Jump to content

Menu

LDS General Conference Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

Regarding church vs gospel...the gospel is the good news, the truth, the message of Christ. It is what is True!

But there are things in the "church" that is not gospel but culture and not Truth but the way it has always been done. Therefore a person can be strong in the gospel and not strong in the church stuff. But so many judge based on the church stuff and not the gospel stuff (its harder to see someone's heart).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 333
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All I'm going to say is that it is no wonder people often think we believe the LDS will be the only people who make it into heaven :)

 

I've been following this and a few other LDS threads. I am not LDS but have a relatively new friendship with a very kind LDS mom who homeschools her dc. I am trying to understand where she "is coming from" as I develop this relationship.

 

Actually, I have that view of LDS -- not from my friend, and certainly not from a LDS-only conference (that I didn't know existed until a few days ago reading about it here), but from researching Mormonism on internet. I know that you can't trust everything you read on the internet but there ARE some interesting quotes that lead non-LDS people to think "Oh, LDS think they have a monopoly on heaven..." Such as...

 

Joseph Smith (founder of LDS): All other churches are of the devil (another quote says "founded by the devil")... All their creeds are abomination... Christian ministers were all corrupt...

 

Smith (Pearl of Great Price), talking about non-LDS churches: they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt

 

Smith wrote in the Book of Mormon: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil, ... the whore of all the earth.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith (wrote the LDS Doctrines of Salvation): There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God"

 

Brigham Young (former LDS prez): I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness. They cannot tell you so much as Balaam's ass told him. They are more ignorant than children. The Christian world, so called, are heathens as to their knowledge of salvation of God. With regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world.

 

John Taylor (also former LDS prez): Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of things of God as the brute beast. The devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than Christianity. What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing.

 

Heber Kimball (LDS Apostle): Christians -- those poor, miserable priests ... some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on earth.

 

Orson Pratt (also an apostle): O, blush for modern Christianity, a pious name for atheism.

 

Ensign (official magazine of LDS, 1984) talks of the Christian church saying "all that is in is is satanic."

 

Bruce McConkie (a recent LDS apostle) Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap ****ation to their souls.

 

McConkie also said There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 

 

And there are many more... Never on the internet have I seen a Mormon book or Mormon leader quoted saying that a born-again, mainstream, Protestant Christian like me can be in heaven.

 

That last quote "no salvation outside ..." really drives it home. That's what LDS believes... And it's there for all to read (and why shouldn't it be -- LDS has nothing to be ashamed of...)

 

Not trying to start an argument and I don't want an argument... Just trying to explain to some nice LDS moms here why many non-LDS have that impression that you think that we can't go to Heaven -- it's because from 1820 to the present, that's what LDS teaches and says.

 

So, yes, I have the impression that LDS don't think I can go to heaven. But it has nothing to do with a convention speaker. It has everything to do with many quotes and "scripture" that say so. It's not just one obscure quote from one man, it's many quotes from many leaders, covering many decades.

 

I'm afraid this might all sound snarky, and I wish I could sit down in a friendly way and have this conversation. My intentions are not to be snarky but simply to tell you why I think that LDS believes I cannot go to heaven without acknowledging J Smith -- it's what your church is built on... It's what you, as a church, believe. It's the fabric of your faith...

 

That's all.

 

In love,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is OT, but I also know that you guys will understand. My little brother opened up his mission call a few minutes ago. Honduras! I'm very excited for him and want to tell someone. :)

 

Hooray!! Congrats!!! How exciting!

 

I just dropped my parents off at the MTC this morning. They'll be there for 2 weeks, and then off to Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hear hear! Women have enough responsibilities, and we also have a natural inclination to be responsible and take care of what needs to be taken care of. My mother always talked about how grateful she was that the men were given specific responsibilities in connection with holding that priesthood, and the older I get the more I understand and agree with her. Please, please don't take the men's responsibilities and give them to the women. There is plenty of room to work together and plenty of work to go around.

 

I think what some women might be concerned about is that they might feel like they don't have the authority to fulfill some of their responsibilities. I don't think we necessarily need priesthood authority, but sometimes it can be really hard to get the things done that we're supposed to.

 

For example, it can be really hard to keep a Primary or a Cub Scout pack running when you have no authority to call Primary teachers or den leaders. Of course there needs to be cooperation between different groups to make sure one person isn't called to three different positions on the same Sunday, but it's certainly possible because Elders Quorum and High Priests make their own callings.

 

It's also difficult when you can't have the sacrament because there are no priesthood holders around- there are more women in this situation that you might think. I don't think that it's just that we shouldn't want men's responsibilites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following this and a few other LDS threads. I am not LDS but have a relatively new friendship with a very kind LDS mom who homeschools her dc. I am trying to understand where she "is coming from" as I develop this relationship.

 

Actually, I have that view of LDS -- not from my friend, and certainly not from a LDS-only conference (that I didn't know existed until a few days ago reading about it here), but from researching Mormonism on internet. I know that you can't trust everything you read on the internet but there ARE some interesting quotes that lead non-LDS people to think "Oh, LDS think they have a monopoly on heaven..." Such as...

 

[ ...snipping for space considerations...]

 

That last quote "no salvation outside ..." really drives it home. That's what LDS believes... And it's there for all to read (and why shouldn't it be -- LDS has nothing to be ashamed of...)

 

Not trying to start an argument and I don't want an argument... Just trying to explain to some nice LDS moms here why many non-LDS have that impression that you think that we can't go to Heaven -- it's because from 1820 to the present, that's what LDS teaches and says.

 

So, yes, I have the impression that LDS don't think I can go to heaven. But it has nothing to do with a convention speaker. It has everything to do with many quotes and "scripture" that say so. It's not just one obscure quote from one man, it's many quotes from many leaders, covering many decades.

 

I'm afraid this might all sound snarky, and I wish I could sit down in a friendly way and have this conversation. My intentions are not to be snarky but simply to tell you why I think that LDS believes I cannot go to heaven without acknowledging J Smith -- it's what your church is built on... It's what you, as a church, believe. It's the fabric of your faith...

 

That's all.

 

In love,

 

I can understand your confusion, and I've seen these kinds of quotes on the internet too. They are usually posted by people who are looking in at us from the outside and trying to understand what WE believe in terms of what THEY believe, and this can result in a bit of a mash-up that doesn't do justice to either set of beliefs.

 

And actually, this kind of misunderstanding was discussed somewhat by D. Todd Christofferson in the Sunday morning session of this weekend's conference. His talk is only about 15 minutes long, and you might find it helpful. Here's a link: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/watch/2012/04?lang=eng&vid=1542112410001&cid=9

 

One thing that I see happen on the internet and in some other kinds of publications is that there is some misunderstanding as to what exactly we believe about living prophets and apostles and the weight we give to various things they say. Some commentators jump to the conclusion that because we believe that these guys are literally prophets of God and apostles of Christ, that "must" mean that we take "every" word they utter as scripture and as binding on all members of the church. This isn't actually the case. Here's a quote from Elder Christofferson's talk that might help clarify a little (yet again, I am listening and transcribing, so please excuse errors. For example I'm not at all sure I got the quotation marks in the right places...but the point still comes through I think):

 

 

 

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well considered opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole church. The prophet Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such. President Clarke, quoted earlier observed, 'to this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy. I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point.' His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of Johnston’s army, Brigham Young preached to the people in a morning meeting, a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been speaking in the morning, but that the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which the opposite from the morning talk. 'The church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members whether the brethren in voicing their views are moved upon by the Holy Ghost and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.'"

 

 

So inside the church we take it for granted that these guys are human beings, with human failings, and human opinions, which they sometimes express. Their opinions are generally worth considering, as they are wise and faithful men, but ultimately their opinions do not constitute scripture or binding doctrine. And that goes for books they write as well. If it's published as the work of one man, it's generally his opinion, not an official document of the church, and is not considered at all binding on church members.

 

Anyway, the whole beginning of Elder Christofferson's talk is about how doctrine is established in our church, so I won't go into that at length here, I'm just wanting to point out that although some of the writers of the websites ASSUME that any quote from a church leader, past or present, would be considered authoritative or "doctrine" by a church member, this isn't actually the case for the reason stated above. But since they do make this assumption, it seems to be a favorite pastime of some of them to comb through LDS publications cherry-picking obscure quotes and presenting them out of context, especially ones that seem to support THEIR interpretation of our beliefs, or which might anger, confuse, or frighten readers (the more exciting they make it, the more readers they can draw in, right?). They seem especially fond of quoting from the Journal of Discourses, which has never been considered authoritative or a source of doctrine in the church. It's transcriptions of speeches given by early church leaders, and it does contain a lot of interesting and useful information, but there is some question as to the accuracy of the transcriptions--many of them were taken longhand (have you ever tried accurately recording what someone is saying word for word as they speak with a pen and paper?) until they got someone trained in shorthand, and of course there was no recording equipment at the time to go back and check. In most cases the transcriptions were not checked or approved by the person who gave the speech either. So to us, it's an interesting historical document, but it's not doctrine. Anything in there that IS important doctrine will have been clearly stated elsewhere in a more reliable format. But our critics LOVE it because it contains many examples of hyperbole offered on the fly by early church leaders that look really juicy when chopped out of the context of the speech and out of the context of church culture and doctrine. I've also seen them post as "real Mormon beliefs" some erroneous statements published as personal opinions by church officials, even though they happily published retractions once their errors were brought to their attention by other church leaders. It seems to me that it wouldn't be horribly difficult to find the retractions (it didn't take me much digging) so either this is REALLY sloppy scholarship or the writers who do this are just disingenuous, or are passing on bad info they got from someone else without checking the reliability--which I suppose falls under the category of sloppy scholarship. But I digress. My point is, the quotes that are presented as representative of our beliefs, or even as official church doctrine, aren't always. And one tip-off is excessive reference to the Journal of Discourses.

 

And I think I'd better cut this here and start another post. Sorry to be so long-winded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite so bluntly, I think. But yeah, I think it's an area of challenge for our guys. And we women have our own areas of challenge too--what was that other quote...something about don't judge me just because I sin differently than you? I think the men need our support more than our criticism. But I was very glad to hear it put so plainly.

 

I:iagree: I think our men have a particularly tough road to travel right now. Women seem to have all the power and men these days get no respect, are always the boobs in family movies, are supposed to be getlemanly, but not chauvinistic, supportive but not critical. They must avoid pornography even though the world says its not harmful, find a job, pay the bills, stay fit, provide for their children, be an attentive father, magnify their callings, wash the dishes, and not die, all without coffee or alcohol. The ones that can check off half of this list, have my respect. The fact that my DH gets up at 5:45 every morning to take my son to seminaary, in the snow and freezing weather, makes up for alot.

 

We generally do not watch conference all at once, as we tend to fall asleep. The calming voices and music are just too powerful. We record all of the sessions and then watch them for FHE over the next few weeks. We made the YW conference last week, but we had people in town so we missed the Priesthood session Sat and didn't view any of them on Sat or Sun. After reading these comments, I'll listen more attentively to the ones mentioned. Thought we would do one for FHE tonight but our FHE was put off until tomorrow night (NCAA MENS B-Ball championship tonight, my DH said that would be a perfect FHE activity. Ummm no! Plus, the 1940 census came out today....:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always loved President Hinckley's comment when asked by a reporter why our church does not allow women to hold the priesthood. "They're so much better and more spiritual than us...they don't need it." :lol:

 

I'll be a dissenter and admit that I hate--I mean really despise--that sentiment. :tongue_smilie: Women are not more spiritual or inherently better than men. We both sin. We both need CHRIST. :) I don't care for benevolent sexism, thankyouverymuch. ;)

 

Of course, I love that Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to women and wish that would make a comeback. :D It's not because I want to step in to do all the stuff now done by the men. It's because I can see why JS gave it to women. I would love to be ministered to by another woman. I would love to be authorized to minister to my own children when they are sick and dh is away (or WITH him). :) I loved Sister Beck's quote from Jospeh Smith about how the Relief Society was to prepare women for the responsibilities, privileges, and blessings of the priesthood. Male priesthood was not specified. At the time JS said that, women had the priesthood and the authority to use it autonomously in their role of administering charity and aid. It just makes sense--especially considering the promise to become a priestess.

 

I found great comfort from the number of speakers that reiterated the fallibility of past and current leaders (even apostles and prophets). Hearing Holland specifically say that there were mistakes in our Church's history was quite literally an answer to my prayers. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...so...continuing.

 

Another thing that happens sometimes on those web sites is that passages of our scripture are taken out of context and interpreted in ways that we would not interpret them, given the larger framework from which they are drawn. One example of this is the passage from the Book of Mormon which you quoted.

 

Smith wrote in the Book of Mormon: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil, ... the whore of all the earth.

 

 

This is a little snippet out of the middle of a larger discussion that spans several chapters in which Nephi was observing certain events in his future (some of which are now historical for us) in a vision, and the significance of which was being explained to him by an angel. Many of the explanations are given in present tense, as the action unfolds. The angel explains that there will come a point in the course of world events in which everyone will have to choose a side--good, or evil; there will be no grey area. (And personally it seems to me that things are kind of polarizing in that direction these days...but that's another topic.) The sides are described as "churches", but we in the LDS church generally do not interpret these "churches" as literal ecclesiastical organizations, but rather as symbolic of everyone on each "side". Earlier in the discussion there's a description of this "great and abominable church". It is referred to as a "whore" because it is based on lustful desire--lust for wealth, lust for fine clothing, lust for "harlots" (which I understand to mean inappropriate sexual relationships), lust for the "praise of the world"--in contrast with the Church of the Lamb, which is based on a covenant relationship (like marriage) with God. So it's kind of a "bride" versus "whore" dichotomy being set up symbolically to distinguish those who desire a covenant relationship with God from those who desire other "idols". We don't really see it as an "LDS church" versus "all other churches" thing. It's a LOT broader than that. We'd say that both sides include people from many actual ecclesiastical organizations (churches), and indeed you'd find LDS people on both sides--it's not a religious affiliation thing, it's a state of your heart thing. Does that make sense?

 

Also, this would be the same "whore" John referred to in Revelation in the Bible, and the idea expressed by saying there are only two churches is pretty much that expressed in Luke 11:23, "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.", and Matthew 12:30, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

 

I do see what it can look like when taken out of context and mixed in with snippets of other quotes on other topics, like some non-LDS websites sometimes do. But context is important in determining the intended meaning, IMO.

 

Moving on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else that happens on the sorts of web sites you're referring to is that a writer will try to interpret our beliefs through the filter of THEIR beliefs. I think this happens a lot when discussing issues like heaven and hell, and salvation and ****ation. In many Christian faith structures, especially in the evangelical category, these are very clear-cut, black and white issues. Either you're "saved" and you "go to heaven", or you're "****ed" and you "go to hell". End of story. The LDS view has a little more nuance, as we don't view either salvation or ****ation as one-size-fits-all deals, and we don't envision some kind of bright, knife-edge dividing line between the two. Instead, we believe there are degrees of closeness to, and separation from God.

 

In our belief, when people die their bodies are separated from their spirits, the bodies decay and so forth, and the spirits enter a "spirit world" in which they wait for resurrection and judgment, which (in general) will occur after the Second Coming of Christ. In the spirit world, the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a condition and/or place of peace and joy which we often call "paradise", but is a sort of temporary "heaven", and those who have been wicked are received into a condition and/or place of misery and suffering, which we often call "spirit prison", but which is also a sort of temporary "hell". God is the only judge of which is which, and most of us REALLY prefer not to guess. (We believe that this "spirit world" is where Christ went while dead, and is what Peter means when he says that Christ taught souls in prison.)

 

Later on, all people will be resurrected and stand before God for a final judgment. At this point, everyone is assigned their eternal fate. And this is where the degrees of closeness to, or separation from God comes in. Jesus taught that in His Father's house there are many mansions. We believe that God has given a little more information about this through revelation to modern prophets. Within the overall Kingdom of God there are three degrees, or "kingdoms" of glory. The highest is called the "Celestial" kingdom, and only those who are assigned by God to this highest degree of glory will actually dwell in the literal presence of God. However, everyone in all the rest of the subdivisions still live within the Kingdom of God and receive of His glory to one degree or another--to us, these are ALL part of what most Christians would refer to as "heaven". Symbolically, the glory available in the second kingdom, the "Terrestrial" kingdom or degree of glory, is described as being compared to the Celestial kingdom as the moon is compared to the sun in brightness, and the glory available in the third kingdom, the "Telestial" degree of glory, is symbolically described as being like the stars, with individual variations, as one star differs in glory from another. Again, these all fall within the overall description of "heaven", in our belief. There is another option in the last judgment, though, which is to be assigned to NO kingdom of glory within God's kingdom of heaven, but rather to be consigned to dwell eternally with Satan and his fallen angels. We generally call this destination "outer darkness" in order to distinguish between it and the temporary "spirit prison", but in our belief both of these qualify to also be described as "hell".

 

With this understanding, terms like "saved" and "****ed" also become more nuanced. It becomes more important to understand the context--"saved" from what? "****ed" to what? For example, a person may be described as being "saved" from physical death, from the torment of sin in this life, from the "hell" of spirit prison, or from the more permanent "hell" of outer darkness, or from "spiritual death", which is separation from God. Or all of the above, of course. Similarly, a person might be described as being "****ed" to suffer misery in this life that results from unrepented sin, or "****ed" to suffer in the temporary hell of "spirit prison", or "****ed" to the eternal hell of outer darkness, or "****ed" to be forever separated from God.

 

And actually, believe it or not, a person can be "****ed" to spirit prison hell and then be "saved" in the Telestial (lowest) degree of glory. Or a person can be "saved" in the terrestrial kingdom of heaven while still being "****ed" in that he cannot enter the presence of God, just experience His glory from a distance. A person who is ****ed to outer darkness is not saved in any sense, though, and a person who is saved to the highest degree of glory is not ****ed.

 

It's really not as complicated as it sounds, and most LDS people who understand this doctrine can tell easily from the context what a given LDS speaker means when these kinds of terms start getting tossed around. But maybe you can see how some confusion can arise when people try to look at this belief system through a more simplistic black and white, heaven and hell, saved or ****ed belief system. A lot gets lost in translation. And if they then try to describe our beliefs to other people using THEIR OWN black/white saved/****ed paradigm, it gets really confusing. And I would guess that this is what has happened with a lot of the quotes you posted, though there's not a specific enough reference to look them up and check (and honestly I don't think I want to take the time to check them all right now anyway).

 

For the record, we believe that an LDS person could wind up anywhere along the whole spectrum of salvation and ****ation, and we believe that all faithful believers in Christ qualify for at least the Terrestrial, or middle degree of glory in heaven. We do believe that in order to enter the highest degree of glory a person not only has to believe in Christ, but has to enter into a covenant relationship with Christ, established under authentic God-given authority. And we believe that this authority presently only exists on the earth within the LDS church. This is because we believe that only an apostle can have actual "apostolic" authority, and at some point in the early Christian church all the apostles were martyred without passing on the apostleship to others. (That it was intended to be passed on to others, and not limited to the original twelve, we believe, is evidenced by the fact that Judas was replaced, and later on Paul was also ordained an apostle. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.) We also believe that without apostolic authority and ongoing revelation from God, the original church gradually decayed into apostasy and schism (which is where you get hyperbolic statements from church leaders about other Christian creeds being wrong-headed). We believe that when God restored His original church to the earth in the 1800s in America, the authority was restored by angelic visitation of the resurrected apostles Peter, James and John, which is how we trace our priesthood authority back to Christ, and why we believe that this authority from God is only available in the LDS church.

 

So...does any of that help? Or have I just muddied your waters even more?

 

[ETA: Oh, and I neglected to mention that we believe the ordinances necessary to move from the middle level of heaven to the highest can be performed by proxy by the living on behalf of the dead, and then the deceased person will have the option to accept or decline. So yeah, we definitely believe that people of other faiths can "go to heaven", including the highest degree of glory within the kingdom of heaven.]

Edited by MamaSheep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, the 1940 census came out today....:lol:

 

I was wondering if anyone else was excited about this! I've been glued to my computer every minute I haven't been helping someone with school, eating, or doing FHE today!!! I've found 2 of my grandparents so far. My grandpa was 11 in 1940 and I have an 11yo! That was so neat to me. I've also indexed one batch from Delaware, but getting up early this morning to get a jump on the census was catching up to me. I plan to index a lot more though. There are people I need to find and I don't have a clue where to even start looking. So the sooner the index is done, the better!

 

And I loved conference too! I didn't take notes, I usually cross-stitch and just soak it in. I prefer to study and take notes when the Ensign comes. I loved all the talks about families though and can't wait to read them all again. Our bishop challenged our ward last fall to read the entire conference Ensign before last weekend and we took it on as a family challenge and studied a talk for FHE every week. It's been an amazing experience to discuss doctrines of the gospel as spoken by living prophets with our children and I'm excited to begin again with a new conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I:iagree: I think our men have a particularly tough road to travel right now. Women seem to have all the power and men these days get no respect, are always the boobs in family movies, are supposed to be getlemanly, but not chauvinistic, supportive but not critical. They must avoid pornography even though the world says its not harmful, find a job, pay the bills, stay fit, provide for their children, be an attentive father, magnify their callings, wash the dishes, and not die, all without coffee or alcohol. The ones that can check off half of this list, have my respect. The fact that my DH gets up at 5:45 every morning to take my son to seminaary, in the snow and freezing weather, makes up for alot.

 

We generally do not watch conference all at once, as we tend to fall asleep. The calming voices and music are just too powerful. We record all of the sessions and then watch them for FHE over the next few weeks. We made the YW conference last week, but we had people in town so we missed the Priesthood session Sat and didn't view any of them on Sat or Sun. After reading these comments, I'll listen more attentively to the ones mentioned. Thought we would do one for FHE tonight but our FHE was put off until tomorrow night (NCAA MENS B-Ball championship tonight, my DH said that would be a perfect FHE activity. Ummm no! Plus, the 1940 census came out today....:lol:

 

Yes, we all fall short. Thank God for the atonement, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a very exciting note---my husband (who is not a member) sat and listened to the morning session with me and attended the priesthood session with my sons. And this morning he started a conversation about President Uchtdorf's talk from the priesthood session. Small, but exciting to me.

 

How wonderful for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hooray!! Congrats!!! How exciting!

 

I just dropped my parents off at the MTC this morning. They'll be there for 2 weeks, and then off to Germany.

 

congrats. I dropped #2ds off last week. haven't heard anything from him yet. I did get dudelinig to dictate a letter with a corny joke. he doesn't "get" humor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

congrats. I dropped #2ds off last week. haven't heard anything from him yet. I did get dudelinig to dictate a letter with a corny joke. he doesn't "get" humor.

 

Thanks, and congrats to you too. :)

 

I'd never taken a missionary to the MTC before, as I missed my brothers' send-offs for various reasons. It was cute, they had a little army of strong young fellas in suits and name tags at each door to the residence halls, ready and eager to help the older couples that were checking in today with their baggage. (Talk about making a body feel old....lol!) I gather the ones that snatched up my parents' luggage were getting ready to head off to Russia. Fortunately for them, my parents only took the "small" suitcases, and left the "big" suitcases in my basement because they'll be coming back again for a couple of days between the end of training and when they actually ship out, because staying with us is cheaper than paying for the overtime stay at the MTC. Free is always a better price. And we're looking forward to seeing them off to the airport too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our belief, when people die their bodies are separated from their spirits, the bodies decay and so forth, and the spirits enter a "spirit world" in which they wait for resurrection and judgment, which (in general) will occur after the Second Coming of Christ. In the spirit world, the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a condition and/or place of peace and joy which we often call "paradise", but is a sort of temporary "heaven", and those who have been wicked are received into a condition and/or place of misery and suffering, which we often call "spirit prison", but which is also a sort of temporary "hell". God is the only judge of which is which, and most of us REALLY prefer not to guess. (We believe that this "spirit world" is where Christ went while dead, and is what Peter means when he says that Christ taught souls in prison.)

 

Later on, all people will be resurrected and stand before God for a final judgment. At this point, everyone is assigned their eternal fate. And this is where the degrees of closeness to, or separation from God comes in. Jesus taught that in His Father's house there are many mansions. We believe that God has given a little more information about this through revelation to modern prophets. Within the overall Kingdom of God there are three degrees, or "kingdoms" of glory. The highest is called the "Celestial" kingdom, and only those who are assigned by God to this highest degree of glory will actually dwell in the literal presence of God. However, everyone in all the rest of the subdivisions still live within the Kingdom of God and receive of His glory to one degree or another--to us, these are ALL part of what most Christians would refer to as "heaven". Symbolically, the glory available in the second kingdom, the "Terrestrial" kingdom or degree of glory, is described as being compared to the Celestial kingdom as the moon is compared to the sun in brightness, and the glory available in the third kingdom, the "Telestial" degree of glory, is symbolically described as being like the stars, with individual variations, as one star differs in glory from another. Again, these all fall within the overall description of "heaven", in our belief. There is another option in the last judgment, though, which is to be assigned to NO kingdom of glory within God's kingdom of heaven, but rather to be consigned to dwell eternally with Satan and his fallen angels. We generally call this destination "outer darkness" in order to distinguish between it and the temporary "spirit prison", but in our belief both of these qualify to also be described as "hell".

 

 

Non-Mormon observation here - this is almost exactly the view of death and afterwards in Islam. Very interesting.

 

And on the census talk, I've been trying all day to access the 1940 census to find my dad who was 4 in 1940, but no luck yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, MamaBear.

 

I need to get out of bed (ie. away from laptop) right now -- I'm running a bit late for the day already!

 

I appreciate the links and will watch the video later. It helps that someone understands the confusion of "someone outside looking in." While I totally understand that someone disgruntled with LDS church would post certain quotes, verses, etc. I have had a really difficult time finding opposing quotes, etc. When one leader says something about Christians, it's easy to dismiss, but it's so hard to dismiss what a dozen leaders say.

 

At lunchtime or before bed, I'll read (not just scan) all you have kindly written and look at the link. Until then, accept my THANK YOU for helping me try to understand your church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked out Elder L Tom Perry's talk for FHE last night and then we planted our garden seeds to get them started for the garden, :D

 

I mainly picked it because he discussed the pitching of tents by Lot (facing Sodom) and then King Benjamin's request of the people to set their tent openings to the temple.

 

We have been having some (teen) issues with making good choices in our home recently...it was good to discuss people who made different choices and what the world can make us feel is ok to do after putting ourselves too close to some things...thus putting us in a more precarious position of loosing the Spirit to help guide us.

 

It was also timely as we were reading about King Benjamin this week in Mosiah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved Elder Uchdorf's talk on Sunday. Particularly his two-word sermon:

 

"This topic of judging others could actually be taught in a two-word sermon. When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following: stop it! It's that simple. We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love for God and his children."

 

We listened to this again and discussed it for Family Home Evening last night. Actually, we only got half way through it because we kept stopping to discuss. We plan to finish it tonight.

 

--Sarah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved Elder Uchdorf's talk on Sunday. Particularly his two-word sermon:

 

"This topic of judging others could actually be taught in a two-word sermon. When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following: stop it! It's that simple. We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love for God and his children."

 

We listened to this again and discussed it for Family Home Evening last night. Actually, we only got half way through it because we kept stopping to discuss. We plan to finish it tonight.

 

--Sarah

 

I love Elder Uchtdorf and I loved that talk!! Seriously, our new mantra around here is "Don't judge me because I sin differently than you." Awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Elder Uchtdorf and I loved that talk!! Seriously, our new mantra around here is "Don't judge me because I sin differently than you." Awesome!

 

I told the kids I plan on getting a bumper sticker with that on it...they groaned and said "not happening!" :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dad was 18. I feel older.;)

 

Sorry to make everyone feel old and older today! ;)

 

If it makes you feel any better, I'm the oldest child of an oldest child and my grandparents married very young (18 and 19.) DH is also an oldest child, but his dad is #7 of 9 children and by the time you factor in that DH is 8 years older than me, his grandparents are just about the same age as my great-grandparents. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks ladies for discussing the conference in public and not getting defensive when people ask questions. (I mean that sincerely.)

 

I think most of us welcome sincere questions. I appreciate all the opportunities I have on this board to learn about other's beliefs as well. And it's nice to have a (generally polite) venue to discuss things whether we agree or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, MamaBear.

 

I need to get out of bed (ie. away from laptop) right now -- I'm running a bit late for the day already!

 

I appreciate the links and will watch the video later. It helps that someone understands the confusion of "someone outside looking in." While I totally understand that someone disgruntled with LDS church would post certain quotes, verses, etc. I have had a really difficult time finding opposing quotes, etc. When one leader says something about Christians, it's easy to dismiss, but it's so hard to dismiss what a dozen leaders say.

 

At lunchtime or before bed, I'll read (not just scan) all you have kindly written and look at the link. Until then, accept my THANK YOU for helping me try to understand your church.

 

Yeah...we don't actually spend all that much time talking about Christians of other faiths, so I can imagine it might be kind of hard to find quotes on the subject, one way or another. In my opinion that list you posted represents some serious cherry-picking by whoever put it together. Your best bets would probably be official LDS web sites, like http://www.lds.org and http://www.mormon.org. Another source that's sort of semi-official and generally reliable is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. And there are web sites that are put together by LDS people, but are not really affiliated with, or endorsed by the church that might be useful. (Though occasionally you have to take what they say with a grain of salt because they get a little...overly enthusiastic. In my opinion.) A couple of these that come to mind are http://www.fair-lds.org and http://www.jefflindsay.com/. There are others, and I would guess these have links to many of them. Anyway, hope that helps a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, MamaBear.

 

I need to get out of bed (ie. away from laptop) right now -- I'm running a bit late for the day already!

 

I appreciate the links and will watch the video later. It helps that someone understands the confusion of "someone outside looking in." While I totally understand that someone disgruntled with LDS church would post certain quotes, verses, etc. I have had a really difficult time finding opposing quotes, etc. When one leader says something about Christians, it's easy to dismiss, but it's so hard to dismiss what a dozen leaders say.

 

At lunchtime or before bed, I'll read (not just scan) all you have kindly written and look at the link. Until then, accept my THANK YOU for helping me try to understand your church.

 

So I was looking again at your list of quotes, and one thing that struck me is that most of them are from people who lived at a time when their "Christian" neighbors kept shooting at them, burning their crops, raping the women, and driving them from their homes. And I'm thinking that might affect how they would talk about them.

 

But I noticed one of them was from a 1984 Ensign magazine, which I know would be online. It's kind of a needle in a haystack thing because even narrowing it down to one year, there are still twelve issues worth of articles. But since it was kind of an unusual thing for someone to say I decided to put it in the search thingy and see if anything surfaced. I put in "all that is in it is satanic", and got only one result (out of 30 years worth of magazines and all our teaching manuals, if that makes you feel any better). The one result that came up, though, was from the December 1984 issue of the Ensign, so I'm thinking this is probably where whoever made the list got the quote. I thought you might find it interesting to see the quote in context. The meaning is, I think, somewhat different from what whoever snipped it out of there seems to want us to think. Quite the hatchet-job, really. Here's a link to the whole article, which is about various passages in the New Testament that prophesy apostasy.

 

This is the relevant section, which is commenting on a specific passage in the Bible:

 

 

 

2 Thessalonians 2:1–12

 

 

 

In the second Thessalonian letter, Paul taught that the day of Christ’s coming would not take place until the “falling away†and the revelation of the “man of sin,†“the son of perdition.†(2 Thes. 2:3.)

 

 

 

The term “falling away†may give the incorrect impression of a process of drifting or gradually losing ground. The original Greek term, apostasía (from which we have the English word “apostasyâ€), means something much more drastic. Ancient sources use the term to describe political rebellion and revolution. 5 In verses 3 and 4, Paul asserted that the rebellion would supplant God from his position in the Church. The chief feature of this time of rebellion would be the triumph of the “man of sin … who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.†(2 Thes. 2:3–4.) 6

 

 

 

The “man of sin,†generally equated with Satan, 7 would exalt himself over all that is divine and assume the place of God in the Church. Of historical and theological significance is the fact that in Paul’s prophecy the church structure survives. But God is not at its head, making that church—following the appearance in it of Satan—no longer the church of God.

 

 

 

To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles
is not to say that all that is in it is satanic
. Indeed, Latter-day Saints should rejoice—as the heavens undoubtedly do—at the great works of righteousness and faith, and the leavening influence on the world, of those whose lives are touched in any degree by Him whose gospel the Saints enjoy in its fulness. Still, “the power of God unto salvation†(Rom. 1:16) is absent from all but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord himself has proclaimed to be “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth†(D&C 1:30). Satan’s goal of hindering many of God’s children from returning to their Father’s glory is thus realized. How appropriate, therefore, is Paul’s description of him sitting in the place of God in the church of the apostasía.

 

 

It makes me want to see if I can locate the other quotes and see if the editor of the list took similar liberties with any of the other quotes. This seems to me like intentional deception rather than just sloppy scholarship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of us welcome sincere questions. I appreciate all the opportunities I have on this board to learn about other's beliefs as well. And it's nice to have a (generally polite) venue to discuss things whether we agree or not.

 

:iagree: Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles
is not to say that all that is in it is satanic
. Indeed, Latter-day Saints should rejoice—as the heavens undoubtedly do—at the great works of righteousness and faith, and the leavening influence on the world, of those whose lives are touched in any degree by Him whose gospel the Saints enjoy in its fulness. Still, “the power of God unto salvation†(Rom. 1:16) is absent from all but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord himself has proclaimed to be “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth†(D&C 1:30). Satan’s goal of hindering many of God’s children from returning to their Father’s glory is thus realized. How appropriate, therefore, is Paul’s description of him sitting in the place of God in the church of the apostasía.

It makes me want to see if I can locate the other quotes and see if the editor of the list took similar liberties with any of the other quotes. This seems to me like intentional deception rather than just sloppy scholarship.

 

:001_huh: Wow. The quote's a bit different when they leave out the "NOT" in front of it. :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone else is waiting, .mp3s are now available for download via iTunes!!

 

I've been watching this thread on my phone and haven't had much of a chance to respond because I don't type well with a single forefinger :D Today I finally got a chance to sit down at the PC.

 

I loved all the of the talks, but I've been meaning to add that I loved, LOVED the music this time around. The Tab has a much needed "facelift" in the last couple of years with their new director, and WOW, some of the musical arrangements were just breathtaking. I've been relistening to "Come Thou Fount", which is my all-time favorite hymn and that rendition was, IMO, stunning.

 

Yes! Sister Esplin's talk also spoke to the homeschooling mama part of me. Especially the part where she talked about not just "teaching the doctrine to our children", but "teaching our children to understand the doctrine". I loved that she emphasized the difference between just floating the information out there, and really discussing it with our children and making sure they understand how it really works, and why it's really important.

 

Her comments about teaching in the context of the moment hit home in that way too.

 

That talk was amazing! It spoke to the homeschooler in me too. In fact I remember thinking, "this advice could be extrapolated to so many things beyond gospel topics." "Teach in the context of the moment". . . almost sounds a little unschooly, no? :tongue_smilie::lol:

 

I know this is OT, but I also know that you guys will understand. My little brother opened up his mission call a few minutes ago. Honduras! I'm very excited for him and want to tell someone. :)

:party:

 

I found great comfort from the number of speakers that reiterated the fallibility of past and current leaders (even apostles and prophets). Hearing Holland specifically say that there were mistakes in our Church's history was quite literally an answer to my prayers. :)

Yes, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone else is waiting, .mp3s are now available for download via iTunes!!

 

I've been watching this thread on my phone and haven't had much of a chance to respond because I don't type well with a single forefinger :D Today I finally got a chance to sit down at the PC.

 

I loved all the of the talks, but I've been meaning to add that I loved, LOVED the music this time around. The Tab has a much needed "facelift" in the last couple of years with their new director, and WOW, some of the musical arrangements were just breathtaking. I've been relistening to "Come Thou Fount", which is my all-time favorite hymn and that rendition was, IMO, stunning.

 

 

 

That talk was amazing! It spoke to the homeschooler in me too. In fact I remember thinking, "this advice could be extrapolated to so many things beyond gospel topics." "Teach in the context of the moment". . . almost sounds a little unschooly, no? :tongue_smilie::lol:

 

 

:party:

 

 

Yes, I agree.

 

 

I loved the music this time too. They sang enough of my favorite hymns that I jokingly asked dh if they'd requested a list from him. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved the music this time too. They sang enough of my favorite hymns that I jokingly asked dh if they'd requested a list from him. :)

 

My DD loved it when they sang "Love is Spoken Here". "Hey, that's a kids' song!" :lol:

 

And you can never go wrong with "Come Thou Font of Every Blessing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been re-listening to Elder Hallstrom's talk today. I can kind of see how it might come across as braggy, because he DID give quite a list of nice things about the church, and point out that there's nothing else quite like it. But I think that his point was that as wonderful as the church is, it is not the gospel, and it's not enough to be "converted" to the church, you have to be "converted" to the gospel. When you are converted to the gospel, the church becomes an even greater blessing in your life. The purpose of the church is to help us live the gospel, not to entertain. The programs of the church are great, but our foundation needs to be in the gospel. That sort of thing. I think his thesis is well stated in his opening lines (this is me trying to transcribe again; evidently I was mistaken and the text won't be up until Thursday--I think I just read it wrong):

 

"I love the gospel of Jesus Christ, AND the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sometimes we use the terms gospel and church interchangeably, but they are not the same. They are, however, exquisitely interconnected, and we need both. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been re-listening to Elder Hallstrom's talk today. I can kind of see how it might come across as braggy, because he DID give quite a list of nice things about the church, and point out that there's nothing else quite like it. But I think that his point was that as wonderful as the church is, it is not the gospel, and it's not enough to be "converted" to the church, you have to be "converted" to the gospel. When you are converted to the gospel, the church becomes an even greater blessing in your life. The purpose of the church is to help us live the gospel, not to entertain. The programs of the church are great, but our foundation needs to be in the gospel. That sort of thing. I think his thesis is well stated in his opening lines (this is me trying to transcribe again; evidently I was mistaken and the text won't be up until Thursday--I think I just read it wrong):

 

"I love the gospel of Jesus Christ, AND the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sometimes we use the terms gospel and church interchangeably, but they are not the same. They are, however, exquisitely interconnected, and we need both. "

 

I think my listening was also a little colored by some interesting history regarding the topic of church and gospel. Elder Poelman, a Seventy, also talked about how the church and the gospel were different in a talk in the 1980s. It actually was changed quite a bit after he gave it, so the topic can be a little sensitive. So I was just interested to hear Elder Hallstrom tackle the subject at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my listening was also a little colored by some interesting history regarding the topic of church and gospel. Elder Poelman, a Seventy, also talked about how the church and the gospel were different in a talk in the 1980s. It actually was changed quite a bit after he gave it, so the topic can be a little sensitive. So I was just interested to hear Elder Hallstrom tackle the subject at all.

 

Interesting. You don't happen to have a link to it in either iteration, by any chance? I'm curious now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-Mormon observation here - this is almost exactly the view of death and afterwards in Islam. Very interesting.

 

And on the census talk, I've been trying all day to access the 1940 census to find my dad who was 4 in 1940, but no luck yet.

 

Fascinating. Are you Muslim? Might you be able to give me a link to a short summary of the Islamic teachings on this from a Muslim source? I find comparing religious viewpoints intriguing. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'll find it for you this morning.

Thanks. :)

 

 

Also, I've been thinking today about what you said earlier:

I think what some women might be concerned about is that they might feel like they don't have the authority to fulfill some of their responsibilities. I don't think we necessarily need priesthood authority, but sometimes it can be really hard to get the things done that we're supposed to.

 

For example, it can be really hard to keep a Primary or a Cub Scout pack running when you have no authority to call Primary teachers or den leaders. Of course there needs to be cooperation between different groups to make sure one person isn't called to three different positions on the same Sunday, but it's certainly possible because Elders Quorum and High Priests make their own callings.

 

It's also difficult when you can't have the sacrament because there are no priesthood holders around- there are more women in this situation that you might think. I don't think that it's just that we shouldn't want men's responsibilites.

 

I don't think it's just that we shouldn't want men's responsibilities either. I think it's more that we want to keep men involved, and to do that, we need to make sure there's a place for them, where they can feel necessary and valued. I agree that sometimes it would be "easier" if women could leave them out of the loop and just take care of business. But I don't think it would be "better" just because it would be "easier". I think keeping them in the loop, even somewhat tangentially, helps them stay aware of women's and children's issues. And making it their job to make sure the necessary staffing and resources are provided helps them be not only aware, but emotionally and intellectually invested, and helps prevent gender-centered competition over personnel and resources.

 

High Priests and Elders' Quorums do make some of their own callings, but keep in mind they operate structurally under the stake president, and somewhat in tandem with the bishop, rather than "under" the bishop in many ways, unlike the Primary.

 

Anyway, it's a complex issue, but these are some thoughts I had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. You don't happen to have a link to it in either iteration, by any chance? I'm curious now.

 

Okay, here's the best source I know for seeing exactly what was changed. I don't agree with the interpretation in the introduction, but most of the post is outlining the changes, and there's a link to a youtube video of the original version.

 

Personally, I find this interesting instead of troubling, and I also happen to think that the same talk wouldn't have been changed today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here's the best source I know for seeing exactly what was changed. I don't agree with the interpretation in the introduction, but most of the post is outlining the changes, and there's a link to a youtube video of the original version.

 

Personally, I find this interesting instead of troubling, and I also happen to think that the same talk wouldn't have been changed today.

 

Thanks. :) I agree with you--interesting, but not troubling. Bit of a tempest in a teapot.

 

That blogger's intro is a bit...incendiary. (Though honestly I find it almost amusing.) I did a little poking around and found a Sunstone article by Peggy Fletcher from the time that, to me, sheds a little more light. Here's a pertinent bit I found interesting:

 

"Not surprisingly, when word first began circulating about a "revised version" and a mysterious retaping, people were concerned. The rumors proliferated. Purportedly, Elder Poelman had been reprimanded for his remarks and in retaliation had asked for emeritus status. Too, it was said that he was asked to offer a public apology and that Church members in his home state of California were circulating a petition to the General Authorities demanding a public explanation for the changes. Most of these rumors proved either exaggerated or false.

 

The facts are not nearly so ominous.

 

Immediately following general conference, those Apostles who regularly deal with Mormon apostate groups "pointed out" to Elder Poelman that his remarks might be misinterpreted. He was told that such apostate groups might use his

remarks to argue that "those fully versed in and converted to the gospel do not need the Church,"according to his brother, Stuart, a Salt Lake City attorney. Elder Poelman then revised his speech with those concerns in mind."

 

Just for a little...um...balance. I would say the alterations seem very consistent with that version of events.

 

Regardless, that is an interesting bit of history, thanks for pointing it out. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. :) I agree with you--interesting, but not troubling. Bit of a tempest in a teapot.

 

That blogger's intro is a bit...incendiary. (Though honestly I find it almost amusing.) I did a little poking around and found a Sunstone article by Peggy Fletcher from the time that, to me, sheds a little more light. Here's a pertinent bit I found interesting:

 

"Not surprisingly, when word first began circulating about a "revised version" and a mysterious retaping, people were concerned. The rumors proliferated. Purportedly, Elder Poelman had been reprimanded for his remarks and in retaliation had asked for emeritus status. Too, it was said that he was asked to offer a public apology and that Church members in his home state of California were circulating a petition to the General Authorities demanding a public explanation for the changes. Most of these rumors proved either exaggerated or false.

 

The facts are not nearly so ominous.

 

Immediately following general conference, those Apostles who regularly deal with Mormon apostate groups "pointed out" to Elder Poelman that his remarks might be misinterpreted. He was told that such apostate groups might use his

remarks to argue that "those fully versed in and converted to the gospel do not need the Church,"according to his brother, Stuart, a Salt Lake City attorney. Elder Poelman then revised his speech with those concerns in mind."

 

Just for a little...um...balance. I would say the alterations seem very consistent with that version of events.

 

Regardless, that is an interesting bit of history, thanks for pointing it out. :)

 

Yeah, I should have kept looking for PFS's article and linked to it too because she does provide a different take. And her article is what the post I linked to is based on. But the reason I think the first link is good is because it makes it easier to see exactly how it was changed, instead of a side-by-side comparison.

 

The whole thing is hardly Orwellian, though. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's just that we shouldn't want men's responsibilities either. I think it's more that we want to keep men involved, and to do that, we need to make sure there's a place for them, where they can feel necessary and valued. I agree that sometimes it would be "easier" if women could leave them out of the loop and just take care of business. But I don't think it would be "better" just because it would be "easier". I think keeping them in the loop, even somewhat tangentially, helps them stay aware of women's and children's issues. And making it their job to make sure the necessary staffing and resources are provided helps them be not only aware, but emotionally and intellectually invested, and helps prevent gender-centered competition over personnel and resources.

 

Sometimes I forget to what extent the Mormon church is divided by gender. In the churches I have been part of since leaving, keeping men interested and involved with the church just hasn't been an issue. Some men are, some aren't. Some women are, some aren't. It usually ends up feeling pretty balanced.

 

Of course, the families in those churches tend to have distribute the work of the family (earning an income, caring for kids, taking care of the house) less along traditional gender roles and more according to individual interests and opportunities. That might make it easier for interested men to be involved in church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the families in those churches tend to have distribute the work of the family (earning an income, caring for kids, taking care of the house) less along traditional gender roles and more according to individual interests and opportunities. That might make it easier for interested men to be involved in church.

 

Interesting point, Melinda, and I tend to agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MamaSheep,

 

Wow the lds.org site is huge and I couldn't find a thing in it about non-LDS salvation or about leaders saying that those outside of LDS could be saved. I found lots on "plan of salvation" and "Mom, are we Christian?" but could not find quotes of leaders saying "those outside LDS can receive salvation" or similar. I guess I don't know the right LDS terms to use in the search. This site is very nice looking and appears to not contain any contraversial quotes which are all over the WWW (ie. not just in one site by a disgruntled exLDS).

 

Okay, on to mormon.org. It's equally beautiful with wonderful artwork and photography. However, nowhere could I find any quotes by LDS leaders saying that salvation is available to those outside LDS church. In fact, this site seems even more sanitized than the lds.org site. In its biography of J Smith, there is nothing about his use of seer-stones or polygamy.

 

So, while I am enjoying the beautiful artwork and photographs and quotes from LDS members, I am not finding quotes of LDS leaders contradicting the quotes (easily found, I might add) that say that the Christian church is NOT of satan and that the LDS does NOT have exclusive claims on salvation. Perhaps it's buried deep on those two sites. Since you know the sites, could you give me specific links -- my half hour of searching this AM has turned up ... well, no answers...

 

I do appreciate how you are persevering with me as I try to reconcile what I read on this thread and what I've read online about your leader's quotes and your holy book passages that seem different than what you say... I'm just trying to put it all together. And it's not quite going yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bassoonaroo:

 

I don't know that you'll find anything *explicitly* stating that we don't believe everyone else is going to Hell (or at least, not an article that's specifically on that topic, which is what would make such a quote much easier to find), but it's our understanding of that Plan of Salvation you mentioned, that is the grounding of our belief that ALL might be Saved.

 

We believe that we're all given agency to choose, and EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE will be given a chance to choose Christ and Salvation, or NOT choose him, and thereby choose ****ation (although as MamaSheep previously pointed out, there are many shades of "****ation" in LDS theology). It's one of the reasons we do Temple work, where we perform proxy baptisms and such, to give those who did not have the opportunity to choose the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this life (and we mean the True Gospel, which we believe is contained in the church He established, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) the opportunity to accept or reject the Saving ordinance of Baptism, and thereby entrance into Heavenly Father's presence, having been washed clean by the Blood of the Lamb.

 

But even if they reject it, there still far more likely to at least end up in the Terrestial or Tellestial Kingdoms of Heaven (and in the Terrestial Kingdom you'll still have the infinite blessing of living in the Savior's presence, and in the Tellestial Kingdom we believe the Holy Spirit will be present). Outer Darkness (which is a 100% COMPLETE seperation from God and His Glory) is for those who HAD THE TRUTH, and KNEW it beyond all shadow of a doubt, and then rejected and fought against it. I can't think of many honest, sincere believing Christians, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or Muslims who would "qualify" for that level of ****ation. Infact, a member of the LDS church has far better odds of ending up there, than someone who doesn't even know there's a Truth out there to reject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MamaSheep,

 

Wow the lds.org site is huge and I couldn't find a thing in it about non-LDS salvation or about leaders saying that those outside of LDS could be saved. I found lots on "plan of salvation" and "Mom, are we Christian?" but could not find quotes of leaders saying "those outside LDS can receive salvation" or similar. I guess I don't know the right LDS terms to use in the search. This site is very nice looking and appears to not contain any contraversial quotes which are all over the WWW (ie. not just in one site by a disgruntled exLDS).

 

Okay, on to mormon.org. It's equally beautiful with wonderful artwork and photography. However, nowhere could I find any quotes by LDS leaders saying that salvation is available to those outside LDS church. In fact, this site seems even more sanitized than the lds.org site. In its biography of J Smith, there is nothing about his use of seer-stones or polygamy.

 

So, while I am enjoying the beautiful artwork and photographs and quotes from LDS members, I am not finding quotes of LDS leaders contradicting the quotes (easily found, I might add) that say that the Christian church is NOT of satan and that the LDS does NOT have exclusive claims on salvation. Perhaps it's buried deep on those two sites. Since you know the sites, could you give me specific links -- my half hour of searching this AM has turned up ... well, no answers...

 

I do appreciate how you are persevering with me as I try to reconcile what I read on this thread and what I've read online about your leader's quotes and your holy book passages that seem different than what you say... I'm just trying to put it all together. And it's not quite going yet.

 

I'm not Mamasheep, nor do I play her on the internet, but I think I'm a couple of timezones ahead of her, so I'll toss in my two cents.

 

The difference between the LDS view of the afterlife and the Protestant view of the afterlife may be causing confusion here. (I don't know enough to speak to Catholic and EO.)

 

For Protestants, salvation is generally considered binary. Either you are in heaven, or you are in hell. Mormons view the afterlife as a many-layered society. Hell (what Mormons call Outer Darkness) isn't even an option for most people. It's reserved for those who have a sure knowledge of God and defy him anyway.

 

After that, you have different levels of glory. There are three main levels (telestial, terrestial, and celestial) and the highest level has levels within it. Mormon doctrine (unless they've changed it since I left) is that only those with Mormon temple ordinances can go to the highest level of the highest level. That's the level where you live with God and where you get to be with your family forever. But the other levels are supposed to be very nice as well.

 

Also, since Mormons believe that they can do temple ordinances on behalf of people who have died, and the dead people can choose in the afterlife to accept or reject those ordinances . . . it's really impossible to tell if someone is going to end up without temple ordinances in the end, even if they die non-Mormon.

 

So, non-Mormons aren't going to Hell. But you need Mormon ordinances to get to the top of the celestial kingdom.

 

Or at least that's what I was taught and believed for 30 years. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...