LDS Questions Answered - Social or Doctrinal

Yes, Yet Even More Again on Sealing Power

2012-01-26T22:02:00.000-08:00

Q.

This is an interesting post, Doug. The only way any accountable child of God born in this life is guaranteed to make it back to exaltation is for that person to have their calling and election made sure and then they must not commit murder or the unpardonable sin. Is the Lord saying that every son or daughter whose parents are sealed together in the temple and live all the covenants and thus having qualified themselves to have their lives and marriage sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and thus qualify themselves to gain eternal life that their children, if they stray but do not sin away these blessings through murder or the unpardonable sin, that each and every child of God so blessed to be born to such parents have their calling and election made sure as well? I am just asking.

A.

If you are a late comer to this conversation I'd suggest reading the earlier posts on the subject.

It must first be pointed out that not even Joseph Smith always agreed with Joseph Smith. He learnt things as he went and thus changed his mind. Also both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith sometimes spoke in absolutes when I believe if questioned more extensively would have been less absolute. So it needs to be examined next to Scripture (the Standard Works).

Additionally it should be noted that Spencer Kimball only slightly endorses this belief. He says he has seen it with many (not all) and relates it to this life. Gordon Hinkley also only points out the good influence; not talking of it as an absolute.

Yet God's statement in regard Abraham supports an absolute idea. However it makes no mention of failure of any of the children if they commit the unpardonable sin. So we are still left with the question of Cain being the son of Adam (the Archangel Michael). He doesn't fit in the absolute of Genesis.

So while I find great reassurance in this, I still hold a bit of scepticism in giving it God's absolute seal of approval.

Will Polygmay Return?

2012-01-18T22:51:00.000-08:00

Q.

Will polygamy return?

A.

Did it go somewhere? Just joking.

The only reason we don't practise polygamy is "inasmuch as laws have been inacted by congress." Today we live at a time when people are pushing for flexability on who a person decides to marry. We have recently seen this with the idea of homosexuals marrying.

While we don't agree with homosexual marriages, if we are to give the right to marry someone back to the people getting married, then plural marriage should be accepted.

A second point is that people today are into minding everyone else's business. This doesn't occur where we have serious matters on people's minds. Once the earth really starts to get into the bad times ahead how many wives someone has will be the least of their concerns. People will be too busy avoiding being killed, searching for shelter and foraging for food.

Also we find people living a strange kind of plural marriage today. For example I know one man who has 3 divorced women that he sleeps with on a rotating roster. He spends some days at his own flat between each female. He tells me this is common. And certainly I've seen enough men coming and going from divorced women's homes.

Amidst this a man can be travelling with what he claims to be his wife, sisters, neices, grandaughters, mother and/or grandmother. No one will know they are really all his wives if you have left your normal area. If any of them are pregnant then that can be contributed to the husband having to go away for work etc for a while after getting her pregnant. Any family resemblance of children to the father is natural as they are all closely related.

So there are several ways this could go on. It is obvious that plural marriage will be practised by some church members who are inspired to do so. But God may not call on us to make it obvious. Concerning the time of Christ's second coming we are told by Isaiah _

""And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparell: only let us be called by your name, to take away our reproach. In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem." Isa 4:1-3

Notice that these people who are practising plural marriage are referred to as "holy."

Yet let me warn that the higher the law you attempt to live the greater the natural penalty for failing to live up to the standard required for living it. This can easily include death. Don't triffle with that which you don't understand. If you haven't been fully instructed of God or have more interest in marrying younger wives than older ones, don't touch it.

Tithing Paid on Gross or Net Income?

2012-01-12T15:26:00.000-08:00

Q.

Should tithing be paid based on gross or net income?

A.

In most cases the gross income is the thing to base your tithing on. In some cases this can be a problem if you are in business and have to take costs involved into consideration. For example there is rent on the shop and delivery costs. Electricity, insurance, license fees, registration, and the list can seem almost endless.

It just needs to be remembered in judging these costs that you must stick to business expenses only as exceptions.

If you are a normal wage earner then your tax deductions are paid back to you in services. Your roads are repaired using these taxes along with defence, fire brigade, police services, licensing and registration of drivers and motor vehicles. Just to name a few. As all these services are required in your community you pay tax to have them continue. As you are benefiting they become part of your tithable income.

Is Bishop Confession Necessary?

2012-01-07T03:08:00.000-08:00

Q.

Is Bishop confession really necessary for repentance? Or is confessing to the Lord, turning away from sin enough? Why do we need to confess to the Bishop when the Lord already knows what we did wrong and how we feel.

A.

Confessing to the Lord is important for all sins we commit. Yet some sins we commit we don't accept to forgive ourselves. Our heart has trouble accepting the repentance process under that circumstance. Our faith in the process isn't that good: Particularly when that action has made us lose the Holy Ghost as a constant companion.

By going to the bishop we have a chance to feel we are doing something about it. We also get that chance to rebuild our relationship with the Holy Ghost.

If you had the Holy Ghost as a constant companion before the action then you will miss that tremendously. The faster you can get it back the better. Fortunately I only went through it for a week one time (not a matter to see the bishop about) but that week was painful. In spite of having it back within a week it wasn't the same for over 2 months.

If you didn't have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion before the action then it is time you got it anyway, and going to the bishop and getting right will help. You may feel that you can take care of it on your own. But it isn't what your mind says, it is what your heart feels. And if you are in this situation you won't be listening to your heart well enough, at this stage, to know its real feelings.

I know it can be embarrassing telling the bishop about an action you don't feel very proud of. But this only further helps in the process of your repentance. It requires you to become more humble in this confession.

How is Our Death Date Calculated?

2011-12-28T16:00:00.000-08:00

Q.

I am LDS and I have a question that several of us were discussing the other day. Okay, when a person dies is it because it is their "time" to go, or that God has something for them to do on the other side, or do we just die because we happen to get a terminal illness or we get hit by a truck or etc?

A.

God uses natural forces in all that he does. God uses those forces in ways that he finds to be the best under the circumstances that will face us. Death mostly will come in its own natural time. But God has planned that time to the degree he felt necessary.

Heavenly Father has billions of children to consider the best for. He knows who those spirits are that will achieve the best and those that will do nothing great at all. In looking at his situation of who to have living where and when he must consider giving the greatest growth opportunities to those that he knows will make the best of what they get.

This means that he will interact them with some spirits that are good (for good example) and some that are bad (for struggle). He may even use the bad spirit to assist good spirits to see the benefit of choosing good over evil.

His choice of where to put a bad spirit may be mainly centered on putting them there to assist a good spirit at an appropriate time. He makes sure that all will have every opportunity to make all growth the individual will be prepared to make. But if this is very little, God's options are fairly flexible in where he puts the person.

Then he has some spirits that he knows it best die before reaching an age of accountability. These spirits aren't ready to take on the evil of the world with a recognition of its evil. So he has to make sure that doesn't happen in their case.

In addition we have such things to consider as time in the spirit world before the first resurrection. We may have expressed a desire to do time in the spirit world to gain understanding of its workings and experiences. He may feel that some small time or large time would be helpful.

Then there is the question of how much did a pre-existent spirit desire to be at a time when no great spiritual position be placed upon them. "Yes," they said, "as long as I don't have to have Abraham or Moses for a father and have to live all that spiritual stuff."

It must be remembered that Heavenly Father actually managed to convince the majority of us to leave where we were comfortable and take this giant step of going through an earth life. He allowed for our desires. He had to in order to get so many to go through with it. So he made deals that made us more comfortable with it. We see so many brought up without any truth at all. We see many brought up with very little and some brought up with some reasonable degree of truth.

So God had to plan and present to us an idea that each of us were sufficiently happy with, considering the options he had available. In this planning he included time of death. But for many there isn't really a great deal of difference if they die this day or that. He can make a fairly flexable plan that will satisfy the needs of the individual.

Yet with some he plans it down to the day. They have their "time to go," as you put it.

Spirit Body Age

2011-12-15T20:38:00.000-08:00

Q.

We know that our spirits return to adult form even if we die as a child so my question is why then are ghost children seen and heard? And also the dark spirits you can sometimes see those are not necessarily Satan's angels?

A.

We have complete control over our spirit bodies. Some spirits choose to remain as youths of around early 20's while others may choose more into their late 20's or even older. Some choose to just be as they were when they died.

While living in mortal life spirit bodies take the form of their physical bodies as much as they can considering the size problem. Spirits remain in the central torso area during normal activity. The spirit sits with their knees up under the chin.

But this can alter like a shot. The spirit can shrink the legs and stand when so desired. This is done as simply as winking an eye for our physical body. Part of the spirit body can actually leave the physical body as in astral travel. Sudden romantic inclinations can also produce this effect.

Your latter sentence is an interesting comment. You sound like you have had some experience in this regard.

I saw a young woman near on suicide who was as black as they come inside. People range between white and black. Almost all are somewhere in the grey area, depending on spirituality. Oh, that we had more white and delightsome inside.

Ancient Writing - Just How Old is it?

2011-11-23T16:06:00.000-08:00

Q.

Wait a minute! The written history of Jerico goes back 10,000 years as do some other ancient cities histories. Be careful about saying that there was no life before 6,000 years ago! You can still be a member and believe in pre-historic dinosaurs. We believe all truth.

A.
Not exactly a formal question, but requires answering none the less.

It must be remembered that any dating method that can't be proven to be true 100% of the time is mere conjecture. And the demonstrated dating accuracy for dating methods is nothing short of pathetic, in reality (in spite of their phony statistics).

If you are going to talk of written histories they would at least first have to claim such a date by constant recording of the history of the people over that many thousand years. There is no such writing.

As to me remaining a church member but believe things contrary to Scripture; that is true. However I would have to ask why should I? Has man proven himself to be more accurate than Scripture? So call "modern science" is full of conjecture and wild claims. The so called "evidence" for man's philosophies have more holes than a sponge. By their methods I could prove the moon was once made of cheese.

The Scriptures clearly tell me that man was "the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also." So how do I continue to express belief in Scripture and the ever changing philosophies of man? I am unable to comprehend why some members prefer to believe constantly changing ideas as more accurate than that which God has expressed and not changed his mind in thousands of years. We certainly should believe all truth, as you have expressed. And areas of provable science are good - ones where the evidence is proven by literal application. For example a working television.

But anything that can only be unprovable speculation (regardless of how good it sounds in theory) must be regarded as an interesting idea only. It must be remembered that the argument of do electrons go to protons or do protons go to electrons has been proven scientifically both ways several times. The arguments were so good sounding that the scientific community taught the latest philosophy of the time as fact with each change. So today we "know" that electrons go to protons - do we? The arguments "proving" that protons go to electrons has never been disproven in spite of the later idea now being accepted instead.

Geologists "proved" that the Persian Gulf has been going in for the last 2000 years and archaeologists have proven by fishing villages that the gulf has been going out over the last 2000 years.

This type of rubbish is no challenge to the Scriptures and I don't need to ignore what they say or treat it as some mystical writing document. True science and the Scriptures aren't in conflict and we don't need to compromise them to fit in with modern ideas.

How to Live Righteously all the Time

2011-10-18T17:27:00.000-07:00

Q.

Over the past year or more as I've studied the gospel and tried to BE the disciple I know I can become, over time I tend to just drift back to my lowest common denominator-- meaning- I hit and miss reading my scriptures by myself and with my wife... time goes by then I refocus and then drift. There are other areas of my life where I see this type of pattern happen and I think the root cause is I don't have enduring righteous desires. The thing I've been studying is how do I maintain these desires? How do I cultivate them in other areas? I know that if I keep trying I'll grow slowly and maybe within 30 years I'll be much better than I am now, but I know that if I can better understand or cultivate enduring righteous desires, I can get there much sooner.

Just thought I'd shoot you a question to see if you have any thoughts. Thanks in advance.

A.

A hard thing for people to accept is that when we don't do what God says, in reality we are saying that he's not right. Most wouldn't dare say that, but that is the reality nonetheless.

We all need to develop a knowledge that God asks things for our sake, not his. And that he is always right. Having that knowledge we can go on in confidence that living as he says will bring the ultimate happiness that we seek.

Yet to obtain this knowledge we must first apply faith in the things he says. Faith is like a muscle: We must work it to make it grow. By working it we come to see that he was right and we were wrong. This helps our faith to grow for next time.

Sometimes when we do what he says we don't come to see that he was right. This is because we didn't try it long enough (or fervently enough). The greatest explanation of this is given in Alma 32:26-43. Here Alma sets out the process of making faith work into knowledge. It should be noted that this is not the repetition it first appears. Alma is pointing out a step-by-step guide to gaining this knowledge. It is important to follow each individual step (whether you think you've already done that or not).

Once you come to see that God is right in so many things (and particularly big things where you felt he was wrong) you will eventually work out that he knows what he's talking about all the time and resistance will fade.

Of course we must remain vigilant and remember to keep our faith going even when tempted to do otherwise. But you will find yourself taking on those things that you actually have come to see are best for you. So his words will become part of your every day life that you wouldn't give up, as it would be contrary to your happiness.

The Dead's Influence on the Living

2011-10-01T02:33:00.000-07:00

Q.

Do those people who have come to earth, received a body, and then choose Satan's ways, and have died, have the power to tempt us?

A.

Yes.

The dead can, and often do, influence the living. Many times the dead have been seen at their funerals. I, and others I've known, have also had some dead raise the hair on the back of our necks by them clowning around - haunting.

We are also influenced for good by the dead. I have often had a female who has assisted my life when I was confused or needed help. She seems to know almost everything. She has a beautiful spirit and wise words.

Yet when we talk of power to tempt or to do good, it doesn't mean we have to listen. The choice is always ours.

Why would God give Satan Power? Spirits Aliens

2011-08-02T16:32:00.000-07:00

Q.

Why would God give Satan any type of power? Even the smallest bit to influence us in some way wouldn't make sense. Why do we need Satan to tempt us? Who tempted Satan? I don't there are even spirits. Aliens, sure, but not in the way you are thinking of them. But I don't see any reason for Satan or his followers being given any privileges.

A.

"Why would God give Satan any type of power?"

He didn't. He provides Satan with the opportunity to try to tempt us. IF we listen to Satan then WE have given him the power.

"Why do we need Satan to tempt us?"

We are only here a short time. So it is best to get on with the struggle and make the mistakes early. Then we learn early (if we are of the right heart). Then we can have the atonement working early. And then we can have longer to learn through sanctification by the Holy Ghost.

Satan gets people to move to the way the spirit inside them wishes to go.

"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

Simplified this is saying in regard our subject that God wants people to set the course their spirit chooses to take. And so he will provide that opportunity. And evil people, evil spirits and Satan are all part of it.

Additionally Satan stirs those with evil intent to do their evil against the righteous. This teaches the righteous lessons that wouldn't be learnt otherwise. We have the opportunity to develop greater love and patience. We learn why we should forgive. We see the outcome of those that are tempted to do evil to the righteous.

"Who tempted Satan?"

We don't need to be tempted to do the wrong thing. It just increases the likelyhood and timing. Satan required no temptation other than the feelings within him.

"I don't [think/believe(?)] there are even spirits."

You say this after having just referred to a spirit (Satan).

I see from looking at your blog that you are one of those believing we can alter Scripture as we wish and go along with every wind of doctrine presented by the largest false church upon the earth - modern "science" (who's dogmas are in constant change). In which case it is pointless me quoting Scripture to you as it is all symbolic wherever you wish it to be. But it is full of mention of spirits to others who believe.

However let us move on to what life demonstrates. I was a night patrolman for some time. One place we patrolled was wool sheds. These had been there since the 1800s. The guy who was teaching me the run mentioned that he didn't believe in God but he said, "you know you are not alone in those wool sheds." I discussed this with the other guy who did that area, and he confirmed that it was haunted after I had some seriously weird feelings in one room there myself.

If you went through the room with the light on there was no problem. But if it was off then you would have the hair raised on the back of your neck. On one night I actually saw the multitude of spirits with clothes from various eras. Brigham Young had mentioned that the spirit world was right here upon the earth.

I have died twice. On one of those occasions the doctor was telling the nurse to reverse the proceedure which had just killed me (for the second time that day - heart attack). I was watching it all feeling as normal as usual while dead. In fact I thought she was crazy suggesting I was dead. Yet she was looking at the instruments and me.

I have a friend who died and watched the medics bring him back from above his body (he quoted the instrument readings to the medics after being revived). He couldn't see those readings where his body was on the ground.

I could go on endlessly with this stuff.

Now I've just quoted personal experience (and believe me that is nothing to what I've experienced) and those of some others I know, relative to the existence of spirits. Its not just hearsay from someone else in a book. So what experience have you had with aliens that you know they exist? And how many of your friends have met or seen aliens? And what is your experience that you know these aliens aren't as I explain them?

As to Satan and his followers being given privileges, they automatically have rights as a living being. These are eternal laws.

Aliens and Evil Spirits

2011-07-09T08:42:00.000-07:00

This ? is I know, kind of "out there" but I saw a documentary the other day that made me start thinking about the subject and i wondered if any of our prophets has talked about, or if there are any scriptures that talked about what the world calls "aliens." The documentary I saw showed actual taped interviews with people who were under hypnosis; to try to help their sleep problems. But what turned up was unbelievable abduction by alien experiences. What struck me was at one point the "alien was speaking thru the person in a loud bellowing voice and immediately the spirit told me that it was Satan or one of his followers, angels whatever.

I was always taught that Satan and his followers who went with him in the pre existent war, will never have bodies. And so they are jealous of ours. They want bodies and they resent that we have them. That is why they like to influence people to do things like torture and mutilate. Any way, these abductions always seem to include weird physical experiments on humans by grotesque looking aliens. I know this is "out there" too, but what if they have found a way to put their spirits in some sort of crude "body" they have created and they are doing biological tests on people to try to find out how to create bodies the way our father in heaven does. Maybe they even have people working for them- cloning bodies for them to inhabit- but because of their tortured souls their spirits deform these bodies to look like "aliens" or maybe the clones look like that because they were created by cloning with no spirit-because the spirit and body influence each other.

A.

That is quite an imaginative mind you have. Its good to think outside the square to some degree. And you have raised some interesting things to explain.

I found your inspiration in regard an evil spirit speaking through one of these people, interesting. Thanks for expressing that experience.

In regard to prophets speaking about aliens, we have the words of Moses on that one. In Moses 1:35 God talks to Moses of the many worlds that Jesus has created. He says he's only going to give an account of this earth and its inhabitants. This implies to me that he could give us accounts of these other worlds and their inhabitants. As all are born children to the same Heavenly Parents we must look extremely similar.

Let me assure you that you don't have to worry about Satan cloning people. Satan and his followers are our spirit brothers and sisters. Our spirits are exactly the same as theirs. As they are made of spirit matter they can't touch physical matter to move it with their spirit body hands.

It is true that some of us did assist in the creation and move large amounts of physical matter before having a physical body. Also Christ taught that we can move mountains with faith to realize we can. But this is a "light side of the force" ability. The dark side (Satan and his mob) can't do that because they oppose nature, and so it won't work for them.

It takes our spirit months of training in the womb to learn how to manipulate our physical body. Our intelligence needs to learn to create electrical impulses in the brain to transmit messages to our body. We need to learn how to maintain the necessary functions of breathing, heart beats, parts opening and closing at the right time, fighting infections, etc. It is a highly complex education.

When evil spirits enter someone else's body the person themselves is already performing these functions. No cloned body could even begin to function without intelligent decisions.

There is only one way that moving an intelligence into a body can make it function, and that is birth. The womb process is how we got our spirit bodies to function. And it is how we learnt to get our physical bodies to function.

Are we Punished for Sins of Forefathers to 3rd Generation?

2011-06-28T09:59:00.000-07:00

Q.

I need some help with a question of a friend of mine. He wants to know; (Q) do we believe that we will we be punished for the sins of our forefathers? (A) We believe that you will be punished for your own sins and not for Adam's transgression. (Q)(where I am stuck) The Word of the Lord (Bible) says that for some sins the punishment will last for 3 (example) generations. Please Help.

A.

The statement in the Articles of Faith that we won't be punished for Adam's transgression was written to oppose a Catholic concept.

The Catholics believe that we are all born with sin already upon us because we come under the curse placed upon Adam. This is why the Catholics feel it so imperative to baptize babies. For they believe that if they die without baptism they will go to hell forever.

We can feel assured that God is not that cruel, by knowing that we aren't born with sin upon us. We are born with the consequences of Adam's transgression in that we get sick and die. But we aren't born with his sins on our conscience.

The statements in the Bible that the sins of the parents are visited upon the children to the 3rd and 4th generations is relative to consequences and thinking.

For example let's suppose that I believe in committing adultery. I will teach my children that it is alright to commit adultery also. Thus my sins are visited upon the next generation. And as they teach their children who then teach their children, this false idea has reached the 4th generation. And in the intermediate generations continuing on with it the curse goes on.

However that can be broken by a generation accepting the truth. Then that can pass on to the generations to come, who will benefit by the principle of good things being passed on in stead.

So we won't be punished for the sins of our for-fathers unless we follow them in committing those sins. Ezekiel points out that any curse or blessing that God places upon anyone for their sins or righteous acts will be removed if the person changes (Ezek 33:12-16).

Temple Garments 1 or 2 Piece

2011-06-06T16:01:00.000-07:00

Q.

I would like to know why the church discontinued the old style garments? Originally they told us we had our choices of the old or the new, and they have never officially disowned the old style, yet one cannot purchase them any longer. This seems a futile attempt to keep people from honoring the covenants they have made.

A.

As this question hasn't been completely qualified I am left to assume you are worried about the change from 1 piece to 2 piece garments.

We must remember that temples are about symbolism and types. For example the Israelites before Christ were told to sacrifice sheep or goats to remove their sins. We know that this didn't really happen. The Israelite was supposed to search for understanding and realize that the animal was a type of the Savior that will remove the sins when they repented.

In reality they could have used a kangaroo to do the same thing (had they had one). God isn't a crackpot or without understanding of our various situations. He has made these symbols for us to learn the message he wants to deliver to us.

The temple garment is symbolic of a contract. We have the parts we have promised and that he has assured us are necessary for us to do to obtain eternal life. Christ has the part he has promised as an assistant to us as we do our part.

To make the temple garment really plainly obvious of its symbolic meaning it would in fact cover us from the tip of our heads to the tip of our toes. But this is impractical. And the point is to understand the covenant that he has made.

I understand your apprehension in wearing something different to what you first covenanted to wear. But I can assure you that the apprehension isn't necessary. The meaning of the garment remains as long as you see it as a single covering. It wouldn't matter how many bits it was in. So it is all in your perception, rather than the material itself.

As time has gone on members have moved to the more practical 2 piece garments. So it is understandable that they are no longer making the one piece garments, if almost no one is buying them.

I can testify to you that God will not hold you in contempt of your covenant by wearing 2 piece garments. It is the covenants that you are wearing on them that you need to observe. Focus on those. Let Christ take care of the covering part.

Should Polygamy be Legal?

2011-02-19T14:55:00.000-08:00

Q.

Do you think that polygamy should be legal? Do you think that the Church would change its position on polygamy if it became legal? If it became legal in Canada, would the Church allow for it to be practiced there but not in the states? Why does the Church currently ban polygamy in countries where it is legal? (It does, right?)

A.

In the law given to Moses God gave several commands relative to the practice of plural marriage (polygamy).

One of those laws was that you aren't allowed to collect wives like they are postage stamps. This was actually directed at kings, who would have the resources for such.

"Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart doesn't turn away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." Deuteronomy 17:17

We see this law broken by Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).

Another law, that was given to all, is that when a man has more wives he can't make the son of a favorite wife his primary heir, rather than the true firstborn son.

"If a man has two wives, one he loves, and the other he hates, and they have born him children, both the loved and the hated; and if the firstborn son is hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he makes his sons to inherit that which he has, that he may not make the son of the loved wife's firstborn before the son of the hated wife's firstborn, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated as the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he has: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Deuteronomy 21:15-17

A third rule is that in taking any additional wives that which the original wife/wives have had must remain the same. He can't reduce the amount of food they get (for example) so that he can feed an extra wife. In regard the first wife/wives the law says _

"... her clothing, and her duty of marriage, he shall not diminish." Exodus 21:10

When God separated the descendants of Lehi etc from the Jews he declared that a lot of disobedience to these laws had been taking place in Jerusalem (Jacob 2:31-32). He felt the Nephites and Lamanites would abuse this to the point that he commanded them all not to practice it unless he gave some people an instruction to the contrary.

So I would have to ask all to consider, how righteous do you feel the Western World would be in this practice today? I don't see that they would be following God's instructions. On the other side we could ask, should all be held back by the evil of others? Isn't this the latter days when all things should be restored? And what of the fact that there are more women going to church than men; how can they all have righteous husbands?

Further consideration has to be given when we look at the fact that God commanded plural marriage in the case of a dead brother, where the other brother was living within the same community.

"If brothers dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without to a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her to him as a wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she bears shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name won't be put out of Israel." Deuteronomy 25:5-6

So if a man is married and has seven brothers, who all die having left no heir, he would end up being instructed of God to have 8 wives by this law.

God does give a way out if the person really has problems with marrying a specific woman (or in the case above not being able to afford to support 8 wives and/or keep order in the house). He can have her spit in his face and bare the name of a person who has refused to do his duty in this regard, for the rest of his life (Deuteronomy 25:7-10). But, plainly, God is saying this should be a rare decision to take.

Brother Benson (who was church president at the time) was asked during a radio broadcast about the "constantly changing doctrines" of the church. He questioned the interviewer as to what changing doctrines he referred. The interviewer raised the point of plural marriage. Brother Benson stated that we certainly do believe in plural marriage, we just don't practice it because it is against the law.

The manifesto by Brother Woodruff states that the advice against practicing plural marriage at that time was, "inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress."

These latter statements answer your second question.

People are wrong to put opinions upon God that he hasn't expressed in either Scripture or to them personally, just because they think it isn't what they want. This has created serious persecution for the church in the past. Because of this the church has strongly distanced itself from plural marriage at this time. It advocates to all members everywhere a united front against such in practice. I would strongly hope that the church doesn't demand that a man put off his wives in countries where such is legal and the family has only just accepted the gospel. But then it is extremely sensitive about plural marriage.

In asking me do I think that plural marriage should be legal, I have to take all these things, mentioned above, into consideration. There are many advantages to plural marriage. Most of them being to women. And if you want to know some of these there are sites that begin to cover them. I would like to expound upon the subject the many things the Holy Ghost has told me. But it is the wrong time. This is all that I can say. But let me assure you that I firmly know that all marriage is a holy and pure practice when done as it should be.

Yet Even More on Parents and Sealing Power

2011-02-13T22:52:00.000-08:00

Q.

[Though the question was presented as a statement originally, I have restructured it to be a question. As it contains additional information on the subject, it is worth posting here. I have removed repetitious quotes for the sake of length. Also one was removed that had been edited from the original. I will answer the points presented in line with that stated in the previous questions on the subject]

I'm in favor of the more optimistic view on this subject. What do you feel of these quotes and Scripture texts?

Joseph Smith:
“The world is reserved unto burning in the last days. He shall send Elijah the prophet, and he shall reveal the covenants of the fathers in relation to the children, and the covenants of the children in relation to the fathers. Four destroying angels holding power over the four quarters of the earth until the servants of God are sealed in their foreheads, which signifies sealing the blessing upon their heads, meaning the everlasting covenant, thereby making their calling and election sure. When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother.”(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 321)

Brigham Young:
• “Let the father and mother, who are members of this Church and Kingdom, take a righteous course, and strive with all their might never to do a wrong, but to do good all their lives; if they have one child or one hundred children, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, binding them to the Lord by their faith and prayers, I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity; they will return again to the fountain from whence they sprang.” (Brigham Young, JD 11:215).

Gordon B. Hinckley
• "May you be blessed, each of you. May there be love and peace and gladness in your homes. I leave my blessing upon you. May there be food on your table, clothing on your backs, shelter over your heads and a sense of security and peace and love among your children, precious children every one of them, even those who may have strayed. I hope you don't lose patience with them; I hope you go on praying for them, and I don't hesitate to promise that if you do so, the Lord will touch their hearts and bring them back to you with love and respect and appreciation.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Prophet Returns To 'beloved England', LDS Church News, 1995, 09/02/95).

Spencer W. Kimball
• “I have sometimes seen children of good families rebel, resist, stray, sin, and even actually fight God. In this they bring sorrow to their parents, who have done their best to ... to teach and live as examples. But I have repeatedly seen many of these same children ... repent... The reason I believe this can take place is that, despite all the adverse winds to which these people have been subjected, they have been influenced still more, and much more than they realized, by the current of life in the homes in which they were reared. When, in later years, they feel a longing to recreate in their own families the same atmosphere they enjoyed as children, they are likely to turn to the faith that gave meaning to their parents lives.” (President Spencer W. Kimball, Ocean Currents and Family Influences, Ensign (CR), November 1974, p.110)

Alma the younger lived a very sinful life as you may know. Then, an angel appeared to him and he received a miraculous conversion. Was it the angel that changed his heart? No. Alma 36:17 presents that he was “harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ…” So it was his memory of his childhood and the joy he felt then when his father taught him the gospel of Jesus Christ. Wayward children in Mortality (physical world or spirit world) will remember their childhood of joy if and only if their parents taught them well and the parents have sufficient faith.

Taken all together, the teachings above suggest that as long as wayward children do not commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, they will likely return and be redeemed and will have a relationship with their families throughout eternity. The question that remains is “what kind of redemption will they receive?” In the least, if a wicked child has not committed the unpardonable sin, they will come through the experiences of the spirit world with the help of friends and family and become clean, pure, and obedient. On the other hand, if a wayward child fully repents and embraces the covenants of the Celestial Kingdom, then there is nothing in scripture or the teachings of the prophets above to suggest that they cannot be heirs of that glory (remember that their agency has not been taken away). If this is the case, then the teachings of the prophets seem to suggest that most, if not all, of our wayward loved ones will return to their covenants and, if so, they will actually be heirs of the Celestial Kingdom. Perhaps this is why Nephi wrote, “I have charity for my people, and great faith in Christ that I shall meet many souls spotless at his judgment seat. . . . And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day” (2 Nephi 33:7, 12). We must have this hope.

A.

Thanks for presenting the original statement of Joseph Smith, which plainly all are basing their beliefs on. As Brigham Young knew Joseph Smith's thoughts on so many matters his interpretation seems very important also.

I must say that overall these quotes present a far different idea than that presented before. Originally it sounded a bit like magic _ go to the temple, have some symbols done, be a reasonable person and your children are guaranteed to be magically saved at some point in eternity. This idea here, however, doesn't reflect such an irrational idea. This is actually supported in Scripture and based on sound logic.

So let's have a look at it.

Joseph Smith's statement is obviously shrouded in symbolism. Talk of "destroying angels," "four quarters of the earth," "sealed in their foreheads," etc are things to come to understand the meaning of. Fortunately the Scriptures do help us in this regard to some degree. But those ideas are interpretable (thus arguable). I personally am sure that the talk of sealing in the forehead means that the mind has taken it in and the person's mind won't be changed: They have set their course. Thus their election is secured.

I'd like to start with how Brigham sees this. He presents that if parents who have accepted the full truth, live a righteous life (by God's standard), strive with all their might to never do evil but to do good continually, strive to have their children grow up with a full faith in Christ and teaching them to pray sincerely, that even though their children may stray they will eventually be drawn back by that upbringing.

This sounds far more God like than being saved by magic and symbols (as was first posed). Brother Hinkley and Brother Kimball's statements reflect this same logic.

As to Alma the Younger, I also had my wayward years (I always believed in Christ however) and I know that my mother continually prayed for me. I know my mother's prayers are very effective. It took 3 years of wayward research for me to wake up. So I have no doubt that these things happen. I would like to believe that it is a guaranteed, as Brigham says. I'll have to take that on face value and put more faith in my prayers for some of mine. Scriptural support does exist for children turning out right as being guaranteed where the right person is the parent.

"For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he has spoken of him." Genesis 18:19

So God is saying that Abraham's children were guaranteed to come out right.

Yet it should be noted that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young have said nothing about these children changing in the eternities. Anyone taking it to mean so would be doing such off his own bat, unless he can support such from Scripture. D&C 76 etc etc etc disagree with changes occurring to people's outcomes later. Now is the time for man to prepare to meet God. I'd suggest re-reading my old posts on this for further Scriptural confirmation of this issue.

Homosexuality and the LDS Church

2011-01-16T12:25:00.000-08:00

Q.

What do you think the Church's response to homosexuality should be? How involved do you think it should become in laws pertaining to LGBT rights?

A.

Anything outside of that made in official statements by the church would be presumptuous of me to comment on how 14 million other LDS feel. Yet your question is of my opinion in regard how I feel the church should approach the subject. My reply would be that it is the responsibility of the President of the church to ask for revelation on how the church should approach this.

However if we restructure your question to how I feel about it as a person, that is a different subject. So I can answer from that point of view.

We are living in a world where many things that God presented in his laws are ignored. Adultery, fornication, sabbath breaking, taking God's name in vain, stealing (on some levels), coveting and many other things against God's laws, are legal.

God presented that anyone practicing homosexuality, bestiality or cross dressing should be put to death. What do you want me to say? God's wrong? Yet alternate ideas can be explored where they won't conflict with his intentions on the matter.

His knowledge of these things is that they are destructive of society. They first destroy the individual and then all those practicing with them.

Mankind has forgotten what marriage means. Marriage isn't a sex license for church goers to feel sanctified in lustful sex. Marriage isn't for two people in love to enjoy co-habitation. Marriage isn't to decrease single rents. It isn't so that two people can look after each other in their old age. It isn't something to give you a person to share your holidays with and get some conversation. Its not something to get to when you feel like it. It is a commandment of the Lord for the purpose of producing offspring (Gen 1:28). These other things are just additions that are added in by some.

Men and women are unbalanced without each other. A man needs a woman and a woman needs a man (Gen 2:18, 1 Cor 11:11). We all know how difficult it can be to understand the opposite gender (though I think often gender is used as an excuse for inability to compromise). But this is no excuse for giving up our responsibility.

Homosexuality and lost sexual identity only get in the way of a person coming to their full potential.

Any argument that it is natural is nonsense, as if it were true we would see such in dogs that walk the streets. I came from an area that was riddled with stray dogs. While I have seen dogs try to even take out their frustration on lamp posts and even people's legs, I have never witnessed a dog putting it up the rear of another male dog who accepted it. The one underneath would always reject anything getting near there. Any claim of some animal supposedly doing it in some distant land doesn't hold water since dogs are animals and don't do it.

Yet adultery also had the death penalty by God's law. Also fornication requires marriage without divorce (though God gave the option that you could choose death if you really didn't want to marry them).

I have had friendships with many men practicing homosexuality; mainly working with sex offenders. Every true paedophile I know has homosexual problems. And there is an unusually high proportion of cross dressers among sex offenders. I personally am not keen on just putting them to death (though I understand God's wisdom as a policy). But if we don't we would still have to isolate them.

Getting back to the best I can do on your original question, I can only say by virtue of my own experiences and that which God has said that I would strongly oppose homosexual marriages (mainly out of interest for children), and having homosexuals or those with sex identity problems working with children at any level.

Further in Regard Parental Sealing Power

2010-12-16T13:52:00.000-08:00

Q.

(In regard my post on Parental Sealing Power the following question was posted)

A girl in my ward and I had this exact same conversation after a visiting High Councillor said that he was grateful for his wife and himself being sealed in the Temple because it would essentially save their wayward children.

Are there any general conference talks that say otherwise? It frustrated us to have people in authority spreading false (but hopeful) doctrine.

A.

While I'm not particularly aware of someone talking on that subject specifically, the Scriptures I have quoted and the subjects they present to the contrary are. Many GAs have spoken on individual responsibility and the importance of living right to obtain a right eternal future. Christ stated (and many GAs have presented) that as we sow, so shall we reap. This doesn't allow for some other doctrine where we reap as our parents sow.

Talks where GAs quote that Cain, Laman etc miss out on going to God's kingdom would all disprove the councillors claims. These would be easily found by going to the www.lds.org site and typing in these subjects for searches in the magazines.

Why No Mighty Miracles in our Time?

2010-11-20T14:13:00.000-08:00

Q.
Why are there no miracles today like there were in the old testament/new testament? I'm talking about huge, verifiable miracles like parting the red sea and moving mountains.

The typical answer I get from people is "well, something like that would void our faith. God needs to remain hidden so our free wills won't be affected." But if that's the case, then God must not have cared about the free wills of all the people with Moses at the time he parted the red sea. Add to that, Christ's resurrection, appearing to hundreds of people. All of their free wills must have been null and void. I would pretty much have no choice but to believe Jesus was the son of God if I lived at that time and saw what they saw. Yet for some reason, miracles like that just "lie dormant". Why? If God is the same today, yesterday, and forever, why so different now? Don't the inconsistencies and contradictions in the scriptures bug you?

A.

Christ gave the parable of Lazareth and the rich man in Luke chapter 16. At the end of the parable the rich man asks Abraham to send a dead person to visit his family to warn them. Christ concludes by stating "... If they don't hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persauded, even if one rose from the dead."

This logic is a bit out of our normal perception. We think that surely if a dead person appears to you it would change your outlook.

Paul had Christ appear to him on the road to Damascus. He then followed Christ. So question would come, wasn't this miraculous appearance effective? Yes, is the obvious answer. But what did it acheive? Did it make Paul believe in God? No. He already believed in God. What it did was help Paul to realise that Jesus was the Lord and promised Messiah. So the miracle didn't interfere in the growth of his faith. He already had so much faith that he was prepared to devote his time to getting rid of this sect that he regarded to be against God.

The Jews saw Christ perform many miracles yet few accepted him. The church administrators of his time said that it was by Satan that he did these things. So seeing those miracles didn't make them believe in him.

In spite of all the miracles that the Israelites saw in Egypt they still didn't trust in God when the Egyptians came out after them. So miracles were of no value to them. It is true that seeing miracles without first exercising faith can be damaging to faith. And God does know this. But some people are not going to move spiritually. And God knows who these people are. Almost all the Israelites went into this catagory. But some things need to be noted. There were some priests at that time that prophesied. There were 72 priests who saw the Lord and ate there. Joshua was among these people. So all wasn't quite as bad as the perception we can get at times reading. These men obviously already had some faith. Seeing miracles after you have faith doesn't affect you adversly - to the contrary.

Laman and Lemuel saw many miracles and only hardened their hearts. Yet these miracles helped Nephi's faith to grow because he had exercised the faith first. Faith preceeds the miracle. God knew that Laman and Lemuel wouldn't gain from these miracles but that Nephi would. God encourages people to become whom they really choose to become. God knows who is who. It was no loss to Laman and Lemuel because seeing these miracles didn't change their hearts deepest desires nor would they ever have produced the faith to see such anyway.

Moroni states,"... has the day of miracles ceased? Or have angels ceased to appear to the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face of it to be saved? Look, I say to you, No; for it is by faith that miracles are made to happen; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister to men; so, if these things have ceased problems shall be on the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain." Moroni 7:35-37

Unfortunately we live in a time when the church's doctrine has been sent backward because of inability to obey higher laws (D&C 119 Heading - for example). Many truths have been discarded as the doctrine has been watered down. So why are you surprised that there aren't any great miracles in our day? When we return to the original doctrines and higher laws and move foreward you will start to see the miracles you desire. Make sure you are on the right side of the fence, however, as those will be hard days.

So these things that have seemed a contradiction to you aren't as you have perceived them. God knows what he is doing.

While I haven't personally parted the ocean while here on earth, I would have to say, however, that I have seen seemingly endless miracles of reasonable proportion. I have seen the rain stopped hundreds of times when I have asked. I have been cured of medical problems. And I have seen cars do things they just shouldn't be able to do. I have seen time slow down. And I could go on. So I can't exactly say that no great miracles happen at all. Yes, we haven't had any international miracles. But God didn't perform too many of those anyway. If you look through the Scriptures miracles of that magnitude were rare.

One further thing that I should add in regard miracles is that even Satan knows that God exists and can perform "tricks." This doesn't make anyone believe IN God only OF God. Believing OF God isn't the point. Believing IN God is what matters. I may see a rope coming down from a hill I wish to climb. I know OF the rope. But only if I risk my life by using it do I believe IN the rope.

Knowing God can do tricks doesn't make me obey him. The greatest miracle I have seen God perform is the change that Christ made in my life when I accepted to follow him with open heart. That miracle and other ones I have seen as I have put off the old man and accepted further light from him, are the miracles that make me believe IN Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

Does Satan Have Priesthood?

2010-10-13T21:55:00.000-07:00

Q.

In the endowment it talks about Satan having power and priesthoods. Can I find this anywhere in the Scriptures. I know there are a couple that talk about Satan sealing us into damnation, but I was questioning the doctrine behind that?

A.

Firstly we would have to look at what priesthood actually is. Priesthood is a method of showing that a person has authority for them to do something on someone else's behalf. Concerning priesthood D&C 121:37 states,

"...Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

So priesthood is authority.

Concerning such authority even Jesus Christ himself didn't automatically assume rights to act in the name of God.

"No one takes this honor upon himself, he must be called by God, as was Aaron also. Thus also Christ didn't glorify himself by making himself a high priest, but [it was done by] the one who said to him, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you."

So Christ received his authority from the Father.

For us to know that the ordinances we do are correctly done there must be this line of authority. It must be accompanied by the "keys" of the priesthood. This means the automatic right to revelation from God in conducting the duties of the office in the priesthood. Thus the purpose of priesthood is organizational. It is used to run the true church or the extension of that through the father into the home.

When we talk of power IN the priesthood we are speaking as when we talk of power in a power cord. The power cord doesn't really have any power itself. When we plug it in to a socket we then get power in the power cord. If we live correctly we will have power in the priesthood through our faith and love.

So when Satan talks of having some priesthood he isn't talking about having some real power. He is talking of a false priesthood. It is just an illusionary copy of what God is doing. Satan has no power as he has no love. He can only wait for our fear of him etc and try to use that against us.

Who Should We Follow?

2010-07-28T20:41:00.000-07:00

The following seems more of an observation than a question. But questions lay in it _

Q.

The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.

"And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth."

So I suppose the Adam-God theory, blood atonement, and pretty much the entire King Follet sermon given by Joseph Smith is false. A man can, I suppose, claim just about any doctrine is backed up with at least one scripture, misinterpreted or not.

And then there's "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray." official declaration 1, at end of the D&C.

Maybe this is why Joseph Smith died not even 3 months after he gave the King Follet discourse? Hmm..

I could quote endless authorities who've made "seemingly" contradictory statements...not the least of which, of course, is Bruce R...

It can be argued, "well, sure, prophets have their opinions, but only when speaking with the spirit (or in general conference, whichever) are they to be taken seriously.

So here's my question: How can we know when a church authority is speaking with the spirit, for and in behalf of God, and not just babbling his own opinions? And if they have such controversial "opinions", why don't they keep them to themselves?

One such example is an opinion (HOPEFULLY) given by Brigham Young, "Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands." Journal of Discourses vol. 3 pg. 247

I realize that "Mormon Doctrine", the "Journal of Discourses", etc. aren't official church doctrine, but it would have been extremely hard for me to support a leader with that opinion.

This is precicely why you cannot prove the church, or any church, is true. It is, and always will be, a matter of faith. There are plenty of faults in this church, and I find myself not trusting any church leader for spiritual guidance; rather, the Holy Ghost, as my only source of truth and of testifying of truths.

A.

You have brought up a lot of ideas. Some of which I have already answered in this site. I have posted on the Adam-God theory being a misinterpretation of Brigham's statements. So if you read further on you will find it - Feb 26 2007.

The versions of the King Follett sermon are differring. This destroys confidence in reading it as fact. Yet there are things in there that come out as fact considering that they do match the Scriptures in intent in my opinion.

The book titled "Mormon Doctrine" has had too many revisions for me to see it as even being Bruce's opinion necessarily.

In regard the blood bit I would have to really talk that out with Brigham to know what he meant by that. I say that having read his comments that appear to present that he did believe that Adam was God and yet his other statements clearly demonstrate that he didn't believe that. So I reserve judgement.

Yet I would pose that you can know the church is true. I was brought up a Protestant and have proven the church as it was the only church in which I felt the same spirit that I did as I read the Bible. NONE of the multitude of churches that I went to had it at all.

There are many other things that demonstrate that the church is true. The Book of Mormon also has the spirit in it and I can feel the people in their writing. They are definitely different people. The Book of Mormon has been proven in a court of law to be an authentic history of the ancient Americas. This is demonstrated by the statement in the front which says that it was "translated" by Joseph Smith, rather than "written" by him (as it used to have to say). This can only be written at the front of a book that is proven to be a translation. You can't claim such otherwise.

Though for me there is also the fact that the unique doctrines that Joseph Smith claimed to have received from God are true. This I have found from life experiences. We are made up of 3 sections to our being. Truth does expand our intelligence. God is a being that looks like us. Etc.

Before becoming a member of the church I came to realise that the church followed the Bible better than any other religion. It wasn't a reason to join. But it was evident. What Joseph Smith presented was amazing.

In answer to you question about when to know a prophet etc is speaking the words of the Lord rather than his own ideas, this can only be realised by the Holy Ghost - as you have presented. Yet I would add that it is imperative to your obtaining eternal life to build a relationship where you come to walk and talk with the Lord Jesus Christ. Then he will tell you to move on to develop a relationship where you are walking and talking with Heavenly Father.

In the meantime I would advise you to continue to listen to the ideas that GAs present and use the Spirit (most definitely). Read the Scriptures and do the same. Don't be too weighed down by the occassional failures of men. The Scriptures show that we should expect these problems. God is always right. You can trust in that.

More on Righteous Parents and Sealing to Children

2010-05-27T18:44:00.000-07:00

Q.
In regard to righteous parents sealed to their unrighteous children, what about the following quote? It is stating that righteous parents will have their children go to the Celestial kingdom regardless of their sins, even if they have to pay for their sins for some time first: That some time in eternity they will get there. This has been quoted by several General Authorities over recent decades.

“The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught a more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.” (Orson F. Whitney, in Conference Report, Apr. 1929, p. 110.)

A.
Firstly I would have to have Orson's entire statement. This could allow me to see what he perceived Joseph Smith meant in saying it. However I don't see either Scripture nor equality supporting the all encompassing interpretation of this that some are making. It turns God into the inventor of eternal laws to play with them as he will. Believing in such a magic God leaves us with terrible injustice that would need to be explained: God would become the ghastly horror of Catholicism and Protestantism.

The apostle Paul states, "I can do ALL things through Christ..." Phil 4:13. Yet he couldn't invent an intelligence (D&C 93:29). Nor can he invent God. So some statements have to be taken as a generalisation, not an absolute.

Secondly I have to be dubious of the authenticity of a claim of what Joseph Smith said, made by another person's recollection; regardless of who likes the sound of it.

While I have read this from General Authorities I haven't read one explain it to demonstrate that they interpreted it to be all encompassing (meaning into eternity and every person without any exception). And even IF they did, this doesn't make it fact.

I don't see that this has to be stating that the suffering for sins is a definite claim that they don't finally accept the atonement of Christ before the first resurrection. We are constantly suffering for our sins both spiritually and physically. We are in hell until we accept the atonement of Christ even in this life. We're just so used to it that we don't see it anymore. And we keep it with us unless we have fully accepted to follow Christ with full purpose of heart, and had it removed.

IF some GA accepts an extreme interpretation of this I would have to refer to the following.

President Harold B. Lee, when president of the church, in a European area conference:

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." [emphasis mine] The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.

Of course the catch 22 of this statement is that it can't be wrong. If it is then that makes it right, because it was made by the president of the church. And if he is wrong then that makes him right.

So we need to look to the Standard Works and judge this idea. Here it gains both support and opposition.

"...for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy to thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Exodus 20:5-6

This proposes that the evil acts of parents do come upon the children in effect to the third and fourth generation after them. Therefore as all things have an equal good and bad side, it stands that the same is true for good that parents do. Thus it is true that the good acts of the parents come upon the children to the third and fourth generation. And IF Joseph Smith did make this statement, this surely must have been his inference.

Yet for any today to take this as an absolute, has Scriptural opposition. The second verse quoted above demonstrates that those who love him receive mercy. So what if a person has evil parents but becomes righteous? Don't they get this mercy? And if so then the reverse must also apply.

Were the sins of Terah passed on to Abraham? From a spiritual sense it would certainly seem not. Were the sins of Levi passed on to Moses? Spiritually, no! For while God declared that they were passed on to those generations, righteousness eliminates the cursing from spiritual consequences.

"Again, when I say to the wicked, you shall surely die; if he turns from this sin, and does that which is lawful and right....he shall not die." Ezek 33:14-15 (also note verses 13 for the adverse).

So even if God declares a cursing or blessing it isn't absolute if there is a change to the opposite lifestyle. If a son of righteous parents does evil don't his children fit under the curse of Exodus 20:5-6 (quoted above). So then are we to believe that this evil son, who has placed a 4 generation curse on his descendants, is going to go to the Celestial? And this because his parents placed a one generation blessing upon him that he can't transgress from, whatever he does?

Adam was the great archangel Michael in the pre-existence. Surely then his children will all be saved into the Celestial kingdom if we are to take these statements as absolutes.

In regard Cain the Lord said,

"If you do well, you shall be accepted. And if you do not well sin lies at the door, and Satan desires to have you; and except you shall listen to my commandments, I will deliver you up, and it shall be to you according to his desire. And you shall rule over him; For from this time forward you shall be the father of his lies; you shall be called Perdition; for you were also before the world." Moses 5:23-24

Should we regard that such will be in the Celestial kingdom afterward: That the tentacles have reached out to save Cain?

What of Lehi and Sariah with Laman and Lemuel? Are we to believe that we will be with Laman and Lemuel in the Celestial kingdom?

Or can a person commit the unpardonable sin and then be saved into the Celestial kingdom because his father and mother were good people?

And what of Alma's statement? _

"You can't say, when you are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. No, you can't say this; for that same spirit which possesses your bodies at the time that you go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. For see, if you have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, look, you have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you, and has no place in you, and the devil has all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked." Alma 34:34-35

Clearly Alma is declaring that those who turn away from God and won't change back in this life, have set their course, and WON'T change it back later.

Joseph Smith received a revelation recorded in D&C 76. The only people it declares to be going to hell are those who will be in the telestial kingdom (those going to outer darkness are stated to just be in a permanent state of woe, which isn't the same hell state).

"These are they who are thrust down to hell. These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work. These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestial." verses 84-86

Note it states that they will not receive a fulness in the eternal world. No talk of them moving onto a fulness at some stage of eternity.

In regard these it goes on further to state,

"For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared; And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end." D&C 76:111-112

Two things stand out here. One is that they receive a mansion according to their works. Not the works of their parents being taken into account also. The second is that they cannot move up into the Celestial kingdom.

So we have seen that making these things Joseph Smith MAY have stated into an inevitability is to take words to an extreme. These Scripture texts opposing such an interpretation are only a few that I could think of with almost no effort. The list of Scripture texts opposing such an extreme interpretation seem almost endless to me.

Eternal Marriage Sealings

2010-05-20T18:24:00.001-07:00

Q.
This is the basic quandry. Supposed Bob and Betty are sealed in the temple, as are Jim and Jane. Betty dies after 40 years of marriage. Jim dies after 41 years of marriage. Bob and Jane meet at a Single Adult Activity, and marry after a couple of months. Of course they can only marry "for time only." But later, once Bob and Jane are deceased, they are sealed. So, now we have Bob sealed to Betty and Jane, Betty sealed to Bob, Jim sealed to Jane, and Jane sealed to Jim and Bob. Fairly classic circumstance in the Church. My question isn't really about "who" will be with who. Obviously, people will still have their agency, and we can't really say who will be with who. But my point is this: we never get to the question of the end result if Bob and Jane had just made up their minds in the first place that they wouldn't allow themselves to fall in love and marry a second time. We preach and testify that when someone dies, they are alive and well in the Spirit World anxiously waiting for a joyful reunion. Presuming my spouse dies, and I'm supposed to know that she is alive and well and waiting on me, what justifies falling in love with another woman? Why is action and behavior that would be considered adulterous in mortality suddenly "okay" once my spouse dies? Why say I'm married for time and eternity if, the moment my wife dies, I act just like people of other religions who don't believe we'll be couples in the afterlife, and just allow myself to "move on" and marry someone else. People say "we'll feel differently" in the spirit world - I wish they could quote a prophet for that proposition. Every prophet has said we'll carry the same personality and that we'll enjoy the same sociality we have on earth. If knowing my wife has fallen in love with another man in mortality would end our marriage, how is knowing she did it after I'm dead going to be any better? And presuming she chooses that second husband over me, where does that leave me? The real question: If I die and my wife were to start dating other men, would I likewise be free to "date" other women in the Spirit World? If not, why not? It would only seem fair. Any thoughts would be welcome.

A.
Your final question is a simple matter. Yes, you can date in the spirit world, as surely as you can here.

One thing that needs to be looked at in regard the whole thing you are saying is that there is a difference between men and women in eternal marriage. Women only have one husband where men have several wives. There won't be a place for monogamy among gods and godesses. It is a concept of laziness, greed and possessiveness. There are far more important matters to those who receive eternal life. That is the giving of spirit bodies and physical bodies to the endless intelligences that exist throughout endless space.

Even in the law given to Moses God declares that adultery for a woman is that a married woman has sex with someone other than her husband. Where for a man it is to have sex with a married woman (Lev 20:10).

You are correct that people don't change just because they die. But it must be realised that being "in love" is nothing more than a romantic expectation. The most important ingredient is real love itself. The "in love" concept can be produced by anyone at any time. I have been in love with two women at the same time (it happened by unforeseen and complicated circumstances). But I have since come to see that it is easy enough to do.

People can fall out of love just as easily as they fell in love. We have to look for spiritual love, friendship love and respect as foundations for a good marriage. If a man and woman have this it may become difficult for a man to move on in his responsibility to take on additional women when the time comes. However as men we must take this responsibility, realising that women need a husband and there will be more women than men that make it. This is because they are more heart inclined than men. So, like it or lump it, if you want eternal life.

Plural marriage is what women need for many reasons, which I won't go into here as we don't presently practice it. So it isn't my intention to preach it. But a woman can't be as happy in a monogamy.

One further point is that Paul points out that it is better for young widows to get married again and get involved, rather than sitting around becoming tattle-tales and busybodies (1 Tim 5:13). It is a better idea overall.

Leadership Positions and Eternal Life

2010-04-22T18:54:00.000-07:00

Q.

How does leadership play into eternal life? Obviously our Savior Jesus Christ and Father in Heaven are the ultimate in leadership examples, we are to be like them. So if someone is never a bishop, or Stake President, or called to some other leader position does that tell us something about that individual?
Or maybe that is a worldly perspective...

A.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:34-40 inform us that few church leaders will gain eternal life. It could be argued that positions give a person the opportunity they require to grow to become one of the few. And with some people I wouldn't dispute that. But the Scriptures do inform us that people with no church position can become quite effective people and gain eternal life.

For example Lehi had no position whatsoever when called upon to lead his family out. And even then he would be called the leader of an extremely small branch today.

While Elijah had an official position, he had no church. Yet he will have eternal life.

John the Baptist had some disciples, but had no official position within a church.

Jeremiah was just a priest, not the leader of the church either.

And how much of a church did Noah have? - an even smaller branch than Lehi.

And what size church did Ether have?

Moroni wandered around with no church either.

The prophetess Deborah had no official position.

And what of Mary, the mother of Jesus? - she will have eternal life.

Far more women will have eternal life than men, yet how many have had some glorified position?

You are right in assuming it to be a worldly perspective.

It is up to us to use the Spirit and create our own positions of service. We can be far more effective home teachers than visiting only once a month. We can be far better class secretaries than just marking the roll. As we seek for the Spirit's help in being more effective he will give us leadership opportunities.

The greatest leader is the greatest follower. Jesus Christ was the greatest leader because he followed Heavenly Father better than anyone else. As you seek to follow Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ some people will begin to follow you. God will open up opportunities to you as you strive to serve. Don't seek the position. He will just give it to you (which could be official or unofficial) at the appropriate time.

Parental Sealing Power Able to Raise to Celestial?

2010-04-20T18:05:00.000-07:00

Q.

My friend and I had a discussion the other day about the sealing power. He seems to believe that righteous parents who seal their children to themselves, have the power to bring their children up to the Celestial kingdom who may have fallen short and are able to do this because of the power of the "sealing power". What are your thoughts on this?

A.

I've heard this optomistic claim before. Before getting into it, I would have to say that it doesn't sit right with free agency. It also opposes righteous judgement, by making some in better positions only because of someone else's righteousness. Someone could argue, "well, what about Christ and his atonement for us, doesn't his action rob justice occuring to us?"

That is true, but we still must change from that time forth and become sanctified through a process, to be a true saint (perfect person). Whereas this idea is proposing that a person doesn't need to change their character.

In regard this, Doctrine and Covenants 88:21 says _

"And they who are not sanctified throught the law which I have given to you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestirial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom."

So sanctification (which is done by the Holy Ghost through a lengthy process) is necessary to gain the Celestial Kingdom. Also to live in a particular kingdom you must be prepared to abide the law of that kingdom.

In spite of popular belief, people won't change afterward. Alma 34:34-35 presents the following _

"You cannot say, when you are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. No, you cannot say this; for that same spirit which does possess your bodies at the time you go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. For look, if you have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, see, you have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord has withdrwan from you, and has no place in you, and the devil has all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked."

What Alma is saying is that our spirit will not be any different in the resurrection. If we were not willing to live a righteous lifestyle in this time then we will not be willing to do so later either. Who our parents were will make no difference to that.

Note it says that the devil will seal you his.

A further thought is given in Alma 12:11 _

"And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell."

If a person refuses to learn the mysteries of the kingdom now, a binding upon them will be by the devil, with "the chains of hell."

1 Nephi 15:33 states _

"... they must be brought to stand before God, to be judged of their works; and if their works have been filthiness they also must be filthy; and if they are filthy it has to be that they cannot dwell in the kingdom of God; if they can then the kingdom of God must be filthy also."

So for a person to be able to live in the Celestial Kingdom he cannot be doing things that are filthy.

Temple Ordinances - Actual or just Symbolic

2010-03-31T20:17:00.000-07:00

Q.

Not sure what we are able to talk about outside the temple walls but was wondering the other day while there just how literal we need to take what happens at the veil. Will events happen just like that one day? Any scripture references...

A.

The Scriptures demonstrate that temple ordinances are all typical and symbolic only. References to this are numerous. You can look up the many temple ordinances as laid down in the Law of Moses.

At baptism we get put under water that can't wash away our sins nor bury them. The act itself doesn't avail anything. It is when the spiritual reality is applied (pointed to by the symbol) that makes it have value.

With the sacrament we eat and drink Christ into ourselves. Again, having a deeper symbolic meaning, only useful when we apply what its referring to.

The Israelites were told that by going to the temple and placing your hands upon the head of the sacrifice your sins would be passed onto the ram (Lev 1:1-4, reading to the end of chapter 4 you will find more references). However we know that this wasn't a literal passing, in spite of the words saying it was. We must place our sins upon the true sacrifice (Jesus Christ) for our sins to be taken away.

To obtain this greater understanding an Israelite would have to start thinking deeply about what they had done, and seek for guidance. The same applies today. These temple ordinances are like parables. Christ's apostles, during his ministry, asked why he spoke to the people in parables. He said so that hearing they don't hear and seeing they don't see (Mark 4:11-12). Today's temple ordinances need to understood by the Spirit.

You go to the temple and do things that represent other things. A clue - don't get too absorbed in every little detail at the expense of the big picture. Secondly, its too bad they had to remove the penalties. That made it easier to understand.

Legal Drugs - Anti-Depressants

2010-03-23T18:32:00.000-07:00

Q.

My question is what do you think about all these anti-depressants so many people seem to be on these days. Even members of the church. Are people really just covering up an issue they need to deal with?

A.

Unfortunately extremely large amounts of money are being made in the drug industry (I mean the legal one). Doctors and psychiatrists are just prescribing drugs as a simple solution to all ills. Where once children would be disciplined they are now drugged for sedation. They become used to this way of thinking.

I know of church members caught up in this myself. Yet Christ taught the answer to this problem. But that peace in our hearts can only come from us facing the gospel head on and living it. Just belonging to the church, attending meetings and doing callings isn't sufficient. There is a requirement for us to be one with Christ and Heavenly Father. We actually have to come to KNOW them (Jn 17:3).

Through faith in Christ anyone can face their problems. These drugs don't help the people I've seen on them. They still look and talk as depressed as ever. It's just another unsuccessful drug like alcohol.

Can Good Non-Members go to the Celestial

2010-03-15T19:11:00.000-07:00

Q.

In D&C 76:71-74 it states that those who reject the gospel in this life but receive it in the spirit world will inherit the Terrestrial Glory. How strict will this be? I have a good Christian friend that is a great person that loves, serves others and tries to live a good honest life. He has however no desire at this point to accept, "Mormonism" as he calls it. How much should I keep pushing? Should I be worried? Or will he be ok since he's a good man...?

"And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament. Behold, these are they who died without law; And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it." D&C 76:71-74

A.

Inside us all there is what we could describe as a graph. I want you to imagine for a moment this graph. It shows all of our qualities. On the right there is one area that shows the depth of people's understanding of God. In Protestants and Catholics this is virtually empty.

Then there is a collection of other virtues and vices, such as love, forgiveness, hate, anger, greed, sympathy, desire for revenge, desire for service, compassion, lust, selfishness, self-image, etc. Then on the extreme left there is the rate of understanding of the relationship between actions and consequences at an eternal level. In Protestants and Catholics this is at absolute zero. They believe in a totally magic God that rewards by magic: There is no relationship between actions and rewards other than those puffed up by God at his good will and pleasure.

I know one woman who has all those great inner qualities at a high rate. But she can't go any further. And the reason why, is because her impression of what she is makes it that she can't. She is beautiful in those other areas. But we are out to become as Heavenly Father or Heavenly Mother. These require exceptionally high rates.

We can question as to whether we feel these people can cross that line into the Celestial and abide Heavenly Father's presence. And maybe one day they will. But it would appear that they are going to have to accept the gospel first.

The best of them are abiding the presence of the Son. But have no understanding of the Father. Additional to this, if they hear the Father or the Son too much they will be told to join the church. So a degree of them blocking this exists.

Can I build a palace, if all I do is learn to build houses? I may make wonderful houses. But I must still learn to build a palace at some time, in order to build one.

As Alma states, the same spirit that posssesses our bodies when we die [our spirit], will be the spirit that possesses our bodies at the resurrection (Alma 34:34). If a person rejects truth in this life they have created a barrier against it.

These people have a beautiful house. But, at present, they have refused to build a palace. And the time will come when they have set their course. God waits for everyone to come to that point of no return. Only he knows when they have reached it. But they do reach it. And for those with full hearing in this life, and absolute rejection, they have set that course.

But your friend may be one that will eventually hear. Keep trying with your friend, and know that if he is one that has the heart to accept, then he will accept eventually.

Where Did Evil Come From?

2010-02-10T19:14:00.000-08:00

Q.

Where did evil come from?

A.

Evil itself doesn't actually come from anywhere. It is anything that makes you contrary to harmony with nature.

There are eternal laws. They have always existed and always will. For example there are the physical ones such as hot and cold, light and dark, magnetism, voltage, fire and burning, ice, wind and gravity.

Since we have obtained a body there are things that can bring us into conflict with physical laws and that will create unwanted results. If we stand in front of a moving truck things will happen that are natural, but oppose the natural laws that are for our good - such as not being hit by fast-moving objects. This action creates evil to our body and lives.

But then there are those that are important to how we feel inside - the spiritual. These are much more important because of their far reaching consequences. If we hate others we are in conflict with the eternal law of harmony with nature that preserves and creates good things. We feel conflict inside ourselves. We are unhappy. If, on the other hand, we feel love for others we are in harmony with the same eternal law. We have joy and happiness.

Lust produces this same situation of conflict. Also greed, anger and pride all create conflict with the eternal laws of happiness. If we give ungrudgingly we feel good inside. If we serve in love we have that harmony also. All the things that Christ taught us to do are to bring us into harmony with those related eternal laws.

Heavenly Father practices these eternal laws and advises us to do so.

The Scriptures do present some texts which create confusion in regard how God really feels. But Christ came and demonstrated and taught how Heavenly Father is. He causes the sun to rise on the evil as well as the good.

So God isn't interested in being some type of dictator; but being a loving father who teaches us to avoid such conflict: To avoid evil.

Why Did I Leave Protestantism?

2010-01-15T23:35:00.000-08:00

Q.

I don't know if this fits into this category, and by that I mean, I really don't think it fits at all, but I am really curious.
You have posted about attending a few protestant Churches when you were younger, I guess I gathered (maybe incorrectly) that you didn't grow up in an LDS Church. I am wondering what your story is. When, why and how transformation happened in your life. What lead you to become a Mormon? what were the struggles you had when you made this decision. has it been easy? hard? What do you regret? what are the challenges that you faced? who helped you along? who do you have to thank? who is your spiritual hero? what helped you make your faith your own.

Anyhow, it is up to you if you want to share any of this, or how personal you want to go, but I would truly be interested in the story.

A.

That's a lot of questions. If I answered that in full it would make "War and Peace" look like a tract (pamphlet). So I'll briefly answer how I got into the church: Conversion was another process.

I was brought up going to a Congregational church in the morning and a Methodist mission in the afternoon and evening. I also attended the latter a few times a week for activities. At 4 I decided that I wanted to become a missionary as a full life occupation (something Protestants can do), due to a meeting I attended. As time went on I expanded my horizons and began going to other churches. At first it wasn't that many. But circumstances made that expand considerably.

In the midst of this expansion I got to 11-years-old and began to think about the whole thing. It began with what seemed to me an obvious and simple question - "why did God make us?" My minister told me that we weren't meant to understand these things. That went over like a lead balloon. Sense told me that God wouldn't have a book as large as the Bible written just to say that we shouldn't understand things. So I went out to ask other ministers of other churches. I got the same response. Finally one minister told me that God made us because he was lonely. I thought about this and came back the next week asking, "as God has been out there forever why did he pick now to be lonely?" To this he also reverted to the "not meant to understand" routine.

During this I also became concerned about my salvation. I began to think on my Catholic friend and where the line should be drawn for whether I was doing enough of the right things to get into heaven. My minister assured me that as I was attending church and believing in Christ I would be fine. Yet my knowledge of the Bible made me know that this simplistic viewpoint wasn't what the Bible said. It talked of Christ saying that those not feeding the hungry and visiting those in jail etc wouldn't go to heaven. And that not all even doing great works and professing his name would be going to heaven.

My Congregational church minister started turning his back on me so that I couldn't ask embarrassing questions, as he shook hands at the front door. I began to see that this man had no more knowledge about God than I did. By this time I was coming toward 13. I came to decide that the only hope I had for learning the answers to my questions was to study the Bible myself. So I began to read through it, searching for understanding.

As I did so I could feel this feeling from the writers. I went to church and waited to feel this same feeling there. Sense said to me that if this feeling was in the Bible, then it ought to be in Christ's church. But I couldn't feel it. I went all over the place, from church to church searching to feel it. I thought that perhaps if I stood outside I might feel it inside. But this only made me more aware of its absence. It seemed like feeling in for it there was a vacuum of it. It was just not present at all. I would get to church 5 minutes late and stand outside for 50 minutes and leave 5 minutes before it finished.

By the time I was around 13 and a half my mother felt inspired to join the LDS church. This was the first I had heard of it. And it was so far away and required so much time, I didn't go with her. Eventually I did. And for the first time I found a church that didn't have a vacuum of that feeling that came from the Bible. I was confused as it wasn't as strong (as some members have the Spirit and some don't, and its in varying degrees in people - I came to realize in time).

It was 2 years and a lot of things occurring before I joined the church. The Holy Ghost told me to join the church. I had 5 reasons why not, which he answered. I didn't want to do it, but I posed to myself that I couldn't claim to follow God, yet not follow his instruction. It was then another 4 and half years before I was really converted to Jesus Christ.

Who I can thank (apart from God, of course) for this particular aspect of my conversion - 2 missionaries who used the Spirit and answered my Biblical objections. All the other missionaries just said, "read the Book of Mormon and pray about it." A senseless statement to a person with real objections to the book and teachings of the church. I would thank my mother for teaching me to honor Jesus Christ. And I would thank the scout master for making me feel I had a friend in the church. I suppose I could also thank all those ignorant Protestant ministers for driving me to the Bible for answers.

My spiritual hero would be better made plural, as otherwise "Heavenly Father" would be the answer; and I don't think that would tell you much. - Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, John the Baptist, Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, the Nephi and Lehi who were brothers a bit before Christ came (the most unsung heroes of Scripture IMO - Hel 5), Jesus Christ (of course), King Benjamin, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, the Brother of Jared, Peter, James, John and Matthew. Not in that order.

I will write on all the other questions you have asked in time.

Gifts of the Spirit and Faith

2009-11-16T17:48:00.000-08:00

Q.

This question is about gifts of the Spirit. Elder Oaks in the Sep 1986 Ensign said:

"Spiritual gifts come to those who have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. As the Prophet Joseph Smith taught, the gifts of the Spirit 'are obtained through that medium' [the Holy Ghost] and 'cannot be enjoyed without the gift of the Holy Ghost. … The world in general can know nothing about them.'"

However, one of the most freely given gifts of the Spirit, that of Faith, comes to many before they are baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

So is the gift of Faith (and perhaps the gift of Faith to be healed) not actually a gift of the Spirit but rather just a preparatory gift? It feels contradictory but most likely is just my limited understanding. Please let me know if you can shed light on this for me. Thanks!

A.

1 Corinthians 12:9 and Moroni 10:11 both present the point that faith is a gift of the Spirit. Note, though, that Moroni qualifies this as "exceedingly great faith."

Joseph Smith has presented that without having the gift of the Holy Ghost you can't enjoy the gifts of the Spirit; and that the world doesn't have the gift of the Holy Ghost. However the Holy Ghost and ministering angels can work with people as much as people allow them to. There is no requirement to be a member for this to happen. But these people don't have it as a permanent gift: Only a fleeting experience.

To have the gift of the Holy Ghost with you constantly it is required to first have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Holy Ghost can give gifts in some measure without giving a permanent gift.

To receive the constant gift of the Holy Ghost also requires baptism. Almost everyone being baptised isn't really baptised in their hearts immediately, as their faith in Christ isn't complete at that point. It is a long process in most cases. Therefore they don't have the permanent companionship of the Holy Ghost immediately either. So the gifts come in measure also (as true heart baptism is required to have the gift).

As we follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost we become sanctified. Through seeing the blessings that come from sanctification we gain greater faith and a greater union with the Holy Ghost. Thus the gifts of the Spirit become stronger in us through the additional faith and union with the Holy Ghost, Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. This creates the "exceeding great faith" that Moroni speaks of.

Married or Not

2009-10-08T18:49:00.000-07:00

Q. am i married or not, i was given a ring in 1961 and he was in the air force and we were over seas then came home and were lost to each other. we have found each other and a document were were married by proxy.

A. You haven't given me much to go on. But you appear to be married in the temple. You would have to look into your states legal situation to know the answer to how the law sees you.

Dinosaurs, How they fit with the Gospel.

2009-08-24T18:11:00.000-07:00

Q.

What's your take on dinosaurs, and how they fit in with the Gospel?

A.

In writing to Timothy Paul warned,

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding ... oppositions of science falsely so called."

So Paul has advised Timothy to keep that which he knew to be true spiritually and avoid opposing ideas from science falsely so called.

The word "science" (Latin) means "to know" or "knowledge". However "modern science" is full of theories. The word "theory" (Greek) means "to speculate" or "guess". Therefore when someone speaks of a "scientific theory" the term is an oxy-moron. For if it is "scientific" it is known to be a fact and can't be a "theory".

Anyone professing that scientific evidence exists to prove that something is millions of years old, is talking illogical nonsense. For who has been back to prove that they are correct?

Almost all scientific discoveries have began with a scientifically "proven" theory which failed when attempted in practice. In spite of all the "scientific" evidence showing it MUST be right. Provable science (i.e. areas of science where a working product must be manufactured or where tests can be made to completely prove the idea) are the only areas of science where the term "science" can be said to be appropriate.

When we get to areas such as a proposed "dinosaur age" we are into deep speculation.

Have we found evidence of all types of extinct forms of life (including reptilian)? Most certainly! But when we get to creating the concept of an age were only certain creatures existed, we step far beyond science and get into areas of wild and totally unprovable speculation. Certainly the "scientific" community like to stand united in supporting many of these types of wild theories. And as some people find these ideas as fascinating as Darth Vader and death stars, a lot of money goes into "proving" that these theories are fact. Evidence to the contrary is quickly twisted or not mentioned.

Logic would suggest that if large reptiles existed during the early time of man they would have been wiped out for man's survival. We could speculate on whether anyone made hybrid large reptiles later, for war or any other purpose. However this theory would be as unprovable as the dinosaur age.

In spite of seemingly endless claims and statistics to support the idea that dating methods have some high degree of accuracy, SCIENTISTS themselves CONTINUE to discard the findings of all the ones that oppose their desired dates, and cling to the one that they can eventually find to support it (which may not be the method they accept next time): About as "scientific" as "Alice in Wonderland." Scientific dating methods are about as consistent as girls playing hard to get as a dating method to get a guy - I guess it works sometimes, with modification.

Students in science classes had been taught for years that the rings around Saturn were made of a continuous substance and that it was a liquid like oil or a gas. Yet upon us sending a probe past it we discovered that both these scientific(?) claims were false. It is made of rocks and they are separate. Zero out of 2 for the "scientists".

I could go on with virtually endless examples. Yet I don't need to because even "scientists" admit that they are constantly changing their minds as new ideas present themselves. An admittance that these areas of science aren't really science at all. It would be better termed "the search for science."

This having been established, it then becomes a question of do you believe God when He says He actually DOES know; yet it doesn't fit with the latest theories?

As people searching for the truth, we must look for real proof of claims in regard to scientific ideas. Firstly I look to see if that presented is as scientific as they claim. We must look through, what may only be, flimsy evidence, and see if it actually holds up. Secondly I look to see if claims are consistent with religiously known facts. If the Scriptures seem to oppose it then closer scrutiny is necessary.

The Scriptures tell me that no death occurred until mankind erred. And that this fall occurred around 6,000 years ago. Do I hear lots of claims that this can't be right? Yes. Do I see anything PROVEN by anyone to discredit this claim? No!

In my life I have sometimes challenged the ideas presented by God: I couldn't see how he was right. Yet experience has eventually made me come to realise that he is always right and man always wrong. Because of this trust in him and my distrust of "modern science" because of its many flaws, continuous change and blatant lies, I have to find no inconsistency between what God says and TRUE science.

Was there Resurrections before Christ's?

2009-08-06T18:06:00.000-07:00

Q.

I was reading through Alma 40, and came across verse 2 which reads:

"Behold, I say unto you, that there is no resurrection - or, I would say, in other words, that this mortal does not put on immortality, this corruption does not put on incorruption - until after the coming of Christ."

Moroni was resurrected, among others, so does this then refer to the FIRST coming of Christ?

A.

In verse 3 Alma states,

"....But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet..."

He is pointing out that no resurrection has occurred before this time.

When discussing the cruxcifiction of Jesus Matthew states,

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Matt 27:52-53

So these people weren't resurrected until after Jesus was resurrected. And Matthew has made a point of mentioning that this was a later event.

Paul declares that Christ was risen first _

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept." 1 Cor 15:20

There are several general times for resurrection. Christ's second coming is one of those. Naturally the final resurrection will be after the millennium when all things are completed. But resurrections will be going on during the millennium also (D&C 101:30-31).

No resurrections could occur before Christ made it possible.

Does Christ Suffer for Each Sin individually?

2009-06-09T18:10:00.000-07:00

Q.
When we sin does Christ suffer more than if we had not sinned? That is, does Christ suffer for each person's sins separately, or does he just suffer for sin? Has any General Authority answered this question? What do the Scriptures say?

A.
Firstly the Law of Moses clearly answers this question. Each Israelite was commanded to come to the temple once a year and place their sins upon the head of the sacrifice. Each subsequent year the sins for that year were placed upon the ram. This sacrifice was done outside the temple but still within the camp (Jerusalem).

Additionally to this there was one sacrifice made outside the city. One sacrifice for ALL Israel.

The first of these 2 sacrifices represents the suffering in the garden. The second one represents the crucifixion outside Jerusalem on the hill.

If we look at the first sacrifice we see that a sacrifice was required for EACH person. Thus Christ had to suffer separately for each of us. Secondly we see that additional sacrifice was required each and every year for additional sins done that year. This demonstrates that Christ suffers separately for every sin we make.

In the D&C Christ stated that without repentance suffering is required.

"And surely every man must repent or suffer..." D&C 19:4

In verse 17 he goes on further to say,

"But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I."

So Christ is stating that we would be suffering that same type of suffering he did if we don't accept him suffering on our behalf.

In examining this question we must ask why suffering is required? This is also answered in the Scriptures.

Of those who have known the truth and rejected it Mosiah 2:37-38 says,
"...therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever."

So, due to our conscience, suffering becomes necessary. We need to appease our conscience by an equal suffering for what we have caused ("divine justice").

We may well say, "well, I don't want to have Christ suffer on my behalf, I'll do it myself." The problem with that is the sanctification that is required. The above verse also points out that sin ruins our relationship with God, as he can't dwell in us. This means we can't progress. Without a cleansing of our sins the Holy Spirit can't be our constant companion to sanctify us (make us pure and perfect in thought and feeling).

The Scriptures additionally demonstrate that each person must suffer different amounts according to how well we understood.

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:47-48

Thus for Christ to be an equivalent sacrifice he must suffer according to our knowledge also.

Christ suffered in the garden for the sins performed before he lived and long after he lived, by the eternity factor. Time is an illusion. God dwells in eternity where all is present. Christ took his mind to this and then Abraham (for example) could have his sins forgiven and be cleansed then sanctified while he lived. Christ thus, from a time perspective, suffered for our sins before the sins even occurred. So he doesn't need to keep going back.

As to whether a GA has made some comment, I couldn't find one.

Quotes of General Church Authorities - Christ Keeping Nail Prints

2009-02-09T17:15:00.000-08:00

Q.
My question is with regards to the resurrected body of the Savior. When he was resurrected, the prints of the nails were in his hands and in his feet. My question is why they were there. I remember hearing something from my mission president that because Christ willfully gave his life, He made the choice to be crucified, and because it was a personal choice, his resurected body would have the prints because He chose to let it happen. I am only interested in if there is a quote from one of the Brethren on this topic. Thanks.

A.
This answer contains 2 parts. The first part considering the assumption of the question. The second part looking at an answer to the problem itself.

I appreciate the sincerity of your question. However it proposes that a concept should be accepted as fact if those in certain positions in the church believe it to be so: That they are always right by virtue of those positions. This proposes that God has some magic way to imbue all knowledge upon an individual at any time he chooses. (Solomon received wisdom by obedience, not magic - else we would have to believe God's proposed magic had problems, as Solomon went after false gods by the end). Either that or we would have to believe that God calls the most knowledgeable people to certain positions (who already have all the answers).

The Scriptures, current circumstances and church history don't support either of these ideas.

This refutes the Scripture that teaches in regard learning doctrine _

"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." Isa 28:10

God spoke to the boy Samuel when the President of the Priesthood ("The Prophet"), Eli, wasn't listening in regard his sons. He gave revelation to the prophetess Deborah because the President of the Priesthood wasn't listening. Lehi (the nobody) was spoken to by God, yet he was from Manasseh (through whom comes no priesthood). Jeremiah received revelation that the President of the Priesthood was not teaching. Jesus Christ was rejected and crucified at the request of the President of the Priesthood (who, incidentally, received revelation about him by virtue of his office Jn 11:51). The Apostle Judas betrayed Christ for money. Several Apostles in these latter days (as some propose that somehow things are now different) betrayed Joseph Smith. Some started their own churches. And the differences of opinions of some Presidents of the Priesthood, in these days, is well documented.

Differences of opinions of Presidents of the Priesthood and Apostles isn't new.

"For it has been declared to me of you, my brethren... that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptised in the name of Paul?" 1 Cor 1:11-13

In other words the teachings of these various Apostles and the President of the Priesthood (Cephas - Peter) were so different as to cause groups following the doctrines of each.

Harold B. Lee (when President of the Priesthood) made the following statement.

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorised to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.)

The catch 22 of this statement of Harold B. Lee is that it can't be incorrect, as if it were that would make it correct of itself, as he was a prophet speaking in general conference.

This lays out that only the standard works are to be regarded as totally authoritative concepts. Any person can only present other ideas as his OPINION ONLY, "regardless of his position in the church." Only "the President of the Church" may present new doctrine, and then it MUST be sustained by all of the church, and then it will be placed within the standard works, and thus be Scripture also. Us sustaining him in his office DOESN'T mean we sustain all his opinions.

The special duty and office of an Apostle is to testify of the risen Christ.

The special duty and office of the President of the Priesthood (what we term "The Prophet") is to be there to receive any specific revelation, to the whole church, that God wishes to give in addition to that which he has already done. As we see evidence of in the 2 declarations given in the back of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Certainly it is part of their position to decide what must be taught as basic fundamentals. But these things must be laid out in Scripture also. They attempt to avoid including doctrinal opinions of their own as church doctrine.

The Scriptures set forth that it is your responsibility to obtain revelation from God in regard these questions. Reading the Scriptures definitely helps in our study. And this should be the main source of truth from man. Next would come hearing those things stated by GAs. Lastly would come the ideas of members where you are.

Some quote the following statement of Wilford Woodruff to support the idea that we can believe every word Presidents of the church teach _

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this church to lead you astray...." Manifesto 1:14

However Presidents of the church have taught different ideas on certain subjects. So, obviously, this statement shouldn't be taken to such an extreme. It must be remembered what he is speaking about in saying this. The occasion was that a concept of the gospel was being removed. Question arose as to his right to remove a gospel principle. He is defending this decision by stating that God wouldn't allow him to remove a gospel principle if it weren't the appropriate thing to do at the time.

This doesn't support the concept that all doctrinal ideas expressed by a President of the church are infallible. It only supports the concept it is written relative to (ie. that the President of the church won't add or remove principles contrary to the will of God).

Man is subject to error, regardless of his position in the church organisation. And that should never be forgotten. You MUST use the Spirit as your final source in these matters. The latter is continually emphasised in Scripture and by prophets and apostles in these latter-days.

"For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived--surely I say to you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day." D&C 45:57

Taking the Holy Spirit for your guide is imperative, not an optional extra.

The primary thing that you should achieve relative to knowledge is to walk and talk with the Father, and learn from him. To do this you must go through the Son. But along with these the Spirit is still required.

As to the concept that you have inquired about, I would first add my agreement to the opinion expressed by your mission president, that Christ is resurrected, and therefore needn't keep his holes. But he has chosen to keep them for us to identify him in further ways. Zech 13:6 and D&C 45:51-52 present that Christ will show these holes at his second coming. He proved who he was by showing them to the Nephites when he visited the Americas.

To further quote the Standard Works of the church in regard this issue _ I'm sure you would be familiar with Doubting Thomas: The Apostle who had to see Christ resurrected himself, to believe. Note what they say in regard him _

"The other disciples therefore said to him, We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." John 20:25

So it was important to Thomas that Christ still had this demonstration that he was indeed the crucified Christ. Therefore it isn't hard to accept that others would feel the same way: It is a sign of proof.

Having stated (hopefully clearly) the importance of using the Holy Ghost in regard any opinion you hear I would present the following quote by the Apostle Hugh B. Brown:

"All the people were invited to come forward and feel the prints of the nails in His hands and feet and the wounds of the sword in His side so that they would know that He was the promised Savior who had been slain for the world." (Gospel Library > Magazines > Friend > April 1972) [Thanks for this quote Michelle :-) ]

Mind-reading and Psychic Things - good or evil?

2008-10-20T20:24:00.001-07:00

Q.
WHAT IS THE CHURCH'S STAND ON MIND READING AND PSYCHIC STUFF? I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH THAT TALENT BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW IF THEY ARE DECEIVING YOU. THE REASON I WANTED TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS IS BECAUSE I KNOW FROM READING THE SCRIPTURES THAT IN THE LAST DAYS, IN WHICH WE ARE LIVING RIGHT NOW, THERE WILL BE MANY WHO WILL SHOW WONDERS AND SIGNS AND WHO WILL PERFORM ALL KINDS OF MIRACLES AND MANY PEOPLE WILL BE DECEIVED BY THEIR DOING.

A.
The church's stand is to support that written in Scripture. The Scriptures do record people's thoughts being revealed at times. Yet the Scriptures oppose the idea of constant communication with an unknown dead person or evil spirits (familiar spirits).

But your question relates to those living. This is an interesting subject, of which I could write extensively on, but will try to keep it as brief as possible. Hopefully this will help you.

Most doing such things know very little about what they are actually doing. When we were just an intelligence (ie. before being born to Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Mother as spirit children) we communicated by thought. Upon being born as spirits we continued in this communication style to some extent. In this life, part of our spirit body can come out of our physical body (along with part of our intelligence) and go to other people. Those who can see spirits can see these people where so chosen.

I have some people, who practice this ability (in fact 2 of my children do), come to me for additional communication. I have no problem with it, as I have nothing to hide. However many can become extremely paranoid about this. For this reason those who do it normally like to keep it a secret from those who may be adversely affected.

It is just a natural ability. There is nothing evil about it of itself. It is like our ability to speak and hear. The only problem exists in what people may do.

As my wife died young and I am now single, I have had females try to persuade me that I am romantically interested in them, for example. Some have tried to test my spiritual integrity by drawing my attention to parts that females are showing, such as cleavage, and throwing in a lustful feeling. I know these things don't come from me and so I just ignore them. But it demonstrates that people can use it in incorrect ways.

Furthermore people can carry on directed communications with you (which they produce the attitude and direction of and it becomes a subconscious conversation) and come away thinking that the responses you gave during this biased view point (in your mind) are actually what you believe. These people really need an instruction manual.

People practicing this sometimes come to see themselves as some superior class. This isn't always the case, of course. But it does happen. So it is like anything else. It can be good or can be evil, depending on what you do with it.

As to other psychic (spirit) abilities, the same applies. Wise use of abilities is no problem. Whatever a person does they must always remember to practice no evil of any sort with them. Also not to infringe upon anyone's personal life nor their right to their own decisions etc.

I enjoy feeling the purity in others with my spirit (I only focus on the good bits I feel in them). I can go in as far as I wish - a useful tool when looking for a marriage partner. This doesn't affect them negatively in the slightest. These are also abilities we used as an intelligence. I don't do things to demonstrate tricks to others or to deceive in any way. The only people who know I do them are those people who read my mind.

The most wonderful person I know, who is by far the most Christ like, sends her spirit to me on a regular basis (ie. reads my mind). She has been invaluable to me through several difficult times I have been through. She is spiritually encouraging and a strong member. She has her own family, so comes purely out of love and friendship for me as a person. I'm the only person she comes to.

So while I can see that wrong can be done with it, much good can also come from it. Therefore I don't see this as fulfilling the prophecy you refer to, of itself. Also this isn't new, as such things are recorded as having happened throughout history. I don't think you need to worry there. That prophecy, along with the one about signs in the heavens, are considered by some to be fulfilled by our latest technology (airplanes etc) and the deceptions of theory science (evolution, ice age, millions of years old earth, etc). I reserve judgement on it just yet.

Magic Tricks and Sorcery

2008-10-20T20:18:00.000-07:00

Q.
What should we feel about magic tricks? I know that there have been strict warnings against sorcery and witch craft. Are magic tricks to be considered as sorcery?

A.
In the vast majority of cases magicians use simple devices for doing their tricks. This is just pure entertainment; and there is nothing wrong in that.

It is true, however, that some few incorporate mind-matter abilities in tricks. This can only be wrong where the person seeks some help from a dark (ie. evil) source, where they are using it for an evil purpose or where they are putting their lives in jeopardy.

If they are seeking a dark source for more power (which the dark side [Satan] can't give them) then that becomes sorcery or witch craft.

I would strongly advise any person using mind abilities to resist any desire to use them in any way that does damage to others for the purpose of revenge or any other evil reason. It takes a wise person, realising we all have such abilities, to not abuse them.

Women's Role

2008-08-19T18:28:00.000-07:00

Q.

I was wondering if you could give me your perspective on a women's role in the LDS church, because I have been reading that the priesthood is only for men, and some members discourage women who want to work?

A.

To understand the different roles of men and women we would have to look at what we are inside (psychology). Firstly, even our own (generally) primitive science accepts that several differences have been established to exist between men and women. There is the sometimes quoted survey that found that females of around 14 come out better on IQ tests (as we presently have them) than males do of that age. Females are (generally speaking) more inclined toward heart feelings than men. Men are more inclined toward single focus than women. Men tend to rely more on cold logic. Women try to make a blend of emotion and logic.

My own personal experience has shown to me that women are better at creating order out of chaos on a local level, and men are better at perceiving the general state of the society globally.

These facts show that the eternal roles of God and Godess are very well thought out, and not just some random gender accident. ie. Men's spirits are different from women's spirits eternally and match the roles given.

While a good woman can be better at a man's role than a bad man (and visa-versa) it is better that a man do his role and grow to become what he should be. And, equally, a woman is better to do a woman's role so that she may grow in it. Her greatest potential lies in being a woman.

God instituted that only men receive the priesthood to Moses. An examination of Genesis reveals that this wasn't new at that time. Abraham, Issac and Jacob all offered sacrifices and no mention is made that their wives did, in spite of the gospel of Jesus Christ having been taught prior to Moses receiving the Law. Christ called 12 male apostles in spite of women also following him. If he had planned on presenting some new doctrine that women could now hold priesthood he would have called females also. Public opinion didn't stop him from introducing anything else he wanted to present.

Priesthood is a concept of authority and administration. An ability to deal well in this is required by a God, who is administrating over an entire earth full of people. As this is the male's role throughout eternity it is one the man must learn. The woman's role in eternity is entirely different. So what point is there in her learning his role rather than him learning it? It's like proposing that those desiring to be a carpenter should learn how to be plumbers and apprentice plumbers learn to be carpenters.

To understand, then, the woman's role, it is important to understand her role in eternity. The primary role of both God and Godess is to be parents. Heavenly Father is exactly that. And a woman's role is to be a Heavenly Mother. They aren't sitting around doing nothing. They are having children, teaching them, nurturing them, loving them, and showing by example how to live. She gets to take intelligences that can't go beyond where they are, on their own, and to give them the wonderful opportunities we have at this time. And this is thanks to our Heavenly Mothers.

So it is good for a woman (where she is physically capable) to have children, and to work at nurturing those children. Firstly it is of advantage to the spirits waiting for a body. And secondly it is of advantage to the woman to learn to be more successful at that which she plans on doing for eternity. Also she learns greater love the more children she has. She also learns to handle larger amounts of children, which skill is required.

Therefore when you ask about women being discouraged from working, it isn't that women are discouraged from working when single or their children have grown up. This is assuming that males requiring work to support their families, within the community, are all employed. Otherwise women can find areas where service is required to make themselves more useful. However, when married, women are encouraged to pursue their eternal careers first, rather than focusing on an extremely temporary career for this life only.

It should be noted that God has continually stated that men should also have their first focus on the family, rather than careers. He told Joseph Smith off several times for focusing on his calling more than his family. In fact he told the whole first presidency off for this. So getting the family situation right is more important than ANY other thing we do.

Did Christ Marry?

2008-06-16T18:04:00.000-07:00

Q. My questions deals with temple marriage. I have read in the scriptures state that we must be married and sealed in the temple to recieve exaltation. Meaning, that to be recieved in the Celestial Kingdom we must be married and sealed in the temple with an eternal companion. If this is correct then my question is did Jesus Christ marry? His most famous scripture he said to John states, "to fullfill all righteousness." He says this after John asks him why he should be baptized. Thus if he fullfilled all righteousness, did he marry?

A. Yes. Jesus Christ had to be married to be accepted as a teacher or leader in Israel. It was required under the Law of Moses, that "the leader of my people must marry a virgin." This meant that the leader would have understanding of family problems, and would have demonstrated an ability to hold a marriage together (as this obviously implies that he is still married to her).

It was also required that they be 30 years old. Which Christ also complied with.

Had he failed to marry he also wouldn't be fulfilling the commandment given to be fruitful and multiply. It should be understood that righteous sex doesn't include lust. I mention this just in case this is an issue which may confuse you or others reading.

Need for Authority

2007-09-27T19:13:00.000-07:00

Q. How do you understand Luke 9:49-50?

A. I am writing on this very subject at present and it will be on my site at http://www.dtowers.blogspot.com next week - all going well.

Adam-God Theory

2007-02-26T17:18:00.000-08:00

Q. Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory (I've read the Journal of Discourses, and it was not taken out of context, etc). But the LDS Church does not teach those things today.

Brother Brigham also said that everything that he said could be considered scripture.

So, is the Adam-God theory true? If so, why does the church today teach that it isn't? If it isn't true, then why did Brigham Young teach it as doctrine?

A. This post is to answer the Adam-God theory.

I've done a search in Brigham Young's Discourses and found nothing under "as good as Scripture". I did a search under "good as" and found nothing to do with Scripture. So I can only look at the idea of what if some prophet claimed his comments were as good as Scripture. This does not make them such. Something as good as done, isn't done, either. Firstly I will quote the following from the prophet Harold B. Lee in regard this point.

"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator --please note that one exception--you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF THE MAN WHO SAYS IT [my emphasis]." (Stand Ye in Holy Places" by Harold B. Lee 15:162:6).

To make real Scripture for the church, a prophet must present all his words as coming to him by revelation in his office as prophet for the church, and that God has said these should become established doctrine. He will then call upon the membership to sustain it as being Scripture. And the sustaining must be unanimous. Upon acceptance it will then be placed in the Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). There has of recent decades been 3 additions made to our Scriptures by this process (D&C [Doctrine and Covenants] 137 and 138, and Official Declaration 2). The church is a democratic theocracy. Meaning that while it is directed by Christ, it is done by the ACCEPTANCE and to the level of the Saints (members) as a whole. No individual member, regardless of his position, has a right to decide what is true for everyone else. Thus it is called "The Church of Jesus Christ [theocracy] of Latter-Day Saints [democracy]. According to the prophet Harold B. Lee the only real Scripture we have are the Standard Works. If some members regard all sorts of other things as Scripture, be that to them. And if any man propose his words or anyone else's to be Scripture (other than the Standard Works), that is his opinion. I've never heard it presented at conference that I am to sustain all comments by GAs (General Authorities) and/or all manuals as Scripture. Only that I accept GAs as holding certain positions. Scripture for the church is only that written in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. So we are looking at Brigham Young's statements purely as speculative theory of a church member, if not supported by Scripture. And if in opposition to Scripture then they are false (as Harold B. Lee also stated concerning ANY person within the church having doctrine opposed to Scripture). Of course the catch 22 is that if Harold B. Lee is incorrect that makes him correct, as he was the prophet when it was quoted in an Institute Manual. Having laid that aside, let's move on to the question.

I have read the statements of Brigham's that you mention. My first response was that it was very clear that he was saying Adam to be the Father of Jesus Christ's body and our spirit body. And I thought that for a long time. However I have since found some statements that have changed my mind on the matter. Also I think I should throw in a fairly official statement on it.

When a prophet, Spencer W. Kimball made the following statement at general conference.
"We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Kimball, Spencer W. "Our Own Liahona." Ensign (Nov. 1976), p. 77-79.

This was a plain statement that current GAs disagree with the doctine of Adam being God, and that they feel Brigham Young's statements are misunderstood.

The question you have posed as to why Brigham taught it, I assume to be in the interest of truth. Therefore the question becomes, "was Adam really our Heavenly Father"? Which will be answered by Scripture lastly. But in the interest of hopefully laying aside ALL your concerns, it is a good question as to why someone with such revelatory ability and knowledge would beleive something so obviously contrary to Scripture, if he did?

Here I should make you aware of surrounding beliefs that, I believe, would have influenced and concerned Brigham Young while making these statements. He was speaking against thinking created by Protestant/Catholic teaching. They, generally, totally condemn Adam and Eve as disgusting beings who are totally responsible for our present predicament. To them all would have been wonderful had Adam and Eve followed simple instructions. I have seen Protestant publications that draw Adam as a truly evil character. Brigham, therefore, is presenting what a wonderful and important character Adam actually was. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Paul the Apostle all suffer from the same problem. They were the first of a new breed. And they didn't realise that you must be extremely careful with how you put things. People take them completely out of context of your thinking. They knew what they meant, when they said things. But it sounds different to us.

Typical Opinions Brigham Expressed:-

"Now hear it, 0 inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50. (1852)

However in the very NEXT paragraph he stated, "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael..." Any illusion that he was proposing Adam (Michael) to be Heavenly Father (Eloheim) is tossed out here. But for better understanding let's proceed anyway.

To try and understand what Brigham must have meant in the first bit I will present some possible ideas. Adam is a god, as are all who accept and follow the gospel of Christ in its fulness (John 10:35). And as he is the first parent in fallen flesh, and we are cut off because of the fall, he is the only god with whom we have to do patriachally (as to get to the Father we must go through the Son, not patriarchally).
Eve was one of his celestial wives, looking backward (ie she now being one of his celestial wives). He brought her with him. But she wasn't one of his celestial wives at the time he brought her.
He is the Ancient of Days, being our first father to live a life of years here (as stated in D&C 27:11).
Of course these are only assumptions of his intent, as he isn't available for comment.

Brigham said "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he [Christ] took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve....

"Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven....

"Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." Journal of Discourses. vol. 1, pp. 50-51.

Heavenly Father is the father of the human family (while Adam can be regarded so also).
Heavenly Father was also a character in the garden of Eden when talking to Adam and Eve (I'll quote Brigham on this soon)(even though Adam lived there permanently at the time). So it could be that we should be reading Brigham's statements based on his assumption of the knowledge of the hearers. Others propose that there were errors in recording by those writing his talk down. Either way the following adds insight.

Reading these quotes of Brigham bellow makes it very clear what he thought of Adam and God, and Adam to Christ:-

"We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of."

"The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are co-workers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of the earth" Discourses of Brigham Young. 2nd ed., p. 94.

"How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.159

"Our Lord Jesus Christ-the Savior, who has redeemed the world and all things pertaining to it, is the Only Begotten of the Father pertaining to the flesh. He is our Elder Brother, and the Heir of the family, and as such we worship him. He has tasted death for every man, and has paid the debt contracted by our first parents [Adam and Eve]." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.40.

Now consider the following Scripture references:-

Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael the Archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee."

D&C (Doctrine and Covenants) 78:15-16 "That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion [Jesus Christ], who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman; Who hath appointed Michael [Adam] your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high. and given him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days and end of life."

D&C 29:34 "Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created."

Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

Moses 6:22 "And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed."

It is obvious from these latter collections that 1. Brigham Young didn't think Adam was our Heavenly Father or the father of Jesus Christ. And 2. (and most importantly) that the Scriptures oppose such a concept.

The Trinity or 3 Separate Beings?

2007-02-11T16:10:00.000-08:00

Q. My question is could you help me prove the separation of the godhead (3 separate beings). One of my friends does not believe the Book or Mormon. So I was wondering if you could tell me how to prove it, using the Bible? I am pretty sure its possible but I dont know where to look. Can you help me?

A. Actually there is an enormous amount of Biblical evidence that the 3 are separate. Far more than would be sensible to post here. I have written on this subject and you can read it by clicking the following link _

The Trinity

Negroes and the Priesthood

2007-01-24T21:12:00.000-08:00

Q. You have asked what God looks like, and about the reason and oriigin of races.

A. You are right in asking, as there are endless theories in and out of the church. And I'm not interested in adding another one. So I will tell you those things I know, only. And I must declare that the things I say are purely as a church member, not an authority of the church. And I have never heard or read a general authority of the church, living or past, make these comments. Or any other member. So I must declare them as only those things of which I have been informed by the Holy Ghost as one person. Not established church doctrine.

In the pre-existence Satan presented a plan that was impossible, but appealed to many. One third of all spirits present, in fact. Of the other two thirds many were not certain who to go with. They had concerns. Being loving, Heavenly Father made a deal with them that if they went down he would make sure that they couldn't go to outer darkness - which, apparently councerned them. To go there requires the priesthood. So he promised them that a mark would be put on them that no one would put them in the position they feared. In his love God placed a dark skin upon them to distinguish them from those wishing the priesthood. He made sure that these spirits were born to negro parents. Of more recent years there seems to have been reached a point where these have all come down already, or aren't in a position to receive that which concerned them. Consequently the priesthood has also been given to negros since that time.

The Book of Mormon explains the origin of the Lamanites. They are from Israel.

As to Heavenly Father, and his race. Joseph Smith declared, and I can equally testify, that God shines with a white light that emanates from inside him. Therefore discussing the colour of his skin is a bit meaningless.