Once upon a time I used to write blog posts. And many of them were on the topic of being children of God in a literal (complete) sense. And I once wrote a paper that I presented at an SMPT conference on the implications of taking this belief literally. The recently added gospel topic at lds.org reinforces all of that.
Recent events have caused me to evaluate how I feel about certain current issues and how I would feel if these issues were to result in changes in the doctrine or practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The issues include ordaining women to the priesthood, and same-sex marriage.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 15,000 times in 2013. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 6 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
There has been a ton of discussion and debate on the topic of ordaining women to the priesthood within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. With my inactivity in the bloggernacle I would normally not add anything to this debate, yet in almost all of the discussions I have observed, there has been little to no attention paid to what I would consider the money scripture on the subject – D&C Section 107, and this has confused me enough to speak up.
I saw a couple of facebook links from a sister of mine to some dude with a blog that had posted 40 questions for Christians. This obviously meant something to her, so I wanted to respond at some level. This particular list is not as impressive as it may sound. There are really about 5 questions that are asked in different ways. These questions seem to be more focused on main-stream Christianity. And in my highly biased opinion, Mormonism provides better answers.
So, I know this is long (although my answers are very brief), but it is something that can be easily skimmed through. I hope some of these simple answers are meaningful to someone. – especially the sister.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is about to find out.
Lorenzo Snow made a provocative statement once that has come to be known the Lorenzo Snow couplet. The statements is:
As man now is, God once was;
As God now is, Man may be.
This statement is sometimes seen as controversial. President Hinckley declined to address it once in a public interview. Critics will point to this couplet as an example of highly unorthodox teachings within Mormonism. They will also claim that the church no longer teaches this – perhaps implying that the church may be ashamed of the teaching.
I think there is some significance to this statement being prominently quoted in the current Priesthood and Relief Society manuals. There was no hiding from this quote – in fact, it was set off from the rest of the text as its’ own paragraph.
The lesson speaks of the background behind this statement. It seems that President Snow felt that it was revelation, and that it was consistent with what Joseph Smith taught.
I have always like this statement. It rings true to me. And I am glad that the powers that be included it so prominently in the current lesson manual. Hardly the act of a church that is embarrassed by or hiding from the idea. The lesson can be read here.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 14,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 3 Film Festivals
Tags: LDS, Mormon, Mormon Culture, Mormonism, Scriptures
We have recently moved to a small town in western Ohio. My #2 son is one of only two young men in the local high school (as far as I know). He is participating on the football team and just the other day the team had a meal together. At the table where he sat, the conversation turned to the practices of Mormonism. The report of the conversations went something like this:
“So you believe there should not be any sex before marriage.”
“Yes”, my boy said.
“What would you do if a pretty girl came up to you, unzipped your pants, and gave you a hand job?”
“I would probably slap her face.”
“No you wouldn’t”
“Yes I would”
“What about Adam and Eve, they weren’t married”
“Yes the were”
My son then pulls out his IPod and goes to Genesis 1 to show that Adam and Eve were husband and wife.
“Dude. You have the scriptures on your IPod?!”
The boy seemed to handle it pretty well. And seems to have no fear.
In my many blog discussions and debates over spirit birth, I have learned that spirit adoption is the preferred theory of those who do not like the idea of literal spirit birth. The idea of adoption as the fundamental relationship between God and man does not appeal to me in the least. And I would like to attempt to explain why that is. But first it may be a good idea to provide simple definitions for spirit birth and spirit adoption as I currently understand the terms.