[alaskaboy19]

Heber13 wrote:

Eventually the answers will resort to…”We actually don’t know that much about the Celestial Kingdom and how it will work with eternal families”.

So the remainder that is left that can’t be explained by revelation we’ve received so far is covered with a blanket statement…”it will get worked out in the eternities. But we can trust God it will be right.”

I sure love my family. My kids are so precious to me. I want to be with them forever…that is my celestial kingdom.

I realize we don’t now much about the Celestial Kingdom and eternal families. I wonder about those in the terrestial and telestial. Will they be denied the ability to see their loved ones?

Non members’ kids are precious and sacred to them as well. Will they be condemned to never see them again because they never joined the mormon church?

And to put things into perspective, we belong to a church that has around 5-10 million active members. It claims to be the one true church in a world of over 7 billion. So in this situation, don’t you think even a little doctrinal ambiguity might not be such a good idea? Don’t you think God would make things a little clearer, if only 0.14 percent of His children belong to His only true church? Just sayin.

[alaskaboy19]

So the only way to be sealed to your loved ones is if you join the church.

And as Ray said, everyone will have the ordinances performed for them eventually, because of temple ordinances, and God will reveal all lost names in the millenium etc..

But as I understand, the ordinances only matter if the person accepts the gospel. So that’s why we’ll have missionary work in the afterlife going on to those in spirit prison.

My question is why won’t missionary work be %100 successful in spirit prison, since the adversary will have no influence there? Isn’t the adversary the only force that prevents people from feeling the spirit and being converted?

Do we believe that all of us get special kudos, because we were actually part of the less-than-one-percent that actually accepted the church on earth?

[alaskaboy19]

mormonheretic wrote:

I really don’t like the argument against an apology for fear of the fact that the weakest saints may fall away. The saints need strong leadership in order to grow more godly, and I think that “no unhallowed hand will stop the work from progressing.” We shouldn’t be unduly concerned with critics or the weak if God is at the helm.

Yes, I totally agree. Honestly, when deciding between telling the truth, however much it hurts, and making sure no one is offended, I believe the moral choice is definnetly to tell the truth.

Won’t those members who are built on a sandy foundation fall away eventually anyway?

It seems that you can’t find a single major organization in this world anymore that isn’t tangled up in some form of political correctness propagandist manipulation. I, myself, did not even find out about the priesthood ban or polygamy until I was in my teens, even though I have been going to church since the week I was born.

[alaskaboy19]

I read that Christofferson talk and I just found it confusing. All my life, I’ve been taught that what the prophet says is the word of God. If some of it isn’t, then how do we know were to draw the line?? I think I would assert that personal revelation is more important than what the prophet says. If I had been around when the doctrine that blacks were fence-sitters in the war in heaven was taught, I would’ve stopped listening right then. If we’re expected to do all that the prophet says, we should, at the very least, be given the assurance that everything he says is of God.

[alaskaboy19]

So, what I’m getting at is that BofM is the keystone of our religion, not because of what’s written in it, but because we’re the only ones who have it?

As a Christian, I simply believe that the New Testament is most important, because it contains a full description of Christ’s ministry and atonement. Regardless of how many translations it has gone through.

[alaskaboy19]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

So….has anyone considered the remote possibility that “racism” may be “right”?

Food for thought….

Racism: hatred towards others of another than one’s own race.

Under absolutely no remotely even microscopically slight chance can this be approved by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ lived in a society were racism was normal. The Jews of His time discriminated against Sumaritans, Palistinians, and other Gentile minorities in Jerusalem. What did Jesus do in response to popular opinion? In all His sacred glory, He made a profound effort to demonish this as a terrible sin. He befriended the woman at the well even though she was a Gentile, and He taught the story of the good Samaritan. He strictly confounded to His apostles the disgust and damning consequences of bitter ethnic bigotry. :angel:

Brigham Young, too, lived in a society were racism was normal. In nineteenth century America, people of European decent were classified on the scholarly level of being intellectually and physically superior to all others. Others such as blacks, hence their second class status. I don’t need to give anyone the history lesson. What did Brigham Young do in response to popular opinion? PRIESTHOOD BAN. :eh: :sick: :thumbdown:

I am not a follower of Brigham Young. I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I agree with everyone. The church needs to apologize for, not only the fact that it happened, but for claiming, and continuing to claim that it was revelation. We have established that.

So I think what we really need to discuss is ways of helping our fellow members realize this. All major church decisions and current doctrine comes from the General Authorities. For an apology to occur, it must come from them, not us.

[alaskaboy19]

So there’s other members in your life who have criticized you for your involvement in this website?

If anyone told me that, I would tell them to check it out before they form an opinion. Ironic, isn’t that what our missionaries tell people regarding forming an opinion about the church itself??

Being born in the church = a very, very different life.

[alaskaboy19]

Brian Johnston wrote:

Questioning is not wrong! It’s essential to eternal progression. We need to work together, not alienate people.

Beautifully true statement. I’m a little bothered, not by anything said in the scriptures, but by some leaders and members who have such a shrewd definition of apostasy. For example, I’m annoyed with anyone who would think that this forum borders on apostasy (which there are some, I’m sure). Seeking answers is the path to wisdom.

Teach your children to think outside the box, be courageous, and follow their dreams.

We shouldn’t teach our children that when they have questions about the controversies of the church, that Satan is getting in their mind and trying to deceive them. Does anyone here know how stupid that sounds to a non-member who has found happiness outside the church?? For goodness sake, its the 21st century.

[alaskaboy19]

You make some excellent points. I really look up to you. Haha, I’m glad you don’t believe that physical intimacy doesn’t exist beyond the veil. I’m sorry I misunderstood it. This website has been a great success for me as it has forced me to reveal to myself, and to anyone who read, what I really believe in. Putting your beliefs into words really forces you to sharpen and focus what they actually are.

[alaskaboy19]

Ray, I respect your belief that sexuality doesn’t exist beyond the veil. But I believe that physical intimacy is part of a triangle that connects social and metaphysical intimacy. All these are important, so I’m not sure if God would take them away from us at any point. Shouldn’t handicap people and children who die young be given the ability to express love in the most passionate way, and bare children of their own after resurrection?

I must state, that in my opinion, polygamy is comparable to adultery, because in both cases, you destroy the fire in your heart that longs for exclusiveness; the passionate desire for solitude with one other.

Tell me, In a polygamous relationship with a man and a dozen or so wives, if the man goes and sleeps with one of the women in his community that isn’t his wife, will his wives feel they have been cheated on? I’m no expert of the human psyche, but I would assume that the wives wouldn’t, as individuals, feel that they had been cheated on, because they would’ve already trained their minds to handle the fact that he is sleeping with other women. They would’ve already had to smother that fire in their hearts that longs for exclusiveness and affectionate solitude.

Emma and Joseph’s marriage survived so many trials and tests from the outside world, only to be destroyed by polygamy.

In my humble opinion, I simply believe that polygamy did to women the same thing the ban did to blacks: disrespected them and spat upon their God-given freedom.

[alaskaboy19]

Great, great comments, thanks.

To address comparing polygamy with the PB, I do believe that the PB is more severe from the world’s perspective. Racism is a major sin, but it seems to be a very, very natural sin. From a phsycological view, racism is the radical, excessiveness of pride for one’s people. It is natural for a person to love his people. The Lord encouraged the Hebrews to take pride in themselves as His chosen people.

Racism is a disgusting perversion and detriment to morality that appears when you let that cultural self-esteem go unchecked.

I have such compassion for the African people who must question the church for its history regarding them. I only pray that God be extra merciful in allowing the Holy Spirit to testify to them the answers that they need to know.

That’s how I feel about the priesthood ban and racism in general. I think it is completely justified and necessary that the church receives reproach for it.

That said, the reason I address polygamy is because it is regarded as un-equivalent in seriousness to the PB, and we, members and nonmembers, forget about it too easily.

No matter how racist the PB was, its affects are not eternal. They Lord will grant priesthood and temple priviledges to EVERYONE worthy after they cross the veil. So I believe that after resurrection, blacks that lived during the ban will be compensated and apologized to for the discrimination that they faced in the church on Earth.

Polygamy, however, according to the Gospel, has eternal consequences beyond this life. JS, Brigham, other presidents and so many of the men in the church under them took plural wives under the same covenant that bonds people together for time and all eternity. The same temple marriage covenant that we use today. So those who were married to as many as 30-40 or even 50 wives, all get to keep all those wives in the Celestial Kingdom. So for the rest of eternity, certain groups of 30-40 women will have to share 1 man!! Is that God’s true plan??

If there’s one thing I know about God, it’s that He doesn’t disrespect women like that. If polygamous relationships are okay, then why did the gospel say that it is okay for a man to have multiple women, but a woman can’t have multuple men? The whole topic is bizarre and twisted. One man, with dozens of wives, with hundreds of children, disqualifies for my definition of an eternal family. Unfortunately for me, the church still recognizes these marriages. Thats why I’m here.

[alaskaboy19]

alaskaboy19 wrote:

They tell me that when I’m an Elder, I will be punished more severely if I commit any sins than as when I was an aaronic priesthood holder. This is scary.

The way this was communicated to me by my leaders, was that I would be punished more severely directly by Heavenly Father for any type of sin. Harsher discipline as an Elder being inflicted by the bishop for confessed sins like infractions of the law of chastity, is not specifically what I’m worried about.

I’m worried about what they told me (perhaps I misunderstood) about supposedly how God himself would directly punish me more severelly for common simple sins like pride and dishonesty.

They tell me I’m being accepted into a higher order, no turning back, were any infractions are considered a mocking of God. And he (the stake high council representative) never asked me If I personally wanted to go through with it.

[alaskaboy19]

Old-Timer wrote:

The Priesthood ban should be the flagship of our rejection of infallibility and the anchor of our acceptance of the Restoration as a process rather than an event, imo.

Very well said, Ray.

[alaskaboy19]

Welcome.

[alaskaboy19]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

I will make the assertion, my open opinion, that this stems from the heirarchy of church leadership. All twelve of our current Apostles, President Monson, Eyring, and Utchdorf are all heavily conservative men.

That simply is inaccurate.

There aren’t subtly coded political messages in General Conference from the FP and Q12 that intend to influence members to vote Republican – and there are many Gospel-centered messages from that pulpit that actually are politically “liberal” in nature. Yes, conservativism and Republican politics dominate the Inter-mountain West (and the “political-ish” conservative messages in general Conference are blunt and openly expressed – generally by a 70) – but that’s much more because of the calculated move in the early 1900’s to split the formerly almost universal Democratic vote in the Church and then the ascendancy of Pres. Smith and his immediate successors – most notably Pres. Benson – than to anything else.

Pres. Packer is a great example of the danger of stereotyping. When it comes to sexual matters, he is extremely conservative – but when it comes to many other topics he’s addressed over the years, he is moderate to liberal. He, like all the others, is an individual – and Pres. Hinckley and his immediate successors (Pres. Monson, Pres. Uchtdorf and Pres. Eyring, especially) are anything but “heavily conservative men” when viewed through more than just a lens of sexual issues. Bishop Burton was far from conservative; Elder Marlin Jensen was a registered Democrat; Elder Wirthlin also was a registered Democrat and not at all conservative; etc.

This isn’t the mid-1900’s in the Church, and it’s important to recognize that.

Yeah, I guess I should’ve said that there is a conservative overtone, rather than “code-talk.” Forgive my poor choice of words. There is a conservative overtone because conservatism seems to some degree, to be centered around Judeo-Christian values such as family and self-sufficiency. For instance, conservatives, as opposed to liberals, would rather have a lot less government welfare programs, because they believe in encouraging self-sufficiency, and believe that its the community’s responsiblity to help its less fortunate individuals through service, not tax-payers’ dollars through the government. It seems like, from my observation, that the apostles and prophet all have seemed to teach us that God expects us to be self-sufficient, and it is indeed our obligation to serve our less fortunate neighbors directly. Whether we should just pay more taxes, hiring the government to do the service, so to speak, well, I don’t know. If liberals think that’s the way it should be, I completely respect them. I have yet to take a solid side on the political spectrum. I have religion to deal with first.

Thank You.

[Author]

Posts