to the next lovely Baptist woman I meet who's wearing
a
: sleeveless shirt.
Well, modesty standards tend to be entirely individual.
But, for myself, yes.
The way I see it, my kids are going to be raised to go to the temple
someday. I don't want them to have to change their standards to be able to
make and live up to the temple covenants. While I won't be insisting that
shorts touch the knees, sleeveless or low-cut tops and short shorts/skirts
won't be acceptable. I consider anything less (literally ; )) immodest.
I was raised with these standards and one good thing about them is that when
I began wearing garments, I didn't chafe against the restrictions they place
on the wearer. I've met a number of LDS women who were allowed to wear tank
tops and shorter skirts/shorts as teenagers who complained about having to
get new clothes after they married and how annoying it was to have to wear
dorky long shorts, etc.
Just my perspective on modesty, not judging anyone else's decisions or
practices : )
--
iphigenia
i have heard the mermaids singing, each to each...
i do not think that they will sing to me.
John S. Colton
[snip]
>Dr.
>Dobson's thing I hadn't heard of, but I might not have been paying
>attention. :-)
[snip]
Focus on the Family does radio spots that I hear from time to time.
I also read a book by Dr. Dobson on child-rearing. IIRC it was pretty
good. <quick amazon search> Oh, yeah, it was "Dare to Discipline". In
fact, I read the book before ever hearing of Focus on the Family, and
I thought that many of the precepts taught in the book agree with
things taught in the church.
John
*****
John's new usenet motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
Hedgehog
(Rich Wales) wrote:
> In general, I don't have a serious problem with the idea of singing
> a song in a foreign language, provided a translation is supplied.
I can see this may be help for a completely unfamiliar song, but for well
known songs such as Ave Maria or Stille Nacht, it doesn't seem necessary.
Does the LDS Church have foreign language wards in the United States? For
example, perhaps Spanish, Chinese or Vietnamese wards in some
neighborhoods of California would be helpful.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
<annp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> So the display of shoulders shows lack of self-respect and immodesty? I'll
> be sure to tell that to the next lovely Baptist woman I meet who's wearing a
> sleeveless shirt.
Is it a sin for Mormons to watch (or participate) in the Olympics?
I suppose some events, such as equestrian events, are not too much of a
problem, but many track and field atheletes and swimmers wear clothes that
are not "modest".
Just recently in England there was a big to-do because a woman squash
player wanted to wear a thong in the British Open. Her argument was that
the thong was no more revealing than what many women wear on the beach
today. The governing board of the tournament argued that it might
distract the judges.
Mormons brave enough to look, can see how revealing the thong was at:
http://www.squashpics.com/vickybot/index.html
(Even though she was not allowed to compete in it, an enterprising
photographer was able to do a photo shoot with her.)
Even ordinary squash clothing for women can show the shoulders and a few
inches above the knee. Presumably even that would be a no-no for Mormons.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
<genef...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> You and I are in agreement on that. In fact there is nothing that I
> know of that is sinful about total nudity under the right
> circumstances and in the right places.
Yet doesn't BYU forbid any nude modelling in its art classes?
Should the code of conduct at BYU be adjusted to be more in-line with the
opinions of the average LDS member?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Melissa
Hedgehog wrote:
> Does the LDS Church have foreign language wards in the United States?
Yes, in our stake there is a Spanish Branch. I also know of several in
California. I'm sure there are many others.
Melissa
(who just for topicality mentions that she likes some of the hymns
better in Spanish than in English)