Respect to Other People's Religious Opinions????

First let me say the obvious, least I be misunderstood, that as LDS we should support the right of all people to have religious opinions contrary to our own. And we should support their rights to practice those beliefs where the practice doesn't infringe on the God given rights of others. We should also show respect to them, as individuals, in spite of their opinions. But how much respect should we show to those actual opinions?

Christ strongly opposed the false doctrines that had crept into the church. He talked to the Scribes, Sadducees and Pharisees; who actually belonged to the true church which he himself had established through Moses and Aaron. Yet is this respect he and John the Baptist showed to them? - "O generation of vipers" (Matt 3:7, Matt 12:34), "an evil and adulterous generation" (Matt 12:39), "child of hell" (Matt 23:15).

And what did Christ say of the Jews? - "Ye are of your father the devil" (Jn 8:44), "liar" (Jn 8:55), He said that it would be more tolerable for the Gentile cities in the day of judgement than for Jewish cities that had seen the miracles and yet rejected him (Matt 11:20-24).

And what did prophets preach to those they were sent to? How wicked they were, and they were doomed to hell if they don't change. Even the more moderate statements say things like, "ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity" (Hel 13:38).

And what did Christ say of other religions? "all their creeds are an abomination." Should I hide from the words of Christ? Perhaps be more diplomatic than my Savior?

I have many Protestant friends, but they all know exactly what I think of the god taught by Protestant churches. Following Christ's example, I don't hide this. They know that I love them as people, and reserve their right to those beliefs. Yet they know that out of that love I seek to help them see how unbiblical it is.

I know that some of my posts are very pointed send-ups of many false ideas embedded in society. I have done send-ups or had a go at theory science, feminism, psychiatry, philosophy, the legal system, political systems, Catholicism and Protestantism. And as long as lies persist, that won't change. I make no apologies for following my Savior's example and declaring falsehood to be such, in the strongest terms.

Nevertheless I would say to anyone who feels that I don't love them, that they are mistaken. My writings are out of concern for those involved. They are a wake-up call, not a desire to look down on those believing such things. These things bother me because I seek the true joy of all. And I know these things are contrary to that joy that I seek for others.

Feminists winging about men and distorting history and reality, aren't happy. Psychiatrists giving people false advice aren't helping anyone. Flaws in the legal system that create a loss of hope and/or condemn the innocent are also destructive to a people. People believing themselves to be advanced apes have lower self-esteem and more reason to commit suicide when problems arise. Protestants and Catholics believing in that horrid god can't appreciate the joy of a truly loving God. Those compromising truth to fit in with their invented philosophy are suffering the affects of their false perceptions.

The world is paying the price of falsehood. It is demonstrated in so many ways. The truth will only hurt for a while. If you reject the falsehoods and follow the truth it will bring you that happiness inside that you truly desire.

Deep Doctrine - Can we just Wait and learn it "Later On"?

A point of some confusion, in the church, is just how important is it to learn uncommonly known doctrine while alive? Should we just put it off until we are resurrected and have God tell us then? Some will argue that it is confusing, and so it is best to just wait.

Some past GAs have mentioned that not everything can be learnt in this lifetime, and will require instruction afterward. But what are these things that won't be learnt in this lifetime? It seems obvious to me that the state of a resurrected body is likely to be one of these things referred to. After all, how can we understand the physical make-up of something we don't actually have? What is it like dwelling in everlasting burnings with a resurrected body? How much space is best left between solar systems, and why? How many inhabited planets should be governed by one Savior? There are so many questions and things to learn. So it certainly can't all be learnt in this lifetime.

On the one hand the idea is posed - leave learning unknown doctrine to later. Yet on the other hand we have - should we put off until tomorrow what we could do today? Or - procrastination; a tool of the Devil.

Then we have on the one hand - we could get it wrong. Yet on the other hand - "fear" a tool that Satan uses: A concept of spiritual ignorance is definately something he is pleased with.

But additionally questions arise, such as - How are we better off by learning mysteries? How does our learning affect others? How does our learning affect our relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ? Is there a responsibility put upon us to learn for some reason? And what do the Scriptures say about this?

Alma 34:32 tells us that this lifetime is when we should prepare to meet God. And while Alma emphasises the repentance point, surely the same logic applies to everything.

John 8:32 states, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." In our missionary discussions it quoted this, and then went on to say, "knowing the truth frees us from the consequences of following false information." In other words ignorance (and Christ was referring more to spiritual truth) leaves us in a greater position to make wrong choices (do evil). Having the truth also allows us to help others stay free of such consequences.

Then we are also informed, "Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more KNOWLEDGE and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the ADVANTAGE in the world to come." (D&C 130: 18-19).

That certainly doesn't propose waiting until afterward to learn things. In fact quite the opposite. It tells us that the more we learn in this life, that relates to spiritual things, the greater advantage we will have later.

"The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." (D&C 93: 36). Therefore the more truth we obtain, that we live by (D&C 93:39), the greater intelligence we have.

Amidst a collection of revelatory gems D&C 131:6 states, "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance."

But I would suppose the most conclusive to be, "If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things - that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal." (D&C 42:61).

This is saying that if you will ask you will learn the mysteries that bring eternal life. This is, naturally, proposing that if you don't ask you won't know sufficiently the things that will bring eternal life. That seals it all to me.

But while this message is clear, what is the benefit for me today: The person inside?

I can't begin to explain the feeling of joy that comes as truth comes flooding in. It is just like your being is gaining all this wonderful light. Your life is that much better from that time henceforth. Nothing else can even begin to compare with it, other than looking in the eyes of a woman beautiful with the light of truth that is in her. Or standing in the presence of Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ.

But this is one more area involved in this. Desiring to know the truth, sincerely, will bring you closer to God. You will begin to find you are talking with him, and he with you personally. This relationship will develop to where you begin to see him. You will love this relationship.

So there is no downside to learning the mysteries provided you follow the things he says.

We can do Superhuman Things With the Right Motivation and Belief

I find it interesting reading the Book of Mormon and its claim that a small force, correctly motivated, can beat a far superior force. Armies are aware of this and always present that their army is either unbeatable or doing the right thing, before sending them off to war. The story of the 2,000 stripling warriors (Alma chapter 56) is a classic case.

I have heard cases where a woman has picked up one side of a truck to get her child out, in extreme circumstances. I had a similar experience where a friend of mine lifted the front of a car and dragged another friend out from under it.

I can tell of two amazing personal experiences with this. I was working with some electricians in wiring a 13 story building that was in the process of being built. I was very keen on gaining an apprenticeship with them, so was eager to impress. We had 3 rolls of wire which were on wooden reels that were about 4 1/2 to 5 feet (1 1/2 metres) tall. 3 of us tried to guide them, to some degree, as they were rolled off the truck. We couldn't control the rolling speed, only some attempt at direction. The electrician I was working with that day told me to bring one over to where we were working. There were fragments of brick all over the place and a risen doorway to bring it across. I mentioned this, and that it would be impossible for me to roll it to where we were. I was thinking that with relief as I didn't feel I could roll it anyway with its weight. He said that I would have to pick it up and carry it. I said, how can I lift that?" He pointed to a steel pole and said put it between two of them and carry them over. His matter of fact way of saying it, and my strong desire to please, made me go and do it. Now this solid through steel pole was at least 1 1/4 inches (3 1/2 cm) thick.

By the time I had carried those two reels to him the pole was very bent. I have no idea how heavy that weight was, but I'm no muscle builder, and I had just turned 16-years-old. He also told me to strip a foot (1/3 metre) of wire, which with the wire we were using at the time was well beyond the impossible, yet I also did that for the same reasons.

So the 2 reasons why I could do these impossible actions was the right motivation and the belief that the electrician engendered in making me feel such abilities were typical and expected. Though I found out the next day that wasn't true.

That therefore leads to the question of just how much are we really capable of? It also starts to show the power of faith. The true ability we can rise to is to do that work which our Father in heaven does.

Does the Bible Teach Only Two Levels of Reward - Heaven or Hell?

As LDS we have D&C 76 explaining the varying rewards that await us after judgement. But for those who don't have this information there has been a very basic (and extremely unfair) concept of rewards.

The Bible and the other books within the Standard Works point to two general states in judgement. We have what we term a "Heaven" and a "Hell". That makes judgement sound very simple. But the Bible says quite a lot more on the subject that challenges this simple outlook.

Coupled with this we have a final judgement. Yet we also have talk of being ALREADY judged when we die. So what is the point of a final judgement, if we are already in heaven or hell?

When I was about 12-years-old (having been brought up a Protestant/Catholic) I was faced with the question of my standing before God. My best friend was a very dedicated Catholic. I questioned on whether I might end up not good enough or having not repented at the right time to go to heaven, and thus end up in hell. I then thought on my friend and questioned the justice if he made it in and I didn't. I then questioned the justice of it if it were the other way around. While my minister assured me of eternal life, as I came to Church and believed in Christ, my feelings weren't quite satisfied at leaving my eternal future to his opinion. Particularly as ministers (including him) couldn't speak on behalf of God to answer other obvious questions I had been asking at that point of my life. Nor did his answer comply with what the Bible said in regard this (I knew the Bible spoke of people not getting in due to lack of works - clothing the naked etc, and that not everyone saying, "Lord," would go to heaven, as he was proposing).

The thoughts that my mind went to was the justice of the whole 2 outcomes idea. How can every person on earth be either considered evil or righteous? And while some may argue that those who accept the atonement of Christ are going to heaven and those who don't are going to hell, the Scriptures don't support this simplistic idea as all there is to it. Nor does sense. Are we to believe that if Adolf Hitler accepted the atonement of Christ yet continued to murder that he would go to heaven, and someone who had lived a good life is going to hell because they were a muslim? And talk of repentance with change poses the question of how much change qualifies a person? Yet all this also poses the questions, is this the righteous judge that God presented himself to be to Abraham? Is this the loving father that Christ presented?

Having said only a small fragment of how unfair such judgement would be, I would like to turn to what the Scriptures say (with particular emphasis on the Bible) in regard the matter, as that is the point of the post.

In Luke chapter 16 Christ gives the parable of Lazareth and the rich man. Verses 22 and 23 explain that upon death Lazareth went to a nice state and that the rich man was in torment. So this demonstrates an immediate separation of states of reward upon death.

When the thief on the cross gave his testimony of who Christ was, Luke records the following response,

"And Jesus said to him, Surely I say to you, To day you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:24

Yet Christ states that eventually (by the end) all the dead will hear his voice and rise. Then he says,

"And will come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation." Jn 5:29

This suggests a change of circumstance from that previously had.

Also note John's statement in regard the end,

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to wheir works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." Rev 20:12-14

So not only does death deliver up the dead, but hell also. This reaffirms that some have been in a hell state already. THEN those who have been in a hell state are judged along with those who have been in a paradise state. What difference could there possibly be in judgement? Weren't they already assigned to hell or heaven? And aren't we told that the wicked will be in hell without ceasing? So why has it ceased for a resurrection and judgement? We have a statement that the previous hell (along with death) is swallowed up by the second death. So they can't return to that hell anyway. It has ceased to exist.

Plainly the final judgement has a different criteria of judgement from the initial states we exist in upon death, else it would be a pointless judgement. Yet the unrepentant have suffered for their sins, while the truly repentant have been saved from that suffering by Christ's atonement, and been in a paradise state instead.

So what do we know about this first hell state where sins are paid for?

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and didn't prepared himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that didn't know, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For to 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

So we find here that the amount of punishment given in this hell state is relevant to how much we knew it was wrong to do something evil. Now while this would also pertain to the second death, it would obviously pertain to the first hell state, where people are punished for their sins.

Christ came (among other things) to save us from our sins. But what does this being saved mean?

"And you he has quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins...Even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ (by grace you are saved;)" Eph 2:1+5

So those who truly repent are quickened by the spirit already. They are saved from the state they were in NOW. This isn't speaking of some future event. It is speaking of something that frees us now and will continue to be the case ever after, because we have given up "trespasses and sins".

We see further evidence that our sins being forgiven gives people an immediate release from the hell state we would otherwise be in, in Luke. Jesus heals a man of the palsy.

"And when he saw their faith, he said to him, Man, your sins are forgiven you....And immediately he rose up before them, and took up what he was laying on, and departed to his own house, glorifying God." Luke 5:20+25

So Christ is presenting that, in this man's case, his sins being forgiven made him well there and then: He was freed from the hell state that had held him. Therefore Christ came to save us from a present state.

In regard being saved from this hell state Paul says,

"For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, least any man should boast." Eph 2:8-9

No works this man healed of the palsy could do would clean his conscience of his past sins. It can only be by Christ suffering instead in the atonement that could free the conscience, as we open up in true repentance while looking to Christ in faith.

But does this being saved from our conscience's bad feelings put us up with Heavenly Father after the final judgement, while all others go to be with Satan?

Final Judgement

"For with what judgement you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete out, it shall be measured to you again." Matt 7:2

How does this fit with the idea above that it is only through faith in Christ?

This again points out this concept of people receiving different rewards from each other. "..with what judgement you judge..." No two people judge exactly the same. Therefore no two would receive exactly the same measure back. Our reward is totally relevant to each individual action, whether they be good or evil, in the type of person we are by that time. No comment of favourable judgement only by repentance or acceptance of Christ - though, of course, that is a necessary step in disposing of the old person and making continual growth and positive changes.

"Then shall the king say to those on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungred and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in." Matt 25:34-35

Here works are clearly stated to be relevant to whether you get into the kingdom of heaven. How does this also relate to the statement that works have no relevance to salvation? Plainly, being saved from the hell state isn't the same as getting into the kingdom.

"Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."Matt 7:21

Again we have comment that personal righteousness (works) is required to get into the kingdom of heaven. Just calling Jesus "Lord" won't get you there. Nor will just be being saved from the hell state by grace.

Note what Matt 7 goes on to say in verses 22-23,

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity."

So even those who have done many mighty miracles IN JESUS'S NAME still won't get into the kingdom of heaven if they are still sinning - regardless of their acceptance of Christ.

Let's look at the following quotes that can give the indication of only 2 rewards,

"And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, ... Then shall the King say unto them ... Come,... inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Matt 25:33-34

"Then shall he say also unto them of the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Matt 25:41

While this sounds like only two rewards, it isn't. It is merely stating that there is a dividing of the totally wicked and the totally righteous. This is speaking of Christ's second coming. And in spite of this stating that the righteous will ALL go to the kingdom of heaven and the wicked ALL being cast off with the devil, some people go on living during the next 1,000 years. So, obviously, many present at that time won't fit into these 2 catagories.

In fact concerning how many will actually get into the kingdom of heaven Christ stated,

"Because thin is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and few there be that find it." Matt 7:14

This word "few" means "puny" in Greek (Strong's Concordance). If we are to believe that all professing Christ are to get into that kinddom then we would have "puny" billions. Puny would indicate to me very few indeed.

The Scriptures show further that knowledge makes a difference to reward,

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." 2 Pet 2:20-21

This demonstrates at least 3 states of people relative to rewards - those who never knew, those who knew and accepted and those who knew and rejected.

Also note,

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would that you were cold or hot. So then because you are luke-warm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue you out of my mouth." Rev 3:15-16

Are we to believe that the reward of those wrongdoers that God wouldn't "spue" out of his mouth is the same as those he would? Obviously it would be better, whatever we want to claim it to be.

Amidst all this the question arises as to where then everyone else goes that isn't totally righteous or totally wicked? And the Bible says almost nothing on this subject in the way of giving each a title. But as God is a righteous judge, we can be assured that judgement is fair. Also some of the Scriptures quoted have demonstrated that judgement will be totally fair.

"I knew a man in Christ above forteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannnot tell: God knows;) who was caught away, as such, to the third heaven." 2 Cor 12:2

Third Heaven? How does that fit with only 2 states?

And then we have the parable of the talents. Note how it goes.

Matt 25:14-15 "For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered to them his goods. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability, and straight away took his journey."

The story unfolds that the one with 5 talents put them to work and ended up with 10 talents. The one with only 2 talents intially, ended up having 4. But the one having only 1 did nothing with what he had, and so only had 1 talent when the master arrived back and wanted a counting.

The one that had done nothing with his talent was cast out into outer darkness (verse 30).

Now both the one with 10 talents and the one with 4 talents are praised and promised much. Yet note what the master said to do with the talent that was taken from the man with only one,

"Take therefore the talent from him, and give it to him which has ten talents. For to every one that has shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that has not shall be taken away even that which he has. Matt 25:28-29

So in spite of the equal promises given to both (the one with 10 and the one with 4) the one with 10 ends up with 11 talents and the other still only 4 talents. Christ has presented that the more you are faithful with, the more you will end up with.

In conclusion:-
1. Not all receive the same amount of punishment, but some are beaten with more punishment than others.
2. We have found that God isn't equally opposed to all those who don't follow Christ (the ignorant are more tollerated).
3. We have found that Christ's atonement, not our works, saves us from sins NOW.
4. Yet we have found that works are required to get into the kingdom of heaven, however.
5. We have found that there are 2 judgements that aren't the same.
6. We have found that the first hell state doesn't go without EVER ceasing, but just doesn't stop at the time we suffer for our sins (if we haven't accepted the atonement).
7. We have found that outer darkness (the second death) goes without ceasing.
8. We have found that judgement and rewards will be different for all.
9. We have found that there are 3 general states of heaven.

The Book of Mormon and the Bible - the Relationship

I was brought up with the Bible, but had to adjust to the concept of additional scripture in the Book of Mormon. An obvious difference I noticed was the form of writing: The King James scholars write differently from Joseph Smith. But this difference is just superficial. Looking for what is the same and what is different in the people and their doctrine is the important thing, along with the value of its teachings to us.

The BoM (Book of Mormon) people prior to Christ had a doctrine somewhat closer to the gospel in many ways than those in the OT (Old Testament). Yet it should also be remembered that although the OT was generally written toward a more spiritually backward people, it still contained the gospel principles for those who searched with the Spirit. The things Christ taught he could back up from the OT and other scriptures they had. The Pharisees knew this and couldn't argue it.

The part where the Bible comes to the fore is in the NT (New Testament) where it contains more books written after Christ, and by more authors. This gives greater understanding of gospel thinking in application. Additionally it has more of the teachings of Christ, details of the atonement in the garden, his death on the cross and the resurrection.

Yet the BoM has many invaluable lessons not stated so well or at all in the OT and NT. Not only that but the BoM demonstrates a greater average closeness to the Spirit consistently. In the NT Matthew has a great closeness to the Spirit. James and Peter also have this. And John feels an enormous love. Yet the OT is mostly very flat from this perspective. Isaiah shines forth and perhaps Jeremiah.

The BoM also has an advantage in not having so many of Christ's teachings, in that it makes his main message more obvious, thus not confusing the issue of what the fullness of the gospel actually is.

In spite of the lesser Spirit within it, I feel the value of the OT is generally ignored. God gave all the laws within the Law of Moses for a reason. Coming to understand those reasons brings us closer to understanding God and his way of working. It also helps us understand the gospel more completely, how to live it and how to advise others on principles of life.

Although Christ touches upon it in the NT, the BoM goes into greater depth about problems with lawyers and the legal system generally. It also goes into greater depth in regard political corruption. In that line there is also the demonstration of Mafia type problems.

Yet the NT gives a greater demonstration of the problems associated with Law of Moses type judgements. We see this with the Pharisees condemnation of Christ's actions. And his condemnation of their inability to judge people where their situations fall outside of the situations that God knew would USUALLY be the case, when he made the rules (eg. "But if ye had known what this meaneth, 'I would have mercy, and not sacrifice,' ye would not have condemned the guiltless" Matt 12:7).

Without the history of the OT, the NT and BoM would be hard to follow in parts. Mormon allowed for the existence of this historical information when he compiled the BoM (Eth 1:3-4).

As Long as You Believe in Christ? Protestant Unity?

Protestant churches will attack the church and Joseph Smith etc, claiming us to be in conflict with their perception of what God is all about. But what exactly is this perception that we aren't in harmony with?

I should first point out that to be classified a "Christian" doesn't require belief in any creed or agreement, but belief in Jesus of Nazareth being the promised Messiah (Christ - anointed), whatever you perceive that to be. Nothing more. Either that or we classify a "Christian" to be someone who's life and principles are in exact agreement with how Christ lived and felt (I can't remember meeting anyone that Christ like).

The same applies to the term "Protestant". Protestantism CAN'T exclude anyone from being called a "Protestant" that fits with the meaning of the word (ie their existence stems from protesting against the doctrines of the Catholic Church). Which ours doesn't, as the restored church, but others they attack do. What I'm saying is that neither Christianity nor Protestantism are clubs that require the agreement of other members to join. In fact as each new Protestant sect arose it was persecuted by the others.

Today's Protestantism (in most cases) on the one hand poses unity of their various religions, by claiming that "as long as you believe in Christ" you are saved. They say that it doesn't matter that their various sects have different opinions on things, because they all claim to be following the anointed one (Christ), and therefore are going to heaven. Yet on the other hand they (overall) claim Latter-Day Saints aren't saved in spite of us believing in Christ. And any other Christian sect who challenges the unity idea too seriously is also attacked.

Yet in spite of Protestantism claiming unity now, and that all claiming a belief in Christ are saved, that isn't what they REALLY teach from the pulpit, when you look between the lines.

If you go to any sect claiming speaking in tongues they will quote 1 John 3:24 "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." To this they add that if the Holy Spirit is in you then you WILL be rolling around the floor speaking in tongues. And if you aren't doing this then the Spirit isn't in you, and you don't have God in you. This means you aren't really saved at all, unless you are speaking in tongues. And for that you should be among those doing so - at their church.

The "Uniting Church" sect poses that God wants all churches united into one - a uniting church - them. And therefore to be doing what God wants you must be supporting them. This means that if you are going elsewhere you aren't really right with God.

This is all subtle suggestion - Yes, you can go where you like, but you won't be right with God unless you ----. And we do that here; you won't get it in all/most of those other churches.

Baptist sects like to quote the bits about Christ being baptised by full immersion, and pointing out the necessity of baptism in God's program. They won't blatantly state that you won't be saved if you are baptised by sprinkling in some other church, but point out that baptism isn't baptism unless by immersion. This then leaves the person with the knowledge that their previous sprinkling wasn't in harmony with God's command and they must come to them to be baptised properly.

Some may be thinking, "well that is what LDS believe in regard baptism." Yes, it is. But we don't claim that it doesn't matter what church you go to or what you believe. They are claiming it doesn't matter, yet also claiming you won't be right with God unless you've had THEIR baptism.

Then there are churches that pose that we won't be right with God if we aren't worshipping on Saturday specifically. That kind of reminds me of that rule in the Geneva Convention that says that you can't stab a man with a rusty bayonet, because he might die of blood poisoning (yes, that is actually in there). The point of the sabbath commandment is to take one day out of seven to reflect on God and spiritual things. Making an issue of WHAT day that is, other than for uniformity, is truly the leaven of the Pharisees. They will say the famous, "as long as you believe in Christ it doesn't matter where you go," then liken worshipping on Sunday to sun worshippers. And then point out that Christ went to the synagogue on Saturday and so you must also. Otherwise you aren't following Christ and right with him.

The Salvation Army quote Christ stating that you won't get into heaven if you aren't feeding the poor among you etc (Matt 25:41-43). They point out that they are the only ones so dedicated to such. And therefore to be really right with God you need to be going there.

Then there are those who say that you aren't a follower of Christ if you go to war, because he said to love your enemies. Then there are those that say that there is no trinity, and believers in a trinity are following paganism. And so it goes on.

So it seems that the real problem that the LDS church has with Protestantism isn't really what we believe. But that we don't put in the famous line, about it not mattering where you go, before saying it.

Our 3 parts - Body, Spirit and Intelligence - a Deeper Examination of Ourselves.

When Eve and Jesus were tempted 3 perspectives were used to tempt them (Gen 3:6) (Matt 4:2-10).

1. The desire of the flesh
Pleasing to the taste, you're hungry turn the stone to bread to eat.
2. What the eye could see
Pleasing to the eye, all these kingdoms you see I will give you.
3. Pride
Desired to make one wise, throw yourself down if you are the Son of God and prove it.

The apostle John stated, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 Jn 2:16.

Question arises as to why there are 3 things to be wary of relative to temptation? Why hasn't Satan or some prophet or apostle come up with a 4th or 5th aspect?

Everyone is aware that we have a physical body. Every person with even a minuscule amount of feeling should be aware that we have feelings from inside our torso area. Yet most people have little understanding of our make-up beyond that.

People sometimes fall deeply in love with someone. They feel all these butterfly feelings etc. Their heart is really alive in this feeling. But what is this heart that is so alive? And why do people fall in love?

Some people have a flesh romance. The other person's body appeals to them, and the relationship is mostly built on that focus. Others feel that looking at the person's face and eyes appeals to them, and the body being a reasonable shape is sufficient. It is a pleasing to the eye experience. But then there are those who's relationship doesn't focus on either of these aspects. They feel a mental oneness with the person, and couldn't care less what they look like. Many would have some degree of each of these aspects in their relationship, but I'm referring to focus.

In all this again we see these same 3 aspects reflected in our relationships. We have had 3 aspects to our existence. We are now experiencing our flesh time. Before that we had a spirit time, after being born children of our heavenly parents - Heavenly Father and our mother in heaven. From that point on we have a body (spirit body) to begin seeing things, rather than just perceiving by feelings. Before getting that spirit body we were defined as an "intelligence" only (D&C 93:29), and had existed forever.

So the attacks by evil, and the ways we have to perceive our relationships are - feelings of the flesh, feelings from our spirit by seeing, and appealing to the deeper feelings of our eternal intelligence.

Many wonder why people can be so in love when getting married, and yet end up getting divorced? I can easily answer this question. I have had females tell me that they are in love with me, and I have felt all these powerful loving feelings from them. Yet the deep respect that should come from the mental type of love doesn't exist, or is very minor in them. In these cases as soon as they have to live with the person, and the reality that this is a lifetime commitment (at least), dawns on them, then the "in love" aspect dies, as it has no firm foundation: It was all just illusionary - pleasing to the eye. The only true security lies in the deeper spiritual love, which those "in love" by sight think they already have as a side effect of their feelings. (I should mention that there is nothing wrong with being "in love" of itself). A sure test of the strength of that deeper love existing is demonstrated when a person comes to accept your beliefs when theirs are opposite. And a person laughing at your beliefs, as a first response, can't love you enough that way, at that time.

The interesting thing is that these 3 parts of our being have created ideas of their own, in a sense. Because we have forgotten our pre-existence we have created a new set of ideas built upon the experiences of this earth time. Yet in spite of this, inside, the other 2 exist and have some understanding of eternal things. And this does create some conflict between the desires of our mind and the knowledge from our pre-existence. Not only that but we can have conflict with that which our spirit recognises as wrong by analysing it next to eternal truth (conscience). Getting in touch with our heart (spirit) and our deeper self, from the intelligence only time, will help us understand ourselves better and avoid self-conflict. I have had wonderfully spiritual and meaningful experiences by seeking to become one with myself. I listen to my spirit inside. That way these 3 existences can become one.

It would seem from my experiences in this that there was a vague forgetting, for a time, of our former time as an intelligence when we took on a spirit body. While it has some advantages for various reasons, I believe that our present forgetting of our pre-existence is because of our transition to our physical body. I have had several memories come through from my pre-existence, from time to time in my life. And some before I had even heard the concept of pre-existing and had been taught that I was invented at conception.

It seems interesting that while we don't believe in the Catholic concept of a triune God, we are, in fact, a trinity nevertheless (being made of 3 parts). The even stranger irony is that Heavenly Father is also a trinity of himself (being made up of these same 3 parts). And Jesus Christ is also a trinity of himself. But the Holy Ghost is only a duity, as he has no physical body (D&C 130:22). Just to qualify that, least I be misunderstood, while we don't believe in the Catholic trinity concept of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God, we do believe in 3 parts to Heavenly Father himself (body, spirit body and intelligence).

This understanding of ourselves and our 3 parts gives us a greater ability to work out what we are doing and why. It allows us to become one, and make better direction in our lives. And it gives us the opportunity to end the conflict within ourselves, by listening to our other part's opinions. This also makes it far easier to live those principles that Christ taught, as we develop perfect contact with our conscience.

Eternal Marriage - What is the Biblical Support?

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we know there will be those who are married even after death (D&C 131:1-4). Yet many non-members find this hard to believe. Particularly those who are religious tend to come to see even loving sex as a bad thing that God tolerates, rather than extols. For example, the Catholics hold up what they term "the Blessed Virgin Mary" as being superior, claiming she never had sex at any time during her entire life, and that Jesus was an only child. And their priests and nuns don't marry either.

And while Protestantism claims its support of sex within marriage, claiming it to be clean, if you want to find their true feelings just propose that Jesus followed God's command and was married, and watch the reaction. "How could God stoop so low," is how they respond in their thinking. They can accept he could stoop to be born, to eat, to drink and even go to the toilet. But suggest him having sex and their real feelings are apparent. So what does life and the Bible really say in support of loving sex, having children and doing this eternally? And what are those things that confuse people on this subject?

I should first present that the greater good a thing can do and be, the greater evil can be done by the same principle. Thus while sex is a good and wonderful thing when performed for the right reasons, in an entirely loving way, it can be the cause of enormous evil when the opposite applies. And everything in between will be exactly that - in between total good and total evil. Thus people's perception of the goodness of marriage is affected by their deep seated perception of the righteousness or evil of sex. To those who see sex as something lesser than a totally righteous act, talking of eternal marriage seems to be talking of an eternity of performing an unrighteous act. And I can only recommend to such people that they prayerfully re-evaluate sex. I have a link at the top of the page called "sex problems", which I'd advise you click, read and apply.

Sadducees Question
Many have been of the opinion that there is no eternity of marriage, being confused by a conversation between Christ and the Sadducees. The Sadducees presented a question of a woman who's husband died. The Law of Moses states that the oldest brother of the dead man must take her to wife (this commandment was given to ensure the wife was looked after upon the death of her husband - remembering they had plural marriage, so it made no difference if the brother was already married). The Sadducees posed the brother dying also and through seven brothers, with this occurring with them all. Then the woman dies. So who should be her husband in the resurrection, they questioned?

Matt 22:20-30 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

When this says "in the resurrection" the word "in" is translated from the Greek word "en", that is also translated as "at" (by implication "at that specific time"), in the Bible. So that gives us a clearer understanding of the statement, in that he is saying that there are to be no marriages performed during the process of the resurrection itself.

Those deciding that this opposes marriage in heaven are making assumptions of things beyond what the text actually says. The text tells us that angels in heaven aren't married. The first assumption they make is that angels are the only beings in heaven other than God. It doesn't say that no one is married in heaven. Nor does it say that the woman in question isn't married in heaven. What it states is that there is no marriage performed at that point. Jesus has presented that the Scriptures answer the question and that people don't get married nor give anyone in marriage when resurrected to change the answer already given in the Scriptures.

Jesus has pointed out that they have made the error of not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God, in asking this question. So what did their Scriptures (the Old Testament) tell them to answer the question? Does the Old Testament say that no one is married in heaven? No. To the contrary. They tell us that the wife in the discussion wouldn't be removed from her original marriage (ie her first husband - as they are "one flesh" Gen 2:24). The fact that the brothers had to marry her after his death doesn't detract from this. No one gets married in heaven including angels in heaven (ie those in the lower 2 degrees - as the highest degree are Gods, not angels). All marriages will be performed on earth before the final resurrection. And no changes will be made thereafter, it would seem.

Jesus said concerning marriage, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matt 19:6

Note that Jesus has said, "they are NO MORE TWAIN." That means that these two perfect people (he was speaking of Adam and Eve) NEVER again will be separate. It was an eternal union.

So when Jesus talks of them not understanding the power of God what did he mean? How would God be demonstrating power by doing nothing? He is saying that the power of God is demonstrated in maintaining this joining together of the husband and wife even beyond the grave and at and beyond the resurrection.

Anyone claiming this is stating no marriage will exist at all in heaven would therefore have to demonstrate where Christ was quoting this from in the Old Testament. And then demonstrate HOW this lack of action would prove the power of God. Are we to propose that he is proving his power when he can't sustain that oneness (that he has declared) beyond the grave?

Is Marriage for an Inferior Class?
Matt 19 contains a discussion which is also often misunderstood, leaving some feeling that marriage is for some spiritually inferior group. Christ was discussing divorce with his disciples. He states in verse 8 that divorce was not done until Moses, and it was given only because of their hardness of heart. He then goes on in verse 9 to state,

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Verse 10 then has his disciples posing that if the case be so with the man then it isn't good to marry. Christ's response gives some the mistaken idea that he is stating it better not to marry at all, in spite of God's initial commandment in Genesis. But the disciples stated "IF the case be so with the man." What case? The case just proposed in the statement Christ made, where a man divorcing his wife and marrying another would be guilty of adultery. And where a man marrying a divorced woman would be committing adultery.

Christ then goes on to explain that this is a hard concept for most people in this situation to follow (verse 11), and presents that those divorced people would be better off to remain unmarried (verse 12). I should personally say in regard this that it seems possible that an entire spiritual re-birth may alter this situation. There are those divorced people who have been instructed of the Holy Ghost to re-marry years later, and after great change has occurred. I would therefore recommend serious and prayerful consideration of the application of this to each individual. But he definitely seems to oppose the idea of someone getting a divorce and just going out and marrying someone else, IMO.

Paul makes some comments that also confuse some people, in regard not getting married. This issue I have discussed before relative to Paul being married, but will repeat the main points here.

1 Cor 7:1 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

1 Cor 7:7-8 "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I."

The problem with reading this is that we have only one side of this conversation. What were the things that they had written to him that he was answering from the viewpoint of? I would present to you that this conversation is the same as that which Jesus had with his disciples concerning the divorced. Paul, having previously been a dedicated Pharisee, would have been married. The law of Moses declared that leaders were to be married. It was a commandment. But his wife would have been an equally devout Jewess, who would have been horrified by his change of religion.

Therefore these "unmarried" he is referring to, that are best not getting married, are those who are divorced. Widows are already married and sealed to a husband for eternity. It is an interesting philosophy he is presenting that they would be better to involve themselves in spiritual work rather than re-marrying. It does have some sense to it. I should further point out to those unaware, that he has stated that these ideas AREN'T commandments (verse 6), but ideas he is presenting as advice. Verse 2 should also be read in considering these ideas.

However (returning to the subject) he isn't presenting that previously unmarried people don't get married or that marriage is for those who can't control themselves (as verse 2 may leave people with that opinion if not understood in the context that it is speaking to the divorced).

So what are God's feelings on Marriage?
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." Heb 13:4

In the beginning God gave Adam and Eve a blessing, and in that instructed that they are to produce offspring (Gen 1:27-28). So the very first recorded instruction to mankind was to have children. Here we have two perfect people (in the sense that they had not transgressed at this point) being given that child bearing is a thing that perfect people would do. Therefore child bearing isn't for some imperfect class of people, as some propose.

Therefore as perfect people in the beginning were given child bearing as a primary function of male-female relationships, should we consider it surprising that God would have this continue to be a primary function of male-female relationships? And should we consider it so surprising that it would continue to be the primary function of male-female relationships when we are brought back to that perfect physical state again by resurrection?

Gen 2:18 says in regard to Adam, "And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone..."

This clearly presents that it isn't good for a perfect man (which Adam then was) to be without a wife.

Paul states, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord." 1 Cor 11:11

Paul further states that a woman must have a husband above her in her relationship with God.

1 Cor 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

In other words to the man it is God through Christ. But to the woman it is God through Christ, through her husband.

1 Pet 3:7 mentions that husbands and wives are "heirs together" of the grace of life.

Therefore we have all this talk of the oneness of husband and wife, that God has made them one flesh and they shouldn't be separated, that they are "no more" twain but one, that the woman must have a man to be in the Lord, that it isn't good for a perfect man to be alone and that both are heirs together of eternal life. Weighing that against the other side were we have nothing stating that the oneness of flesh of a married couple is to be extinguished afterwards. So Biblical support comes out strongly in favour of the concept of eternal marriage to those obtaining perfection.

Why Protestants don't want to accept our Boring God.

Many members may wonder why Protestants aren't all flying into the church as fast as they can. But in reality one big problem is that they like their version of God. Our God is boring from their perspective.

Let's look at our God for a moment. While we know that he is glorified and resurrected, able to do anything with matter and hold countless planetary systems together, he is however a man. I mean, how boring is that?

Our God is made of flesh (yes, glorified and resurrected, but a flesh type of thing). He has veins and all that usual stuff.

What is more, he has a wife. How droll. How everyday.

Then we tell them he had kids. Now that is really getting very hum drum. He had to raise us and put up with all those usual problems of rebellious children. What's exotic and exciting about that, I ask?

Further he has all the usual emotions, just like we do. This is super boring. He is too realistic, no imagination. It needs a bit of Alice in Wonderland or the Wizard of Oz: Some Spice.

Now let's look at the version they enjoy.

He fills the universe, yet he may not be in your heart even though he is your heart.

Yeah! Now we're talking! How about a bit of Star Wars?

He is supremely powerful and made all space and laws without actually having any laws to do this with.

Oh, this is getting real cool. But let's add more mysticism.

There are three of them, but only one.

Well this is the stuff a good yarn is made of. But more, more.

While he fills the universe he isn't actually made of anything to fill it.

Now that is a wopper!

And just to add to that he is a spirit yet even people who see spirits can't see him.

Yes, that sounds really mystical. But can't you add more to that?

Yet you can see God in everything because he is in everything, though there is nothing to see.

Can we make it more exciting, can we, can we? How about we make him even more confusing?

He loves us, but has no emotions.

Oh, that is a good one. Can we make him even more mystical still? I like the mystical bits.

While we must follow rules like loving one another, he can do whatever he likes and just make rules for himself as he goes.

Wow, he's IS all powerful. And how about some magic?

He made thought out of nothing and made us into thinking beings.

He made our thoughts out of absolutely nothing? Wow. Now THAT is magic. What other magical things did he do, give us more?

(Hmmm, what can I say to make it even better) He made EVERYTHING out of nothing.

EVERYTHING out of nothing? Now that is really out there. This god is really exciting.



Yes Brothers and Sisters I'm afraid we just can't compete with that for entertainment. But I must say that I am extremely grateful for a REAL God that actually IS loving and cares for us. I love the fact that he understands us because he isn't mystical or magical, but a person: A loving Father. Isn't reality wonderful?

Science and Religion

Some will propose that religion and "Modern Science" can meet in a perfect union: That there need be no opposition. Is this concept true?

There is no greater scientist than God. Science is a wonderful thing when it is true. Even some theories are reasonable models to use for development and repair. I spent years as a TV technician and used the theoretic atomic model for circuit board repairs and designing my own electronic equipment. This generally served as a passable concept for me to envisage what to expect and where.

But in reality the term "scientific theory" is an oxymoron. "Science" means "knowledge" or to know. "Theory" means that you are making an assumption, and don't know at all. And this point seems to be forgotten by some that get caught up in the perception of knowledge and wisdom that many theory scientists go to a lot of trouble to present.

Some may pose that such theories are a continual evolution of ideas. And it is true that the theory expands in time. But that doesn't make it any more correct of itself.

What of where it challenges what God has said? Do we compromise God's word to fit in with man's present perceptions? I have had some on-line tell me that they are a member, but regard the Scriptures can be compromised to comply with what science says: They remould what God has given to fit in with man! This is turning science into a greater religion than that of God's.

These obvious conflicts became apparent to me when at 5-years-old I went to a museum, with the school, and was told some bones were millions of years old. Knowing the Bible said otherwise I questioned the teller of this tale (who worked for the museum) 3 times before he admitted that the bones weren't real, as he had been claiming. I questioned him a further 3 times before he admitted they weren't out the back either (as he had then claimed). He then claimed they were in Germany. I then had to question him a further 3 times before he admitted that they only had part of a leg bone.

This experience has made me seriously question the most basic of claims of "modern science". And I have been glad that I have. For many lies, distortions and misrepresentations have been thrown at us. I could go into each as a subject of its own. And some of these I've briefly presented on this site in the past. But I'm looking at this subject from a faith in God VS faith in man concept.

This choice of holding what man says above what God says has dangerous consequences for individuals and society. We can begin to philosophise other things God says, and begin to create unclear lines of action and intent. I think it important that I leave no one in doubt that theory science and God aren't in harmony in many areas.

Abr 3:4 tells us that a day with God, by his reckoning, is as a thousand years on this earth. It even explains why. The VERY NEXT chapter tells us that the earth was created in a day (one time of light and one time of darkness). Now we'd have to be very imaginative to propose that this doesn't mean the 7 days of creation were 7,000 years only.

Next the D&C tells us that man will only spend 7 thousand years upon the earth (that includes the, as yet not arrived, millennium)(D&C 77:12A)(also note 2 Pet 3:8).

Now how do these things fit with the claim of modern science that the earth has been here for millions of years? And what of the proposed "Ice Age"?

Abr 3:24 tells us that some of us came down to create the earth for us all to dwell on. So here we are with this great plan, and off we go to make these things. Now I know we weren't experienced, but let's be realistic. Are we to propose this effort took us MILLIONS of years: That we floundered around for that long? And did we do this, by trying to get lava to do this and that for us etc, and a big bang to occur? How does this fit with Abr 4:18 that says that we watched those things until they obeyed? This demonstrates that we did all the creation actions ourselves.

Then we have the classic - evolution. Considering that Moses version in Genesis chapter 1 has man put here during the 6th day, and the animals in the same day (a thousand year period), and fish and birds the day before, we have a definite challenge to the theory. Add to that the point that the insects were made AFTER the birds and fish (on the same day as animals and man) and we really are lost to the theory of evolution.

Luke 3:38 and Moses 6:22 both declare that Adam was God's son (not as Jesus Christ is, who is the only begotten in the fallen flesh).

Now I would pose the question, are we to believe God to be smarter than man or visa-versa? Do we have faith, or do we crumble at the first sign of a challenge to our beliefs?

The Book of Mormon speaks of steel long before the proposed "iron age". This idea was rejected by "modern science" for many years, until they were proven wrong again. So who should we have believed?

Any student of science knows that ideas in science keep changing. We like to hope that the new opinion is actually correct THIS TIME.

It seems a simple mathematical equation to me. God is right 100% of the time, the first time. Man SOMETIMES gets it right eventually, and extremely rarely the first time. Ummm... Let me see. Who will I follow?

Justice

I was just listening to a song that talked of how we all needed a city of justice (among other things). It made me think of the many times I have thought upon and discussed this subject with others. We tend to like the idea of someone to see that justice is done: A batman, superman, a sincere lawyer etc. But what exactly IS justice, becomes the question?

We can answer that technically and say that something is justified when it is aligned correctly. We can say that justice is served when a wrongdoer suffers for their wrong actions. However while justice can be considered to be fair, is justice wise? Does justice produce the best result?

For example the atonement of Christ actually robs justice of penalising the real perpetrator: Christ (an innocent person) suffers instead to satisfy justice. Now while that may be fair, in as much as that someone has suffered for the wrong, it isn't really what people expect who are looking for revenge. And if I pay someone's fine for them because they can't afford it, is this really justice either?

Courts dispense what they say is justice. Yet nothing is really justified by it: The result to the victim is rarely changed by such action. So what we term justice doesn't make things better. Penalising wrong doers may make them change or think better next time such an idea comes into their heads. But this should be considered as discipline rather than justice. Justice is to bring things back to an equal state. Penalising someone in the claim of doing justice is proposing that two wrongs make a right. But they don't.

A person committing a crime will generally make it the other person's fault that they are committing a crime against them - two wrongs making a right. So what is a court system saying to them where they propose they are out to do justice by making them suffer? They are supporting the thinking of the offender: Using the same logic.

Instead of proposing that some weird version of justice (which seems done more with an attitude that revenge = justice) has occurred because someone has been locked in a cage, we should be treating and declaring the situation as an education program. After all, God declared how real justice works when he declared "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." And Christ declared that this isn't the way a person desiring to become like God should be thinking, but they should forgive (Matt 5:38-39).

Yet we live in a world where Law of Moses type rules need to be instituted for a Law of Moses type people. So I'm not proposing we don't support a legal system. I'm saying that we should encourage better direction in regard re-education of inmates of prisons.

A side issue in this is that too often I hear people use terms about someone saying such things as "he is a bank robber" or he is a "sex offender" etc. It is just as well God doesn't view us that way. In reality the person is someone who has committed a bank robbery, not a bank robber. The latter becomes a label that the person is stuck with even if they are in fact a butcher, baker etc. Otherwise we should all be constantly referred to as "liars" if we have lied at least once in our lifetime.

If someone does something terrible what should we really be looking for? When you hear of a person committing a bad sex crime do you feel a revenge mentality or hope he repents and Christ's atonement covers him so he doesn't need to suffer?

My observation is that people have been mindwashed to desire revenge on wrongdoers in these last decades. Whereas the 70's were about love and helping wrongdoers to correct their lives. Unfortunately I find religious people are the worst offenders when it comes to being judgemental. Yet while we should judge sin as very wrong, our desire for the offender should be for them to change and gain true joy REGARDLESS of what they have done.

People will say, "well, that is alright provided the person didn't commit a ---- crime." In other words they are saying that their own sins are alright but this other person's sin isn't forgivable. WHAT NONSENSE! Christ stated that "ALL sins shall be forgiven" (except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost) (Mark 3:28-29). James states that regardless of what sin you commit you are just as bad (Jam 2:10-11).

Justice naturally occurs without us or God having to do anything. When a person does an evil act that act is permanently in their heart. They will suffer internally until they truly feel they have satisfied the demands of justice inside themselves (Mosiah 2:38). Unless they accept the atonement of Christ through repentance.

Unfortunately man's version of justice, in our minds, seems to get distorted by bad (or lack of good) emotions. I have heard so many talk of justice, yet God doesn't seem to see it the same way people tend to think. The song that I quoted above along with talking of a city of justice also refers to a city of love.

One day we hope to be Gods. Therefore we must learn divine forgiveness through divine love rather than talk of justice.

Movies and Morals - Even LDS movies need serious refining

I think almost everyone would oppose something in some movie made by someone somewhere. However what does it have to be for us to reject it, is the question to ask ourselves?

Often I hear such statements as, "what would Christ do?" But how seriously do we apply such thinking when faced with what to watch, considering there is probably almost (if not) nothing he would watch. We make excuses to accept watching things. I know myself that I can tend to think, "well that is life", "its entertaining anyway", "I'll just get through this bit and it might improve", "that may be the only part like that", "its a good examination of reality", "I payed to hire it so I'll try to persist", "if I get too fussy I'll never watch anything", etc.

The point is to remember that Christ just doesn't make excuses. He doesn't turn (even slightly) to the right hand or to the left of straight down the line. He makes Nephi look flexible. There seems to be some in Hollywood who have taken on board the idea that people may not all wish for lust, inappropriate violence, theft, adultery, anger, swearing and vengeance. And this number seems to be expanding (albeit very little), which is encouraging. On the other hand there are so many who just seem to get worse.

But many things come through in a subtle way, even by those who may mean well. I have watched a few LDS movies (made by members, not the church) which left me feeling disappointed. I suppose I always tend to expect the best from those who have dedicated their lives to such. Therefore I always hope for perfection, or something close to it, in those professing a serious desire to be a God or Goddess.

I have watched "The Singles Ward", its sequel and "the dance". I guess I had high expectations from LDS movies. They left me feeling that I had just watched an acceptable Gentile (Israel being church members and Gentiles being non-members) movie with LDS themes. These movies portray absurd ideas relative to dating. Concepts of dating non-members as if they will just join the church because you are a member are absolutely ridiculous. Dating inactives is also as crazy. While they do portray a change of heart by people, in some cases, the chance of this just happening to one specific chosen individual (assuming about half the members were brought up in the church - six and a half million converts, six and a half billion world population [a bit simplistic, in calculation, I know, but it can't be too far off the mark]) is about one in a million.

"the dance" portrays dating a female with very low moral dress standards. Also, again, a Gentile.

Is this what we are to come up with as a people set aside by God? Must our standards try to copy the world's? What this comes down to are serious turns to the right hand and to the left. No excuses make it right. I expect it from Gentiles. But let's try to get Israel to live and do as God would have us. Push for better LDS productions than that.

Atonement Theories - so many yet God still comes out looking deficient.

The Snarkernacle at http://snarkernacle.blogspot.com/2008/01/stop-thinking-about-yourself-and-start.html recently drew my attention to the ongoing discussions of atonement theories on LDS blogs. Reading through these theories I had to feel that they underestimated God in one form or another: It seemed that whatever way each theory went God came out with personality problems.

I realise that the church was generally built by ex-Protestants, who's churches are themselves built by ex-Catholics. This makes a strange Roman God to transform from, to begin with. And considering that the Scriptures do partially support the confusing God of vengeance (in so many places) and yet mercy (in other places), it is no surprise that confusion would exist on God's true personality and reasoning.

If a theory is approached with such a confused being as the God OF the theory, then the theory will be incorrect. To get the concept correct requires an understanding of the true nature of God in the first place. While some of these theories did represent the true God in parts, because of, what I would see as, false perceptions existing, in other areas they come adrift.

So to fully understand the atonement a person must completely reform their view of the relationship between man, God and eternal laws until it is correct. The hardest doctrine for people to grasp (particularly considering the Law of Moses style God presented to the hard hearted in the Scriptures) is the first I will come to.

First we need to actually BELIEVE that "God is love", rather than just quote it. Not love to only those who accept and obey him, but love to all - that he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good. That God is actually TOTALLY impartial. If God is love then can we really believe that God will cause anyone to actually suffer pain and not allow them into his presence: That he will personally inflict agony upon those he loves - his own children? Even a good parent only disciplines a child so that the child will learn to do right in the future. And Christ made it obvious (to a more enlightened audience) that we can relate to God as a better father than we are (Matt 7:9-11).

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 what has caused the pain? And why doesn't the Lord dwell in them: Is it because he hates them? The person has made themselves an enemy to "righteousness". So the Lord (being righteous) CAN'T dwell in him as it is contrary to the nature of the Lord. And it is the person's sense of justice from their OWN immortal soul that causes them to both suffer and feel separated from God. NOT GOD. These things are SELF imposed. God wants to free us from them; not create them.

We are separate and free individuals. God can't just bash the door down and make us feel good inside. We have to open up and let him come in and help.

So he used the same plan that is used for all people's throughout eternity for removing the pain from past sins, so that the repentant can move on and become one with God during this life (where possible) or as a spirit before the resurrection.

So that is why an atonement is necessary.

Another question considered is how does the atonement cover people of all time periods, when Christ didn't even live until about 4,000 years after the beginning? This same question relates to questions such as how the brother of Jared saw Christ's flesh? And how is it that Christ came to Abraham and ate with him? This may be a bit of a mind bender to understand as we are used to time things. But God dwells in eternity (we do also in reality but just don't see it because of change and decay) (Eccles 3:15) whereas we see things as a time line. Relative to the atonement and putting it simply, Christ's mind could go into eternity and come back into any time of this earth. This is how God has shown people the future.

So how does the atonement work?

I would first like to mention an experience I had when a teenager. I had done something wrong years before. Every time I thought of this thing (I can't actually remember what it was now) I felt terrible inside. However one day when I thought upon it a voice inside me (my spirit) said in an assured tone, "I have suffered enough for that."

As we open our hearts to Christ in true repentance he is able to come into our hearts from the garden of Gethsemane (which has already occurred, from his perspective, long ago) and suffer the pain for each and every sin. Our conscience inside feels this pain being suffered and accepts that as sufficient payment and feels appeased (our sense of justice is appeased). He suffers individual pain for each individual sin until we feel that is enough pain for that particular sin (depending on its size). The same applies to those who lived even before he was born. Thus such people as Enoch had their conscience cleared and could go on and grow in righteousness. This fact is demonstrated in the Law given to Moses where every man had to offer an INDIVIDUAL sacrifice outside the temple door (signifying the sacrifice in the garden). So individual pain had to be suffered for each individual. Whereas the sacrifice outside the camp (signifying his death on the cross) was only one sacrifice that covered everyone.

Some may question how he could do that in such a limited time? Yet if you think about your thinking at times you will realise that you often process a lot of thoughts within a second or even less. Several entire concepts can pass through your mind before you could blink your eye.

Now the question comes as to why Christ was the only one who could perform the atonement? Firstly it had to be someone who had no sins of his own harrowing up his own conscience. Jehovah (Jesus Christ) was just that type of person that wasn't going to make a mistake: He could see it was wrong without having to actually mess up first. Secondly he needed a body that was perfect enough to withstand the pain required. So his father was Heavenly Father in order that he had a part of him as coming from a perfect being.

So where does the cross fit in with this?

Having gained a body and living a life (which as our brother he needed to do also). Having learnt the truths relative to righteous life living. Having done a mission and preached the gospel. Having performed the atonement act. Having at that point ruined his body by doing the atonement. Knowing that some had waited thousands of years to be resurrected and were eager for that resurrection. He knew it was time to die. His manner of death set an example of dying a painful way, that no one could argue that they are asked to suffer more. So, as he had to die having ruined his body, he took the physical result of our sins and nailed it to the cross.

As he was sinless and had a body that wasn't able to die at the time of his death, he had no trouble resurrecting his body. From this time resurrection became available to others.

One day (during this life) I hope to actually understand why no one could be resurrected until he was. My understanding of the physical nature of a resurrected body is zero, other than it won't die and its state is relative to the righteousness of the owner.

Are we really God, as the Catholics/Protestants Propose?

Catholicism/Protestantism complains because we say that we can become Gods. Yet their doctrine says that we are God himself right now, and will continue to be forever. Additionally their God is some kind of masochist who is going to send some of himself to hell forever!

As LDS we know that each intelligence has existed forever. No one can make intelligences (D&C 93:29). We are an intelligence inside our spirit body, which is inside our physical body. Yet this isn't what is believed by others.

The Catholic/Protestant version of our existence.

They say that God is not only the inventor of all things but he is in all things and is all things. They say that God is the inventor of our minds: We wouldn't be thinking if he wasn't there. We wouldn't exist. So examining the logic of this it ends up being that we are, in fact, God! And he is us!

According to the claim what are we? We are nothing other than that which is God. God not only invented our thinking, but if we can't think without him, and he invented the ability to think, then our thinking must be him thinking (remember that nothing exists that isn't made and maintained by him, and that he created the bounds in which I think). I can't think if he isn't there, so I have no independant thought. It must be remembered in trying to understand this that nothing exists but God and that which exists by him. Therefore everything existing is him. There is nothing else. No wonder the Catholic/Protestant god is so schizophrenic.

And as all matter is invented by him, continues to exist because of him and he is in all things, then this body I have is also him. The same would have to be said for my spirit body.

This, of course, would leave us with Satan being God too. Man, are they for real?

Us being God. Hmmm.... I don't think so! The stupidity is that they would SAY that they don't think so either. Yet that is the reality of their claim. Back to the Bible people, I think that requires a lot more reading.

Women and the Priesthood - What is Priesthood?

I'm not backward in stating that my perception of feminism is that it has caused serious damage to my sisters, telling them that there is something wrong with doing what our Heavenly Mother does. And that they must do what men do to be a real person. And this isn't written to attempt to appease such. Nevertheless rather than the "men get the priesthood, why can't we be like men" routine, many women do ask sensibly why they don't get the priesthood: After all it is an important thing for men to have?

It has been quoted by those in favour that some individuals made references to there being priestesses in the eternities, when this time is over. So if there are to be goddesses who have priesthood why not now? Also some suggest that there is a concept of women having priesthood now implied in something.

The point that I would present to these women is that they in fact DO have priesthood. But their calling isn't to perform ordinances. Nor will it be in the eternities. This priesthood is automatic, and therefore requires no ordination.

So what does a goddess actually do? Does she sit and govern planets and organise the construction of planetary systems? No! This is what males do.

Well why don't females do this? Because females aren't men. Nor do men do what women are best at for the eternities. Men do what men are best at.

The first calling God gave women (and men, for that matter) was thus, "..Be fruitful, and multiply..." (Moses 2:28).

Godesses spend eternity having and raising children.

Women may wish to point out that they can't give priesthood blessings to their children when sick etc. Yes, that is true. But God will do these things for the woman who asks in sincere prayer (if it be what is best for all concerned). For men it is important for them to learn to develop the powers within them that they will have to use to hold worlds together. Women don't do this. So God has designed the perfect system for the perfect situation (ie a complete family with the man present), and has a failsafe mechanism where He is there to answer prayer anyway.

The question would then be asked, "why do godesses need priesthood?"

This gets to the question of WHAT exactly is priesthood? Joseph Fielding Smith declared that it is nothing MORE or LESS than the AUTHORITY to act in the name of Christ (as is declared in D&C 121 and 84:21). Talking of "power OF the priesthood" and "power IN the priesthood" doesn't mean that the priesthood is a power of itself. I can talk of power in an electric cord, but the cord has no power at all when the power source is removed. To have power in the priesthood, to make things physically happen, we must do certain things that produce that power. Thus some perform greater miracles than others by using exactly the SAME priesthood. Righteous living creates the power in us (as the Scriptures declare over and over).

Obviously priesthood for Christ would be the authority to do things in the name of Heavenly Father.

So supposing I become a God, what will my priesthood actually be? The authority to act in the name of .....? What is Heavenly Father's priesthood?

If we, as a God, require priesthood, then Heavenly Father, as a God also, must therefore require priesthood. So Heavenly Father has authority to act in the name of his God. Why?

Eternal law makes it that eternal families are important for a better existence. So we have all this sealing of families.

We are told that as we make worlds this will add glory to our Heavenly Father. Why? Because these then become his grand-children in a sense. You see it is a continual family spreading.

To do these things (ie having children to the glory of our Heavenly Father) requires authority from Him to act in his name. Thus for a woman to have children in the name of God requires authority from God (ie priesthood).

Now I would pose the question then that isn't it true that women are at this time having children to the glory of God? And didn't Heavenly Father himself give this authority to Eve, and through her to all women?

I realise this won't satisfy raging feminists that just don't see the wonderful beauty of bearing children, in its true value. But you do have this privilege and priesthood which I never will. I seek to do the best with those things that I am privileged with.

More Articles of Faith

I was once asked to explain our beliefs further, by someone who had read the 13 Articles of Faith. This was my reply.

We believe that those who are meek will inherit this earth in it's resurrected and glorified state.
We believe that the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who aren't puffed up, but humble enough to hear what God is teaching.
We believe that those who are saddened by the sins of the world will be comforted by God.
We believe that if we hunger and thirst for righteousness we shall be filled by the Holy Ghost.
We believe that if pure in heart, we shall be seeing God at times.
We believe that if we have mercy to others God will be merciful to us.
We believe that God will truly consider us His children if we try to bring peace to conflict.
We believe that if no-one is saying evil against us falsely, and twisting our words and intentions, then we're doing something wrong.
We believe that great responsibility rests on us to be as Christ wants us to be, and if we aren't then we're no use to God (as the salt).
We believe that Christ in us should be shown in our actions.
We believe that Christ fulfilled the law by being the sacrifice.
I believe that if you can't keep the commandments of the law then you won't even be considered the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.
We believe that Christ taught greater commandments and asks us to obey those, not forgetting the law.
We believe that Christ requires us not to be angry, not to lust, to keep our thoughts pure, not to seek divorce, not to make oaths and promises, to turn the other cheek and to love others.
I believe God requires us to be perfect.
We believe that your Christian actions shouldn't be done to gain adoration from people, and it's therefore best people don't know what good you are doing for them.
We don't believe in having set prayers (though we do so in the case of ordinances, to ensure that all necessary points are stated) or repetition of statement, as God isn't deaf (or sleeping - to quote Elijah).
I believe reciting the "Lords' prayer" isn't advisable as most people seem to quote it with a piousness because they know it, don't mean it, and are so fixed on it rather than its meaning always fail to conclude the prayer in the name of Christ.

Philosophy - the Relationship to Scripture, Revelation and Reality

The purpose of scripture and revelation is to set a standard of rules, and give examples of how and why to apply them. They also teach us about ourselves and God, and how that relationship works. Then there is advice about what is to come. They, therefore, set an approach to life that is wisest to follow.

Philosophy comes from the opposite direction in that it puts the person in the driver's seat. The person invents the laws that they should follow, according to their perception of life. They decide what God is and how the relationship works. It gives them the opportunity to philosophise away or bend anything God has said that doesn't suit. That way they get to create their own religion in a fuller sense.

One obvious failure of philosophy is that it has no standard to find a concept true or false. Each idea is a matter of opinion. The natural man takes over from the truths taught by God. And as man pursues these concepts problems begin to happen. Then man philosophises away these problems, and so they continue.

Serious wars generally eventuate and people slowly begin to turn back to God in fear of the outcome if they don't. We saw this in the Second World War. Then in the 50's there was this great progress and blessing that came as the world followed better principles. The blessings went on into the 60's. But in the latter 60's there began to be a moving away from God. It increased into the 70's and by the 80's we began to suffer the consequences. Recessions, drought, unemployment, aids, increased violence, drugs and economic downturns.

But philosiphers give us excuses for these things. And governments keep our minds busy on meaningless projects like not using plastic bags and worrying about the claimed "Green-house Effect". As if this will make the world better and solve the real problems.

People demand that the government do something about social problems. So governments create more laws to restrict social rights, as if this will resolve it, while the problem itself gets worse, because people don't turn to the real cause. They want the government to curb the natural result of sin by getting "tough" on those involved in its outcome.

It is time we turned from man's philosophy and ideas of resolutions to life's problems and turned back to the tried and proven methods of God.

To some extent we can all be guilty of philosophising religion. To help us God has given us scripture, prophets and personal revelation.

Crosses - Should we have them?

The noticeable difference between standing in an LDS chapel and standing in other churches is the obvious lack of adornment in an LDS chapel. Some flowers are a moderate decoration compared to stain-glass windows, crosses, and possibly statues etc. Then there is the question of whether we should wear crosses? Did Christ's Apostles wear crosses? The answer to that is very simple. No! Had they done so they would have been stoned.

Deut 5:8 "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth."

In plain English the law given by God to Moses forebad Israelites from making likenesses of anything whatsoever - no art or sculpture. When Solomon built the temple he had to get Gentiles to sculptor, and the things remained in the temple only. Archaeologists can't find any Israelite art because there wasn't any.

Some will quote something like the following text and propose that this vindicates wearing crosses.
Matt 10:38 "And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

I can assure you that he wasn't referring to a concept of wearing crucifixes. As is demonstrated in his own case, people who were to be crucified had to carry their own cross and then be crucified. Christ chose a dreadful thing and used it to make his point. That we must be ready to suffer the worst of things. This is in context of the verses around the statement. The whole subject matter is one of being prepared to sacrifice friends, family, comforts and life. It isn't a declaration of what jewellery to wear.

Let's consider the idea that our neighbour's son was murdered saving your life. By someone using a knife. Would you think of wearing a knife around your neck when you went to visit your neighbour? Would you regard that he would see this as some kind of respect? Because it is the last thing I would wear. I think he would see that as very sick.

God spoke strongly against any physical representation of him to Israel of old. What would make him change his mind now and think that physical representations (such as crosses) of him or his Son are acceptable? If you want to demonstrate your belief in Christ, live a Christ like life and people will see it in you (as Christ stated).

Thomas S. Monson - Called of God

Of Christ Rev 1:14 says, "His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire."

Also of Christ D&C 110:3 says, "His eyes were as flame of fire..."

In reading this latter I had considered this a bit of writers license, and assumed Revelation's comment to just be being typical of the book.

Having been brought up in Protestantism I considered it impossible that I would ever see a living apostle. And upon joining the church I still hadn't got to see one at the time I went on my mission; as circumstance had it.

But then we were to have Thomas S. Monson come to a missionary meeting. So here I was to finally come to see a living apostle. I thought, "now remember, Doug, he isn't going to come in dressed like Moses and carrying a staff." I said this to keep my expectations of the person realistic (not that I thought he would come thus dressed).

I was somewhat disappointed to see him come in looking rather business like in his mannerisms. However while I was sitting out there during the process of the meeting I happened to look at him. His eyes were orange, like you would see in a photograph.

I thought, "no-one is going to believe me when I tell them this." So I looked to see if there was any reflection of light coming in the windows. I really knew it wasn't that, to cause such an effect, but I looked anyway. The sun was on the opposite side of the building, the windows were fogged style of glass, and they were all in shade.

I looked back and now his eyes were as fire. I looked into the eyes and it was like going right into an enormous furnace. It was as I had imagined Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego standing in a fire: Lots of space. This demonstrated that the Holy Ghost was with him.

I believe God was wanting to show me that, even though he may have had organising and business to do, he still had the Spirit in him, and was a true Apostle of Christ.

Methods to Recognise Truth from Error

Having been asked to explain our beliefs on another site, I was called upon to talk of our opinion of the Bible. However as that isn't the only source of truth we have I had to extend the discussion to explain what we regard as sources of truth.

The Baptist minister had trouble with what he termed "changing doctrine" of the church. So I thought it best to explain just how, as an LDS, I determine which doctrines, of those I'm presented with, to recognise as the fullest truths. As the subject is so important I thought I'd share this information as a post on this site.

When my children were really little I told them never to touch a power socket/point/jack or power cords. As my oldest got on she was somewhat shocked to have me one day tell her to plug in a power cord. And as time went on I eventually taught her to take one apart and repair it. If, on the other hand, one of my children wasn't responsible with this freedom I would remove the right from them, and give them back the more basic law, until I felt I could give them another go. So is our Heavenly Father with us.

Two examples of this in the Bible are, first the giving of the law of Moses to Israel when previously the gospel of Jesus Christ was known (Heb 3:16 & 4:2), and second the re-establishment of the gospel of Jesus Christ at the time of John the Baptist (Lk 16:16).

While these situations may be considered by some to be "changing doctrine" nothing had really altered. It never was good to be angry with anyone, or to lust anyone etc. So Christ wasn't creating NEW concepts, but improving the information level.

Therefore as levels of knowledge, within the church generally, can rise and fall (e.g. read D&C 119 heading), the question arises as to how I determine what is the greater truth, as a sincerely searching LDS wishing to progress beyond the basic level?

There are many readable sources I can find information for consideration from. The first and primary readable source is the Standard Works (scriptures). Conference talks and books by past church leaders are good for ideas also.

But, in the end, these do pose some problems in being certain of the fullness of every statement contained therein. For example the prophets prior to Christ in the Book of Mormon and Old Testament could only speak from personal knowledge. And in spite of some inspiration their knowledge wasn't as full as ours should be: They didn't have the sermon on the mount to refer to etc. Their thinking reflected the law of Moses that they were under. So statements they made about God weren't made with as much additional knowledge in many cases.

Next, as the people they were speaking to were often even less informed, the level of information was a bit on the down side for this reason also. This same situation exists to some degree in the church today, as there are new members and those not really ready for deeper understanding, to consider. It is important to give people milk before meat (as Christ and Paul pointed out). So even those things stated by GAs today become limited, as a member stretches on in learning past those basics.

This leads next to the importance of prayer and revelation from the Holy Ghost. In addition to the Holy Ghost you can have personal, two-way, discussion with Heavenly Father or with Jesus Christ, as have had many before us. However even here some will protest that information can come from the wrong source and we may be being deceived. So how can we really know?

Quite simple. Several ways exist of knowing truth from error. These skills can be obtained by practice and looking into yourself. So even though some mistakes may initially be made you will soon get the hang of it. Just allow for the teething problems; keep yourself focused on Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and you will be fine.

Firstly there is feeling from the messenger (if inspired - which truth generally will be). The dark side (Satan and his mates) are exactly that. And their ways are obvious - anger, hate, revenge, despair, greed, etc. On the other hand God gives freedom, has love, peace, forgiveness, patience and all those other good things.

Next, there is light in truth. If the thing is completely true it will cause light in you that your spirit will love (this light is actually visible to your spirit eyes). If it is only partially right it won't be exactly like that, but will still have some feeling of good. I then know it needs further work, but I'm on the right track. If it is completely wrong I won't feel this at all, and the Holy Ghost may inform me that I'm up the wrong track altogether.

Naturally it shouldn't oppose the highest of Scriptural messages (the sermon on the mount). This was delivered by Christ himself to an audience that had the spiritual interest to actually go out and listen. So that is the peak of his doctrine.

Then there is the fact that it fits in this place in eternity. If it can't fit in a spot in eternity then it is false. Search sincerely for that and you will find it.

It has to fit with reality. If real life seems to oppose the idea then either your perspective of real life needs examining or it is false.

Living principles have the obvious living test. That is that if you practice them fully for a sustained period and nurture them, they will make you feel good inside. Some principles require little testing, and some require extended effort, to prove. A simple test of living principles is to go to a hospital and visit a person not getting visitors. Put that person's face in your head afterward and think of how pleased they were you came. Then ask yourself if you can't feel a good feeling in your heart?