A Mormon Hymn: If You Could Hie to Kolob

[why_me]

Although many christians, including catholics, have mocked the mormons over kolob, I have to take my hat off to the mormons for moving christianity forward. The idea of kolob shows the mormon faith to be revolutionary with respect to christian doctrine.

No other christian faith takes a stance of where just exactly god resides. And yet, he must reside somewhere.

 

[Answersplease]

…married LDS men and women are equal partners, and both seek the exaltation of their partner through being supportive in every way, by definition of their eternal marriage covenant.

Answersplease:

How equal can the men and women be?

Take a moment to fully digest the following:

**
1.) The women whisper their secret names to their husbands and to nobody else, because the husband has to call her by her secret name to bring her up to the Celestial Kingdom.

2.) The men DO NOT have to whisper their secret names to their wives.

3.) The men can become gods, but the WOMEN CANNOT become gods.

4.) The following quote shows that women will be considered as “ORNAMENTS” in the kingdom of their husband who has become a “god”:**

utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm

(Red color added to highlight the original text.)

We were next led into what is called the Terrestrial Glory; where Brigham Young received us, . . . he gave each a pass-word and grip necessary, he said, to admit us into the “Celestial Glory;” . . . there are many gods, and they do not acknowledge the one Triune God of the Bible, but that every man will sometime be a “god;”

and that women are to be the ornaments of his kingdom, and dependent upon him for resurrection and salvation; and that our salvation is dependent upon the recollection of these passwords; . . ." (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition. Embracing the Narrative of Mrs. Mary Ettie V. Smith, of Her Residence and Experience of Fifteen Years with the Mormons…, by N. W. Green, Hartford, 1870, p. 42-48)

5.) The following quotes show that the women must be escorted by their husbands or a proxy. But I guess that the husbands don’t need an escort:

utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm

(Red color added to highlight the original text.)

LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857:

...Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord?

“What!—my husband to be my lord?” I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)

The following is a summary of the early Utah temple ceremony as found in History of Utah, 1540-1886, by H. H. Bancroft:
…
When the men are all in, each woman is passed through by her husband, or having none, by one of the brethren.

 

[dianaiad]

[edited]

answersplease:

Then you should have no problem understanding The Holy Trinity as described by Catholics and many Protestants

I think that my reply of:

dianaiad:

I do understand it, m’friend. The problem isn’t that I don’t understand it. The problem is that I do…and don’t agree with it. There is also the problem that I keep running into people who claim to be trinitarians, but who are actually modalists, or something else ‘…ist…’ but not trinitarian as Catholics describe it.

Makes more sense in that case.

Of course, Answersplease, if you would cease putting quotes around your own replies, so that those who respond to you wouldn’t have to resort to copy/paste in order to quote you, the possibility for such copy/paste errors, even those as weird and inexplicable as mine was, wouldn’t arise.

It would also be more reasonable of you, when something that strange happens, to ask what happened and not to assume that the thing was a deliberate and malicious attempt to insult or injure you.

Either way, I’m sorry…it was an error.

 

[blazerdave]

Although many christians, including catholics, have mocked the mormons over kolob, I have to take my hat off to the mormons for moving christianity forward. The idea of kolob shows the mormon faith to be revolutionary with respect to christian doctrine.

No other christian faith takes a stance of where just exactly god resides. And yet, he must reside somewhere.

Well, as a matter of fact, other Christians do teach that God resides somewhere - in Heaven. However, we also understand God to be present everywhere, for no one place can truly hold him.

 

[why_me]

Of course, Answersplease, if you would cease putting quotes around your own replies, so that those who respond to you wouldn’t have to resort to copy/paste in order to quote you, the possibility for such copy/paste errors, even those as weird and inexplicable as mine was, wouldn’t arise.

It would also be more reasonable of you, when something that strange happens, to ask what happened and not to assume that the thing was a deliberate and malicious attempt to insult or injure you.

If everyone would have the same posting technique as answersplease, we would be a forum of madhatters. I think that it is more of a power game he plays. I tend to ignore his posts when possible. I think that most do so too. No point in attempting to figure the posts out. I am surprised that catholicanswer forums allows him to post in the style that he does. It is so uncharitable and uncatholic.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

The following quotes show everything anybody needs to know.

I doubt that The Holy Spirit guides people into lying.

(Red color and underlining added to highlight the original text.)

Sidney Rigdon in the 18 June 1845 ‘Messenger and Advocate’ reported that Parley P. Pratt, in speaking of the means by which church leaders should sustain Smith, advised that ‘we must lie to protect brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.’

Not only were church leaders willing to violate the law to promote polygamy, they did not hesitate to blacken the character of individuals who threatened to expose the secret practice of plural marriage.
…

-Richard van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, pp. 38-39

From the thread: Milk before meat (link to the thread is below)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…=411925&page=2

Post #18
(Red color and underlining added to highlight the original text.)
why me:

First, it is not suprising that in public JS would deny polygamy. I would have done so too

since the hatred for mormons was very real. Polygamy would have created an intolerable position for the early mormons if the cat was let out of the bag. And so, I can see denying polygamy in public. No problem.
why me:

…it is not suprising that in public JS would deny polygamy. I would have done so too

…

…intolerable position…if the cat was let out of the bag.

…I can see denying polygamy in public. No problem.

…‘we must lie to protect brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.’

…they did not hesitate to blacken the character of individuals who threatened to expose the secret…
…

-Richard van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, pp. 38-39

 

[TOmNossor]

I apologize in advance if I do not answer what you are specifically asking. I guess at the most basic level I am interested in historical Christianity and am curious about why and what Mormons believe in relation to specifically the origins of Christianity. The OP has nothing to do with this however. Sorry…

I believe Knowing God is very important.
I believe knowing the history of Christianity is much less important, but it can be a tool to find out which of the various concepts of God are more likely to be closer to reality.
I however believe someone who has not met God and does not know God is unlikely to be so encouraged by the history of Christianity (when examined from multiple POV) they will decide God must exist.
For one who doesn’t know God, I suggest they find Him through pray and reflection upon scripture. As a LDS I think the BOM is a great source, but I think God is found in the Bible and many folks do become “God’s friend” through study of the Bible. Things like attending a Catholic mass or visiting a LDS temple can also help.

I recommend to my LDS friends and occasionally to non-LDS who are interested in Catholic and LDS truth claims about what historic Christianity teaches us concerning God’s Church.

1. Father Francis Sullivan (Catholic) From Apostles to Bishops argues that the Apostles ordained co-workers and local leaders. The groups of local leaders coalesced/copied Jerusalem and monoepiscopal Bishops emerged. Here are some excerts: http://books.google.com/books?id=rn...&resnum=3&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
2. Robert Eno (Catholic) The Rise of the Papacy tracks the development of the primacy of Rome over other apostolic seas.
3. Hugh Nibley’s (LDS) Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity
   This book presents most of the same data from the first 2 books. Instead of arguing that this data points to the valid development of Christian doctrine (and authority in this case), Nibley argues the data indicates a divine church lead by revelation became a human church without God’s authority.

Three more of value IMO:

(Catholic) Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote in the 1800’s an essay call On the Development of Christian Doctrine. Available online here:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html
(LDS)Early Christians in Disarray This I think is totally online.
(LDS)Apostasy from the Divine Church

Those are my top reads anyway. I believe few Catholics (including folks like Akin and Madrid) acknowledge just how important Newman’s essay is to any truth claims for Catholicism. Some LDS probably believe that once we show very early Christianity had tons of deification language and little concept of Roman Primacy, we have proved our points and can go home. Things are seldom so simple.
Charity, TOm

P.S. The above is mostly about authority. For sampling of non-authority based doctrinal things, here are two sources.
The writings of the ECF (I think this is a Catholic translation, but I am aware of very few – two actually – place were translation is argued):
http://www.catholicfirst.com/churchfathersindex.html

Barry Bickmore’s book: Restoring the Ancient Church http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/
I like Barry’s book, but he has necessarily sampled ECF thought to present his case. There are many other aspects that can be found. As LDS we can overstate our case by saying, “This is pro-LDS doctrine, this is apostasy.”

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Well, I’ve never figured out why original sin could even be a factor in the salvation of mankind after Christ died and was resurrected, myself. Wasn’t that the whole idea of His sacrifice, to get rid of original sin, and to give back to man that which Adam, by his choice, took away?

However, Most Christian faiths do believe that original sin is still a factor.

Hi diana.

So…Mormons believe that children inherit original sin before Christ? I have always thought that the concept was inconceivable to Mormons. That they thought is was unjust.

Anyway, to attempt to answer your question, Jesus insists upon the need for rebirth. We wonder why would this be if everything is okay with the first birth? This rebirth involves water and the Holy Spirit. Catholics think it is referring to baptism. It seems to us that all of us are born in Adam, and reborn in Christ. Why is rebirth needed if are were already born in Christ? I don’t imagine to be convincing, but I wonder if maybe you can see why we go this direction. It isn’t because we hate babies. Heh.

Rory

 

[Failing_Gong]

What does “hie” mean? :hypno:

 

[dianaiad]

Hi diana.

So…Mormons believe that children inherit original sin before Christ? I have always thought that the concept was inconceivable to Mormons. That they thought is was unjust.

Hmmn. You are right; such a thought IS anathema to Mormons. However, I can sure see why it would occur to you, given what “original sin” seems to mean to Catholics and other mainstream Christians.

Let’s put it this way: we understand very well that there is something called ‘the natural man…’ that is, we humans are naturally going to want to do what ‘feels good’ at the time. If we don’t see the advantages of short term (or long term) sacrifice, or for putting others first in our lives, then we are going to, by our natures, choose to be selfish. If a lie is easier than the truth, for instance, we will be very tempted to tell the lie. That is the nature of free will (or free agency.) We are all stuck with that; it is the purpose of our lives to learn to deal with, and overcome, that. I understand that this is a part of what some Christians call ‘original sin,’ or the ‘unregenerate man.’ However, while Adam’s choices put us all in a so-called ‘fallen’ state, we aren’t responsible for his choice–just our own…and no human HAS been responsible for any sin but his own. As for this tendency to want to sin rather than do the hard, right, thing–I don’t think that Adam gave that to us. In fact, it is the natural downside of having the ability to choose. Adam didn’t bring it, he already HAD it—else how was he capable of making the choices he did?

What ADAM brought to us, through his sin, was physical death. That’s it. Our entire view of this is summed up in 1 Corinthians 15:22, which we take rather literally: “for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” As in, we believe that “all” means "all,’ both times it is used in this verse. We all die…and we will all be resurrected.

Period.

Since the two concepts…of ‘the natural man’ and what Adam brought to us, that is, death, (or at least and understanding of it…) are separate, then the things that we believe operate now in regard to free will would have worked before Christ’s resurrection, including the concept that those who are not responsible for the choices they make cannot be punished for them…and children are born utterly innocent. They always have been, and always will be.

As well, since “all” means “all,” that applies to those people who came before Him, as well as those who have arrived since!

Anyway, to attempt to answer your question, Jesus insists upon the need for rebirth. We wonder why would this be if everything is okay with the first birth?

Define “OK.” We understand a couple of things in this matter: first, that infants are born utterly innocent, and second–as those infants become children and adults, and become able to consider, make, and act upon their choices, they WILL make the wrong ones. There has only been One sinless Man on the earth, and look Who He is!!!

Therefore that ‘rebirth’ is necessary…but not until the kid is old enough to have some inkling of why.

This rebirth involves water and the Holy Spirit. Catholics think it is referring to baptism. It seems to us that all of us are born in Adam, and reborn in Christ. Why is rebirth needed if are were already born in Christ? I don’t imagine to be convincing, but I wonder if maybe you can see why we go this direction. It isn’t because we hate babies. Heh.

Rory

The problem, as you see, is an unintended equivocation. Perhaps if you could explain exactly what original sin IS, and what 1 Cor.15: 22 means to you, if ‘all’ does NOT mean, in fact, ‘all,’…what it does mean?

 

[simspt]

I recommend to my LDS friends and occasionally to non-LDS who are interested in Catholic and LDS truth claims about what historic Christianity teaches us concerning God’s Church.

1. Father Francis Sullivan (Catholic) From Apostles to Bishops argues that the Apostles ordained co-workers and local leaders. The groups of local leaders coalesced/copied Jerusalem and monoepiscopal Bishops emerged. Here are some excerts: http://books.google.com/books?id=rn...&resnum=3&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
2. Robert Eno (Catholic) The Rise of the Papacy tracks the development of the primacy of Rome over other apostolic seas.
3. Hugh Nibley’s (LDS) Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity
   This book presents most of the same data from the first 2 books. Instead of arguing that this data points to the valid development of Christian doctrine (and authority in this case), Nibley argues the data indicates a divine church lead by revelation became a human church without God’s authority.

Three more of value IMO:

(Catholic) Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote in the 1800’s an essay call On the Development of Christian Doctrine. Available online here:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html
(LDS)Early Christians in Disarray This I think is totally online.
(LDS)Apostasy from the Divine Church

Those are my top reads anyway. I believe few Catholics (including folks like Akin and Madrid) acknowledge just how important Newman’s essay is to any truth claims for Catholicism. Some LDS probably believe that once we show very early Christianity had tons of deification language and little concept of Roman Primacy, we have proved our points and can go home. Things are seldom so simple.
Charity, TOm

P.S. The above is mostly about authority. For sampling of non-authority based doctrinal things, here are two sources.
The writings of the ECF (I think this is a Catholic translation, but I am aware of very few – two actually – place were translation is argued):
http://www.catholicfirst.com/churchfathersindex.html

Barry Bickmore’s book: Restoring the Ancient Church http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/
I like Barry’s book, but he has necessarily sampled ECF thought to present his case. There are many other aspects that can be found. As LDS we can overstate our case by saying, “This is pro-LDS doctrine, this is apostasy.”

Thanks for the references. I read some of the Mormon writings you recommended. After doing so it seems to me the million dollar question revolves around the Mormon concept of the great apostasy. All the subsequent doctrinal differences are logically connected to the validity or lack thereof for this idea put foward by the Mormon Church. Im sure there are other threads here that deal specifically with this topic so I will look for those. Thanks for the references once again, I was not aware of the Mormon concept of apostasy.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Diana writes:

The problem, as you see, is an unintended equivocation. Perhaps if you could explain exactly what original sin IS, and what 1 Cor.15: 22 means to you, if ‘all’ does NOT mean, in fact, ‘all,’…what it does mean?

I answer:

Original sin comes from our “origin”, our first parents. Because it is contracted through no fault of our own, there is no positive punishment for it. Original sin is the absence of supernatural grace or what you might call “abundant life”, a share in the divine life, or even “deification”, which our first parents had, not by natural right, but as a gift. We understand that the children of Adam are born without this gift, but can get it by being reborn unto the “last Adam” through baptism.

The other kind of sin is actual sin. It comes from our personal “acts”. Because it is done by our own responsibility, there is positive punishment for it. Babies are exempt from this through their lack of reason.

In Adam, all die. In Christ, all live. We are all born unto Adam. Not all are reborn into Christ, but “all” of those who are reborn into Christ experience that abundant life, deification. Sometimes, often times “all” requires some qualification. Not this time.

---

Since we believe that unbaptized babies cannot burn in hell…and this is no post-Vatican II novelty, it seems to me that a vast multitude of unbaptized will fare quite well in the Catholic eschatology, where they will have at the very least immortality with all natural pleasures at their disposal, only lacking the supernatural disposition for the contemplative Vision of God for eternity.

Perhaps according to Mormon teaching every dead baby in the world will enjoy the highest exaltation in the celestial kingdom. I really wouldn’t know. If they do, it seems remarkable to me that by merely dying, every infant of every tribe and nation catapults ahead of those who travailed and persevered through life to please their God. To me that would seem to be peculiar favor. That is why I doubt that dead babies make it to the top of the ladder, if you will, in the final LDS kingdoms, just as they don’t in the Catholic understanding.

I know you have at least a three fold division called celestial, telestial, and terrestrial. I have little doubt that the natural joys of immortal life found in the Limbo of the Children would be competitively pleasant with the joys of the lower LDS kingdoms. As I said, Catholics don’t hate babies, we never have. We know God loves babies, and He would not punish them for what is not their fault. But it is not punishment to give a natural man, born in Adam, not reborn into Christ, all the natural joy of which he is capable.

Parents of Catholic children of course, are earnest about insuring that their little ones receive even more unearned favor, and since through baptism, they can enjoy the fruits of supernatural life, it is considered tragic if a child should fail to be baptized. This is very emotional for parents of course. It can be somewhat comforting to know that the child is not being tormented, but to possibly be separated forever is still something that the parents will take every step to insure does not happen.

Rory

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

PS: The post immediately above gives the worst case scenario! The Limbo of the Children was never a defined dogma and there are many in our day who are coming to believe that by an unusual grace, babies may even receive the fruits of baptism without the actual Sacrament. I have been skeptical of such a happy teaching in the past, criticising it as being wishful sentimentalism. Although I don’t remember the argument well, my own parish priest, who some might consider overly Traditional, explained to me once why he believes dead babies go to heaven.

Not being convinced of this myself, and knowing that many the faithful still hold firmly to the doctrine of Limbo, I thought it best to defend our beliefs about the results of original sin under the worst conditions imaginable. That would be the Limbo of the Children that I briefly touched upon above.

Rory

 

[dianaiad]

Diana writes:

The problem, as you see, is an unintended equivocation. Perhaps if you could explain exactly what original sin IS, and what 1 Cor.15: 22 means to you, if ‘all’ does NOT mean, in fact, ‘all,’…what it does mean?

I answer:

Original sin comes from our “origin”, our first parents. Because it is contracted through no fault of our own, there is no positive punishment for it. Original sin is the absence of supernatural grace or what you might call “abundant life”, a share in the divine life, or even “deification”, which our first parents had, not by natural right, but as a gift. We understand that the children of Adam are born without this gift, but can get it by being reborn unto the “last Adam” through baptism.

The other kind of sin is actual sin. It comes from our personal “acts”. Because it is done by our own responsibility, there is positive punishment for it. Babies are exempt from this through their lack of reason.

In Adam, all die. In Christ, all live. We are all born unto Adam. Not all are reborn into Christ, but “all” of those who are reborn into Christ experience that abundant life, deification. Sometimes, often times “all” requires some qualification. Not this time.

---

Since we believe that unbaptized babies cannot burn in hell…and this is no post-Vatican II novelty, it seems to me that a vast multitude of unbaptized will fare quite well in the Catholic eschatology, where they will have at the very least immortality with all natural pleasures at their disposal, only lacking the supernatural disposition for the contemplative Vision of God for eternity.

Perhaps according to Mormon teaching every dead baby in the world will enjoy the highest exaltation in the celestial kingdom. I really wouldn’t know. If they do, it seems remarkable to me that by merely dying, every infant of every tribe and nation catapults ahead of those who travailed and persevered through life to please their God. To me that would seem to be peculiar favor. That is why I doubt that dead babies make it to the top of the ladder, if you will, in the final LDS kingdoms, just as they don’t in the Catholic understanding.

Well, yes, they do—and no, they don’t. The idea is that they WILL have a chance to do the growing and learning that they need to do, just not here and no, and not as mortals. Their presence in the Celestial Kingdom is assured, but there really isn’t a guarantee that the highest level would be, for them. The point is, however, that such is not barred to them simply because they died too soon, either.

I know you have at least a three fold division called celestial, telestial, and terrestrial. I have little doubt that the natural joys of immortal life found in the Limbo of the Children would be competitively pleasant with the joys of the lower LDS kingdoms.

Better…as I said, we believe they are in the Celestial Kingdom. Not that there is a whole lot wrong with the lower two, either—I believe that Joseph Smith once said something along the lines of, if if we had any idea how wonderful the lowest of the kingdoms was, we might well all commit suicide just to go there.

…and that’s where the worst of sinners go, we believe. It is hell only in comparison to the Celestial Kingdom.

The purest of hells is reserved, we believe, for those who deny the Holy Ghost. While there is some controversy over who those people are, I’m of the opinion that it is very difficult to ‘qualify’ for that.

As I said, Catholics don’t hate babies, we never have. We know God loves babies, and He would not punish them for what is not their fault. But it is not punishment to give a natural man, born in Adam, not reborn into Christ, all the natural joy of which he is capable.

Parents of Catholic children of course, are earnest about insuring that their little ones receive even more unearned favor, and since through baptism, they can enjoy the fruits of supernatural life, it is considered tragic if a child should fail to be baptized. This is very emotional for parents of course. It can be somewhat comforting to know that the child is not being tormented, but to possibly be separated forever is still something that the parents will take every step to insure does not happen.

Rory

Thank you for the information; it helps identify where the communication disconnect is.

 

[benidict]

ok be nice everyone. im going to HIE to my patrol car and go catch bad guys. see yall tomorrow. Peace

 

[chris2009]

Here is the mormon tabernacle choir singing the hymn at the April general conferece of the lds church in april 2008. It just shows that the hymn is an active hymn in the lds church.

youtube.com/watch?v=ADX-He30_PA&feature=related

Here is a beautiful version of this song I found on youtube:

youtube.com/watch?v=mKM8rK0hZYI

 

[chris2009]

Pearl of Great Price: Abraham: Chapter 3

Here is a very interesting article on Kolob and The Book of Abraham:

sacred-texts.com/mor/tboa/chap07.htm

This is facinating to me:
"When Joseph Smith enunciated the sublime truths above noticed no such thoughts were prevalent amongst the students of astronomy. The Herschels had some inkling of the facts, but their ideas were crude and undeveloped. It was not until the Book of Abraham had been published in America, and if we mistake not in England also, that Sir Wm. G. Hamilton, of the Dublin University, advanced the idea that our solar system had a centre around which the sun and all its attendant planets moved. To-day the scholars in the most radical school of astronomy will only admit that our system has a centre, and that the probabilities are that that centre has a centre also round which it and all its satellites move. Further than this they cannot go. However, the little they do admit, confirms the mighty truths revealed to Abraham of old and Joseph of today. On the other hand, the followers of the more conservative schools will simply acknowledge that our solar system has a proper motion of its own, independent of its relative or apparent motions with regard to other stars. They admit that “relative to the general mass of stars, our sun is moving in the direction of the constellation of Hercules.” They have come to this conclusion, because they find that the stars in that part of the heavens are continually growing brighter, (thus showing they are coming nearer,) whilst those in exactly the opposite direction are as continually growing more dim. They have also discovered that "there are in the heavens several cases of widely extended groups of stars, having a common proper motion entirely different from that of She stars around and among them. Such groups they say “must form connected systems,”[1] or in other words, are all controlled by one and the same governing planet. It is also admitted that "the stars in all parts of the heavens move in all directions with all sorts of velocities;[2] but they claim that the distances of the stars from the earth are so immense, and so short a period of time has elapsed since they first began to notice these movements, that they cannot with certainty say whether they are moving in circles or straight lines, it is only by analogy that they reason that they are moving around a centre. So little are some of these observers willing to admit, that Prof. Newcomb simply allows that “as our sun is merely one of the stars, and rather a small one too, it may have a proper motion as well as other stars.” The Smithsonian report for 1871, speaking of Herschel, says: “The world can afford to wait. Astronomy advances. It may be, in the distant future, that the mysterious centre around which our sun and his worlds revolve, may be detected and afford a solution for other mysteries as well as these. The greatest astronomer is equipped for no more than a Sabbath-day’s journey.” Another writer remarks, “Madler attempted to show, from an examination of the proper motions of the stars, that the whole stellar universe was revolving around Alcyone, of the Pleiades (or ‘seven stars’) as a centre–a theory, the grandeur of which led to its wide diffusion in popular writing.” Mr. Wm. Petrie, of London, writing with regard to this same star says: “Alcyone, a primeval name of the star, means the centre, and has quite recently been discovered to be really the centre around which even our whole solar system, amongst others, revolves.”

"That God did use Abraham, as stated in his book, to convey astronomical knowledge to the Egyptians, is, we think, fully demonstrated by the following: Josephus (book 1, chapter viii,) states that Abraham “communicated to them (the Egyptians) arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy, for before Abraham came into Egypt they were unacquainted with those parts of learning, for that science came by the Chaldeans into Egypt, and from them to the Greeks also.”

 

[Answersplease]

Just because WE can, in terms of the salvation of infants, doesn’t mean YOU have to!

Answersplease:

The above quote is clearly a jab at Catholic theology, and very rude with the winking smileys. (You had two winking smileys in your original post.)

And the implication is that Mormon theology is superior, by saying that Mormons can (“WE can”) and that Catholics can’t (“doesn’t mean YOU have to!”).

You made sure to capitalize the “WE” for the Mormon side, and the “YOU” for the Catholic side. Then you put the winking smiley just to jab a little deeper.

Why is it that many of the Catholics here don’t think you are anti-Catholic?

Is it because you say things like “thank you”?

Or is it because sometimes you write long posts and readers might just make a quick glance at them instead of spending too much time reading and analyzing them?

On the other hand I have been called anti-Mormon. Why?

Most of my posts are direct quotes that speak for themselves and I don’t use winking smileys (except that time I was responding to ParkerD but even then I wasn’t criticizing Mormonism at the time, I was interpreting The Holy Bible).

If my memory is correct, I don’t think I have ever used a winking smiley when I criticize Mormonism.

And I don’t think I criticize Mormonism very much at all, most of the time I just make direct quotes that expose some of the double speak and secrets.

Maybe I should start criticizing Mormonism more but I should say “thank you” and other nice things when I make the criticisms, then maybe I won’t be called anti-Mormon anymore.

 

[Answersplease]

…married lds men and women are equal partners, and both seek the exaltation of their partner through being supportive in every way, by definition of their eternal marriage covenant.

How equal can the men and women be?

Take a moment to fully digest the following:

1.) The women whisper their secret names to their husbands and to nobody else, because the husband has to call her by her secret name to bring her up to the Celestial Kingdom.

2.) The men DO NOT have to whisper their secret names to their wives.

3.) The men can become gods, but the WOMEN CANNOT become gods.

4.) The following quote shows that women will be considered as “ORNAMENTS” in the kingdom of their husband who has become a “god”:

utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm

"Answersplease:

Why is there no answer for the above?

…say, “see, he takes his marbles and goes away.”

 

[ParkerD]

To choose to persist in “getting it wrong” will certainly never mean that one has the eventuality of “getting it right” in terms of understanding LDS beliefs. One needs to begin with a foundation of understanding in order to even understand the language used about temple covenants, since language is always going to be limited by the understanding of the “hearer” or the reader. So I suggest that rather than asking questions that only reveal one doesn’t have any idea what they are asking, that the better approach would be to get some foundational background with a thorough study of the basics of beliefs rather than trying to find particular answers to particular questions when there is no foundation to even begin to understand an answer.

For example, married LDS men and women are equal partners, and both seek the exaltation of their partner through being supportive in every way, by definition of their eternal marriage covenant. They have already made that choice when they married by making a joint covenant with each other and with God. They don’t have a future “decision” to make, unless it be whether to keep their covenants, and those who choose against keeping their covenants do not even have the situation you have described come into play, because that means they are not qualified (by definition) to have an eternal marriage covenant in effect in their resurrection.

Answersplease,

The “secret names” are merely symbolic that the man and the woman have kept their covenants regarding their relationship to each other (to have been completely supportive of each other and for the man to learn from his wife since she is his “help meet”) and their relationship to God who is at the center of their marriage and obviously has symbolically promised them eternal life through the atonement of Christ and through their keeping their covenants.

The man has to understand that he doesn’t get around the idea that if he is not supportive of his wife and does not treat her as an equal partner in their relationship, then he won’t be qualified to participate in even having to “know” her “secret name”, because he won’t be asked to be there and his body won’t be a Celestial body anyway when he is resurrected because he won’t have become so qualified.

The woman understands that she is an “help meet” just as Eve was given to Adam in an eternal relationship where she was his “help meet”. (She actually helped out right away by helping Adam along the path toward getting wisdom, which she perceived was a good thing and not a bad thing.) She also understands that their covenant has to do with being righteous and with blessing each others’ lives.

Exaltation is just as much the woman becoming perfect as it is the man becoming perfect, and this is only possible through the atonement of Christ, and through covenant-keeping with Christ and the Father at the center of those covenants. Both the man and the woman can inherit “joint thrones” as described by John in the book of Revelation.