[Fig-bearing Thistle]

NotSure2008 wrote:

I am not sure if this is actually a doctrine and what if any the official belief of the LDS Church is – I have heard so many different opinions on the matter it is all rather confusing. But basically the passage of “As God once was, we are and as God now is, we shall become” (or something along those lines, Im paraphrasing). Many of the critics of the Church (yes I shall admit I do read critics articles, just so I can say when I come to my conclusions i know that it is the right one!) say that The LDS members who receive the highest degree of Glory of the Celestial Kingdom will become gods themselves and rule over their own planet. I remember one person (LDS) saying to me that the unofficial explanation was that LDS only believe in one God (ie capital G) but there are many other gods out there – but God is the supreme ruler of them all. I remember they quoted a passage from the bible which mentioned “other gods” but cant remember which ones. I know critics believe LDS have misinterpreted this passage and “other gods” actually refer to false gods. Now I dont actually have a problem with this belief if it is true, but I am very confused if it is true or not as some have said its rubbish and others have said that there is an unofficial belief while others claim it to be true completely! Others say to “become like God” actually doesn’t mean to become a god per se but to become LIKE God ie free from sin I suppose? I suppose I could mention Kolob in this as well??

Thank you very much for you help up until now! I know this will take a while to unravel things, I think before I dived into the deep end before I could swim. But I am very appreciative of your responses!

Jesus taught that through obedience we can inherit all that the Father has. From all I have studied, the Church affirms this truth, but they no emphasize it like they used to. Perhaps because enemies of the Church have distorted the doctrine and mock it incessantly.

Here is a list of references I prepared for someone else on another forum.

Rom. 8:17

Gal. 4:7

Eph. 4:13

1 Cor. 11:11

Moses 1. Especially vs. 30-40

D&C 93:20-29

D&C 131:1-4

D&C 132:15-40, 48, 49

D&C 76:40-70

Then go to Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation vol. II. pp 43-44, 48.

If you can’t find it, I’ll type it out for you when I get some time.

Thanks.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Buscador wrote:

Having started this thread, I am surprised it has turned out to be a discussion on the millennial government under Jesus. Happily, what this has morphed into I find interesting. So here is what I have to say on the matter:

Since Jesus inspired the U.S. Constitution to be the guiding document for a secular government, it may hold some water to say that the government under Jesus would contain a separation of church and state. Especially seeing that the word of God will come forth from Jerusalem, and his laws from the New Jerusalem. In fact, a secular government provides for more genuine religious experiences because those experiences are not tainted by the edicts of the state, not that a state under the rule of Jesus would would harm religion in the first place.

From what I have studied, there will be 2 types of governments during the millennium. One will be Theocratic pertaining to members of the Church who are under covenant to obey laws that others are not under covenant to obey. It will be administered through the Priesthood. The other government will be more of a civil government with laws much like those in our Constitution, but w/o the laws pertaining to the Gospel covenants. This will be for those who wish to be ruled under the Savior’s government, but not enter the covenants and higher laws of the Gospel.

Both governments will work, because the wicked will be burned and removed from the earth. Those who remain will be members of the Lords Church as well as righteous, honorable people of the earth.

Until the wicked are removed, no government will survive. Even the Savior can’t bring his government over wicked people.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Orson wrote:

Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:

I think Joseph pondered the same question and he says he was ‘surprised’ to learn that none were correct.

I know this is a tangent but I agree with Valoel about Joseph going to seek forgiveness. In his earlier 1832 account Joseph says that by studying the scriptures he came to realize that the world was in apostasy and he felt to pray for the forgiveness of his sins and the sins of the world. This is one of my little ‘hot-buttons’ that I wish the church as a whole was more familiar with the 1832 account. I hear people saying Joseph went to the grove looking for a one word answer – “Methodists” or “Baptists” would have suited him just fine – but I think that is an over-simplification of what was actually going on in Joseph’s head (and it would be nice to be able to discuss the potential reality in more depth in church).

I don’t think that is inconsistent with Joseph to seek forgiveness for his sins. Joseph’s history was taken from a letter, and I don’t think he detailed every thought that crossed his mind. So I would agree with you.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Here’s are more stumpers along the lines of the second coming bringing on a theocracy, although each goes in a slightly different direction:

Great questions, I’ll offer my 2 cents.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

1 – When Jesus comes again, will He really rule politically? Didn’t all of the original disciples make the mistake of thinking He was there to rescue them from political oppression, and He refused to get sucked in saying “Render unto Caesar”? Or did He think He was going to influence the political situation, and when He didn’t, the gospels re-interpreted His statements in a more enigmatic and open way to imply that it wasn’t what He meant?

As I read the scriptures, Jesus will reign personally on the earth during the millennium. But He will have a lot of servants that help to administer the laws of Zion under His direction and leadership.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

2 – Will there be a “church” during the millenium? Why would there be? Isn’t the church like the babysitter while the Savior’s away?

I think the ‘Church’ will become Zion during the millennium. Jesus won’t call us “Mormons” but in the realest sense of the word, “The Church” is nothing more than an organization of disciples of Christ, led and administered under Priesthood Authority and Gospel laws. Jesus not rule single handedly in my opinion.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

3 – Will there be various churches then? Will some be non-Christian? Will there be a mass conversion? Will there be apostates after that?

From what I have read, there will be other churches and faiths during the Millennium. All those willing and worthy to abide by Terrestrial law will remain on the earth–regardless of their religion or faith. But with wicked will be burned at His coming.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

4 – Would post-second coming govt be a theocracy or a democracy with a lot of unity of opinion? Will there still be dissenting opinions? Different political parties? Is Jesus a democrat or republican? If it’s a theocracy, sounds like fascism actually.

Jesus is a Republican Conservative.

Actually, I think that the Government that Jesus Christ heads will be unified under His Priesthood direction and leadership. There may be other governments around in the earth, but they will all eventually come to see that their governments fail, and will over time desire to place themselves under the government of the Savior. But that is just a guess.

Thanks.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

NotSure2008 wrote:

I don’t think there is a thread on this anywhere. If there is I apologise – but I would like to have a further discussion on it. Alcohol, Smoking and Drugs are not the problems here…as I don’t do drugs, don’t smoke and I would rather not drink as I don’t like it and it makes me feel awful! Unfortunately I have a Mum who thinks its unsociable not to drink….grrrr…..The only thing I would ask regarding alcohol – is when it is used in cooking? what are your opinions on this?

Anyway – I love my Tea and not so much Coffee, but do drink it occassionally especially from Starbucks. I don’t really understand the problem behind Tea. I have a member-friend who mentioned to me that it is actually “hot drinks” and because they can damage your taste buds, throat, stomach etc? But wouldn’t this also include Hot Chocolate??

Maybe its being British – but I can see myself struggling to not drink tea.

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

I hope my perspective is received in the same spirit it is intended. A non-judgmental spirit of tolerance and love.

From a health standpoint, I think addictive substances such as caffeinated drinks carry too many health risks to outweigh the possible benefits to be derived.

There are many teas that are ‘herbal’ which are drunk by members of the Church.

From a spiritual standpoint, the spirit of the Word of Wisdom addresses those substances that are addictive in nature. Addictions destroy our agency and free will. In my personal experience, sin in general is addictive. The 10 Commandments list a number of “thou shalt nots” and I see a connection with these and the addictive power of sin.

Blood-thirsty killing is addictive. Sexual promiscuity and pornography is addictive, lying is addictive, placing our affections on the appetites of the flesh instead of God, are addictive.

If we are to believe that God knows how to lead his children to greater happiness, then consider that it is on the path that leads to greater and greater freedom from those substances and activities which destroy our free will.

That’s my perspective.

Thanks for listening.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

magicmusician wrote:

You say that but can i post this question

What about the life of Jesus and accounts thereof – there are a huge number of years of his life that we have no details of arent there

So wouldnt that cause the same problems?

It would. And if a person decides to base his or her testimony, or lack thereof, on the foundation of history that is missing so many pieces anyway, that makes for a weak foundation.

The foundation that is stronger, IMO, is the foundation of our own experience with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and our own experience with the Holy Ghost. And when we make the present more critical than the fragmented record of the past, then we can build on our own foundation of faith in Christ, based on our own experience.

Just a thought.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Old-Timer wrote:

Personally, if I were to put aside my own questions about whether or not the actual practice was inspired and handled “correctly” and address only the “good parts version”, I can see two main “critical reasons” for polygamy:

1) to create a new “House of Israel”/”distinctive “Kingdom of God” (through polygamy and the isolation is caused) – as much of an actual new ethnic group as is possible in less than 100 years;

2) to shatter the Victorian idea that monogamy is the order of heaven and will be eternally.

There are all kinds of implications of #2 that still aren’t contemplated by even most liberal members, and I think it is even more important than #1. That’s my own opinion, however, since my views on inter-personal relationships and creation in the next life are radically different than the vast majority of members.

It is an impossible task, IMO, to build a testimony upon a foundation that has so many pieces missing. The historical record is missing too many pieces to be a good foundation for faith. It is the same with the Reformationists, Protestant sects, Catholics, etc.

Personal experience and personal witness have fewer missing peices IMO, because it is directly related to our time in the here and now, and our situation. Not the experiences of the past or other people.

Another consideration is that we don’t know all the finer details of how “sealings” were practiced back then. We have records that show other men being sealed to Joseph. This doesn’t mean they were homosexual, but it means that a tie or bond was created between people and families to extend into the next life. There are just too many pieces missing in order to base one’s current faith on the past.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Valoel wrote:

The problem begs the question. Why? Life must other values instead of (or in additiona to) a Mormon obedience test. How necessary is a church that almost nobody who ever lived attended? If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody saw it, does it matter?

I posing this as a very challenging question.

I agree completely that life has other value in it than just membership in the LDS Church.

I think it goes back to the purpose of life. Though a person may not be LDS, that person still fulfills many purposes of life.

1. Learn to distinguish good from evil / light from darkness through personal experience.

2. Obtain a body, and learn to let the spirit rule over the body, and the appetites of the flesh.

3. Learn obedience the whatever degree of light we ‘have‘ been given.

4. Learn courage, and prove ourselves courageous in defense of what is right and good.

5. Obtain stewardship (marriage and family) and prove to be faithful, wise, loving stewards over that which we have been give charge of.

6. Learn and show love to our fellowman.

All of these and more, I think, are purposes and value in life. And whatever knowledge, expience, and wisdom and truth that we obtain in this life, will rise with us in the resurrection.

That’s my view, anyway

Thanks.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Old-Timer wrote:

Fig-bearing Thistle, Just to clarify something – and please take this only for what it actually says:

This site is dedicated to helping people find a voice to think and express themselves in a way that allows themselves and others a chance to realize that not everyone has to “toe the company line” and believe things exactly alike to stay LDS – that differing interpretations and outlooks are fine in the Church. This site is for each person who wants to remain an actively participating member, even if their individual perspectives on some things don’t match the majority of members’ views.

In that light, this is not a classic apologist site – nor are we engaged in trying to present the “orthodox” view of any Church doctrine. There are some general and specific things that “the Church clearly teaches”. There are very few things, however, that the Church insists each and every member view in the exact same way. The current apostles and prophets have made that perfectly clear. “We” focus much more on othopraxy than orthodoxy in the Church, especially over the last few decades – and this forum in particular is not dedicated to presenting any “consensus” view on any doctrine or teaching or general understanding. This is about finding an individual way to reconcile concerns and remain actively engaged in the Church.

I appreciate your participation here. Please realize that. However, anything that implies those who participate here “clearly” must see something in a particular way doesn’t fit our purpose. For example, going from what valoel said about the practical appearance of failure (never stated as actual failure by God) to universal physical salvation and the universal chance for exaltation really isn’t a direct link to what valoel was saying. He never denied that hope; he simply talked about the appearance of futility and the mathematics of the Restoration and how that is difficult to reconcile with statements about the critical importance of mortality.

Stated more succinctly, he didn’t say the eternal teaching of grace for all is wrong; he said it’s hard to reconcile with the focus on mortality being so important. I hope you can understand and accept that distinction.

Thanks.

I appreciate that.

The existence of this site also gives the impression that the participants are open to considering other perspectives, am I wrong?

I don’t wish to argue. That leads nowhere. But I like presenting my perspective for consideration and discussion. I also appreciate considering other’s perspectives. And to have this exchange in a respectful manner, allowing complete agency and free will of people to decide for themselves. Does this site prohibit that kind of dialog?

I certainly don’t wish to come off heavy handed. I only present my view as my perspective, and offer it for consideration. I don’t get mad if people choose to believe otherwise.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Valoel wrote:

Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:

I agree that a church that doesn’t proclaim it is true is confused and ineffectual. I expect churches and religions to believe they are true. The LDS Church is a terrible execution of a single, vital, saving truth though (if our claims are correct). Only an insignificant number of people that ever lived have been exposed to it, receiving the “fullness” of Gospel ordinances (even if one accepts that past versions in scripture were all tied together and a continuous church). So my point is that based on our own LDS story, God is an author of confusion. He only taught 0.00001% of His children the “truth” during their all-important, one-attempt, mortal test. That looks like failure.

Help me understand where you are coming from. The LDS Church clearly teaches that EVERY person who ever lived will be given his/her full opportunity to freely receive the Gospel fulness, and the Gospel ordinances. If not in this life, then in the Spirit World before the resurrection, or during the Millennium. No one will be left w/o this full opportunity. And this test extends into spirit world until the time of resurrection.

That is one of the beautiful doctrines of Salvation that no other religion on earth has answers for. What happens to those who never had a chance to hear about God, or Jesus Christ, etc. That is a beautiful and unique truth that the Church teaches, IMO.

Thanks.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

GDTeacher wrote:

Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:

Hi GDTeacher.

We could probably point to conflicting quotes from BY as to the type of government that he believed would be in place among the Saints when the Savior returns. I’ve got a few I will look up if you are interested. From what I’ve read, it will be a government which allows freedom of thought, worship, and expression but the laws will be strict. Those willing to abide by them will be welcome, even if they are not of our faith. Those unwilling to abide will probably not even desire to come.

Hello to you FBT

I understand the conflicting quotes from BY, no issue with that. My reference is primarily to the experiences of people in Utah under the theocracy that was headed on earth by BY. Of course people’s experiences are varied, but my thoughts wander to the period of the reformation and the unquestioning obedience that led to atrocities like MMM, and at least my perception of the degradation of women and to some degree children under the theocratically induced polygamy. Certainly as BRM said, one can quote BY against BY. That is not my intent, but to explore the real life experiences of people under a theocratic rule.

Thanks, GDTeacher,

I’m not sure we can accurately judge Brigham Young simply because the 1800’s aren’t our time period, and not our culture. The West was a rough place, and survival required a certain degree of strictness. The MMM is a terrible event, and people did follow their leaders unquestioningly–to much so. And they will have to answer for that. But those things happen as well in other forms of government.

I think there is evidence available to believe either way on Plural Marraige. Some women were amiable to the practice, some were not.

I think theocratic rule under the Savior will be different than rule under Moses, or Joshua, or BY. When the Savior reigns, people will be able to abide at least a terrestrial law, and largely govern themselves.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Valoel wrote:

Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:

And they are outlined in the four cornerstones of our faith as Gordon B. Hinckey outlined:

1. A testimony of Jesus Christ. (It seems so much fuller to me than it would be w/o the BoM or living Prophets.)

2. Joseph Smith’s First vision, and the idea of continuing revelation from the heavens.

3. The Book of Mormon

4. The Restoration of the Priesthood, and the authority to administer in the saving ordinances of the gospel

Personally, once I’ve had a knowledge and testimony of these and other truths, I don’t know where I’d be without them.

Have you gone through a period in your life where you questioned the factual nature of these claims? If so, how did you work past those doubts? A big part of the mission of this support group is sharing strategies — which are usually as varied as the people who pass through doubt.

The nagging doubt. That’s what brings a lot of people here.

Valoel,

I guess I am blessed and fortunate. My struggle with faith has been more from personal trials with a chronic condition. Fortunately, God has dealt patiently with my rantings and impatience toward Him.

If I read your response right, you believe in God, and Jesus Christ, but have doubts as to whether one church is correct or not.

I think Joseph pondered the same question and he says he was ‘surprised’ to learn that none were correct. It may seem the height of ignorance to some that the Church makes this declaration. But if Churches (and not just LDS make that claim, you know) didn’t make that claim, I would have nagging doubts about why God would allow his followers to remain indefinitely in such a confused state.

Look at the teachings, and the doctrines of Christianity that are currently is such disarray. Baptism: It’s required here, it’s not required there. Priesthood: It is necessary, it isn’t necessary. Obedience, it’s necessary, it’s not necessary. Grace: does God do it all, or does man participate in his own salvation. etc. And if God is content with confusion in his church, then is he also content with confusion in heaven? I would have great doubts associating with any church that didn’t claim His Church.

Some may think it is Joseph’s own arrogant claim. But those people probably believe that Joseph invented the whole Church/Restored Gospel thing. If you believe he was a prophet, (which I do), then that declaration was uttered by the Lord Himself. And who are we to water down what God has said?

Anyway, just some food for thought. I’ve got more I could say, but as my wife always tells me “less is more.”

All the best.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Valoel wrote:

Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:

And they are outlined in the four cornerstones of our faith as Gordon B. Hinckey outlined:

1. A testimony of Jesus Christ. (It seems so much fuller to me than it would be w/o the BoM or living Prophets.)

2. Joseph Smith’s First vision, and the idea of continuing revelation from the heavens.

3. The Book of Mormon

4. The Restoration of the Priesthood, and the authority to administer in the saving ordinances of the gospel

Personally, once I’ve had a knowledge and testimony of these and other truths, I don’t know where I’d be without them.

Have you gone through a period in your life where you questioned the factual nature of these claims? If so, how did you work past those doubts? A big part of the mission of this support group is sharing strategies — which are usually as varied as the people who pass through doubt.

The nagging doubt. That’s what brings a lot of people here.

Thanks, V.

I’ve got to get some things done, but I’ll try to get back with you later tonight.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

kupord maizzed wrote:

So in trying to narrow down my, er, non-conformity down to the most concise expression, I’ve come up with this single point of disbelief: I don’t believe in the Great Apostasy.

…

What say you?

KM

Great topic KM

I’m not trying to draw a logical equation here, but do you believe the Jews were in a state of apostasy when Jesus was with them?

The New Testament mentions a lot about ‘an apostasy’, how do you view those statements?

Thanks.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

GDTeacher wrote:

Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:

I think that when Jesus returns to rule and reign for a 1000 years, it will be a theocracy, but with the same freedom of conscience that was intended by the Constitution.

It is interesting that the theocracy that existed in Utah under BY was so devoid of that same freedom of conscience that you mention. The reformation with its catechisms and the B’Hoys certainly made it clear that it was important to toe the line. I think that primarily because of my perception of governance under the BY time period theocracy, I have a hard time envisioning a theocratic government as providing freedom of conscience. Any thoughts on this?

Hi GDTeacher.

We could probably point to conflicting quotes from BY as to the type of government that he believed would be in place among the Saints when the Savior returns. I’ve got a few I will look up if you are interested. From what I’ve read, it will be a government which allows freedom of thought, worship, and expression but the laws will be strict. Those willing to abide by them will be welcome, even if they are not of our faith. Those unwilling to abide will probably not even desire to come.

[Author]

Posts