Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Thankyou for sharing your story Jane! You are clearly a very strong lady.
May I ask you to share your return to the church?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For LDS only...some tricky questions
- Thread starter Truth_Faith13
- Start date
Thankyou for sharing your story Jane! You are clearly a very strong lady.
May I ask you to share your return to the church?
Well naturally it was my mom's constant nagging and I returned to church to shut her up. Isn't that how every angsty 20 something year old works?
In reality my mom's nagging actually was really counterproductive. It took me several years to calm down and refocus in regards to faith and everything else. During that time I did a lot of self-exploring, scripture reading, taking things at my own pace, etc. I've always loved interfaith dialogue and visiting other churches, so I did a lot of that too.
Honestly the coming back story is not that dramatic... just sit and focus and I honestly find this to be the Truth. So here I am.
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
A little
i suppose the question was more directed to Katz as she said she doesnt fully agree with the WoW being a commandment and being a necessity for the Temple. I guess as the Temple is the doorway to the celestial kingdom it makes the WoW pretty important. However the DandC say its a principle not a commandment.To use a catholic discipline as an example...celibacy of priests...its not something God commands, they admit that and as a discipline it can change anytime. Its in place as the pope etc believe its the best way to serve God however things like this always makes me uneasy about the church as a whole when something is "unnecessary".
Does that make sense?
I Hear what you're saying, and you make sense. I'm not sure I have something particularly powerful to say, so I'm just going to ramble someA little
To use a catholic discipline as an example...celibacy of priests...its not something God commands, they admit that and as a discipline it can change anytime. Its in place as the pope etc believe its the best way to serve God however things like this always makes me uneasy about the church as a whole when something is "unnecessary".
Does that make sense?
Speaking broadly, every church has a spectrum of how "official" a belief/tradition is. Let's rank them 1 through 10:
1 being "this is scripture from God". It's pretty obvious what important role these serve.
5 being "this is church policy, but from God". These things are not from God, but usually do/did serve a functional role. For example, many Catholics view celibate priests as a good thing because it minimizes their distractions. For the LDS side of things, have an official age a person is eligible to serve a mission makes logistical sense.
10 being "just something people tend to do, zero officialness".
Some Catholic beliefs/traditions on the spectrum (as best as this non-Catholic understands them)
1 - Marian Doctrines, Papel infallibility
5- Whether or not this particular group of Catholics allows married priest. Historically the Roman Catholic church did, but does not currently. Other Catholic church, like the Byzantine Catholic Church has always allowed married priests.
5- Rosaries. Roman Catholics love rosaries, other Catholic churches do not indulge them at all.
8 - Particulars of the Sacraments (things like what age first communion, the order of them, etc)
10 - A weekend bazaar party.
Some Mormon beliefs/traditions on the spectrum (again, this is just my option, other people are welcome to theirs)
1- The Restoration, Book of Mormon
~2-3 - Current interpretation of the Wow being commandment
4 - Temple recommend questions (Including WoW)
5 - Missionary age.
10 - Wearing skirts to church.
Last edited:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Hi, Truth. I'm not really sure how to answer you. I think I may see issues of this sort a little bit different from the way you do for the simple reason that I was born and raised in the Church. I have such a strong testimony about the core teachings of the gospel that I just have to force myself not to get too awfully hung up on issues like the amount of emphasis the Church leaders currently put on the Word of Wisdom. It's like when a lot of Christ's disciples were starting to turn away from his teachings and He asked his Apostles if they, too, were going to leave. Peter answered something to the effect of, "Where would we go if we left? You have the truth." I try to imagine turning away from the really important truths I believe I've learned as a Latter-day Saint because I'm annoyed by some policy that's in place. I would simply be lost. If you read this post, maybe you'll be able to understand what some of those truly important truths are.A little
To use a catholic discipline as an example...celibacy of priests...its not something God commands, they admit that and as a discipline it can change anytime. Its in place as the pope etc believe its the best way to serve God however things like this always makes me uneasy about the church as a whole when something is "unnecessary".
Does that make sense?
I'm really into keeping quotes that help me when I start feeling frustrated with the Church. Here's one I've always really liked: Bruce C. Hafen (an emeritus General Authority and LDS scholar) once said, "When you take a small pebble and place it directly in front of your eye, it takes on the appearance of a mighty boulder. It is all you can see… Do not waste your energy on useless worry. The Lord will take the pebble that fills your vision and cast it down among the challenges you will face in your eternal progress. It will then be seen in perspective."
Elder Dallin H. Oaks also said something I have found really worthwhile: "As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don't try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules.... But don't ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord."
Lastly, I thought that something Thanda (a convert to the Church who lives in South Africa, whom I haven't seen around RF since this past July) once posted was really quite profound. He was talking to a poster who was really convinced that the General Authorities never make mistakes in implementing policies or in interpreting doctrine. Anyway, he (i.e. Thanda) said, "Things are not either black or white. We are not either in an apostasy or in a state of perfect knowledge and understanding. There are degrees to everything. The degree to which the people live the gospel partly depends on the caliber of their leaders. Just because the church has never fallen into apostasy does not mean everything the church has done has been pleasing to the Lord. He is as patient with the Church as He is with all of us individually."
I try to live my life with integrity. I truly believe that's what the Lord expects of me. Sometimes it's hard for me when I simply can't reconcile what my own conscience tells me with a policy that has been implemented by the Church's leadership. I just continue to focus on the things that I do have a testimony on, and ask God to help me be the kind of person He wants me to be.
Last edited:
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
I did not say that the General Authorities never make mistakes in interpreting doctrine. I know that they have made mistakes individually.
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
I Hear what you're saying, and you make sense. I'm not sure I have something particularly powerful to say, so I'm just going to ramble some
Speaking broadly, every church has a spectrum of how "official" a belief/tradition is. Let's rank them 1 through 10:
1 being "this is scripture from God". It's pretty obvious what important role these serve.
5 being "this is church policy, but from God". These things are not from God, but usually do/did serve a functional role. For example, many Catholics view celibate priests as a good thing because it minimizes their distractions. For the LDS side of things, have an official age a person is eligible to serve a mission makes logistical sense.
10 being "just something people tend to do, zero officialness".
Some Catholic beliefs/traditions on the spectrum (as best as this non-Catholic understands them)
1 - Marian Doctrines, Papel infallibility
5- Whether or not this particular group of Catholics allows married priest. Historically the Roman Catholic church did, but does not currently. Other Catholic church, like the Byzantine Catholic Church has always allowed married priests.
5- Rosaries. Roman Catholics love rosaries, other Catholic churches do not indulge them at all.
8 - Particulars of the Sacraments (things like what age first communion, the order of them, etc)
10 - A weekend bazaar party.
Some Mormon beliefs/traditions on the spectrum (again, this is just my option, other people are welcome to theirs)
1- The Restoration, Book of Mormon
~2-3 - Current interpretation of the Wow being commandment
4 - Temple recommend questions (Including WoW)
5 - Missionary age.
10 - Wearing skirts to church.
I never realised wearing skirts wasnt a requirement. I always thought it compulsary.
This post was helpful Thankyou.
With regards to the temple recommend questions. Is the interview supposed to be "divinely inspired" (cant think of the correct term) ie is the bishop or stake president supposed to know (with the help of God) if the person is righteous? Or is it just a "take it on the word of the person" type thing?
Nope, not at all. It's not even officially advised in any way.
The questions themselves are standardized and pre-set in policy (policy, not scripture). The interviewer is guided by the Spirit, but they won't say "no you're lying and I'm not going to give you a recommend". More commonly if they sense a person doesn't understand something the two of them can talk about what this concept means.
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Random question which has nothing to do with LDS beliefs...
As I was 21 when I originally converted, I went straight into YSA so dont know anything about classes for those under 18 or now myself as a married 30 year old with children?
Im guessing for me it will be sacrament and relief society still but what about when I would usually be in YSA?
What about my children? 20months and 3months? do they stay with me? what happens in the kids classes?
As I was 21 when I originally converted, I went straight into YSA so dont know anything about classes for those under 18 or now myself as a married 30 year old with children?
Im guessing for me it will be sacrament and relief society still but what about when I would usually be in YSA?
What about my children? 20months and 3months? do they stay with me? what happens in the kids classes?
LDS church considers of 3 one hour segments. The first and most important segment is sacrament meeting, where everyone is together in the chapel. Theoretically this is a reverent quiet time, but in reality I am happy every time someone else's kid screams louder than mine. I also enjoy all those times a random ward member helps me will my daughter. We partake of the Lord's Supper, here sermons, announcements, etc.
Second hour people divide up into age classes. You'll go to Sunday School on a topic that interested you. 3month is too young for nursery, so they'll go with you. 20months is old enough for nursery, so they're go have fun with toys and get a short (<3 minute) lesson on Christ. The nursery leaders will bring them to you if something comes up (like a stinky diaper).
Third hour is Relief Society for you and 3month. 20 months keeps playing with toys.
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Thought I would pop by and say that I have been talking to the sister missionaries these past couple of weeks. They are currently helping me paint my house. They brought their Bishop over to see me the other night as he wanted to meet me. He asked me how I was feeling at the moment and how I wanted to take things. I said that I was open but taking my time and wanted to do things properly and slowly this time. He's happy for me to give him a list of questions/concerns and we will take them one at a time. I'm reading the scriptures and they are going to introduce me to members of the branch before I visit church.
Happy dance!!!!
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I think you're a LOT more mature now than you were "the first time around." Remember, it took Brigham Young two years of thinking and praying about it before he chose to be baptized. Whatever choice you make "this time," I feel confident that your search will end up taking you to the place where you can experience the greatest spiritual growth and find the most joy.
Incidentally, I think it would be really interesting if you were to ask Jane and me the same questions you ask the Bishop and see how closely our answers correspond to his. By the way, you used the word "bishop" (which would imply that he is the leader of a "ward") but then also used the word "branch" (which would be led by a "branch president'). Do you know whether it's a ward or a branch you'd be going to.
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Ah thats the difference! its a branch, he is a branch president. The sisters initially said branch president which I didnt know what it was (last time I was in a ward) and when I asked, they said it was the Bishop so assumed it was used interchangeably!
Whats the difference between a branch and a ward?
Size: a branch is a congregation too small to be a ward. Because they have fewer people they may have a smaller building, combine classes, etc. Whatever best suites their needs.
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
I have a few questions!
1) One critical site asks
"If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God?"
Fairmormon provides a response here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Countercul...hy_is_he_an_angel_now_rather_than_a_God.3F.22
However I am confused on one point. Fairmormon talks about being on the path of progression (Moroni) and somewhere mentions some having already been exalted however I didn't think judgement happened yet? I thought everyone who has passed on is in the Spirit World? Not the degrees of glory/exaltation? or have I misunderstood something?
2) Another site mentions Elohim being God and Jehovah being Jesus as a problem.
He summarises:-
"My point is that the name of God (elohim) is Jehovah (LORD), and that the LORD is stating that he alone is God. In other words, Jehovah is stating that he alone is elohim. Therefore, the Mormon idea that God the Father is called "elohim" and that the son is called "Jehovah" is erroneous.
In actuality, the name of God is Jehovah, and the Mormons are incorrect.
Remember, in Hebrew text LORD equals Jehovah. God equals elohim.
3) fairmormon has a table answering apparent contradictions in scripture here http://en.fairmormon.org/Latter-day...ictions/Contradictions_in_LDS_scripture_table
I'm confused by the one talking about the scriptures that say death seals a man's fate? Fairmormon says the scripture talks about this in this life that have had the opportunity to learn but rejected it have no chance? I thought LDS taught God offers everyone every opportunity including in spirit world?
1) One critical site asks
"If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God?"
Fairmormon provides a response here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Countercul...hy_is_he_an_angel_now_rather_than_a_God.3F.22
However I am confused on one point. Fairmormon talks about being on the path of progression (Moroni) and somewhere mentions some having already been exalted however I didn't think judgement happened yet? I thought everyone who has passed on is in the Spirit World? Not the degrees of glory/exaltation? or have I misunderstood something?
2) Another site mentions Elohim being God and Jehovah being Jesus as a problem.
He summarises:-
"My point is that the name of God (elohim) is Jehovah (LORD), and that the LORD is stating that he alone is God. In other words, Jehovah is stating that he alone is elohim. Therefore, the Mormon idea that God the Father is called "elohim" and that the son is called "Jehovah" is erroneous.
In actuality, the name of God is Jehovah, and the Mormons are incorrect.
Remember, in Hebrew text LORD equals Jehovah. God equals elohim.
- "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him" (Deut. 4:35).
- "That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else" (1 Kings 8:60).
- "Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves;" (Psalm 100:3).
- "And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God" (Zech. 13:9)."
3) fairmormon has a table answering apparent contradictions in scripture here http://en.fairmormon.org/Latter-day...ictions/Contradictions_in_LDS_scripture_table
I'm confused by the one talking about the scriptures that say death seals a man's fate? Fairmormon says the scripture talks about this in this life that have had the opportunity to learn but rejected it have no chance? I thought LDS taught God offers everyone every opportunity including in spirit world?
Moroni has not been exalted yet because the Final Judgement hasn't occurred yet (you are correct on that point). Final Judgement happens for everyone after the millennium. After the Final Judgement then a person is assigned degrees of glory.
Also note: an "angel" is a messenger (literally that's what the word means). It's not a special "class" of being, but rather simply a person who's been asked to deliver a message.
(Apologies for the disorganization here)
Elohim = God and Jehovah = Jesus is an over simplification of things.
Elohim = Father and Jehovah = Jesus is also an over simplification of things.
Also remember Elohim is plural means "Gods".
It's also important to remember that the Son and the Father are ONE. No this does not mean that they are the same person (LDS and Trinitarians agree on this) or one consubstantiation being (a Trinity idea). Rather they are ONE in unity, 100%. Not 99.9999999999999%, but a 100%. If Christ says these are "my sheep" they are the Father's sheep too. If the Son tells you to do something, you can just as well have say the Father told you to do something because they are 100% unified.
They are ONE Lord. There is no else.
Yes everyone has the opportunity to accept the Gospel, but it's not unlimited chances.
Mosiah 2:36-39 and Alma 34:32-35 are words preached to believers or those whom have heard the Gospel. They have the Gospel right in front of them and they already opportunity to accept it. If someone has oodles of time and oodles of opportunity and oodles of promptings to accept the Gospel, but doesn't, eventually God will honor their choice to reject it. What counts as "oodles" for a person? It's a LOT but we don't know how much, nor can we know. Only God can Judge that.
Actually, we can know that "oodles" is at least >0. So obviously any person who's never had the opportunity to accept the Gospel will have the opportunity after their mortal death.