We Mormon men are doomed to prostate cancer
Bart Burk
helps prevent prostate cancer:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030716/ts_nm/health_masturbation_dc_6
I guess Utah is very low in cancers generally, but it ranks 9th in the
country in prostate cancer! I guess it shows that Utah Mormons are
faithful even if it kills them younger.
Hal Lillywhite
> The news is in and it isn't good for us Mormon men. Masturbation
> helps prevent prostate cancer:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030716/ts_nm/health_masturbation_dc_6
Well, this is a new study and like all new studies should not be
swallowed whole till more information is in. Note that it seems to
contradict previous data which appeared to give opposite results.
Let's not be too hasty.
> I guess Utah is very low in cancers generally, but it ranks 9th in the
> country in prostate cancer! I guess it shows that Utah Mormons are
> faithful even if it kills them younger.
We probably need more information about that statistic. Is it
normalized for age? If not it is pretty useless. Prostate cancer
tends to affect a high percentage of older men, some think that
essentially *every* man will get it eventually unless something else
gets him first. By about age 100 the rate of this cancer is quite
high. The healthy life style practiced by many in Utah allows men
there to live longer which will naturally increase the number of men
with prostate cancer.
Flash82143
that much self control. What's so bad about the action, anyway, if done in
moderation?
Helen
Another good example for monogamous relationships. An older study indicated
sexual variety is not a good hygiene thing and can compromise the glands. .
Maybe this means that regular sex b/w one husband and wife is ideal!!
"Bart Burk" <bur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vhgpn1k...@news.supernews.com...
Pericle Malnati
news:vhhh0er...@news.supernews.com...
> I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that Mormon men do not masturbate. No one
has
> that much self control.
white skirt and with a Bible in your hand (I speak of a non-Mormon city in a
non-Mormon country, where many people laugh at the scene) can even make you
renounce to some practices.
> What's so bad about the action, anyway, if done in
> moderation?
You know, the old story of the 9th Commandment, the speech of "If your
eye/hand scandalizes you, cut it off", and a couple of other things. There's
no moderation possible for sins.
By the way, masturbation is a sin even for Catholics - it'd be nice to
discover if Catholic countries have a higher incidence of cancer. That
sounds almost funny.
David / Amicus
indicated sexual variety is not a good hygiene thing and can compromise
the glands. . Maybe this means that regular sex b/w one husband and wife
is ideal!!>>
Have to be careful here. One could use that against polygamy.
JOKE: If the plural of mouse is mice then the plural of spouse ought to
be spice and that means Brigham Young had a very sweet life!!! ;-)))))
Scott
> that much self control.
Many don't, many do. Yes, it is possible to have that much self
control. If people can stop smoking and drinking, masturbation can be
resisted as well.
> What's so bad about the action, anyway, if done in moderation?
That argument isn't valid. What's so bad about anything in moderation,
be it drinking, beating your wife, etc. If it's something that someone
considers bad then no amount of it is permissible.
It's "bad" because it violates the law of chastity and is a result of
not controlling lustful desires.
Regards,
Scott
David / Amicus
years=A0ago. One incident was about an LDS teen boy who commited suicide
over the guilt he had over this.
Helen
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:vhorb3p...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> Have to be careful here. One could use that against polygamy.
>
Oh but I intend to.....
NiteOwl
> > I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that Mormon men do not masturbate. No one has
> > that much self control.
>
> Many don't, many do. Yes, it is possible to have that much self
> control. If people can stop smoking and drinking, masturbation can be
> resisted as well.
Scott, i believe you might benefit from a refresher course in human
physiology. Sexual urge, like hunger and sleep, is a drive. It is not
an "addiction" that is chosen like smoking and drinking. You are
comparing apples to oranges. How one fulfils or gratifies this drive,
however, takes many forms. Most seek out the opposite sex, some the
same sex, but almost all fulfil this urge alone from time to time.
There is nothing sick or unheatlhy about that. Supressing it, however,
may have disastrous results to the indivudual's psyche.
Jerry James
wrote:
> All this reminds me of the movie "The God Makers" I saw many
> years=A0ago. One incident was about an LDS teen boy who commited suicide
> over the guilt he had over this.
Don't let the fact that pretty much everything in the movie (and the
book) was made up or grossly exaggerated by Ed Decker bother you at all.
--
Jerry James, who is not making this up
http://people.eecs.ku.edu/~james/
Hal Lillywhite
> scott...@hotmail.com (Scott) wrote in message news:<vhorp64...@news.supernews.com>...
> > > I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that Mormon men do not
> > > masturbate. No one has that much self control.
And how would whoever wrote this know how much self control somebody
else has?
Trust me, some of us do. I would not claim no Mormon men masturbate
but there are many who do not.
...
> Scott, i believe you might benefit from a refresher course in human
> physiology. Sexual urge, like hunger and sleep, is a drive. It is not
> an "addiction" that is chosen like smoking and drinking. You are
> comparing apples to oranges. How one fulfils or gratifies this drive,
> however, takes many forms...
Including the one nature provided while asleep. There is a perfectly
natural way of dumping the excess which requires neither mastubation
nor relations with any other human. It not only works, but has
built-in controls to cause it to happen when needed.
David / Amicus
book) was made up or grossly exaggerated by Ed Decker bother you at
all.>>
Please believe me that I was in no way defending or justifying Ed Decker
or "The God Makers". I think it was utter garbage! I forget the
specifics now but I think Ed Decker has=A0a personal grudge against the
LDS church that lead him to become a rabid anti.
The reason I'm not LDS is because I believe Christ established the
Catholic Church and there is no need for a reformation, restoration or
renewal whether by Muhammad, Martin Luther or Joseph Smith. To me it's
a history thing not a theology one.
I do not buy into the blatherings of the ex Mormon antis and
hatemongers!
Ann Porter
news:vhnv20o...@news.supernews.com...
> By the way, masturbation is a sin even for Catholics - it'd be nice to
> discover if Catholic countries have a higher incidence of cancer. That
> sounds almost funny.
It is almost a badge of honor among American Catholics to use their common
sense rather than Papal dictates to determine their personal behavior. I
was the oldest of four children, all born within four years (the youngest
was just a year younger than the twins). Even though my mother was only 24,
with many fertile years ahead of her, my good Catholic parents decided that
when the pope was willing to support the family, he could decide how many
children they could have.
I don't know how this contrasts with LDS behavior. It's been my observation
that LDS are really good at following the unimportant instructions (no
tattoos) but not so good at the more important instructions (do your home
and visiting teaching; give of your substance to the poor, etc.) Of course,
there are exceptions. Unfortunately, the more diligent people are, the more
responsibility they get.
Best,
Ann, a slacker
David / Amicus
teachings? The Standard Works? Somewhere else? Where can one look to see
what the official teachings of the LDS church are?
As a Catholic all I have to do is look in the Catechism of the Catholic
Church. If it's there that makes it official teaching.
http://www.ziplink.net/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/kerygma/a.pl
Type in masturbation or any other word or topic and see what comes up.
That's why I started a thread awhile back if there was an LDS catechism.
Jeff Shirton
taste. Thank you.]
"Hal Lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:vhrgvk9...@news.supernews.com...
> Trust me, some of us do. I would not claim no Mormon men
> masturbate but there are many who do not.
If I may be so bold as to ask a delicate question,
exactly how do you *know* such a personal thing?
(Perhaps it's simply a rhetorical question.)
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become God,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
Scott
> an "addiction" that is chosen like smoking and drinking.
True, but the urge to drink is an urge, urge to smoke, etc. While some
of these things may be a physical addiction or urge, certain things
can be a mental urge or addiction. Addiction to porn is a mental. You
might not choose the urges you get but you can choose how to react to
them; give in or control the.
Most seek out the opposite sex, some the
> same sex, but almost all fulfil this urge alone from time to time.
That doesn't mean it's right.
> There is nothing sick or unheatlhy about that.
What if your urge is to have sex with children?
Supressing it, however,
> may have disastrous results to the indivudual's psyche.
>
How? Controlling (not supressing) a desire is a fine attribute to
have, it's about self-mastery and control over one's self.
Regards,
Scott
Scott
> Catholic Church and there is no need for a reformation, restoration or
> renewal whether by Muhammad, Martin Luther or Joseph Smith. To me it's
> a history thing not a theology one.
That is an excellent position to have. Regarding authority there are
only 2 choices; the Cathlics who maintain anbroken line from Peter, or
the Mormons who say that the line was broken and had to be restored.
> I do not buy into the blatherings of the ex Mormon antis and
> hatemongers!
That is very good for you to recognize.
Regards,
Scott
Hal Lillywhite
> > Trust me, some of us do. I would not claim no Mormon men
> > masturbate but there are many who do not.
> If I may be so bold as to ask a delicate question,
> exactly how do you *know* such a personal thing?
1. Cause I'm one of them and I can't believe I'm unique.
2. I've been in a position to talk with people about it and they
have, I think, been honest on the subject.
Jeff Shirton
> > > Trust me, some of us do. I would not claim no Mormon men
> > > masturbate but there are many who do not.
>
> > If I may be so bold as to ask a delicate question,
> > exactly how do you *know* such a personal thing?
>
> 1. Cause I'm one of them and I can't believe I'm unique.
So you don't "know" that many do not, but you simply
believe it to be so, because you believe you are not unique.
Thank you for finally qualifying that for us.
> 2. I've been in a position to talk with people about it and they
> have, I think, been honest on the subject.
So you don't "know" that many do not, but simply "believe"
and "trust" people when they tell you. Again, thank you for
finally qualifying that for us.
It seems to me that there is adequate peer pressure or church
pressure to not always admit of such things. What's that old
(Utah) joke about a Mormon not recognizing another Mormon
at the liquor store?
I'm not accusing anyone of lying, of course. I'm simply pointing
out that we don't know. And while I think it's good that you
trust your friends, and give them the benefit of the doubt, I
don't think it's a good idea to make statements that you don't
know to be true.
But that's just my opinion.
Jeff Shirton
news:vhu8v5k...@news.supernews.com...
> > Most seek out the opposite sex, some the
> > same sex, but almost all fulfil this urge alone from time to time.
> > There is nothing sick or unheatlhy about that.
>
> What if your urge is to have sex with children?
Um, masturbation and pedophila are *not* the same thing.
I just thought that needed pointing out.
> Scott
Ann Porter
news:vhu8v5k...@news.supernews.com...
> True, but the urge to drink is an urge, urge to smoke, etc. While some
> of these things may be a physical addiction or urge, certain things
> can be a mental urge or addiction. Addiction to porn is a mental. You
I had rather thought that people who are addicted to porn get a "rush," and
said rush has a biochemical basis.
Just because the action does require imbibing doesn't mean that the result
isn't physical.
Best,
Ann
Hal Lillywhite
> > True, but the urge to drink is an urge, urge to smoke, etc. While some
> > of these things may be a physical addiction or urge, certain things
> > can be a mental urge or addiction. Addiction to porn is a mental. You
> I had rather thought that people who are addicted to porn get a "rush," and
> said rush has a biochemical basis.
I'm not a physician but have read a bit about addiction. The problem
is usually a combination of chemical and mental. In the case of
substance addiction, the substance affects the brain, usually
releasing large amounts of endorphins etc which give a feeling of
well-being and pleasure. There are also some physical changes which
cause the body to depend on the substance. The mentally addictive
part is that the person comes to like or depend on that feeling. It
becomes a source of pleasure and a refuge from the problems of the
world. The addict tends to have both a physical and an emotional need
for the chemical. I've heard doctors say that they can take the
world's worst heroin addict and within two days cure him/her of the
physical addiction. It may be two days of hell as the addict's body
clears out the junk and rebuilds itself, but the physical need will be
gone. However that will not help with the mental addiction. The
addict will still seek the mental relief as a refuge from the
troubles of the world.
One of the things that makes cigarette smoking so hard to quit is that
the chemical hits the brain very quickly. For most such substances,
the chemical has to go from the site of ingestion to the heart, then
to the lungs, back to the heart, then to the brain. However cigarette
smoke is inhaled directly into the lungs so the nicotine goes from
there to the heart and directly to the brain. This quicker "hit"
provides a stronger connection between the act of inhaling and the
desire for more. It can be harder to quit smoking than to break a
heroin habit! (This was in a _Scientific American_ article, probably
15 years ago.)
> Just because the action does require imbibing doesn't mean that the result
> isn't physical.
True. The body itself can produce the chemicals which cause a rush.
Anything which produces the altered mental state can be addicting,
even the "runner's high" or the adenaline rush people get from some
sports. I suspect porn has a similar effect.
Joel Rees
> helps prevent prostate cancer:
(Really, this is news? I've heard speculation in the medical community
both ways on this for years.)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030716/ts_nm/health_masturbation_dc_6
>
> I guess Utah is very low in cancers generally, but it ranks 9th in the
> country in prostate cancer!
Well, there's a case I am rather well informed about, a good LDS man
who died at 84, technically of complications related to prostate
cancer. His son is now 85, and has been dealing with prostate cancer
for more than 15 years. The father in this case was physically quite
active until close to the end of his life, involved in social dance
groups, and an active and contributing Democratic state legislator
well, IIRC, into his late 70s. The son is still actively contributing
to the community and the ward, teaching English as a volunteer, and,
with his wife's help, living more or less independently. (He does most
of the cooking, I hear.)
Maybe prostate cancer is not as deadly as all that.
> I guess it shows that Utah Mormons are
> faithful even if it kills them younger.
Faithful unto (physical) death is not always a derogatory description.
(Noting also that pushing someone else to test his/her faith to death
is one of those things that all too often tends to result in spiritual
death.)
Joel
Ann Porter
> True. The body itself can produce the chemicals which cause a rush.
> Anything which produces the altered mental state can be addicting,
> even the "runner's high" or the adenaline rush people get from some
> sports. I suspect porn has a similar effect.
Porn *addiction* has a similar effect. Not all people who enjoy porn are
addicts.
ObLDS: GC statements to the contrary...
Just my .02.
Best,
Ann
Scott
of topics related to Mormonism.]
> Um, masturbation and pedophila are *not* the same thing.
>
> I just thought that needed pointing out.
>
Obviously :)
The point is that certains desires or urges that one might consider
undesirable (the desire to masturbate, have sex with children, drink
kool-aid, whatever...) can and should be resisted. Moderation is not a
good reason for giving in.
Regards,
Scott
BTW - pedophila literally means a lover of children, I love children,
am I a pedophile?
father of peace
>> 1. Cause I'm one of them and I can't believe I'm unique.
>So you don't "know" that many do not, but you simply
>believe it to be so, because you believe you are not unique.
I have in the past lived as one of those Mormon men that
do not masturbate. I likewise can't believe that I am unique.
Love,
Absalom
father of peace
>That is an excellent position to have. Regarding authority there are
>only 2 choices; the Cathlics who maintain anbroken line from Peter, or
>the Mormons who say that the line was broken and had to be restored.
There is also the possibility that God speaks to all of his children
in their own toungue, and that he authorizes whomever he
likes with whatever authority they need to fulfill their mission
in life.
I feel that if God, authorizes someone to practice plural
marriage through means of the Holy Ghost, that said
authorization has more validity in that persons life than
anything a church leader says at general conference.
father of peace
>Regarding authority there are
>only 2 choices; the Cathlics who maintain anbroken line from Peter, or
>the Mormons who say that the line was broken and had to be restored.
It's also possible that the LdS today are in apostasy, and that
priesthood authority rests with one or more of the polygamist
groups and not with GBH.
father of peace
>It's "bad" because it violates the law of chastity and is a result of
>not controlling lustful desires.
The law of chastity was defined for me as "no intercourse except
with my spouse". In 1990 the definition was changed to ban
sexual relations except with my spouse. I do not consider
masturbation to be a violation of the law of chastity. I do not
find any official doctrine (scripture) that bans masturbation.
The only thing that bans masturbation in the LdS church
is the personal opinion of a few old men. God has never
banned the practice.
Wayne Doust
wrote:
<snip>
> drink
>kool-aid, whatever...) can and should be resisted.
Having tasted kool-aid whilst a missionary, I would say this is a most
grievous sin to be repented of. [Smilie unnecessary]
>BTW - pedophila literally means a lover of children, I love children,
>am I a pedophile?
Actually, I think it is a lover of feet. Paedophile is a lover of
boys, Paedorast is a lover of girls.
Regards,
Wayne [ Who insists that American English is an Oxymoron ]
=========================================================================
|Wayne Doust ZPQNBG...@spammotel.com | One OS to rule them all |
|---------------------------------------| One OS to find them |
| | One OS to bring them all |
| The rest of this .sig has been | and in the darkness bind them |
| abducted by aliens. | In the land of Microsoft |
| | where the shadows lie. |
=========================================================================
Wayne Doust
peace) wrote:
>The only thing that bans masturbation in the LdS church
>is the personal opinion of a few old men.
Who just happen to be Prophets, Seers and Revelators.
-----
This is a test of the emergency signature system.
If this were a real test, you would be reading an amusing anecdote,
personal philosophy, or corporate disclaimer. This is just a test.
Ann Porter
news:vi832r8...@news.supernews.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:01:06 -0000, abs...@pipeline.com (father of
> peace) wrote:
>
> >The only thing that bans masturbation in the LdS church
> >is the personal opinion of a few old men.
>
> Who just happen to be Prophets, Seers and Revelators.
Old men, though, nonetheless, who put their pants on one leg at a time and
who can, nay, are entitled to, make mistakes.
Best,
Ann
father of peace
>>The only thing that bans masturbation in the LdS church
>>is the personal opinion of a few old men.
>Who just happen to be Prophets, Seers and Revelators.
They might have the title, but they do not claim
to be speaking revelations that God has given
them. At best they are speaking their personal
opinion.
Love,
Absalom
James C. Miller
> peace) wrote:
>
> >The only thing that bans masturbation in the LdS church
> >is the personal opinion of a few old men.
>
> Who just happen to be Prophets, Seers and Revelators.
>
Only when speaking as such.
Based on the almost wholesale rejection of many of Brigham Young's
speeches in the _Journal of Discourses_, Pres Young appears to have
given out a lot of doctrine and commandments which just his personal
opinion.
So I think I have the pattern figured out: when an LDS prophet makes a
comment with which one agrees, he is speaking officially as God's
mouthpiece. When an LDS prophet makes a comment with which one
disagrees, it's just his personal opinion and he's not speaking
officially as God's mouthpiece.
James C. Miller
miller...@earthlink.net
Joel Rees
> >That is an excellent position to have. Regarding authority there are
> >only 2 choices; the Cathlics who maintain anbroken line from Peter, or
> >the Mormons who say that the line was broken and had to be restored.
>
> There is also the possibility that God speaks to all of his children
> in their own toungue, and that he authorizes whomever he
> likes with whatever authority they need to fulfill their mission
> in life.
Authority and direction within one's stewardship is not a possibility,
it is reality. However, if you leap the wrong direction, good
assumptions can lead to wrong conclusions.
Ultimate stewardship for the Catholic Church rests with the pope, as
long as God does not take it away. Likewise, any other Church.
President Hinckley holds that stewardship concerning the LDS (JS/BY)
Church. He also holds for the world the general stewardship of the
Gospel of faith in Jesus Christ and Repentance, and the stewardship
over truth itself, among other things.
> I feel that if God, authorizes someone to practice plural
> marriage through means of the Holy Ghost, that said
> authorization has more validity in that persons life than
> anything a church leader says at general conference.
If the God of Truth authorizes an individual to practice polygamy,
that individual is indeed authorized. But choosing to practice
polygamy is against the LDS (JS/BY) Church's teachings, and
necessarily places one outside the stewardship and blessings of that
Church. Whether the polygamist has been formally excommunicated or
not, he/she has chosen to stand outside for practical purposes, and
gets a different set of rewards. (This choice in particular can make
it difficult to understand how love can break the bands of the powers
of destruction.)
Bragging and otherwise attempting to discourage other people in their
stewardships is an activity lead by the god of illusion, and not the
God of Truth, BTW.
Joel
James
C. Miller) wrote:
>So I think I have the pattern figured out: when an LDS prophet makes a
>comment with which one agrees, he is speaking officially as God's
>mouthpiece. When an LDS prophet makes a comment with which one
>disagrees, it's just his personal opinion and he's not speaking
>officially as God's mouthpiece.
What we have been told is to let personal revelation reveal the truth.
Since LDS make the claim that prophets can be fallible, we have no
other recourse, for why else would it [personal revelation] exist.
Then whoever wants to consider doing this "personal" act should use
the same test as we are told to use in validating the BofM. If you
have a burning in the bosom, then its validated as OK.
What's good for the goose.....
james
father of peace
>Ultimate stewardship for the Catholic Church rests with the pope, as
>long as God does not take it away. Likewise, any other Church.
>President Hinckley holds that stewardship concerning the LDS (JS/BY)
>Church. He also holds for the world the general stewardship of the
>Gospel of faith in Jesus Christ and Repentance, and the stewardship
>over truth itself, among other things.
I believe that GBH holds the ultimate stewardship over the
LdS church. I do not however believe that GBH, or any
man holds stewardship over the gospel. God is perfectly
capable of speaking for himself. He doesn't need a
prophet to speak for him.
If GBH holds stewardship over truth, then he aught
to tell the truth. I am so embarrassed for him and for
the church every time GBH grants an interview with
the press. He speaks with such a double toungue.
The Brigham Young manual will be a perpetual
embarrasment to GBH's legacy and influence within
the church.
>If the God of Truth authorizes an individual to practice polygamy,
>that individual is indeed authorized.
And in my experience, said person is blessed far more than
they would be blessed by following the prophet.
Love,
Absalom
David / Amicus
adultery. Regarding masturbation doesn't one have to think of sex in
order to do the deed? Isn't that lusting after a sort?
Helen
> [> The point is that certains desires or urges that one might consider
> undesirable (the desire to masturbate, have sex with children, drink
> kool-aid, whatever...) can and should be resisted. Moderation is not a
> good reason for giving in.
>
> Regards,
> Scott
>
>
SO how can one one hand, self gratification be wrong and on the other, a man
having multiple sexual partners ( polygamy ) okay??
James
wrote:
>Jesus condemned adultery. He even equated lust in one's heart with
>adultery. Regarding masturbation doesn't one have to think of sex in
>order to do the deed? Isn't that lusting after a sort?
Is it possible to fall in love with someone enough that you would
marry that person and not fail in this commandment? IOW, how can you
hope to share something when you are forbidden to think about it?
Would you agree with the argument that could be made such that if you
don't consider [think] about this future outcome then the marriage
doesn't't have the foundation it should have?
james
Someone
"Helen" <he...@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:vib0ji...@news.supernews.com...
How can you not know the answer to that? _IF_ God at any time has commanded
any man to have more than one living wife, then at that time, for that man,
it is not only okay, it is required. Multiply this by whatever number of men
God _MAY HAVE_ commanded to have more than one wife at any time, and there
is your answer. Whatever God commands is right for the one who was
commanded.
Someone
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:vib01fo...@news.supernews.com...
> Jesus condemned adultery. He even equated lust in one's heart with
> adultery. Regarding masturbation doesn't one have to think of sex in
> order to do the deed? Isn't that lusting after a sort?
Will any ,man or woman who has masturbated without thinking of sex, please
come forward and set the mind of Amicus at rest? <G>
Not Important
Is there anything that God has "banned"?
Main Entry:
Pronunciation: 'ban
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): banned; ban·ning
Etymology: Middle English bannen to summon, curse, from Old English bannan
to summon; akin to Old High German bannan to command, Latin fari to speak,
Greek phanai to say, phOnE sound, voice
Date: 12th century
transitive senses
1 archaic : CURSE
2 : to prohibit especially by legal means <ban discrimination>; also : to
prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book> <ban a
pesticide>
intransitive senses : to utter curses or maledictions
He instructs and commands, but even the "Thou shalt not ..." commandments
seem to me to fall a bit short of outright prohition.
father of peace
>Jesus condemned adultery. He even equated lust in one's heart with
>adultery. Regarding masturbation doesn't one have to think of sex in
>order to do the deed? Isn't that lusting after a sort?
I know people who are so in tune with their bodies, that just
by paying attention to the firings of the neurons within their
bodies, that they can accomplish the deed without ever
touching themselves, and without thinking any dirty thought.
Are such people sinning when they do so?
I personally believe that LdS leaders are not
speaking in behalf of God when they
ban masturbation. I believe they are
expressing their personal opinions.
Ann Porter
news:vibf52r...@news.supernews.com...
> How can you not know the answer to that? _IF_ God at any time has
commanded
> any man to have more than one living wife, then at that time, for that
man,
> it is not only okay, it is required. Multiply this by whatever number of
men
> God _MAY HAVE_ commanded to have more than one wife at any time, and there
> is your answer. Whatever God commands is right for the one who was
> commanded.
And so, Dan Lafferty killed his sister-in-law Brenda and her daughter,
Erica.
And so, members of Al-Qaeda flew planes into the World Trade Center towers
and the Pentagon, with a fourth plane crashing in a field in Pennsylvania.
Where do you draw the line?
Best,
Ann
Someone
"James" <Seawo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vibf3hk...@news.supernews.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:57:35 -0000, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
> wrote:
>
> >Jesus condemned adultery. He even equated lust in one's heart with
> >adultery. Regarding masturbation doesn't one have to think of sex in
> >order to do the deed? Isn't that lusting after a sort?
>
>
> Is it possible to fall in love with someone enough that you would
> marry that person and not fail in this commandment?
Yes. One consideration is that one does not build a life of love on
"falling". Too many people "fall" in love, as they suppose, when indeed it
is mostly lust and active hormones. Love requires conscious effort and
dedication. Another consideration is that if the love is pure, thoughts of
sex are (or can be) soemwhat secondary.
> IOW, how can you
> hope to share something when you are forbidden to think about it?
We are not forbidden to think about the aspects of physical intimacy. We are
forbidden not to dwell on that to excess, and to allow that to be more
important than more spiritual aspects.
Here is one dictionary definition of lust, which may be informative
Main Entry:
Pronunciation: 'l&st
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German lust
pleasure and perhaps to Latin lascivus wanton
Date: before 12th century
1 obsolete a : PLEASURE, DELIGHT b : personal inclination : WISH
2 : usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESS
3 a : an intense longing : CRAVING b : ENTHUSIASM, EAGERNESS
I believe that meaning 2 is a most likely meaning of what is forbidden.
Meaning 3 can also approach excess easily.
> Would you agree with the argument that could be made such that if you
> don't consider [think] about this future outcome then the marriage
> doesn't't have the foundation it should have?
Partially, but thinking about the possibility of sexual pleasure and having
intense and unbridled sexual desire are not necessarily close to the same
thing. Indeed if the marriage is looked forward even primarily for sexual
gratification, the marriage does not have the foundation it should have.
Not Important
Snip
> And so, Dan Lafferty killed his sister-in-law Brenda and her daughter,
> Erica.
Can you say "non sequiter"?
> And so, members of Al-Qaeda flew planes into the World Trade Center towers
> and the Pentagon, with a fourth plane crashing in a field in Pennsylvania.
Same question.
> Where do you draw the line?
Did you or did you not notice the "If" with which I started?
Joel Rees
Just back to a really basic principle: Saying it's so don't make it
so.
Or, if you must, unless God commands us to not put Dan Lafferty in
jail, we are justified in putting Dan Lafferty in jail. And unless God
commands us to let the Al-Qaeda kill us and take our religion,
freedom, and whatever else they want from us, and we are justified in
resisting the Al-Qaeda.
A person can claim all sorts of things, but when he or she claims to
be instructed of God to kill innocent people, we have to assume two
things, that he or she has lost touch with conscience and is lying.
Where to draw the line? Where God or conscience tells us.
When conscience and claims of revelation don't resolve things, we can
(and indeed must) turn to the law. And if the law can only work to our
condemnation and destruction, then I guess that's the end of the line
for us, unless we are willing to repent and do what's right in spite
of misunderstandings of the law and false claims of revelation.
(Been reading in Romans, around chapter 7 today.)
Joel
Joel Rees
> I believe that GBH holds the ultimate stewardship over the
> LdS church. I do not however believe that GBH, or any
> man holds stewardship over the gospel. God is perfectly
> capable of speaking for himself. He doesn't need a
> prophet to speak for him.
Sure, but we do need a prophet. When we can all come to a unity of
faith in Jesus (and have learned how to follow His most excellent
commandments), we will no longer need a prophet, because we will be
prophets.
You are essentially claiming that we have already all of us come to a
unity of faith, and therefore you are arguing against yourself. You
would have no need to boast and contend with us about GBH's lack of
stewardship over you if we were united in faith.
By the way, I don't contend with your claims about yourself. You have
removed yourself from his stewardship. Just wish you'd be willing to
own up to that fact.
> If GBH holds stewardship over truth, then he aught
> to tell the truth. I am so embarrassed for him and for
> the church every time GBH grants an interview with
> the press.
What embarasses you about him? If he is wrong, he is wrong, and the
people that count will believe you when you say he is wrong.
> He speaks with such a double toungue.
Or perhaps he is speaking the truth and you refuse to believe that the
truth can be so, shall we say, ambiguous. But the truth is only
ambiguous if you refuse to apply correct principles where the belong
and insist on applying them where they don't belong.
> The Brigham Young manual will be a perpetual
> embarrasment to GBH's legacy and influence within
> the church.
Just becuase it doesn't contain a red flag on the cover and front page
saying, "We know everybody knows this, but, just in case anyone
forgets, BRIGHAM YOUNG WAS A PRACTICING POLYGAMIST!!!!!!!"
Brigham Young was a lot of things. The law many people referred to as
polygamy was not that every person must live sexually promiscuous
lives, but that polygamy, under covenant, where allowed by law, was
among many things that could be justified by God.
I think you're making way too much of polygamy and losing track of the
more important issues.
> >If the God of Truth authorizes an individual to practice polygamy,
> >that individual is indeed authorized.
>
> And in my experience, said person is blessed far more than
> they would be blessed by following the prophet.
Following the prophet is following God, because following the prophet
is following the prophet's example in following God. Hmm. That makes
it sound way more convoluted than it is.
If the prophet doesn't follow God, then we can be justified in not
following the prophet's example. But if it's our mistaken judgement,
the sin is on our own shoulders.
Joel
Ann Porter
news:vie361p...@news.supernews.com...
Who gets to decide whether or not God is doing the commanding? *If* we are
entitled to personal revelation, and *if* we feel we have been commanded to
do something, isn't that enough?
We have historical and scriptural precedent for God commanding people
(individuals) to do terrible things that cause great pain to others. Dan
Lafferty says God told him to kill his sister-in-law. Nephi said God told
him to kill Laban. Joseph Smith said God commanded him to marry multiple
women. How do we know that one person's revelation is a commandment from
God and another's is mental illness or delusion?
Who gets to decide when my personal revelation isn't really from God? You?
Best,
Ann
David / Amicus
faith in Jesus (and have learned how to follow His most excellent
commandments), we will no longer need a prophet, because we will be
prophets.>>
I think we all need someone to guide and direct and to shepherd us.
Each left to his own discretion will end up who knows where? For the LDS
you have GBH to look to and for me I look to Pope John Paul II. Left to
our own devices would end in chaos.
Joel Rees
> >It's "bad" because it violates the law of chastity and is a result of
> >not controlling lustful desires.
>
> The law of chastity was defined for me as "no intercourse except
> with my spouse".
Sexual intercourse with an inanimate object sounds an awful lot like
the practice which motivated the metaphor used in Isaiah, showing
Israel's tendency to go running after false gods to be quite similar
to an unfaithful wife jumping into bed with men she wasn't married to.
And, it should be pointed out that one's relationship with oneself is
an important relationship, and that it might be a good thing to
refrain from adulterating that relationship with strictly reflexive
sexual relations.
> In 1990 the definition was changed to ban
> sexual relations except with my spouse.
Common use of language changed. The word "intercourse" without a
modifier was, for a time, pretty much strictly a euphemism for "sexual
intercourse". Then the term fell out of use, because the euphemism
eventually loses the indirection when used too often. "Relations" is
more likely to be understood correctly in the present useage.
The principle and the covenant have not changed, even though there is
a definite influence to try to effectively change them by changing the
language out from under them.
> I do not consider
> masturbation to be a violation of the law of chastity.
I'll acknowledge that strictly reflexive sexual relations may be less
a violation than transitive sexual relations without the protections
of covenants, particularly if the transitive sexual relations includes
any sort of coercion, seduction, or deception.
And I note that there are physical and emotional aspects of sexual
relations that make lack of covenant an implicit deception.
> I do not
> find any official doctrine (scripture) that bans masturbation.
Then look for scripture that approves refraining, or, more
particularly, that approves doing other things instead. (Ban this, ban
that, what is all this interest in bans?)
> The only thing that bans masturbation in the LdS church
> is the personal opinion of a few old men.
Well, that, and the fact that, even without pornography or toys,
strictly reflexive sexual relations tends to be an exercise in
self-frustration, at minimum, and that it tends toward worse things,
like self-deception and self-abuse.
> God has never
> banned the practice.
Well, I know that God has told me not to do it.
Speaking generally, what else He has told me concerning it is between
me and God, really. (Okay, between me, God, and my wife. And, just
like anything else, if I need help to avoid hurting people because of
it, I may need to discuss it with my bishop.)
What's the fuss, Ab? If it's private, it's between you and God. If you
insist on making it not private, it's no longer strictly reflexive.
Your insistence on airing your sex life here is beginning to be
offensive.
Joel
Kathryn Simpson
> We have historical and scriptural precedent for God commanding
people
> (individuals) to do terrible things that cause great pain to
others. Dan
> Lafferty says God told him to kill his sister-in-law. Nephi
said God told
> him to kill Laban. Joseph Smith said God commanded him to
marry multiple
> women. How do we know that one person's revelation is a
commandment from
> God and another's is mental illness or delusion?
Who is Dan Lafferty?
> Who gets to decide when my personal revelation isn't really
from God? You?
I can't decide for you, but I can compare the consistency of your
revelation to Gospel Teachings. There are very rare occassions
when personal revelation deviates from general principles, but
not often.
--
Regards of the NW,
Kathy
"The liberty we cherish is not America's gift to the world. It
is God's gift to humanity."
(Pres. George Bush, March 26, 2003)
Ann Porter
news:vigo975...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Who is Dan Lafferty?
The subject of a book by Jon Krakauer, titled Under the Banner in Heaven:
The Story of Violent Faith.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385509510/qid=1059625525/sr=2-1/ref=
sr_2_1/102-6859473-9234530
He received a revelation that he was to start practicing polygamy, and
another revelation that he was supposed to kill his sister-in-law, her
daughter, and a couple of other people, who were interfering with his
implementation of his revelations.
Haven't read the book, and probably won't. But it's been getting a lot of
press lately.
> I can't decide for you, but I can compare the consistency of your
> revelation to Gospel Teachings. There are very rare occassions
> when personal revelation deviates from general principles, but
> not often.
Between you and Joel, you've given some really sensible responses. They
don't really jive well with our perceptions of how such personal revelations
were received in church history, though.
Best,
Ann
Ann Porter
news:viepmr6...@news.supernews.com...news:<vias71s...@news.supernews.com>...
>
> > I believe that GBH holds the ultimate stewardship over the
> > LdS church. I do not however believe that GBH, or any
> > man holds stewardship over the gospel. God is perfectly
> > capable of speaking for himself. He doesn't need a
> > prophet to speak for him.
>
No we don't.
Best,
Ann
Someone
> "Not Important" <anon...@secret.org> wrote in message
> news:vie361p...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Ann Porter" <porte...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:vibpj4k...@news.supernews.com...
> > > "Someone" <gfull...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:vibf52r...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > Snip
> >
> > > And so, Dan Lafferty killed his sister-in-law Brenda and her daughter,
> > > Erica.
> >
> >
> > Can you say "non sequiter"?
> >
> > > And so, members of Al-Qaeda flew planes into the World Trade Center
> towers
> > > and the Pentagon, with a fourth plane crashing in a field in
> Pennsylvania.
> >
> > Same question.
> >
> > > Where do you draw the line?
> >
> > Did you or did you not notice the "If" with which I started?
>
> Who gets to decide whether or not God is doing the commanding? *If* we
are
> entitled to personal revelation, and *if* we feel we have been commanded
to
> do something, isn't that enough?
You are the only one who can make that judgement. But if you are wrong, or
even if you are right and the instructions conflict with the law, you have
to face the consequences by yourself.
> We have historical and scriptural precedent for God commanding people
> (individuals) to do terrible things that cause great pain to others. Dan
> Lafferty says God told him to kill his sister-in-law. Nephi said God told
> him to kill Laban. Joseph Smith said God commanded him to marry multiple
> women. How do we know that one person's revelation is a commandment from
> God and another's is mental illness or delusion?
It is not really our business to know that, unless God chooses to reveal it
to us.
> Who gets to decide when my personal revelation isn't really from God?
You?
It is not any of my business.
Someone
> "Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:vigo975...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > Who is Dan Lafferty?
>
> The subject of a book by Jon Krakauer, titled Under the Banner in Heaven:
> The Story of Violent Faith.
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385509510/qid=1059625525/sr=2-1/ref=
> sr_2_1/102-6859473-9234530
>
> He received a revelation that he was to start practicing polygamy, and
> another revelation that he was supposed to kill his sister-in-law, her
> daughter, and a couple of other people, who were interfering with his
> implementation of his revelations.
He "claimed" to have received such a revelation. If we believe that the
Prophet and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is
the only man on earth today who can exercise the keys allowing plural
marriage, then it is clear that he did not really receive such a revelation
from God. He may have received something that he thought was a revelation,
but if so it was from another source.
I am not aware that even the Prophet has the keys to authorize a man to kill
a sister-in-law.
> Haven't read the book, and probably won't. But it's been getting a lot of
> press lately.
>
> > I can't decide for you, but I can compare the consistency of your
> > revelation to Gospel Teachings. There are very rare occassions
> > when personal revelation deviates from general principles, but
> > not often.
>
> Between you and Joel, you've given some really sensible responses. They
> don't really jive well with our perceptions of how such personal
revelations
> were received in church history, though.
Wonder if "our perceptions" here are any more relaible than "our
perceptions" usually are.
> Best,
> Ann
>
>
>
Robert Perkins
<porte...@charter.net> wrote:
>> I can't decide for you, but I can compare the consistency of your
>> revelation to Gospel Teachings. There are very rare occassions
>> when personal revelation deviates from general principles, but
>> not often.
>
>Between you and Joel, you've given some really sensible responses. They
>don't really jive well with our perceptions of how such personal revelations
>were received in church history, though.
How do you mean, Ann?
Any kind of personal revelation which purports to speak for the
Church, when one is not a leader in the Priesthood heirarchy of the
Church, for example, has been relatively consistent throughout the
history of the (overwhelmingly large portion) of Latter-day Saints.
That is, the idea that only one person has all the keys to speak
matters of revelation on behalf of the whole Church and the world has
its basis in scripture.
Other things, like the personal revelations on how to organize, say, a
Sunday School or Primary program for the Church began as good ideas
among the laity, and were taken up by the whole Church and organized
by the Priesthood as bona fide auxiliaries, are also consistent with
Church history, the largest and earliest precedent being the Relief
Society, of course.
So that's the way I'm approaching the topic now. Are you approching it
from a different viewpoint? If so, what is it?
Respectfully,
Rob
Kathryn Simpson
> Between you and Joel, you've given some really sensible
responses. They
> don't really jive well with our perceptions of how such
personal revelations
> were received in church history, though.
Nephi, for example, was commanded to kill Laban. If you look at
how Nephi lived his life and how he honored God in all that he
did, then one could reasonably conclude that God had a reason for
an exception.
However, there are others who profess revelation who do not
regularly keep the commandments of God. Some in this forum
profess revelation from God that Pres. Hinckley is corrupt, that
polygamy is really ok right now, that sex outside of marriage is
ok. But when we look at whether or not the person is in other
ways living the commandments of God (to be worthy of such
revelation), I think the wheat is separated from the chaff quite
easily.
It reminds me of the story of a man who was irate with a Stake (I
think it was Stake) High Council for excommunicating his brother
for a sexual offense...
The man claimed he _knew_ by revelation that his brother was
innocent and questioned the judgment of the council. The Stake
President indulged the man for a bit and then started asking the
man a few questions.... "Br. So and So, are you active in your
ward?". "Well, no", said the man. "Are you keeping the Word of
Wisdom?", asked the Stake President. "Well, no", said the man.
"Do you study the scriptures regularly", asked the Stake
President. "Well, no", said the man. "Do you pray regularly?",
asked the Stake President. "Well, no, but what do these
questions have to do with the revelation I received that my
brother didn't commit this offense?", said the man. "Well",
said the Stake President, "Each man on the Stake High Council is
active in his ward. Each obeys the Word of Wisdom. Each studies
the scriptures and prays regularly. Yet you insist that our
Heavenly Father would come to you with revelation that your
brother is innocent, yet not to any of the 12 men on this High
Council, who have jursidiction in this matter, who are worthy of
entering the House of the Lord, who have ernestly strived to do
what is right in this matter and be worthy of revelation
pertaining to their callings.... For this reason, Br. So and So,
I have greater faith in the judgment made by this council
regarding your brother than I do in your reported personal
revelation on the matter."
I heard this story some 20 years ago, so if my facts are slightly
astray, please forgive. But it illustrates what I'm trying to
say, so it works for me. ;=)
Ann Porter
news:vijbeqd...@news.supernews.com...
> Any kind of personal revelation which purports to speak for the
> Church, when one is not a leader in the Priesthood heirarchy of the
> Church, for example, has been relatively consistent throughout the
> history of the (overwhelmingly large portion) of Latter-day Saints.
> That is, the idea that only one person has all the keys to speak
> matters of revelation on behalf of the whole Church and the world has
> its basis in scripture.
The problem is, that this sort of revelation has as its foundation the
assumption that the founding of the church was a valid event. And that
particular revelation was given to an individual. It all boils down to
Joseph Smith. That's problematic for me.
Joseph was receiving these sorts of revelations before there *was* a church
or a priesthood hierarchy. His entitlement to such revelations was no more
apparent than Dan Lafferty's. Or Nephi's, for that matter.
Best,
Ann
Ann Porter
> > Between you and Joel, you've given some really sensible
> responses. They
> > don't really jive well with our perceptions of how such
> personal revelations
> > were received in church history, though.
>
> how Nephi lived his life and how he honored God in all that he
> did, then one could reasonably conclude that God had a reason for
> an exception.
We have only Nephi's word for that.
I think Nephi is fictional. I think that's why the story bothers
me...because I don't think it really happened, so what, if the BofM is a
scripture, is God trying to tell us? That violence is a reasonable solution
to problems? That whatever he asks us to do is good, even if we the moral
animal within says that it's not?
<snip the story>
> I heard this story some 20 years ago, so if my facts are slightly
> astray, please forgive. But it illustrates what I'm trying to
> say, so it works for me. ;=)
Have you not heard similar stories about how God sends the stake president
out to call a new bishop, but with the caveat that if he accepts the call,
he'll have to give up beer and swearing and chewing tobacco?
The story of Joan of Arc comes to mind by contrast. An illiterate peasant,
she had visions calling her to lead the French army against the English.
She led them to many victories, and secured the city of Rouen? Rhiems? so
that the Dauphin could be crowned king. She was burned at the stake at the
age of 19 by leaders who used the same arguments you describe in your story!
God will qualify whom he will, and call whom he will. That's how the church
claims the church was restored through an unschooled farmer in upstate New
York, when any one of thousands of people were better trained, better
behaved, and more qualified for the job.
Best,
Ann
Joel Rees
> don't really jive well with our perceptions of how such personal revelations
> were received in church history, though.
Some people belittle conscience, but, in the end, it's all we've got.
Want some scriptures about the importance of things that look weak to
the mortal eye?
(Pausing long enough while reading the one in Ether, that the Spirit
could get past my initial, socially ingrained assumption that the
making strong of weak things was supposed to always be the endless
refinement of skill literally saved my life.)
Joel
Kathryn Simpson
> Joseph was receiving these sorts of revelations before there
*was* a church
> or a priesthood hierarchy. His entitlement to such revelations
was no more
> apparent than Dan Lafferty's. Or Nephi's, for that matter.
I see your point, but the Restoration had to have a starting
point. Didn't it?
Kathryn Simpson
> We have only Nephi's word for that.
On a lot of things we really only have one person's word. We
only have Mose's word that he Jehovah spoke to him. We only have
Christ's was tempted by Satan in Gesthemanie.
> I think Nephi is fictional. I think that's why the story
bothers
> me...because I don't think it really happened, so what, if the
BofM is a
> scripture, is God trying to tell us? That violence is a
reasonable solution
> to problems? That whatever he asks us to do is good, even if
we the moral
> animal within says that it's not?
Hmmm... I don't think Nephi was fictional. Further, I do believe
that it is "better than one man perish than a whole nation
dwindle in disbelief...". Just look at Iraq.
> Have you not heard similar stories about how God sends the
stake president
> out to call a new bishop, but with the caveat that if he
accepts the call,
> he'll have to give up beer and swearing and chewing tobacco?
I thought it was missionaries out to find a Branch President? <g>
> The story of Joan of Arc comes to mind by contrast. An
illiterate peasant,
> she had visions calling her to lead the French army against the
English.
> She led them to many victories, and secured the city of Rouen?
Rhiems? so
> that the Dauphin could be crowned king. She was burned at the
stake at the
> age of 19 by leaders who used the same arguments you describe
in your story!
I would have significant issues with anyone who considers burning
someone at the stake as justifiable, so I can't really see the
comparison in the two.
> God will qualify whom he will, and call whom he will. That's
how the church
> claims the church was restored through an unschooled farmer in
upstate New
> York, when any one of thousands of people were better trained,
better
> behaved, and more qualified for the job.
And I have been called to positions of significant responsibility
in work and at church that many would condemn me for being
woefully inadequate for too. Does that make my employers or God
wrong? I don't think so. I think it gave me an opportunity to
grow into the position and those who called me had enough
confidence in me that they knew I would rise to the measure of
the position. Same with Joseph Smith, I think.
Charney Hoffmann
> >Jesus condemned adultery. He even equated lust in one's heart with
> I personally believe that LdS leaders are not
> speaking in behalf of God when they
> ban masturbation. I believe they are
> expressing their personal opinions.
I too believe that some of the things they set forth as "docrine" are
merely opinion. However, I don't understand the need to point out
that they are "old men" whenever you disagree with them. My belief in
personal accountablility and my recognition of human fallibility allow
me to sometimes question some of their teachings, but I would consider
myself a bigot if I allowed their AGE to initiate my doubt.
Charney
Ann Porter
> And I have been called to positions of significant responsibility
> in work and at church that many would condemn me for being
> woefully inadequate for too. Does that make my employers or God
> wrong? I don't think so. I think it gave me an opportunity to
> grow into the position and those who called me had enough
> confidence in me that they knew I would rise to the measure of
> the position. Same with Joseph Smith, I think.
Well, which is it? Does God only speak to the obedient and righteous who
are already called and set apart to administer his judgements?
That story you told about the excommunicant's brother was just unbelievably
ironic to me. The self-righteous tone of the leaders was EXACTLY the sort
of response we hold in such contempt when it's attributed to the religious
leaders who mocked Joseph for his visions.
There are many paths to God. Practicing the teachings of the LDS church is
probably one of them. But it's certainly not the only one, and it's not
without its problems.
Best,
Ann
Ann Porter
>
> "Ann Porter" <porte...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vijsm5...@news.supernews.com...
> > Joseph was receiving these sorts of revelations before there
> *was* a church
> > or a priesthood hierarchy. His entitlement to such revelations
> was no more
> > apparent than Dan Lafferty's. Or Nephi's, for that matter.
>
> I see your point, but the Restoration had to have a starting
> point. Didn't it?
Not unless there really needed to be a restoration. If one thinks that God
requires a hierarchical institution to implement his power here on earth,
then I suppose that there would be such a need. But I don't happen to think
that He does. Hence, I think the claim to restoration is superfluous.
Nothing was lost, therefore, nothing needed to be restored.
Best,
Ann
David / Amicus
me...because I don't think it really happened, so what, if the BofM is a
scripture, is God trying to tell us? That violence is a reasonable
solution to problems? That whatever he asks us to do is good, even if we
the moral animal within says that it's not?>>
The BoM violence shouldn't be a problem. In the OT when the Isrealites
got to the promised land God toold them to slaughter everyone in sight!
Violence in world scripture is not unique. There's the Muslim Qu'ran.
And especially the Hindu Mahabharta.
David / Amicus
Mose's word that he Jehovah spoke to him.>>
Didn't all Israel camped at the base of Mt Sinai in the beginning hear
the voice of God and it scared them witless and they asked that God only
speak through Moses?
Joel Rees
of a stretch anyway, but ...
jo...@alpsgiken.gr.jp (Joel Rees) wrote in message news:<vifoj5l...@news.supernews.com>...
> ...
> I'll acknowledge that strictly reflexive sexual relations may be less
> a violation than transitive sexual relations without the protections
Heh. I meant to have said "binary" rather than "transitive".
> of covenants, particularly if the transitive sexual relations includes
> any sort of coercion, seduction, or deception.
Again, I meant binary. Don't want anyone to think too hard, but I'm
pretty sure a transitive sexual relationship would necessarily be a
violation of the principles of chastity, and would likely include
coercion, seduction, deception, contention, and other elements typical
of mixing sex with power games.
> And I note that there are physical and emotional aspects of sexual
> relations that make lack of covenant an implicit deception.
> ...
Joel, thinking about "functional symmetric", and not much further
Might Be Me
> "Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:vil4fgg...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> That story you told about the excommunicant's brother was just
unbelievably
> ironic to me. The self-righteous tone of the leaders was EXACTLY the sort
> of response we hold in such contempt when it's attributed to the religious
> leaders who mocked Joseph for his visions.
I think that the story may have suffered a bit in the transmittal. Here is a
quote of that story as given in a book cited at the end of the quote. I hope
it may give you a little different slant on the subject.
Quote
Some time ago I heard a story told by President Harold B. Lee that I think
very vividly depicts the condition which we must achieve. Brother Lee was
serving as a stake president at the time he had this experience. He had a
very serious and difficult case come before him wherein a man was accused of
adultery but refused to admit that he had committed the act. However, he was
tried for his membership, and the court found him guilty. He was
excommunicated. Shortly thereafter this man's brother came to President Lee
and said, "I have prayed to the Lord and I know that my brother is innocent.
And so you have excommunicated an innocent man." President Lee said,
"Brother, could we talk about this a little bit. I wonder if you would mind
answering a few questions for me?" He said he would be willing to answer any
questions.
Brother Lee proceeded to conduct an interview with him. He asked, "Do you
drink coffee?"
And this brother said, "Yes, I drink coffee."
He asked, "Do you smoke?"
The man replied, "Yes, when someone gives me a cigar, I'll smoke a cigar."
"You drink tea?"
"Yes, iced tea."
"Drink alcohol?"
"Well," he said, "I have been known to take a drink."
"Do you fast?"
He answered, "No, my health won't allow it."
"Do you read the scriptures?"
He said, "No, I have problems reading the scriptures because my eyes are
bad."
"Do you pay tithing?"
"No, and I am not going to pay tithing as long as that man is bishop of my
ward."
"Do you hold family prayer?"
"No, our time is a little bit tight. We don't have time for family prayer."
President Lee said, "Well, brother, I have a beautiful instrument sitting in
my home. It is called a radio. It is full of electronic devices called
tubes, and when those tubes are strong and good, I can pick up a signal from
the other side of the world and separate those signals. I can hear the voice
clearly from halfway around the world. But," he said, "when those tubes
become a little weak, when they begin not to function properly, then I have
trouble separating the signal; I get a lot of static. There is one tube in
that set called a rectifier. When the tube goes out, the set is dead. It
then receives no signals at all. Now," he said, "in each one of us there are
also some tubes. There is the Word of Wisdom Tube, there is the tithing
tube, there is a scripture tube. When any of these tubes becomes weak, the
signals get garbled. There is also a master tube in every one of us called
the moral cleanliness tube. When that tube goes out, we have total darkness.
There were fifteen men in this stake, last evening, who had fasted and
prayed unto the Lord. They live the commandments as well as any fifteen men
in this stake. They were unanimous in their decision that your brother was
guilty. Now, you, who are living none of these commandments by your own
admission, say you got a different answer when you prayed to the Lord. Whom
do you suppose you may have been listening to?" And this brother said,
"Well, I might have gotten my information from the wrong source."
(Leon R. Hartshorn, comp., Outstanding Stories by General Authorities, 3
vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1970-73], 2: 182 - 183.)
End Quote
> There are many paths to God. Practicing the teachings of the LDS church
is
> probably one of them. But it's certainly not the only one, and it's not
> without its problems.
Are there indeed many paths to God? That is no doubt a comforting thought.
It was once said "All roads lead to Rome". Would you say "All paths lead to
God"? If so, be assured that I do not agree. If not, then we are doing well
if we try to find the one road (or one set of roads) that lead to God. We
cannot do that without help from God Himself, and for some of us, it may not
yet be time for us to receive that help. For others, it may be time, and we
may be stubborn or unwilling. Or we may be "blinded by crafty men" so that
we reject the truth that is offered. Some of us may think we have truth when
we have falsehood or partial truth.
It is essential that we remain humble and teachable.
Since this no longer has anything to do with prostate cancer, I will change
the subject and will here say that at this point in my life, I am convinced
that there is one sure road to God. Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of
God in the Flesh is reported to have said, "I am the way and the truth and
the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." So Jesus Christ is the
one sure road to God. Our current maps, drawn by cartographers of varying
degrees of knowledge and skill may seem to show many roads that lead to God,
but unless they go by way of Jesus Christ they are false roads.
Now where is the greatest knowledge of Jesus Christ available? Fairly
obviously it is available from Him or His Father. They have restored His
Church as a "toolset" for helping us to gain that knowledge. Not necessarily
or only by study, but by doing those things that He commands us to do, as He
did them in most cases, thus coming near to Him and becoming more and more
like Him.
David / Amicus
church is probably one of them>>
Huh? I just don't buy that. I've often heard that said. I would not,
could not belong to a church or religion that did not believe it was the
one, true faith. For me it's the Catholic Church. For most here it's the
LDS church.
In fact AFAIK there are only two religions that do not believe that they
have an exclusive monoply on religious truth. The Parsees aka
Zoroastrians. They refuse to accept converts. They believe that their
religion is for them only and whatever religion someone else has is OK
for those people. They strongly don't believe in inter-marriage. And I
think the Orthodox Jews have a similar belief except they do acceppt
converts.
As a Catholic I believe that the fulness of religious truth is only
found in the Catholic Church. That's not saying that some truth can not
be found in other religions but not the fulness!
Don't the LDS believe the same about their faith? That it's the one true
religion?
They acknowledge that other churches / religions contain some truth but
not the fulness. Right?
I for one would not be a member of a religion or church that taught that
it was partly right. That it only had some truth.
Don't you LDS feel the same way? Otherwise why be LDS?
If one religion is a good as another then that must mean that one
religion can be as false as another too!
Regardless which church, sect or denomination you interpret it to refer
to doesn't the Bible say that the path is straight and narrow?
Might Be Me
> Applying terms from basic set algebra to sexual relationships is a bit
> of a stretch anyway, but ...
>
> jo...@alpsgiken.gr.jp (Joel Rees) wrote in message
news:<vifoj5l...@news.supernews.com>...
> > ...
> > I'll acknowledge that strictly reflexive sexual relations may be less
> > a violation than transitive sexual relations without the protections
>
> Heh. I meant to have said "binary" rather than "transitive".
Actually, I really thought "transitive" fit very well.
> > of covenants, particularly if the transitive sexual relations includes
> > any sort of coercion, seduction, or deception.
>
> Again, I meant binary. Don't want anyone to think too hard, but I'm
> pretty sure a transitive sexual relationship would necessarily be a
> violation of the principles of chastity, and would likely include
> coercion, seduction, deception, contention, and other elements typical
> of mixing sex with power games.
Without thinking too hard, I don't see any reason to suppose that
"transitive" sexual relations would imply all that you say. Now "transitory"
would be another matter.
Might Be Me
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:vimcsgk...@news.supernews.com...
They heard something. I think they may well have thought it to be thunder
and were afraid they might be subject to a lightning storm.
I am not quite sure off hand where to look to check that and I don't want to
take the time right now either.
Might Be Me
>
> "Ann Porter" <porte...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vil1k96...@news.supernews.com...
> > We have only Nephi's word for that.
Snip
> Hmmm... I don't think Nephi was fictional. Further, I do believe
> that it is "better than one man perish than a whole nation
> dwindle in disbelief...". Just look at Iraq.
This sort of reasoning always makes me think of the following:
(John 11:47-52.)
47 ś Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said,
What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans
shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year,
said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the
people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he
prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in
one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
And I think it is John 18 that has someone else saying something similar. Of
couorse in the eternal scheme it seems to have been better that Jesus should
die on the cross (or the stake, as it may be) than that He should have been
spared, but not for the reasons the speakers thought.
Snip
> I would have significant issues with anyone who considers burning
> someone at the stake as justifiable, so I can't really see the
> comparison in the two.
More so than beheading Laban? Or has this wandered far from the track?
> > God will qualify whom he will, and call whom he will. That's
> how the church
> > claims the church was restored through an unschooled farmer in
> upstate New
> > York, when any one of thousands of people were better trained,
> better
> > behaved, and more qualified for the job.
More qualified? I seriously doubt it.
Might Be Me
Were you ever LDS? If so were you BIC or a convert? Simply wondering.
If you were not LDS what are you? If you were once LDS what did you become?
"Ann Porter" <porte...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vim8uog...@news.supernews.com...
Kathryn Simpson
> Well, which is it? Does God only speak to the obedient and
righteous who
> are already called and set apart to administer his judgements?
No, he speaks to those who are trying to live their life as they
know in their heart they should live it. However, God
understands that we sometimes make poor choices. I honestly
think He knows who is sincere in their heart, even though they
fall from time to time.
> That story you told about the excommunicant's brother was just
unbelievably
> ironic to me. The self-righteous tone of the leaders was
EXACTLY the sort
> of response we hold in such contempt when it's attributed to
the religious
> leaders who mocked Joseph for his visions.
I've never understood what is "self-righteous" about making good
choices. My older brother used to try and make me feel guilty
for making good choices. I was never willing to apologize for
making good choices. Is it self-righteous to refuse to apologize
for living what you know in your heart to be true???
God has given leaders stewardship. As these leaders live to
their conscience by following the teachings of the Gospel of
which they have a testimony, they are open the door to
revelation. Remember the picture of Christ knocking at the door?
There was no knob on the outside, symbolic of His being able to
knock, but the door must be opened from the inside in order for
His message to be received.
Further, it is not the same "contempt" which those who mocked
Joseph Smith had. Those who mocked Joseph Smith dismissed his
visions with judgmentalism without first inquiring of God. They
were quick to mock and scorn, but slow to prayer about it. How
many of them earnestly stopped to ask God if Joseph Smith was
telling the truth? That is the distinction between "contempt"
and testimony. The contemptious tell God what is true. Those
with testimony are willing to be humble and ask.
> There are many paths to God. Practicing the teachings of the
LDS church is
> probably one of them. But it's certainly not the only one, and
it's not
> without its problems.
I never said the teachings of the LDS Church are the one and only
way to God. They are the truth, but the most important "truth" of
all is in living to the Light of Christ, which is our conscience.
I've always said that living to the dictates of one's conscience
IS the straightest path back Home.
I honestly believe that lots of athiests, Catholics, Buddists...
will be far ahead in line than lots of LDS. Why? Because they
live to their conscience rather than to convenience or what will
get them "ahead".
Kathryn Simpson
beginning hear
> the voice of God and it scared them witless and they asked that
God only
> speak through Moses?
I don't recall that, but it will make for some interesting Sunday
reading of the OT.
Kathryn Simpson
> Not unless there really needed to be a restoration. If one
thinks that God
> requires a hierarchical institution to implement his power here
on earth,
> then I suppose that there would be such a need. But I don't
happen to think
> that He does. Hence, I think the claim to restoration is
superfluous.
> Nothing was lost, therefore, nothing needed to be restored.
Obviously, I disagree. I think much was lost, including "a
hierarchial institution" (better known as the priesthood). God
is a God of order, not confusion.
Might Be Me
Snip
> I never said the teachings of the LDS Church are the one and only
> way to God. They are the truth, but the most important "truth" of
> all is in living to the Light of Christ, which is our conscience.
> I've always said that living to the dictates of one's conscience
> IS the straightest path back Home.
That is only true if the conscience is truly the Light of Christ, or is
informed by the Light of Christ.
> I honestly believe that lots of athiests, Catholics, Buddists...
> will be far ahead in line than lots of LDS. Why? Because they
> live to their conscience rather than to convenience or what will
> get them "ahead".
And this, of course, assumes that when they get to the spiritual world they
are able to listen to the truth that they need.
Might Be Me
Snip
> As a Catholic I believe that the fulness of religious truth is only
> found in the Catholic Church. That's not saying that some truth can not
> be found in other religions but not the fulness!
>
> Don't the LDS believe the same about their faith? That it's the one true
> religion?
Some of us do. Apparently some do not.
> They acknowledge that other churches / religions contain some truth but
> not the fulness. Right?
At least for myself, I acknowledge that _SOME_ other "churches" possess some
truth in their teachings, but as Joseph was told, they "deny the poser
thereof". Unfortunately some of them possess so much error along with the
truth they have, that the error obscures and in effect may negate the truth
for many.
> I for one would not be a member of a religion or church that taught that
> it was partly right. That it only had some truth.
But some of us realize that there is yet more truth to be revealed. Hence
even we do not believe that we have all truth. Just more of what is
currently needed than others have. We believe (hope?) also that we have a
lesser admixture of falsehood.
> Don't you LDS feel the same way? Otherwise why be LDS?
I discussed that above.
> If one religion is a good as another then that must mean that one
> religion can be as false as another too!
Imagine that! <G>
> Regardless which church, sect or denomination you interpret it to refer
> to doesn't the Bible say that the path is straight and narrow?
Why do you not check these things for yourself?
(Matthew 7:13-17.)
13 ś Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the
way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto
life, and few there be that find it.
15 ś Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or
figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
Likewise the Book of Mormon has similar assertions.
Perhaps this from Doctrine and Covenenants makes a bolder statement for LDS
(Doctrine and Covenants 132:21-23.)
21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain
to this glory.
22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the
exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it,
because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.
23 But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall
receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.
John Taber
> I heard this story some 20 years ago, so if my facts are slightly
> astray, please forgive. But it illustrates what I'm trying to
> say, so it works for me. ;=)
I hadn't heard it in a while, but I remember it about the same way.
And it's something I've had to keep in perspective as certain people
claim immunity from church discipline, and other people go along with
that. (Or claim that eternal temple ordinances permanently trump
discipline in any event.)
Kathryn Simpson
"Might Be Me" <n...@any.com> wrote in message
news:vinlb86...@news.supernews.com...
> (Leon R. Hartshorn, comp., Outstanding Stories by General
Authorities, 3
> vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1970-73], 2: 182 -
183.)
Thanks. That was the story I was referring to.
> > There are many paths to God. Practicing the teachings of the
LDS church
> is
> > probably one of them. But it's certainly not the only one,
and it's not
> > without its problems.
>
>
> Are there indeed many paths to God? That is no doubt a
comforting thought.
> It was once said "All roads lead to Rome". Would you say "All
paths lead to
> God"? If so, be assured that I do not agree...
In this life, many do not find the Gospel. They live their lives
according to the light of Christ (their conscience). Though
their path is not in being LDS, they will receive Celestial
Glory. They will become reacquainted with the true Gospel in the
Spirit World. That is my point. If I struggled in how I said
it, I am sorry for the confusion.
>.... If not, then we are doing well
> if we try to find the one road (or one set of roads) that lead
to God. We
> cannot do that without help from God Himself, and for some of
us, it may not
> yet be time for us to receive that help. For others, it may be
time, and we
> may be stubborn or unwilling. Or we may be "blinded by crafty
men" so that
> we reject the truth that is offered. Some of us may think we
have truth when
> we have falsehood or partial truth.
True, but many who have been born have not had opportunity to
receive the true teachings of the Gospel.
> It is essential that we remain humble and teachable.
Absolutely.
> Since this no longer has anything to do with prostate cancer, I
will change
> the subject and will here say that at this point in my life, I
am convinced
> that there is one sure road to God. Jesus Christ, the only
begotten Son of
> God in the Flesh is reported to have said, "I am the way and
the truth and
> the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." So Jesus
Christ is the
> one sure road to God. Our current maps, drawn by cartographers
of varying
> degrees of knowledge and skill may seem to show many roads that
lead to God,
> but unless they go by way of Jesus Christ they are false roads.
Yes. However, not all receive the keys to the path in this life.
They are limited only by their lack of opportunity to come to
know the Savior in this life, not by lack of commitment to doing
what is right.
> Now where is the greatest knowledge of Jesus Christ available?
Fairly
> obviously it is available from Him or His Father. They have
restored His
> Church as a "toolset" for helping us to gain that knowledge.
Not necessarily
> or only by study, but by doing those things that He commands us
to do, as He
> did them in most cases, thus coming near to Him and becoming
more and more
> like Him.
True, and for those who receive knowledge and testimony of the
truth in this life then they have accountability. For those who
do not receive the knowledge of Christ in this life, but live to
the righteousness that their conscious dictates, then they are
Celestial bound... provided the accept the teachings in the next
life (which I have little doubt most, if not all, would do).
Kathryn Simpson
Anne said...
> <<There are many paths to God. Practicing the teachings of the
LDS
> church is probably one of them>>
David said....
> Huh? I just don't buy that. I've often heard that said. I
would not,
> could not belong to a church or religion that did not believe
it was the
> one, true faith. For me it's the Catholic Church. For most here
it's the
> LDS church.
There is only one truth. God is not a God of confusion.
However, having the truth is not the only way to Celestial glory.
Many do not receive testimony of the true church in this life.
They are not then accountable for that truth. But they are
accountable for living to the dictates of their conscience, which
is also known as "the light of Christ". It is called the "light
of Christ" because it leads to Christ, whether in this life or
the next.
David said...
> As a Catholic I believe that the fulness of religious truth is
only
> found in the Catholic Church. That's not saying that some
truth can not
> be found in other religions but not the fulness!
>
> Don't the LDS believe the same about their faith? That it's the
one true
> religion?
Yes, we believe the same thing. We believe that we are right and
you are wrong in the areas that we disagree. There is good truth
found in the Catholic religion, but we believe that it also
contains untruths that are not part of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.
David said...
> They acknowledge that other churches / religions contain some
truth but
> not the fulness. Right?
True
David said....
> Regardless which church, sect or denomination you interpret it
to refer
> to doesn't the Bible say that the path is straight and narrow?
Yes, the path is straight and narrow. The path is to follow the
light of Christ. ;=) Whether LDS, Catholic, Buddist, or
whatever... we will be judged according to how we followed the
light of Christ within us.
Kathryn Simpson
> That is only true if the conscience is truly the Light of
Christ, or is
> informed by the Light of Christ.
Of course.
> And this, of course, assumes that when they get to the
spiritual world they
> are able to listen to the truth that they need.
Of course. :=)
I think we agree on this, even if I didn't express myself well
the first post.
Kathryn Simpson
> More so than beheading Laban? Or has this wandered far from the
track?
I see great difference in beheading someone (they die quickly)
than in burning someone at the stake (where they die painfully
and it takes time).
I can understand having to kill. I cannot understand torturing
someone in the process.
Kathryn Simpson
"John Taber" <jwt...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:viorqr1...@news.supernews.com...
> I hadn't heard it in a while, but I remember it about the same
way.
> And it's something I've had to keep in perspective as certain
people
> claim immunity from church discipline, and other people go
along with
> that. (Or claim that eternal temple ordinances permanently
trump
> discipline in any event.)
Or worse... the old, "I've held this calling and that calling and
there are 13 general authorities in my family... what callings
have YOU held and who do you know that give you greater knowledge
than I..." contest. I detest that sort of shallowness.
Might Be Me
Snip
> >.... If not, then we are doing well
> > if we try to find the one road (or one set of roads) that lead
> to God. We
> > cannot do that without help from God Himself, and for some of
> us, it may not
> > yet be time for us to receive that help. For others, it may be
> time, and we
> > may be stubborn or unwilling. Or we may be "blinded by crafty
> men" so that
> > we reject the truth that is offered. Some of us may think we
> have truth when
> > we have falsehood or partial truth.
>
> True, but many who have been born have not had opportunity to
> receive the true teachings of the Gospel.
That is what I said when I said "for some of us it may not yet be time to
receive that help ..." One of the first bits of help we need from God to
accept His Gospel is to be born in a time and a place where it is available.
> > It is essential that we remain humble and teachable.
>
> Absolutely.
Snip
> Yes. However, not all receive the keys to the path in this life.
> They are limited only by their lack of opportunity to come to
> know the Savior in this life, not by lack of commitment to doing
> what is right.
I am glad you made that more clear, but I was pretty sure that I had also
covered it.
Snip
father of peace
>Nephi, for example, was commanded to kill Laban. If you look at
>how Nephi lived his life and how he honored God in all that he
>did, then one could reasonably conclude that God had a reason for
>an exception.
Nephi was exceedingly arrogant. He was a liar. He was
a kidnapper. He was a thief. Then to top it all off he
killed one of the GAs. Hardly a shining example.
>Some in this forum
>profess revelation from God that Pres. Hinckley is corrupt, that
>polygamy is really ok right now, that sex outside of marriage is
>ok. But when we look at whether or not the person is in other
>ways living the commandments of God (to be worthy of such
>revelation), I think the wheat is separated from the chaff quite
>easily.
Keeping other commandments like wearing a white
shirt and tie to meetings? Like using water for the
sacrament? Like letting boys administer the sacrament?
Love,
Absalom
father of peace
>Were you ever LDS?
Many years ago Ann and I attended the same LdS ward...
>If you were once LDS what did you become?
I have become agnostic.
David / Amicus
do not receive testimony of the true church in this life. They are not
then accountable for that truth. But they are accountable for living to
the dictates of their conscience, which is also known as "the light of
Christ". It is called the "light of Christ" because it leads to Christ,
whether in this life or the next.>>
But an unbaptized heathen who never heard the (LDS) gospel in this life
during mortality upon death is not automatically going to go to the CK
is he? He'll have the (LDS) gospel preached to him in the sprirt prison
(is that what the place after death is called?) and have the opportunity
there to accept (or reject) the (LDS) gospel. And if he does accept the
(LDS) gospel hopefully someone will do the temple work for him by proxy
or he'll have to wait til the millenium and do it himself?
A person whether in this life or by proxy after death in order to enter
the CK must have all the proper rites and ceremonies done doesn't he?
Like everything from baptism to the temple endowment - right?
So in effect there really is only one way to the CK - the LDS way -
right?
Like at a testimony meeting in the CK no one is going to be able to say
"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" nor anyone say
"Namu Amida Butsu" nor "Hare Krishna, Hare Rama" etc. but everyone will
say like "I know that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that the BoM
is true, that JS is a prophet" - right?
father of peace
>There is only one truth. God is not a God of confusion.
I strongly suspect that there are many truths depending
on one's ability to live in accordance with what truth
has already been received. We tell our 2 year olds
to never go into the street. Then by the time they
are 16 we expect them to drive on it. Same street.
Same Kid. Different ability to understand.
>We believe that we are right and
>you are wrong in the areas that we disagree.
Some of us Mormons don't hold that opinion.
We believe that God speaks to every people
in a language and manner that they can
understand. We believe that all truth may
be gathered together into one great whole,
and that the LdS do not have a monopoly on
the truth market.
>There is good truth
>found in the Catholic religion, but we believe that it also
>contains untruths that are not part of the Gospel of Jesus
>Christ.
I am an LdS that believes that there are untruths
taught in General Conference, and in the Sunday
school manuals, and etc.
>The path is to follow the
>light of Christ. ;=) Whether LDS, Catholic, Buddist, or
>whatever... we will be judged according to how we followed the
>light of Christ within us.
Does that apply even to the polygamists? If God teaches
a person through the light of Christ to participate in a
plural family are you conceeding that if the person
follows that light that they will be exalted in the
Celestial Kingdom?
Might Be Me
Snnip
> David said....
> > Regardless which church, sect or denomination you interpret it
> to refer
> > to doesn't the Bible say that the path is straight and narrow?
>
> Yes, the path is straight and narrow. The path is to follow the
> light of Christ. ;=) Whether LDS, Catholic, Buddist, or
> whatever... we will be judged according to how we followed the
> light of Christ within us.
Actually, the Bible, in the passage I quoted, says "strait" and narrow.
"Strait" is not an alternate spelling for "straight". It is sometimes a
synonim for narrow, which would make this sentence redundant, but it has
other meanings which make the sentence meaningful without redundancy.
Main Entry: 1strait
Pronunciation: 'strAt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French estreit, from Latin strictus
strait, strict, from past participle of stringere
Date: 13th century
1 archaic : STRICT, RIGOROUS
2 archaic a : NARROW b : limited in space or time c : closely fitting :
CONSTRICTED, TIGHT
3 a : causing distress : DIFFICULT b : limited as to means or resources
Kathryn Simpson
> But an unbaptized heathen who never heard the (LDS) gospel in
this life
> during mortality upon death is not automatically going to go to
the CK
> is he? He'll have the (LDS) gospel preached to him in the
sprirt prison
> (is that what the place after death is called?) and have the
opportunity
> there to accept (or reject) the (LDS) gospel. And if he does
accept the
> (LDS) gospel hopefully someone will do the temple work for him
by proxy
> or he'll have to wait til the millenium and do it himself?
Anyone, baptized or not, who lives to their conscience (the light
of Christ), receives Celestial glory. No one goes directly to the
Celestial Kingdom. There is the Spirit World, where people are
either teaching or being taught the Gospel. In the Spirit World
a person could reject the Gospel, but they will be few and far
between. Before he can enter the Celestial Kingdom, there will be
a judgment and there must be temple work done. I've been told
that some people will do their own temple work during the
millenium, but I'm not sure if that is official doctrine or
speculation.
> A person whether in this life or by proxy after death in order
to enter
> the CK must have all the proper rites and ceremonies done
doesn't he?
> Like everything from baptism to the temple endowment - right?
Yes, in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom one must have their
all ordinances completed.
> So in effect there really is only one way to the CK - the LDS
way -
> right?
Ultimately, yes. But I was referring to "this life" (mortality).
> Like at a testimony meeting in the CK no one is going to be
able to say
> "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" nor
anyone say
> "Namu Amida Butsu" nor "Hare Krishna, Hare Rama" etc. but
everyone will
> say like "I know that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that
the BoM
> is true, that JS is a prophet" - right?
I would certainly expect that by then all individuals (in all
degrees of glory) will understand those principles, yes.
Kathryn Simpson
"father of peace" <abs...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:viqdi93...@news.supernews.com...
> Nephi was exceedingly arrogant. He was a liar. He was
> a kidnapper. He was a thief. Then to top it all off he
> killed one of the GAs. Hardly a shining example.
Nephi killed a General Authority? Please explain.
> Keeping other commandments like wearing a white
> shirt and tie to meetings? Like using water for the
> sacrament? Like letting boys administer the sacrament?
What is wrong with wearing a white shirt and tie to a meeting?
I've never EVER seen a man kicked out of Sacrament Meeting (or
any other meeting) for wearing something other than a white shirt
and time. I've seen women wear pants to Sacrament Meeting and
they were not kicked out.
Is it a commandment? No. It isn't. Is it a good idea to dress
appropriately? Absolutely.
It would be hard to use anything other than water for the
sacrament since the Word of Wisdom prohibits the use of alcohol.
Would you prefer that orange juice be used? Btw... side note...
fresh squeezed orange juice (ounce for ounce) has more alcohol in
it than "neer beer" type beverages.
Deacons pass the Sacrament. What is wrong with that? They are
not "boys" passing the sacrament. They are "deacons" (most of
whom happen to be age 12 or 13). It is their priesthood calling.
If you have a problem with that, then spell out why, please. But
it sounds like you are disparaging these fine young priesthood
holders and I find that sad.
Might Be Me
Snip
> But an unbaptized heathen who never heard the (LDS) gospel in this life
> during mortality upon death is not automatically going to go to the CK
> is he? He'll have the (LDS) gospel preached to him in the sprirt prison
> (is that what the place after death is called?) and have the opportunity
> there to accept (or reject) the (LDS) gospel. And if he does accept the
> (LDS) gospel hopefully someone will do the temple work for him by proxy
> or he'll have to wait til the millenium and do it himself?
You are right, as I understand, that since baptism is essential for all who
have reached the age of accountability to be elegible for the Celestial
Kingdom. such a "heathen" will need to be baptized by proxy. Of course this
will be of no efficacy if he does not accept it, and he cannot properly
accept it if he has not had the gospel (true gospel, not identified as LDS,
but as true.It is not the Gospel of the Latter-day Saints, but it is the
Gospel of Jesus Christ)
It is not my understading that such a "heathen" will be able to undergo
baptism for himself in the Millenium, since baptism requires a body, and I
don't think such a one who is not yet baptized by the time of the millenium
will be resurrected (regain his body) but that is not totally clear.
> A person whether in this life or by proxy after death in order to enter
> the CK must have all the proper rites and ceremonies done doesn't he?
> Like everything from baptism to the temple endowment - right?
The endowment is not a requirement for entering the Celestial Kingdom, but
it is required for exaltation.
> So in effect there really is only one way to the CK - the LDS way -
> right?
The only way to Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom is God's way. We believe
that we are the ones who best teach God's way, and we believe we are the
ones who are authorized to administer the ordinances in God's way.
But if Kathy (was it her?) is merely saying that one need not be LDS in this
life to wind up eventually in the Highest order of the Celestial Kingdom, I
agree, given sufficient valid reasons for failing to accept the Gospel (such
as never being able to hear it)
> Like at a testimony meeting in the CK no one is going to be able to say
> "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" nor anyone say
> "Namu Amida Butsu" nor "Hare Krishna, Hare Rama" etc. but everyone will
> say like "I know that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that the BoM
> is true, that JS is a prophet" - right?
I rather doubt that _all_ will be testifying of Joseph, probably only those
who in some sense owe their salvation to what the Saviour did through him. I
also really imagine that all the praise and glory will be given to the One
who really deserves it, that is our Father in Heaven, and that He may then
reflect much of it on Jesus, who in turn will reflect much of it back on us.
father of peace
>Nephi killed a General Authority? Please explain.
Laban was a high leader in the church, something
akin to the General Authority who held the calling
of Church historian.
>What is wrong with wearing a white shirt and tie to a meeting?
It is vain and pretentious. 'Sunday Best' is a tradition,
that is not supported by scriptures. The scriptures teach
us to wear simple clothing made with our own hands.
The scriptures teach us that God looks on the heart
and not on the outward appearance. The scriptures
teach us about the Zoramites and the Rameumpton.
>I've never EVER seen a man kicked out of Sacrament Meeting (or
>any other meeting) for wearing something other than a white shirt
>and tie.
Many wards/stakes ban men from participating in priesthood
ordinances if they are not wearing a white shirt and
tie.
>Is it a commandment? No. It isn't. Is it a good idea to dress
>appropriately? Absolutely.
I consider it to be a personal opinion.
>It would be hard to use anything other than water for the
>sacrament since the Word of Wisdom prohibits the use of alcohol.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to read D&C 89
again. We have a lot of theories about what it says....
but they seldom match with what the scripture actually
says. (p.s. to those who are not LdS, the WoW
allows the use of alcohol in sacramental wine, and
it allows the use of mild alcoholic beverages such
as beer made from barley.)
>Deacons pass the Sacrament. What is wrong with that?
D&C 20 teaches that when an elder is present that
the aaronic priesthood should not pass/bless the
sacrament.
>They are
>not "boys" passing the sacrament. They are "deacons" (most of
>whom happen to be age 12 or 13). It is their priesthood calling.
It may be their calling according to tradition, but the
scriptures don't allow it if there is an elder present.
>If you have a problem with that, then spell out why, please. But
>it sounds like you are disparaging these fine young priesthood
>holders and I find that sad.
Current LdS practices seldom conform to
LdS doctrine, the scriptures.
Randy A. Hefner
> the aaronic priesthood should not pass/bless the
> sacrament.
>
I think you are referring to D&C 20:58 where it says:
D&C 20:50 But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize,
administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;
So what we have to look at is what it means to "administer the
sacrament" If we look further down in D&C 20:76-79 we see that it
means to bless the sacrament. Here is the link to the scripture:
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/20/76-79#76
All these scriptures are totally consistant with the practices of The
Church today.
Randy
MustBeMe
"Randy A. Hefner" <randy_NO_S...@murs-usa.com> wrote in message
news:vit22s7...@news.supernews.com...
> > D&C 20 teaches that when an elder is present that
> > the aaronic priesthood should not pass/bless the
> > sacrament.
> >
>
> I think you are referring to D&C 20:58 where it says:
>
> D&C 20:50 But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize,
> administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;
Actually, I, a High Priest, have no authority to baptize anyone without the
approval of my bishop or the bishop where the baptism is to take place. Same
for laying on of hands for confirmation or bestowing the Holy Ghost. For
those who think the office of High Priest is "bogus", I remain an Elder and
the same is still true.
My current bishop was 2nd counselor in the bishopric when I was first
counselor. That did not give me any advantage over him. The man who is now
our Stake President was our bishop at the time. He authorized us for almost
everything we did as his counselors. He was the one who ordained our bishop,
I think, as bishop, and I know he was the one who set me apart as High
Priest Group leader. In one way my bishop and I are on the same level, both
being responsible directly to the Stake President, but that does not mean I
can baptize in our ward without his authorization.
What is my point? I may not have one, other than that the fact that we have,
as Melchizedek Priesthood holders, equal authority for the things we do, yet
another type of special authority called "keys" defines when and under what
circumstances we can do them. Ultimately in a ward the Bishop is responsible
for who administers and passes the sacrament, who baptized, who confirms,
who gives a baby a name and blessing, etc.