Partaking Of The Sacrament Does Renew LDS Baptismal Covenants

The troubles caused by anti-Mormons are well-known. But confusion is also sown by those who are members of the LDS Church. A prime example of the latter is confusion over whether or not partaking of the sacramental emblems each Sunday renews the covenants one makes when baptized. While I was always taught that this is the case, someone on the LDS Freedom Forum begs to differ. Note this exchange:

iWriteStuff Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:47 pm:
One Lord, one faith, one baptism?

Does the LDS church authorize second/third/fourth baptisms? I hadn't heard of this before. From whence cometh this doctrine?

Christ himself was baptized only once. Outside of Alma, who submerged himself upon baptizing another as a show of humility, I can't think of any other figure in the scriptures who felt it necessary to go down into the water more than once.

Just feel like renewing your covenants? Then why not give a shot at the sacrament and making it more meaningful this week. That's how Christ intended it to be, and thus He instituted it.

Jeremy Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:54 pm:
...The sacrament is not a renewal of baptismal covenants.

Fortunately, members of the Quorum of the Twelve have addressed this issue in the recent past:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained that in renewing our baptismal covenants by partaking of the emblems of the sacrament, “we do not witness that we take upon us the name of Jesus Christ. [Rather], we witness that we are willing to do so. (See D&C 20:77.) The fact that we only witness to our willingness suggests that something else must happen before we actually take that sacred name upon us in the [ultimate and] most important sense” (“Taking upon Us the Name of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, May 1985, 81). The baptismal covenant clearly contemplates a future event or events and looks forward to the temple.
-- Elder David A. Bednar, April 2009 General Conference, "Honorably Hold a Name and Standing".

Elder Delbert L. Stapley instructed us in this when he said about covenants:

“The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is a covenant between God and his people. ... When baptized by an authorized servant of God, we covenant to do God’s will and to obey his commandments. ... By partaking of the Sacrament we renew all covenants entered into with the Lord and pledge ourselves to take upon us the name of his Son, to always remember him and keep his commandments” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1965, 14).
-- Elder L. Tom Perry, April 2006 General Conference, "As Now We Take the Sacrament".

In his writings on the doctrines of salvation, President Joseph Fielding Smith teaches that we partake of the sacrament as our part of commemorating the Savior’s death and sufferings for the redemption of the world. This ordinance was introduced so that we can renew our covenants to serve Him, to obey Him, and to always remember Him. President Smith adds: “We cannot retain the Spirit of the Lord if we do not consistently comply with this commandment” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:341).
-- Elder Dallin H. Oaks, October 2008 General Conference, "Sacrament Meeting and the Sacrament".

I remember when I was “[baptized] by immersion for the remission of sins.” That was appealing. I assumed that all my past mistakes were now washed away, and if I never made any more mistakes in my life, I would be clean. This I resolved to do. Somehow it did not turn out that way. I found that I made mistakes, not intentionally, but I made them. I once foolishly thought maybe I was baptized too soon. I did not understand that the ordinance of the sacrament, administered by you of the Aaronic Priesthood, is in fact a renewing of the covenant of baptism and the reinstating of the blessings connected with it. I did not see, as the revelations tell us, that I could “retain a remission of [my] sins.”
-- President Boyd K. Packer, April 2009 General Conference, "Counsel to Young Men".

So let's see, now. We have four apostles who state that partaking of the Sacrament renews baptismal covenants vs. one person posting the opposite on a discussion forum. Who am I going to believe? Why, the Apostles, of course -- not because they're inerrant or infallible, but because they just might know a bit more about the subject than ordinary members.

Of course, it is possible to get a bit carried away. 3 Nephi 18:28-29 proclaims that we should not partake of the Sacrament unworthily because we risk eating and drinking damnation to our souls. A former missionary relates this account of a missionary branch president who got a bit overzealous about enforcing it. It's a funny story, but it has an unfortunate ending. From Mormon Matters in April 2008:

There was a big disagreement about this on my mission. An investigator who had been given a chapel card showed up for church just as the sacrament service was beginning. When the bread tray came to him, he was unsure what to do, so he took a piece of the bread. Just then, an older missionary who was serving in a branch leadership role jumped up from his seat on the stand and commanded the man (in Spanish) to “Drop it!” which he did. Needless to say, the investigator never returned.

I can just see that missionary leaping out of his seat like a ballistic missile, full of fire for the Lord. DROP IT! DROP THE CHALUPA! Unfortunately, he might have chased a prospective branch president away from the Church.

The BYU Harold B. Lee Library website provides a detailed essay on how the custom of the Sacrament evolved.

Scientists Suggest A Veil Of Dark Matter Covers The Earth; Sounds Like Science Is Catching Up With The Pearl Of Great Price

Just as science is catching up with scripture in regards to the Word of Wisdom, so science may be catching up with scripture in other areas of Mormon doctrine. The Daily Mail reports that GPS satellites now suggest a halo of dark matter is surrounding our planet, and the article references a source from New Scientist.

Summary: Ben Harris at the University of Texas measured Earth's mass as discerned by GPS satellites. He suggests data from these satellites indicate the strength of Earth's gravitational pull. He then postulates that the gravitational pull is then directly related to the planet's mass. He found that Earth is between 0.005 and 0.008 per cent heavier than first believed, which is equivalent to a disc of dark matter around the equator which is 191km (120 miles) thick and 70,000 km (43,000 miles) across.

Other scientists have theorized for years that dark matter exists in the universe, since dark matter is considered crucial to theories explaining how the universe is expanding and how galaxies interact. Scientists suggest that dark matter may comprise as much as 27 percent of the universe. They know it to be out there because of the gravitational effects it has on the matter we can see. For example, galaxies could not rotate the way they do and hold their shape without the presence of dark matter. The problem is that scientists can not yet nail down what it looks like or where to find it.

Mormon doctrinal interpretation holds that dark matter can serve three purposes:

(1). Shield mortal planets from the blinding glory of the celestial realms. Space dust interspersed throughout the Milky Way galaxy may shield the lower realms from the glory of the higher realms and prevent the destruction of the lower realms. When Jehovah visited Moses on Mount Sinai, He had to "turn down his glory" to prevent Moses from being consumed by it. The Kolob Theorem (98 pages, loads quickly) provides a plausible explanation of this phenomenom.

(2). Designate parts of the universe that have not been organized by the various deities who are in charge. The Kolob Theorem suggests that each galaxy is headed by a deity who has been ordained unto Godhood, but whether our God (Elohim) is merely the God of the Milky Way or the Supreme God of the entire universe is unaddressed.

(3). Designate parts of the universe inhabited by evil entities who have been denied glory and consigned to outer darkness, but who are being used by Elohim as opposition to try and tempt us, guaranteeing a more complete mortal experience for us. Existing scripture suggests that Satan and his hosts are responsible for the dark veil around the Earth. From Moses 7:26 in the Pearl of Great Price:

And he [Enoch] beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced.

And from Isaiah 60:2:

For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

The Bottom Line: If science can catch up with scripture on the Word of Wisdom and other aspects of Mormon doctrine, it will eventually catch up with scripture in other areas. Science will eventually verify that the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites were real peoples with real civilizations, and provide genetic evidence showing that the American Indians and the mestizo population of the American continents do carry the blood of these ancient peoples within them. When science conflicts with scripture, scripture ultimately and invariably wins. As Spencer W. Kimball once said, "Faith precedes the miracle".

Moving The Overton Window: Radical Mormon Feminists Launch OrdainWomen Website To Bully The LDS Church Into Extending Priesthood To Women

The mainstream media is now beginning to pick up on a campaign dominated by radical Mormon feminists to pressure the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into ordaining women to the Priesthood even without a revelation. They've launched the OrdainWomen website as their clearinghouse. KSTU Channel 13 has published the earliest story, while the Ogden Standard-Examiner weighs in with an AP story.

Although the timing of this campaign is a bit suspicious, considering it comes hot on the heels of the Pants insurgency and the Let Women Pray campaign, the latest push for LDS women’s ordination came after the Sunstone Foundation’s recent symposium in California, where Mormon and Catholic feminists joined together to talk about women’s roles in their patriarchal churches (read Sunstone's March 21st press release). Mary Ellen Robertson, the executive director of the Sunstone Foundation, said that the primary purpose of the OrdainWomen website is to encourage dialogue, adding that the group wants to know if male-exclusive priesthood is doctrinal, or merely the product of more than a hundred years of tradition. The fact that Jesus Christ selected only men to be his original Twelve Apostles doesn't seem to enter the discussion.

In their FAQ, OrdainWomen makes it clear that their coalition includes many devout Mormon women -- some of who who have contributed countless hours of voluntary service to the LDS Church and view OrdainWomen as a continuation of that faith-affirming service. For that reason alone, I find it premature and inflammatory to trot out the "A-word" (apostate) at this time. But their mission statement does not imply that a revelation through the President of the Church is necessary; they even twist a 1997 statement by the late President Gordon B. Hinckley, when he said “Yes. But there’s no agitation for that”, as justification for their insurgency:

The fundamental tenets of Mormonism support gender equality: God is male and female, father and mother, and all of us can progress to be like them someday. Priesthood, we are taught, is essential to this process. Ordain Woman believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings.

Last year the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed its commitment to equality: “The Book of Mormon states, ‘black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God’ (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.” Ordain Women embraces this statement. We are committed to work for equality and the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

Based on the principle of thoughtful, faith-affirming strategic action, Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormon women to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

Note the lack of a reference to the need for a revelation to change Priesthood eligibility, although they use the term "faith-affirming". However, the initial official reaction by the LDS Church is diplomatic; LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter simply explained, “It is the doctrine of the Church that men and women are equal. The Church follows the pattern of the Savior when it comes to priesthood ordination.” And that pattern was first set when the Savior ordained twelve men to be his first group of apostles.

"Equal" does not always mean "interchangeable". Why is it that only women are allowed the privileges of pregnancy and motherhood? Why is it that the most demanding physical professions are overwhelmingly dominated by men? And why is it that, in order to accommodate more women, the military services have lower physical fitness thresholds for women than men? Those variations prove that men and women were not designed to be totally interchangeable. Equality of value does not always require equality of status.

Our Heavenly Father's Kingdom Is Limited To The Milky Way Galaxy, According To The Kolob Theorem Authored By Dr. Lynn Hilton

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe in plurality of gods. This means we believe there is more than one god in the heavens, although we do not embrace polytheism, which is defined as the worship or propitiation of multiple gods. To ensure we direct our prayers only towards our designated Heavenly Father, we pray after the manner specified in Matthew 6:9.

Naturally, this triggers curiosity and speculation on how the universe is organized. Does "plurality of gods" mean each god has his own universe, or does each god merely have his own galaxy within the existing universe? A book I recently read provides a logical and persuasive speculative answer to this question. The book is entitled "The Kolob Theorem", and the author, BYU Professor Dr. Lynn M. Hilton, suggests that our Heavenly Father's kingdom is limited to the Milky Way galaxy rather than encompassing the entire universe. On page 19 of the 98-page book, Dr. Hilton makes it abundantly clear that his ideas are only theories, resulting from his attempts to study the scriptures and astronomy, as suggested by the Lord, and to try to understand them at least in part. He pretends no revelation, but awaits the glorious day, spoken of by the Lord to Joseph Smith. This means "The Kolob Theorem" is not to be considered an official publication of the LDS Church.

The book was previously online at the link specified below, but is now suddenly unavailable. No explanation is provided for its removal:

-- http://hickmanmuseum.homestead.com/the_kolob_theorem.pdf

However, I discovered two other substitute links at which the entire PDF of the book is still available:

-- http://ebookbrowse.com/the-kolob-theorem-pdf-d252542365

-- http://www.rogerknecht.com/uploads/2011/12/The_Kolob_Theorem.pdf

The book can also be purchased through Amazon. Here are some of the more significant findings; chapter 14 of the book contains brief synopses of each chapter:

(1). Our Heavenly Father's kingdom is the Milky Way galaxy: Each god has his own galaxy, and all galaxies are similarly organized. The inner circle is the celestial zone or kingdom, the middle circle is the terrestrial zone or kingdom, and the outer circle is the telestial zone or kingdom (see Chapter 6). Lanes of space dust may separate one zone from another. Dr. Hilton opines that the same pattern of organization is replicated in every galaxy. But he does not speculate on who might have organized the universe itself, or how its boundaries have been determined.

(2). Celestial Zone: Populated with celestialized worlds which have received their final glory, as well as worlds being prepared for spirits about to embark into mortality.

(3). Terrestrial Zone: Populated with terrestrial worlds which have achieved their final glory, as well as worlds transitioning from celestial glory down to terrestrial glory for the habitation of mortals. Dr. Hilton believes the planet upon which Enoch and his translated city lies is in this zone.

(4). Telestial Zone: Populated with telestial worlds which have achieved their final glory, as well as worlds currently populated by mortals.

(5). Outer Darkness: Dr. Hilton believes that Outer Darkness, the repository for Satan and his hosts as well as mortals judged to be sons of perdition, may lie outside the galaxy and be shielded from light by a curtain of space dust. He speculates that it could be a dark planet, but is uncertain whether it is immediately outside the galaxy or out in deep intergalactic space.

(6). The Geographical Applicability of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ: In Chapter 9, Dr. Hilton opines that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, although occurring only on our earth, is applicable to every earth that was experiencing its mortal phase at the time of Christ's ministry. Other sources opine that Christ was sent to our earth not only because it is the current residence of Satan and his hosts, but also because it is the only earth wicked enough to put Him to death.

(7). The Progression of our Earth: In Chapter 8, Dr. Hilton says that our planet earth was first formed in an orbit around Kolob in the celestial core of the galaxy. It migrated out through the terrestrial zone (the Garden of Eden period) for a 1,000 year period, and then took up its present position in an orbit around the sun for its mortal or telestial probation. The earth will return by being pulled away from the sun, passing again through the terrestrial ring (the Millennial period), and finally regaining its original glorious orbit about Kolob in the celestial kingdom. Dr. Hilton speculates that the cataclysmic geological disturbances expected just before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will be attributable to the earth leaving its present location and beginning its transition back to the terrestrial zone.

Dr. Hilton has generously made online copies of this book free of charge. He invites those who would like to show financial gratitude to send a tax-free contribution of any size to the following address:

Middle East Foundation
Treasurer’s Office
1905 North Quincy Street
Arlington, Virginia, 22207, USA

Analysis: This book is absolute dynamite. While not every conclusion in this book is supported by formal LDS canon, there is nothing in this book that conflicts with canon. This book is just another reason why, despite being inactive in the Church for over 40 years, I could never walk away or resign from the Church. This is intellectually captivating; it shows that our possibilities are limitless. How could one leave the Church after reading a book like this? This has been a high-octane testimony builder for me, in the same category as "The First Two Thousand Years" and "Life Everlasting".

Other discussion of this book: This book has also been discussed at LDS Freedom Forum and Mormon Discussions and LDS.net and a more recent discussion on Mormon Dialogue. A copy of the entire book is embedded after the jump:

LDS Church Announces Release Of Updated English-Language Version Of Scriptures In Digital Format; Most Changes Are In The Study Aids

On February 28th, 2013, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced the release of an updated English-language version of its scriptures, often referred to as the Standard Works and consisting of the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Online and mobile versions of the new edition are available now at scriptures.lds.org. Annotations that readers have made in their Gospel Library accounts will automatically transfer to the new digital scriptures. This will be followed by the release of updated print editions in August 2013. All this represents the culmination of eight years of work; read a history of the LDS scriptures HERE. The changes are discussed on this video (if this video auto-starts, I'll pull it):



A bulletized 12-page summary of changes is available HERE. The summary from the first page is cross-published below:

● The quality of the font and typeface has been improved for clearer reading.

● More than 99 percent of the corrections are in the study aids (chapter summaries, footnotes, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, and triple combination index).

● Some minor typographical errors in spelling and punctuation in the text have been corrected to ensure fidelity to the earliest manuscripts and editions.

● Errors in cross-references, dated information, or misquoted text have been corrected in the footnotes, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, and triple combination index.

● In the Book of Mormon, all scripture text that is part of the translation from the plates has been placed in roman typeface. Only study helps, such as chapter headings, remain in italics.

● The style and format of titles have been standardized throughout the scriptures.

● The introductions, tables of contents, and abbreviations pages have been standardized.

● The style and language of the chapter summaries has been standardized through out the scriptures.

The remaining 11 pages contain a list of specific word/phrase changes and their locations. The Joseph Smith Papers website gives a list of changes to the Doctrine & Covenants section headings. And if that's not enough, there's a side-by-side comparison between the old and the new Doctrine & Covenants HERE.

Generating considerable commentary in the LDS Bloggernacle are the new introductions to Official Declaration 1 (1890 revelation indefinitely suspending plural marriage) and Official Declaration 2 (1978 revelation extending Priesthood membership to all worthy males). Added new introductions and historical background to both Official Declarations, and placed them in an italic typeface to indicate that they are study helps. Bloggernacle venues discussing these changes include Junior Ganymede and Millennial Star and Feast Upon The Word. The consensus is that the changes in the incorporation of the Official Declarations and in the Book of Abraham are the most significant; Joe Spencer noted that "an implicit recognition that there’s no obvious relationship between the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Papyri has been worked into the introduction to the Pearl of Great Price".

By Common Consent has gone ape with four different posts on the changes, albeit one post discussing each major change. A Latter-Day Voice weighs in with enthusiasm, and we have more guarded optimism from New Zealand on KiwiMormon, where Gina Colvin is skeptical of the statement “Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice”. However, New Zealanders are subjected to much more official anti-racist propaganda than we are in the USA, so her skepticism may be understandable.

Mainstream media stories were published by KSL Channel 5 and the Salt Lake Tribune.

Mitt Romney Talked About The Mormon Perspective On The Second Coming Of Jesus Christ During His 2008 Presidential Campaign

Business Insider has just posted a story about a segment during Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign in which he discusses the Mormon theological viewpoint about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Making this newsworthy at this time is the fact that the 45-second video segment embedded below is mistitled "Mitt Romney Oct 31 2012, This is the real Mitt Romney", which implies that the person posting it is trying to use it to discredit Romney because of his religion.

During the segment, Romney says "The Church says that Christ appears and splits the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. That’s what the Church says. And then, over a thousand years of the millennium, that the world is reigned in two places, Jerusalem and Missouri....The law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem."



Business Insider also includes a longer video in which the same segment starts around the 15:30 mark. They also refer readers to a March 9th, 2012 source article from CBN News where David Brody predicted that Democratic operatives will try and tarnish Romney by releasing off-the-record background articles and tidbits about his Mormon theology that will try and paint Romney as strange. Brody's predictions not only have been on target, but this is yet another manifestation of the problem.

The Tenth Article of Faith alludes to this belief. It states, "We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory". Doctrine & Covenants 133:24 makes separate references to Jerusalem and Zion, stating "and the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided". Doctrine & Covenant 84:1-5 also states that the New Jerusalem will be built in Missouri. So the belief expressed by Romney in the video is considered doctrinal canon.

Additional LDS doctrinal information and scriptural references about the events surrounding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ are available HERE.

By the way, the new Kansas City LDS Temple is NOT to be considered a precursor to the New Jerusalem. The actual lot for the future temple is currently owned by the Church of Christ Temple Lot, a breakaway sect from the LDS Church.

Why The Roman Catholic Church Should Not Be Singled Out As The "Great And Abominable Church" Described In The Book Of Mormon

One of the more controversial examples of religious folklore within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the notion that the Roman Catholic Church should be singled out as as "great and abominable church" that is the "church of the devil". The purpose of this post is to show that not only is this NOT an official doctrine of the LDS Church, but also that the modern-day Roman Catholic Church does not meet the criteria at this time.

To understand how this notion took root, one must turn to certain verses in the Book of Mormon that caused people to reach such a conclusion. From I Nephi Chapter 13:

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.

5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.

8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.

I Nephi Chapter 13 also describes the effect the great and abominable church would have upon the Bible, which "proceeded forth out of the mouth of a Jew":

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

When I first read these verses at the age of nine, I was a Roman Catholic at the time. Because I was familiar with Catholic history, I initially concluded that the Roman Catholic Church was the "great and abominable church". This conclusion was reinforced by these critical milestones in Catholic history (after the jump):

The Unclean Spirits Blog: One LDS Member's Encounter With Cain, Identified As A Perdition Spirit

Latter-Day Commentary has flagged another blog edited by a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Unclean Spirits blog claims that not all of the spirits who chose not to come to earth and take upon themselves a mortal body are doomed to spend eternity in hell. This contrasts with traditional Mormon doctrine which holds that all of them are forever denied the opportunity to progress.

Unclean Spirits differentiates between the spirits that inhabit spirit prison and hell in the spirit world. The term "evil spirit" applies to those who have never taken a body, while the term "unclean spirit" applies to those who experienced mortality and acquired a body. According to Unclean Spirits, the only spirits completely beyond the reach of the Atonement and condemned forever in hell are Perdition Spirits (scroll down to para. 9), who had a very close relationship with God and then denied Him while in the flesh. According to Joseph Smith, to become a Perdition Spirit, a mortal must receive the Holy Ghost, deny Jesus Christ when the heavens are open to him, know God, and then sin against Him. It is not a singular process.

Unclean Spirits asserts that Perdition Spirits are the most dangerous, because they have the power to inflict physical pain upon those undertaking important missions for the Lord. They've even been known to try and stop children from getting baptized in the LDS Church. The editor of Unclean Spirits reports a personal experience with a Perdition Spirit identified as Cain. Yep, that Cain...the same one who slew Abel:

I had one experience with a perdition spirit who did not attempt to harm me. I was driving about town, lost in thought, when I suddenly felt an unusually strong darkness in the car. I could not see him, but I knew instantly that Cain, son of Adam and Eve, was sitting in the passenger seat next to me. I also knew instantly that he was a perdition spirit. I was afraid because I thought Cain was going to attack me and try to force me to wreck my car to kill me. When Cain did not attack, I calmed a bit and asked him what he wanted. I felt an anguishing sadness coming from him. He asked if I could help him. I told him that I wished I could help him, but he had made choices that prevented it. I said I was sorry for him and he left.

The blogger claims that he receives inspiration directly from God. God answered his request to teach him to protect himself against evil forces by inspiring him to read specific writings from early LDS prophets and apostles that would teach me doctrinal principles about Satan’s tactics. God was very specific in His teaching method: The name of a book and a keyword or page number would appear in his mind. Then he would locate the book and find the passage that God wanted him to read. He would think about that passage and then God would allow him to have experiences that taught him what the passage meant. Then the next book and keyword would appear in his mind and he would repeat the process of finding the new passage and learning from it. This line-upon-line learning continued for several years until he could see how the many separate doctrinal principles fit together.

The LDS Church And Immigration: LDS Church Leaders Inspired But Not Infallible

Former Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has taken public issued with the Church's support of the Utah Compact for immigration. On News With Views, in an essay entitled "Where Did The LDS Church Go Wrong", Johnson takes issue with how the Church arrived at their position in support of the Utah Compact. She tells us that it began in the spring of 2011, when the LDS Church Public Communications Department issued three official statements on immigration. But while the statements may have been intended to clarify the Church's position, Johnson contend they actually further muddied the issue, suggesting that the mere fact that three statements were issued in quick succession implies that the statements themselves were either incomplete or incorrect, and required revision. In addition, Johnson believe the statements were hostile in tone toward state legislators, were filled with political propaganda, and contained conflicting contradictory messages.

The three statements in question:

-- "Presiding Bishop Attends Signing of Immigration Bills", March 15th, 2011

-- "A Principle-Based Approach to Immigration", March 17th, 2011. While this was a clarification statement, it was intended to correct misreporting by the Salt Lake Tribune.

-- "Immigration: Church Issues New Statement", June 10th, 2011. As of this post, this is the LDS Church's most current statement on immigration.

Karen Johnson is careful to avoid laying the blame upon the senior LDS Church leadership. Instead, she believes the responsibility lies upon the shoulders of some agenda-driven, politicized individuals who work in the Church Public Communications Department, from where the statements originated.

Unfortunately, a number of groups and people who were either ignorant about Mormonism or who are anti-Mormon seized upon these statements and the Church's endorsement of the Utah Compact and attempted to represent them as official "canon". During the recall election campaign between Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce and Jerry Lewis, which Lewis eventually won, those opposing Pearce tried to split the considerable LDS community in Mesa by claiming that Pearce was out of harmony with Church "doctrine" on immigration.

But are the Church's statements on immigration really "doctrine" or "canon"? Karen Johnson provides a good explanation as to why this is not so, and how some members of the LDS Church wrongfully attribute inerrancy to any statement issued by a senior Church leader:

It's important to understand that the LDS Church does not claim infallibility for its church leaders. There is no Pope. Its leaders, including the Church President, are mortal men subject to mortal weakness and error. Many LDS Church members, however, have the mistaken belief that every word uttered by a church leader comes straight from God. This infantile attitude excuses church members from having to think for themselves and figure things out. It absolves them from having to study, ponder, and make hard decisions about political issues and candidates. It places undue burdens on Church leaders to carefully weigh every word they write or speak. Finally, it places serious burdens on legislators when Church members think the lawmakers are not being sufficiently obedient to the perceived wishes of the church. Elected officials are not obliged to follow the opinions of Church leaders in making policy decisions.

Some members also believe that anything that comes from within spitting distance of the church's headquarters in Salt Lake City is divinely inspired and not open to question or debate. That, of course, is ridiculous. Church employees are human beings. They have weaknesses. They make mistakes. They have opinions. Some of them apparently have political agendas.

The bottom line: Although Church leaders are inspired, that doesn't make them infallible. Statements like this one, which was published as a Ward Teachers Message in the Deseret News Church Section, p. 5, on May 26th, 1945, have been misinterpreted and misrepresented to mean blind obedience to the leadership:

"Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators' of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the lord's anointed... and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking."

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan -- it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."

It turns out that then-Church President George Albert Smith disavowed the statement, saying that it did not express the true position of the Church. President Smith noted that the Lord gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This is plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow. Furthermore, the key word in the above statement is "doctrine"; the Church may have a political position on immigration, but it is not a doctrine.

Thus a member of the Church can publicly express a different position on immigration with NO IMPACT upon worthiness. Of course, if that Church member were to go so far as to publicly criticize the senior leadership and claim that the were leading the Church astray, that would cross the line separating constructive criticism from apostasy.

The Brethren may be inspired, but they are hardly infallible, and make no claim to infallibility.

Why Mormons Are Christians: LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland Explains The Mormon View Of The Trinity And Rebuts The Nicene Creed

While visiting the blog of A Well Behaved Mormon Woman, I discovered a video of a talk by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Entitled "The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent", the address was delivered during the Saturday Afternoon General Session of the 177th Semiannual General Conference in October 2007. Elder Holland explained the Mormon view of the doctrine of the trinity, and effectively rebutted the Nicene Creed, which holds the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time.

This address becomes important once again because of the renewed public debate over whether Mormonism is Christian. At the very beginning of the address, Elder Holland acknowledges that this controversy tends to revolve around two doctrinal issues — our view of the Godhead, and our belief in the principle of continuing revelation leading to an open scriptural canon. You can read the full transcript of Elder Holland's address HERE.



In summary, we believe it is self-evident from the scriptures that while the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in purpose, they are still three separate and divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great Intercessory Prayer, His baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen — to name just four. Furthermore, if they were not separate beings, why is it that Jesus cried out to the Father during his moment of truth, saying “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”, and “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”? To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are separate and distinct beings is not to be guilty of polytheism; instead, it is part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings.

I would also add that the Nicene Creed was rebutted at the very beginning of the Old Testament, in Genesis 1:26-27:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

This is also replicated in the Pearl of Great Price in Moses 2:27.

We have two arms, two legs, a head, an abdomen, ears, etc. If we are created in the image of God, then common sense dictates that our Heavenly Father looks like us. Thus the Father cannot be part of some three-headed polymorphic blob that's three-in-one, one-in-three, everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

Isn't it ironic that our view of the Trinity is much closer to the Bible than those of our Christian critics who hold to the Nicene Creed? And yet our Christian critics question whether we're Christian because we reject the Nicene Creed.

Why Are Some Changes In The LDS Church Formally "Canonized" And Others Not? LDS Church Doctrine Vs. Policies And Practices

A post on Grace for Grace entitled "Is Revelation to the LDS Church 'Official' if it’s not Canonized" triggered the idea for this post. Grace for Grace notes that while many changes in Church doctrine, policies, and practices have been announced from the pulpit over its years of existence, very few of them ever get formally "canonized". Yet Grace for Grace believes, as I do, that all of them were equally revelatory.

First, we must provide a definition of "canonization". For the purposes of this discussion, we will define canonization as formal incorporation into the Standard Works. Only one of the Standard Works is suitable for the incorporation of new revelations; the Doctrine & Covenants. The other three, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price, have had their bounds already established. The LDS Church's chosen method of incorporating new canon appears to be by appending Official Declarations to the Doctrine & Covenants, which makes sense since the D & C is already a collection of revelations previously canonized by the Church since its formal establishment. Under this concept, only two revelations have qualified for inclusion as Official Declarations.

Next, we must examine the two Official Declarations to determine why they alone qualified for formal canonization. Official Declaration 1, the manifesto of 1890, indefinitely suspended the practice of plural marriage. It redefined authorized marriage by Church doctrine to mean marriage only between one man and ONE woman. This constituted not just a change in Church policy and practice, but a change in the Church's core doctrine.

Likewise, Official Declaration 2, issued in 1978, also represented a change in the Church's core doctrine. Extending Priesthood eligibility to worthy black men on the same basis as all other worthy men redefined Priesthood eligibility.

In contrast, numerous other pronouncements from the pulpit, such as the change to the single three-hour meeting block, the Proclamation on the Family, the adoption of the Duty to God program for young men and the Personal Progress program for young women did NOT represent a change in the Church's core doctrine; instead, those merely represented changes in Church policies and practices. Thus they were not deemed qualified for formal canonization.

In addition, the LDS Church has made official statements on political questions as well. In 1980, the Church issued a statement against the Equal Rights Amendment which stopped its momentum and triggered its rejection. And in 1981, the Church issued a statement opposing the deployment of the MX missile system in Nevada and Utah out of concern it would transform the area into a bullseye for a Soviet preemptive nuclear attack; the MX scheme was abandoned shortly thereafter. But neither of these statements would qualify for formal canonization because they involved no new doctrine and were merely responses to temporary political questions.

But the point made by Grace for Grace is that although not all changes announced from the pulpit qualify for formal canonization, all are equally revelatory. Grace for Grace writes:

...From what I understand, apostles contemplate an issue, pray for guidance by the Spirit, come up with a decision, then present it to the church for sustaining. On occasion, there will be a letter sent out to congregations from the apostles and read by the local bishop, or the apostles or prophet may read it to the whole body of the church in General Conference (or General Relief Society Conference as President Hinckley did with the Family Proclamation).

This process is also designed to minimize the possibility of another "Adam-God" revelation being sprung upon the Church, which was misinterpreted, resulted in confusion, and ultimately disavowed.

Can you imagine how cumbersome and confusing it would be to incorporate every change in Church policy and practice as an official declaration? It would result in perhaps as many as 50 official declarations appended to the Doctrine & Covenants. We would see 20-30 versions of the D & C in circulation. Changes in doctrine occur much less frequently than changes in policies and practices; it is much more likely that the three-hour meeting block will be changed in the future than it would be for Priesthood membership to be extended to women. This is why changes in policies and practices are redirected towards the Church Handbook of Instructions instead.

Much of what I've published in the post represents my best personal interpretation of what the Church leadership is thinking. I do not know for certain what formal litmus test, if any, that Church leaders use to distinguish between core doctrine vs. policies and practices. But I consider my analysis to be logical.

What Did Elder Boyd K. Packer Really Mean When He Said "A Testimony Is To Be Found In The Bearing Of It"?

The idea for this post comes from "Things Of My Soul". On February 18th, 2011, Papa D discussed the issue of bearing one's testimony at an LDS service. The question he addressed was "how can one KNOW that there is a God, the Church is true", etc. He referred to a previous essay by Elder Boyd K. Packer in which Elder Packer spoke of testimonies being strengthened by the sharing of them, and criticized those who misrepresented that counsel to mean "Fake it until you make it".

One of the people who derided Elder Packer's counsel, and the original author of the "Fake it until you make it" canard, is Infymus, who runs the anti-Mormon Mormon Curtain website. In this March 6th, 2005 post entitled "Boyd K. Packer Advocates Bearing False Witness", Infymus cherry-picks Elder Packer's phrase "A testimony is found in the bearing of it", removes it from context, and tries to use it to claim the Elder Packer is telling people that they can gain a true testimony by bearing fake testimonies.

An examination of Elder Packer's original article entitled "The Candle of the Lord", published in the December 1988 Liahona, shows that Infymus' interpretation is distorted. Since Infymus is anti-Mormon, he has no incentive to provide a true perspective. Here's Elder Packer's statement, provided within context to promote genuine understanding:

It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would it not be dishonest?”

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. “The spirit of man” as the scriptures says, indeed “is the candle of the Lord.” (Prov. 20:27.)

It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. It is quite another to have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom that what you have testified is true. Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it? As you give that which you have, there is a replacement, with increase!

Absolutely no hint of dishonesty or disingenuity. Elder Packer is not advising anyone to fake it. The presumption is that one already has received a personal witness of the truthfulness of the Gospel. Here are the three steps:

(1). Receive a personal witness of the truthfulness of the Gospel.

(2). Publicly bear testimony of that witness. This is the "leap of faith" to which Elder Packer attests.

(3). Receive a second witness from the Holy Spirit confirming that the testimony given is true.

That's how a testimony is built and strengthened. Perhaps Elder Packer could have more precisely clarified it by saying "A testimony is magnified in the bearing of it", rather than "found", but that's a mere technicality. What Elder Packer is really saying is that a testimony always comes AFTER one receives a personal witness AND publicly testifies to that witness. Read my previous post on testimony from November 1st, 2009 which goes into more details about "dos and don'ts".

The LDS Church provides this definition of "testimony"

A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior's true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.

Additional information and scriptural references are contained in the LDS Gospel Library.

LDS Prison Ministry: LDS Outreach At The Utah State Prison Proclaims Liberty To The Captives And Offers Salvation To The Fallen

Did you know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a prison ministry? The details are put forth in a paper entitled "Providing Support for Those in Correctional Facilities". Also referenced is the most current version of the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, which is not distributed to the general public or available online (the 1998 version is available HERE).

Based on the resources available, the stake president determines the support that is to be provided to those who are incarcerated at correctional facilities within the boundaries of the stake. He also supervises the support, assisted by other local priesthood leaders. If the stake needs help providing service to correctional facilities within its boundaries, a member of the Presidency of the Seventy or Area Presidency may assign one or more nearby stakes to assist and to serve as the agent stake to the facility. Members called to serve may come from outside the agent stake boundaries with the approval of the member’s stake president.

On October 7th, 2010, the Mormon Times published an interesting article about LDS outreach at the Utah State Prison in Draper. In summary, Elder Bill and Sister Louise Wilhite have been working as church service missionaries in the Correctional Services segment of Welfare Services for 10 years. Every Friday they read and respond to letters from prisoners around the country. Most letters are addressed to President Thomas S. Monson. The Wilhites and other missionary couples spend hours in a cozy office room lined with shelves of scriptures, church manuals and other gospel literature in an effort to meet the inmates' requests. "Our primary purpose is to provide church materials to these individuals," Bill Wilhite said. "The second thing we do is try to get a priesthood interview to them. If possible, we look to begin services through the local church unit." In addition to sending church materials, the couples do their best to offer encouragement and bear testimony of the power of the Atonement.

The prison works with the Church on these issues. Steve Gehrke, public information officer at the Utah Department of Corrections, said there are more than 1,100 volunteers who offer a wide array of services in the prison system at any given time at the Draper and Gunnison prison sites. Not all of them are LDS or religious volunteers. Some deal in education and other aspects, but the bulk deal with religious services. The corrections department allows the LDS Church to hold worship services, firesides, institute, family history and genealogy research classes, addiction recovery programs, activity nights and family home evenings.

In this particular case, approximately 90 or so inmates who have been properly cleared walk a quarter mile and line up at the door to the prison chapel. They are greeted by reverent organ music. When the meeting and testimonies begin, the seats on the stand are filled. There are no travelogues. The participants are men are lawbreakers and most are sincerely seeking a closer relationship to the Savior. A large number are either excommunicated members or long-time inactives, but have found a second chance to learn and live Church teachings. But some participants are of different faiths.

Many of the excommunicants can eventually qualify for re-baptism, even some murderers, if they sincerely repent. However, those who commit first-degree murder, or what the LDS Church calls the "shedding of innocent blood", can only be re-baptized with the approval of the First Presidency of the Church (see page 114 of the 1998 Handbook if Instructions). The shedding of innocent blood is considered so serious that the Church teaches that they will generally have to wait until the Second Resurrection (the Resurrection of the Unjust) to come forth, and then the best outcome to which they can aspire will be telestial glory (the least of the three degrees of glory). Also see D&C 132:26. However, the Lord will make the final decision at that time, and only He can best evaluate the quality of one's life initialized against how much they knew and understood.

YouTube Mormon Messages: Elder Jeffrey R. Holland Explains The Process Of Continuing Revelation And The LDS Open Canon

Unlike most of traditional Christianity, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims an open canon. Through the power of continuous revelation, we can continue to obtain our Heavenly Father's expressed will and guidance at any time. While the President of the LDS Church is the only one authorized to receive revelations applicable to the entire Church, individual members may receive revelation regarding their own personal lives and their families. A revelation obtained by the current President of the Church supersedes a conflicting revelation given to a previous prophet, not because God can't make up His mind, but because our needs and attitudes change. God will never lead us where we are incapable or unwilling to go.

In the video embedded below made in July 2009, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explains this process further. He testifies of the truth of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and continuing revelation from God to His children.



The full address was delivered by Elder Holland during the April 2008 General Conference and the transcript is available HERE.

The Book of Mormon does NOT supersede the Bible. Instead, it takes its place alongside the Bible on the same scriptorial pedestal. The fact that we have yet to find detailed objective corroboration of the specific locations of Book of Mormon lands in no way detracts from its value. Not only is the Book of Mormon intended to be taken on faith, but God has generously reserved for us the privilege of discovering the location of Book of Mormon lands through sometimes painstaking archeological research. He knows how thrilled people become when they discover something for the first time after hard work, and He would not rob us of that pleasure.

However, it is likely that we will have to wait until after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ for all the mysteries to be made known unto us.

Evangelical Pundit Bryan Fischer Says Evangelicals Owe Thanks To Glenn Beck, And Even Describes Mormonism Accurately...Almost

In fits and starts, Evangelicals all over America are beginning to overcome their historical aversion against Mormons and are warming up to us. Recently, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention "upgraded" us from a cult to the "fourth Abrahamic faith", alongside Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And Glenn Beck even gave a commencement address at Liberty University in May 2010. So the barriers are slowly coming down.

But it's Glenn Beck who's the subject of this post. Evangelical pundit Bryan Fischer, who formerly served as the executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance and is now the host of the daily 'Focal Point' radio talk program on AFA Talk, a division of the American Family Association, recently suggested on RenewAmerica that Evangelicals owe a debt of gratitude to Glenn Beck for his role in leading the Restoring Honor Rally which took place in Washington, D.C. on August 28th. Fisher noted that although Beck provided the platform, evangelicals provided the message. Beck depended upon an evangelical, David Barton, for assistance in picking speakers and selecting those who would lead in prayer and worship. In Fischer's words, "A Mormon teed up the ball for evangelical Protestants. And evangelicals hit it out of the park".

Fischer believes that Beck did his best to call America back to its Protestant, evangelical roots, and says that evangelicals owe him a word of thanks. Fischer further states that in the larger picture, evangelicals should be willing to work together with Mormons when the issue is not the saving of souls but the redeeming of culture. Where we share common ground and convictions on public policy issues, as we do on the issue of marriage, we can happily work together. He attributes the victory in California Proposition 8 in large part to the vigorous participation of the LDS Church.

Fair enough, and we appreciate Bryan Fischer's obviously high regard for the level of commitment exhibited by Latter-day Saints, even if he had to visibly swallow some of his disagreement with LDS doctrine. Despite our disagreements with some of the more prominent aspects of Evangelical doctrine, to include pre-tribulation rapture, an anthromorphic Godhead, and faith-only salvation, we're just as willing to work with them on cultural redemption as well.

Of course, Bryan Fischer could not resist the impulse to weigh in on Mormon doctrine, and, for the most part, he described aspects of Mormonism accurately. A point-by-point analysis begins after the jump:

Bearing Testimony At An LDS Sacrament Meeting: A Study In Contrasts

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has set apart one Sunday per month when the sacrament meeting becomes a fast & testimony meeting. Many members will fast for 24 hours, giving the money they would have spent on meals as a fast offering. Then they will bear the testimony at the meeting.

Bearing a testimony refers to sharing one's testimony, which consists of beliefs and convictions regarding the truth of the Gospel. A synonymous term which is often used in the LDS Church is "bearing witness." As this term suggests, bearing testimony consists of standing as a witness for the truth. Church members can choose to mount the podium and bear testimony, under the inspiration of the Spirit and from personal experience, that God lives, and that Jesus is the Christ. Members may also witness of the truthfulness of the gospel, as it has been restored through prophets in these last days. More general information and resources on this practice available in the official LDS Gospel Library.

Here's a brief study in contrasts on how this works - and perhaps how it shouldn't work, as well. A person who had some previous doubts about her faith bore her testimony at a sacrament meeting and posted an account of it on The Exponent. Her simple testimony was as follows:

"That I love God, that I am grateful for the community of faith in the church, but I don’t understand everything and that is ok. That I doubt as much, if not more, than I believe and that that has made me a better person. That I am grateful for the ability to learn from my experiences and mistakes. That I am grateful for the friends and the community in this ward and elsewhere who have accepted me as I am and who have been patient with me as my faith continues to be reshaped since it collapsed last year".

Although her testimony wasn't quite in accordance with the flexible content and format guidelines recommended by the Church leadership, her bishop and stake president didn't nitpick her. Many thanked her after the meeting for having the nerve to get up and said that they appreciated her heart-filled testimony. Consequently, her testimony was useful in nurturing people's faith.

Unfortunately, this is offset by a much different and less favorable experience documented on the Waters Of Mormon. In this case, several people got up during a sacrament meeting and bore testimonies that the local bishop felt were deficient. After the meeting, the bishop then chose to call them into his office and nitpick them over their testimonies.

A young couple was brought into the bishop's office and told that their daughter should not bear her testimony unless she could say it without any help from parents. A single older man was told not to tell such long stories in his testimony. Those involved were hurt by the instruction. The older man declared that he would not bear any more testimonies - at least for a while. And the younger couple said they were not going to change their practice - but did not show up at all this week, which is very unusual for them.

So although this bishop may have been well-intentioned, his counsel actually drove people to do the opposite of what he intended - he scared them away from bearing their testimonies in the future. Such nitpicking is often cited by ex-Mormons as a reason they left the Church; on the anti-LDS Mormon Curtain blog, in a post entitled "Worthy At Last", a poster related always having the impression that nothing he/she ever did as a member was ever good enough, that there was always room for improvement. The poster wrote, "Although I regularly and honestly passed my worthiness interviews, I always had nagging guilt and wondered if I really was worthy. I would beat myself up for little things, sure that I was deficient in some way". Perhaps this is more personal angst on the person's part than anything else, but many ex-Mos who leave report similar feelings. If you wouldn't want a spouse who nitpicked you all the time, you would understandably be sensitive to a church you felt nitpicked you as well.

The Latter-Day Saints Perspective On The Creation And Eternal Progression Of Mankind, According To Dr. Eric Skousen's "Earth In The Beginning"

The purpose of this post is to provide an abbreviated explanation of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding the eternal progression of mankind. In short, to provide answers on what we believe regarding the three important questions: Where we came from, why we are here, and where we can go. In some cases, actual doctrine is seasoned with informed speculation by educated Mormons; the speculation is OK as long as it merely supplements existing doctrine rather than contradicting it.

One difficulty lies in the ambiguity and the brevity of the account of the Creation. We only have the accounts put forth in the Old Testament (Genesis) and the Pearl of Great Price (Abraham) to draw from. On the surface, it appears that the two accounts are redundant. But on page 26 of the 1999 edition of his book "Earth In The Beginning", Dr. Eric Skousen attempts to clarify the redundancy. He describes the creation in terms of three epochs:

-- The First Epoch: The spirit creation, or the creation of the spirit earth and its embellishment with spirit life forms, including the spirit family of our Heavenly Father (that's us, folks). This is described in Genesis Chapter 1.

-- The Second Epoch: The creation of the physical earth and its preparation to sustain modern life forms. This is described in Abraham Chapter 4 in the Pearl of Great Price; it is NOT described in Genesis.

-- The Third Epoch: The arrival of modern life forms on the newly-created physical earth, including Adam and Eve. During this epoch, all life on earth is sanctified and not initially subject to death. The subsequent Fall of Adam and Eve introduced death to the earth. This is described in Genesis Chapter 2.

But how did it all begin? In summary, we began as organized intelligences, were encountered by a master creator (our Heavenly Father, known as Elohim) who offered us the opportunity to be organized, tested, and tabernacled. We accepted, and those of us who proved most capable during this initial testing were tabernacled in spirit after the image of God. After reaching maximum progress within a spirit tabernacle, we were then offered the opportunity to take the next step by coming to a mortal world where sin and opposition exist to take on a mortal tabernacle. After we die and leave our mortal tabernacles behind, depending upon our progress on earth, we will then be resurrected where spirit and mortal tabernacles will be eternally reunited, and assigned to one of four levels of glory or kingdoms.

LDS Member And Prospective Missionary Christopher Gribble Charged With Murder Of Kimberly Cates And Maiming Of Jaime Cates In New Hampshire

Update March 25th 2011: Christopher Gribble found guilty of murder, sentenced to life without parole. Updated post HERE.

Update October 7th: More background information released and presented HERE. You can also express your condolences to the Cates Family on the WeAreBetterThanThis website.

A man identified as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who aspired to be appointed a full-time missionary for the Church has been arrested and charged with murder in New Hampshire. Primary media story published by the Boston Globe; additional stories by the Boston Herald, the New Hampshire Union-Leader, and the Nashua Telegraph. Post combines and summarizes different facts from the various media stories. NECN news video embedded below:



Nineteen-year-old Christopher Gribble was one of four teenagers arrested in connection with the brutal killing of a 42-year-old nurse, Kimberly Cates, and the maiming of her 11-year-old daughter, Jaime Cates, in Mont Vernon, NH on Sunday October 4th, 2009. Seventeen-year-old Steven Spader allegedly slit the young girl’s throat with a machete and, along with Gribble, fatally hacked her mother in the head, torso, left arm and left leg. The victim’s husband, David Cates, 44, a defense contractor with BAE Systems, was away on business but returned straightaway after learning of the crime.

Prosecutors have charged Gribble and Spader with first-degree murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. They did not enter pleas, the customary practice for serious crimes in New Hampshire, and were ordered held without bail. The two other teenagers, 18-year-old William Marks and 17-year-old Quinn Glover, face charges of burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, and armed robbery, although prosecutors said both were armed with deadly weapons and were willing participants in the crime. It appears prosecutors don't yet have evidence that Marks and Glover actually participated in the attack upon the two victims themselves, so they are not charged with murder. Marks and Glover are being held on $500,000 bail. All four are expected to appear in court on October 20th.

YouTube Video: Can A Person See God? An LDS Perspective On The Nature Of God

Upon visiting an LDS Church Examiner website edited by Greg West, I discovered a video which discusses the perspective about the nature of God as presented by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It effectively rebuts the closed canon ideal currently held by much of the rest of organized Christianity. You can review my previous post explaining the LDS belief in plurality of Gods for even more background. The video reveals that while there are four Biblical verses stating that man cannot see God, there are 12 verses which affirm man can see God.

The video is entitled "Can A Person See God":



Note that Latter-day Saints now believe the God which appeared to man in Old Testament scenarios is actually Jehovah, who would be born into the world as Jesus Christ in the meridian of time. The Father, Elohim, is not known to have appeared unto anyone in Old Testament Israel.

The video is one of many hosted on the SpamLDS YouTube channel. SpamLDS stands for the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism, and their mission is to "defeat anti-Mormon hatred and bigotry with knowledge and humor". Since they appear to be a serious pro-LDS website, their link will go up on my sidebar for future reference.

Should These Five Doctrinal Ideas Be Dropped From LDS Canon?

While visiting the Nine Moons blog, I discovered an interesting and thought-provoking post by Geoff Johnston. In this post, entitled "5 Popular Doctrinal Ideas That Probably Should Be Dumped", Johnston identifies and discusses five different ideas that he believes should not be promoted, and provides the justification for his objection. Since my response would be far too long for a typical comment, I decided to publish it here.

First, let's define "doctrine". I define doctrine as anything that can be supported scripturally by any of the LDS Church's four Standard Works. If scriptural support cannot be found, then the idea is better described as tradition, or even folklore, rather than doctrine.

Thus below, I present Johnston's ideas, his objections, and my responses:

-- Idea: God exhaustively knows the future.
-- Objection: Conflicts with the doctrine of free agency.
-- My Response: God may not know every jot and tittle of our future, but He does know the most likely possibilities, since He created us and has observed us over countless eons. This is reflected in the fact that he identified his "great and noble ones" before the foundation of the world, and arranged for many of them to be born at different times to ensure that the mortal world would never be totally left without the light of the Gospel, even in highly diluted form. Even so, we still have free agency in this life, and can choose to disobey.

-- Idea: Our spirits gestated in the womb of a resurrected celestial woman.
-- Objection: Joseph Smith once said that spirits have no beginning.
-- My Response: First, the canon did not close once again upon the death of Joseph Smith. This means anything said by Joseph Smith can be superseded by new wisdom and even revelation. Second, the newer wisdom, as expressed by Dr. Eric Skousen in "Earth In The Beginning", is that while we have always existed as entities, we once existed only as unorganized intelligences. We then encountered God, who offered us the opportunity to be organized, tested, and tabernacled. After being tested, we reached a point where we demonstrated no capacity to grow further, and were "locked in", being given a spirit tabernacle commensurate with our progress and capacities. Those of us making the greatest progress received spirit tabernacles in the very image of God Himself, for God identified us as having potential to begin progressing towards Godhood.

After eons of testing as spirits, we then reached our limits once again. The next step towards Godhood was to come down to a mortal planet and house our spirit tabernacles within an outer tabernacle of mortal flesh (similar in concept to fitting a hand into a glove). Two-thirds of us accepted the opportunity and came down at our appointed times.

In response to Johnston questioning how resurrected parents with physical bodies could bear children with no physical bodies, the answer is simple: If celestial parents tried to bring forth a mortal tabernacle in a celestial environment, the mortal tabernacle would be instantly destroyed. How many times do the scriptures state that no mortal man can behold the full glory of God, and afterwards remain in the flesh? Why did the Lord have Moses hide in the cleft of a rock up on Sinai? Because the Lord knew that if Moses beheld Him in full, his body would immediately be destroyed. Consequently, I suggest that mortal tabernacles can only be created in a mortal environment, thus celestial parents bear only spirit tabernacles in a celestial environment.

-- Idea: This life is our only chance to become at one with God and there is no progression between kingdoms.
-- Objection: Potentially conflicts with the doctrine of free agency.
-- My Response: The General Authorities sell this idea for a good reason; namely, they want us to make all the progress possible while on this earth. If people got the idea that there could be progression between the three kingdoms, or degrees of glory, in the next life, they might be tempted to pull their punches and settle only for terrestrial or telestial glory in advance.

The mission of the LDS Church is not merely to sell "heaven"; it is also to sell "celestial heaven", or the celestial kingdom. Because the LDS Church has the fulness of the Gospel, it is equipped to put people on the fast track to Godhood. Consequently, the General Authorities are going to sell "Godhood" rather than mere "angelhood". It's like if you're in the market for a truck, and you visit a Ford dealer. Is the Ford salesman going to tell you that it's O.K. to buy a Toyota? Of course not - he wants you to buy a Ford. Consequently, the president of the one church that has the fulness of the Gospel is not going to tell you that the telestial kingdom is O.K. when he has the authority to put you on the fast track to the celestial kingdom.

I suspect that there might be very limited progression between kingdoms in the next world, but it is much easier to qualify for the celestial kingdom while still on earth, because only a mortal planet offers the degree of temptation and privation necessary to make the fastest possible progress. The relationship between adversity and progress is directly proportional; the greater the adversity, the greater your opportunity to make progress. Until otherwise revealed through the official Priesthood channels, I will continue to assume there will be no post-mortal progression.

-- Idea: The world is coming to an end any day now.
-- Objection: Would encourage slothful stewardship.
-- My Response: Actually, I agree with the objection. Most objectionable is the Evangelical doctrine of pre-tribulation rapture, which encourages escapism. Latter-day Saints as a whole do NOT accept pre-tribulation rapture. But we do know that Jesus Christ will come sometime during the 21st century; however, His Second Coming is both chronologically-driven AND conditionally-driven. This means certain conditions must also be fulfilled. One of them is that the Gospel must be formally taken to all nations in advance. The Gospel has not been allowed to be preached in either the Middle East or China yet, so those areas need to be opened up before Christ can come again. In addition, the Bible states that no man knows the hour of Christ's coming, only the Father.

-- Idea: We really understand the atonement. Geoff Johnston claims we don't. I don't see why he makes an issue of this; it is commonly assumed that we don't understand the fulness of the Atonement. But we understand the basics of it, enough to set us on the road to salvation, so I see no reason to further belabor this issue.