All Activity

But you do have Esau and Ishmael as violent hunters vs Jacob and Isaac as wise and faithful farmers.

There is only one passage in the Bible that directly depicts a lazy hunter, and even there, it serves as a literary illustration rather than a broad characterization of hunters. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs 12%3A27&version=NIV "The lazy do not roast any game, but the diligent feed on the riches of the hunt". This is a contrast, not a stereotype. The verse contrasts a lazy hunter with a diligent hunter, showing that hunting itself requires hard work and proper stewardship to be rewarding.

It's all been so hard on you. I'm glad your dad was there to comfort you.

In my opinion, we are absolutely puppets if God creates the change. God created life. Life creates change. We choose how we approach life and it affects who we become for better or worse. I accept that most people, especially in the church, believe that God intervenes. I do not believe this at all. But I do believe that he expects us to do our best with the dismal circumstances of our lives. Thank you for telling us this story. What a very difficult thing to endure- a pain that never diffuses. I watch people go through these kinds of losses and it’s heartbreaking the way some people navigate it, and in some ways, can it times be inspiring. Though I know nobody wants to sign up for that job to be someone else’s inspiration through pain. Thank you for sharing it

Thanks for this. Well said and thought provoking. Recently, we’ve been invited from the pulpit to share brief, Christ-centered testimonies (since, at times, some share testimonies that are neither brief nor Christ-centered) but what is shared is still a bit of a hodgepodge. As an attorney, “testimony” has a specific meaning for me centered around personal, firsthand knowledge. That meaning incorporates a level of personal truth. My testimonies tend to lean towards affirmations of scriptural promises shared with a personal experience of the fulfillment of the promise, e.g., I testify that God does reward those who diligently seek Him with comfort and direction… I know many others, both LDS and those of other faiths, could testify of that same truth and that the Spirit would confirm that truth to all who hear it with an open mind and heart.

The first paragraph on the LDS website about “Testimony” is as follows: “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.” I think I probably heard my first LDS testimony around 38 years ago. I may have heard hundreds since then. Almost all of them at some point in the testimony include a derivative of the word “truth,” something like “true.” There is a certain degree of similarity between the testimonies. They are something similar to a recitation that has a common wording or theme among Saints. It seems, according to this website page that there is indeed a certain form or format to what is included in an LDS testimony. This seems especially accurate when those testimonies are shared in a Sacrament service. This is an observation, not a criticism. Our former bishop gave me the ok to share my testimony in Sacrament service on more than a few occasions. I did so, perhaps more in a personal manner that is common among Evangelicals. I distinctly remember saying once in conclusion that I believed the LDS Church is a true church. No one ever rebuked me for my use of the indefinite article. My reason and question for starting this thread is to seek an understanding of what my LDS friends mean when they use the word “true” or “truth” in a personal testimony. I use the concept of a “personal testimony” because that is familiar to me. Along with that, I would suggest that the form of truth that is used in a public testimony is indeed a “personal truth”—true for the one delivering the testimony, but not necessarily true for all Christians. It appears that the LDS testimony is perhaps a statement of personal truth used in a communal sense. Does that make sense? Does it carry the modern sense of truth as “correct” or not “incorrect?” Perhaps the corollary question is then, is my testimony not truth in the sense that it is “incorrect” since I am not LDS, and not “correct?” Or is it better considered “revealed” truth? Truth as revealed to the testifier, which may not be revealed truth for me. Christ is the revelator. However, might He reveal differing truths to different people? I have also heard my LDS friends defend the singular validity of their truth by stating that “God is not a God of confusion.” That also seems to be a common learned concept. I guess we would have to dialogue about what needs to be the disagreement that arises to the point of "confusion." Somewhere, I remember hearing a talk on the necessary ingredients (my word) for a testimony to be complete. Is there a testimony that can be considered “complete?” I used “a” instead of “the” or “thee.” Did that make my testimony incomplete? Invalidate it altogether? Is the change from “a” to “the,” the more that the Saints want to add to what I already have and that which I bring to the table? Thanks to all for reading this and perhaps, responding as well. Navidad.

Thanks for the update Webbles.

The Latter-Day Saint doctrine of the spirit prison really isn’t “remarkably similar in significant respects to the Catholic teaching about purgatory.” The purpose of the Latter-Day Saint spirit prison is to place the unsaved (as opposed to the saved) into a spiritual condition after death where they will be most likely be enabled to sincerely repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. 3DOP: I can retract the word "remarkably". But I believe that they are "similar in significant respects." There is common ground. I will not be taking the time to elaborate those. Instead, I will respond to what I understand you seem to believe about a superiority in regard to LDS beliefs. I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood what I suppose you to believe about the superiority of the LDS position. --------------------------------------------------------- How does anyone know in what condition God's grace can most likely save a soul? This is minimizing what God can do by His grace. It is naturalism. The Catholic who believes Catholic teaching does not need to reason about how God gives everyone all the light and grace they need in this life or the next. Grace bypasses every natural obstacle. It would be faithlessness in God's grace to suppose that he cannot reach every soul in this life with sufficient grace to save and so for some, He has to wait until they are dead. God can do it anyway He wants, but it deprecates grace to say that for anyone, they have to be put in a certain situation or else God can't give them enough grace. Who knows what kind of light and graces God can send to souls at the very moment of death? Doctrine and Covenants 76 describes the spiritual experience that these unsaved souls will endure after the death as “the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.” Simply put, while in the spirit prison and no longer in possession of a spiritually dead mortal body that deadens spiritual sensibilities, the unsaved are placed in a condition where they are able to acutely feel what it is to exist in an unsaved condition. Doctrine and Covenants 76 describes this state of existence hell, or in other words a place of separation from the glory and redemption of God, but it doesn’t have to remain permanent. 3DOP: It is okay for you to believe that yours is the way God does it. I hope we can agree that yours is not the only way a good God could do it. Catholics do not believe that God's grace is limited by natural conditions and we affirm that everybody receives sufficient grace in this life to be saved. For Latter-day Saints who would grant that God's grace can reach anyone regardless of their condition in life, there should be no question of any moral superiority of either view. There’s nothing unnatural nor unfair about this extremely trying experience in the spirit prison because these unsaved spirits simply have to live with themselves as they really are in their unsaved condition. There’s nothing arbitrary, violating or unfair about the suffering these souls endure because the spirit prison is a place of unalloyed truth where hard, cold reality must be encountered head on and dealt with. And it must be understood that the suffering these experience cannot in any way atone for their sins (only Christ can do that) but their suffering can have the blessed benefit of awakening them to the unalterable reality that life without faith in Christ and his forgiveness is a miserable way to exist. 3DOP: Neither is there anything unnatural or unfair "about this extremely trying experience" of anyone's mortal life either. According to the Catholic faith, "In him (Jesus, the Word) was life, and the life was the light of men...The true light that enlightens every man that was coming into the world." (John 1:4, 9) Notice the past tense. This is even before the Word became flesh and dwelt among us in v.14! Of course you interpret it differently, but the Catholic supernatural belief is no less fair, as what you describe in the LDS spirit prison. Without post death decisions, there is no one according to the Catholic faith that escapes the light of God's Word before or after Christ came in the flesh, in this mortal life. All of this would be vividly on display at the final Judgment, and no one would suspect that God has hated anyone or been unjust or unmerciful to anyone. Eventually the vast majority of the souls in the spirit prison will have the opportunity to accept Christ, repent and receive a healing remission of their sins due to the fact that duly authorized and empowered missionaries from the spirit world paradise will be sent to minister to them when the time is right to teach them that they might receive the gospel of Jesus Christ. 3DOP: God knows when the time is right to teach them. It isn't merely natural according to the Catholic faith. The true light of God is beyond nature, supernatural. I remember Robert F. Smith explaining here a few years ago that nothing is beyond nature according to LDS thought. He quoted a Mormon from long ago. His last name was Pratt. I think Orson Pratt? This is our fundamental disagreement. Because we affirm the supernatural light of the Word, there is no ground for the Catholic to be ashamed of a supernatural God, who in ways known to Himself, can and does give every human soul sufficient grace and light to be eternally saved. We also teach that we cannot know that any single individual is certainly in hell. That is supernatural Catholic doctrine, and it includes every soul that has ever lived and died. It is certainly not natural, but if it were true, and without begging the question, it is certainly fair. Meanwhile these spirits are perfectly free to remain in their unsaved condition if that’s what they choose to do because still have their moral agency. Again in Doctrine and Covenants 76 we hear the testimony that before the final judgement the vast majority of those who are consigned to the spirit prison will ultimately be saved through their acceptance of Christ as their Savior. They will then be blessed to receive a remission of there sins and obtain a glorious resurrection in one of the Father’s many heavenly mansions of glory. The relative few who will steadfastly refuse to accept Christ and his gospel are known as the sons of perdition, and it is they who will remain “filthy still. “These will get what they wish for because, as the Book of Mormon testifies, in their unsaved condition they would be more miserable in a heavenly kingdom of glory than to reside in hell. and dwelt among us in v.v. 14 3DOP: As you explain in this paragraph, so we also believe that any inhabitants will not be pining away for a supernatural God in Hell. They would be dissatisfied, but as you say, that would be their own free choice. We don't believe that any theoretical individual in Hell would ever choose to repent. We are in agreement with what you say the Book of Mormon testifies. As we can see, purgatory is a place of further spiritual refinement for the saved, whereas the Spirit Prison of the Latter-Day Saints is a spiritual realm of mercy where the wicked and those who rejected the gospel while in the flesh will have the arm of God’s mercy extended to them that they might be everlastingly delivered from their unsaved state. Two very different places with two largely different spiritual objectives. The purgatory doctrine implies that the unsaved who don’t make it to purgatory are forever lost. I like the Latter-Day Saint’s plan of salvation much better because it’s precisely what a long suffering God who perfectly loves his children would do. 3DOP: The only reason to "like the Latter-day Saint's plan of salvation much better" would be the setting of parameters about what a long suffering God who perfectly loves his children would do. I don't know if LDS folk do not believe or cannot believe that the Word was the true light that enlightens every man that was coming into the world even before He appeared in the flesh. If God chose to do it the way that you say you like, it would seem just, fair, and merciful. I concede that. But it would be concerning to impose on God how and in what way He might be able to be just, merciful, loving, and fair to all souls. It appears that you suppose that any doctrine of salvation that doesn't allow a second chance after death cannot be as fair or loving. The Catholic teaching cannot be properly judged by imposing non-Catholic presuppositions about what the God Catholics believe in could or should do. The way you explain LDS beliefs seems to imply that any other method than the LDS way is not merely false, but perhaps even unjust and unmerciful. I cannot concede that, and neither should any fair and just Latter-day Saint believe that what Catholics teach is inherently less just, loving, or merciful than your own elaborate system. I like the Catholic way. I do not dislike the LDS way. But what we like or dislike is irrelevant. 30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. 31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel. 32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. (Doctrine and Covenants 138) 3DOP: God knows who has favorably received His light before death. Certainly catechumens (those receiving instruction for baptism) receive the grace of what they desired if they die before receiving sacramental baptism. God cannot be limited to the ordinary visible way of salvation through sacramental means. Those who did not hear the Gospel and were never baptized in water are not necessarily damned. Catholics may hope for the salvation of anyone. Just like you. A "significant similarity" in my opinion. If I have said anything which seems to assume the truth of the Catholic teaching, please point it out, and I will correct it. I do not wish to argue that the Catholic belief is true. It is necessary for the LDS community to think that the Catholic teaching is false. I am arguing that it is a mistake for LDS to think the Catholic teaching is morally inferior, perhaps implying that God has ever failed to love any human soul. Thanks for your consideration, Teddy. And again, if I have misunderstood you, please accept my humblest apologies. Rory

This book has been in the works for a while, but it apparently just became available as part of the Religion in 5 Minutes series from Equinox. Mormonism in Five Minutes "by Dan McClellan, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Volume Editor" From the website blurb: "Mormonism in Five Minutes provides an accessible introduction to the origins, ideologies, and practices of Mormonism in its different forms. It comprises brief and readable essays that answer common questions that those unfamiliar with the tradition might ask, including: Is Mormonism Christian? What is the relationship of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Mormonism? How did the Mormon scriptural canon develop? Why does the Book of Mormon quote so much the book of Isaiah? What do members of the Community of Christ believe about the Book of Mormon? Do some Mormons still practice polygamy? Did Joseph Smith base temple rituals off Masonic rites? Do Mormons believe they are saved by works? What does Mormonism teach about the environment? Why couldn’t Black people enter Latter-day Saint temples until 1978? Is Mormonism problematic for Indigenous peoples? Why do many Mormons wear special “garments”? Do women exercise priesthood authority within Mormonism? Why do some Mormons believe they will rescue the US Constitution? "Because each chapter can be read in about five minutes, the book offers ideal supplementary resources for classrooms or an engaging read for those curious about the world around them." The chapter authors are as follows (with the number of chapters they author included in this list): Author # Chapters A. Tyson Yapias 1 Amaechi Okafor 1 Ari S. Coleman 2 Benjamin E. Park 3 Brenton Griffin 2 Carolyne Ngara 3 Chrissy M. Hansen 2 Colby Townsend 5 Dan McClellan 7 Fernando Pinheiro 1 Ganesh Cherian 4 Grant Hardy 4 Harry Bawono 2 James C. Jones 1 James D. Holt 6 Jessica Spence Moss 2 John G. Turner 1 Joseph DuWors 3 Joseph M. Spencer 4 Julie Frederick 2 Kate Davis 2 llen Decoo 1 Mallory Hutchings-Tryon 2 Matthew Bowman 1 Michelle Graabek-Wallace 3 Nicholas J. Frederick 1 Robert A. Rees 5 Sherrie Gavin 3 Thomas Wayment 1 Wesley Acastre 1 Wilfried Decoo 1 Here's a link to the table of contents showing every chapter and the author for each chapter. And Dan McClellan is the editor (as noted above), but he also authored seven chapters, two of which make perfect sense given what Dan has commented about or written about before. These are the two I had in mind: 47. Why does the Book of Mormon say we are only saved by grace “after all we can do”? 192, Dan McClellan 67. Are Mormons Christians? 285, Dan McClellan For chapter 47, Dan published the chapter titled, "2 Nephi 25:23 in Literary and Rhetorical Context" in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 29, 2020, pp.1-19 (available here and here), but he also did an audio interview about the topic with Laura Hales for the LDS Perspectives podcast in 2020 (found here). And Dan touched on the topic, "Are Mormons Christians" in his Data over Dogma podcast titled, Who are the REAL Christians? "Mormonism" is discussed in that podcast at around the 18:03 mark in the video. And another topic that Dan McClellan covers also seems like an obvious fit to me (considering all of Dan's work on the history of monotheism and the lack of monotheism in the Bible), and that is chapter 41, "Is Mormonism monotheistic?" I'd like to read the book, as I'd like to see how some of the topics in the table of contents list are handled.

Yes, we are here for what we need to learn, what we need to know about ourselves, not because God doesn’t know if we can do it or not. Who believes their parent when the parent says they are beautiful or perfect the way they are or the best in all the world, never have to change, everyone will love them, etc once they go out in the world and get criticized. Some no doubt do, especially if their parent protects them from reality. But most…being told by someone else who they are is not enough at one’s core…at least for the good stuff. Then there are those who think they can be better than everyone else, like being a star basketball player even if they are likely going to be no taller than 5’5” (though apparently one guy was only 5’3, looks like most short players are 5’9” or taller) or something else even when the parent is realistic telling them if they want to excel, they at least need to study and practice, but also might want to have a back up because family genetics are against them. If we didn’t have foreknowledge ourselves and even if we did, I wonder how many of us would insist our parents were wrong…we aren’t as good or as limited as they tell us, even if that parent is God. But I still believe even if we had foreknowledge ourselves, we still have to go through the process, even if we believed and accepted the new reality. Muscles wouldn’t appear just because knowledge gets dumped in our brains. Of course, God might be able to change us physically as well, but then are we truly ourselves at all if we have no active part in our changing? Are we agents or puppets at that point?

I suffered from secondary . I lost pregnancy after pregnancy. Then one stuck. She was our miracle. The baby we prayed for and tried for years to have. Then she died. I was broken. I doubted everything. I didnt know what was what. The only thing that I knew was that my loving children needed me. I met grieving parents who blamed God. They thought he made their child die. I couldnt understand that. I believe he allowed them to die but he didnt make them die. He allows nature to do what nature does. Can He interfere and can things? Yes. But He isn't up there making bad things happen to us. He allows bad things to happen and then can make good things happen after bad things. I will be broken for my life because I will always be missing one of my children. I am forever changed because of each of my children. Wether or not I get to raise them. They changed me. My Faith is that we were sent here to learn, to be challenged, we have to prove to ourselves that we can do things. I remember my dad holding me as I sobbed after my daughter's death. He held me and let me talk when I needed too, he was quiet when I needed that as well. He cried but stood by in quiet support. I think Our Heavenly Father is very much the same. He let's us lead. He stands by and watches us. He waits for us to ask for help and helps when He can.

Under our system of laws, no. However, "should have been given" is passive. Who is doing the giving? The citizenry (through their elected representatives)? The U.S. Supreme Court? Questions of First Amendment-based religious liberty were, at the time, in their infancy. Indeed, Reynolds v. United States is a seminal case on this topic. We must assess matters of law, to some extent, by the milieu in which they exist, which makes "should have"-type questions difficult to answer. That said, the SCOTUS reasoning still seems apt (from Wikipedia) : 100+ years later, SCOTUS in Employment Division v. Smith In my view, this element of the law was, and is, correct and necessary. Subjectively, yes. We each must do what we think is right. Yes. I give the same grace to the Saints as I do to the larger populace at the time. They were each doing what they thought was right. Thanks, -Smac

Smac, do you believe LDS should have been given the religious freedom to have practiced polygamy as they did in regards to the current marriage laws (they followed marriage laws, just added multiple marriages for one man)? Or was it morally sound for the current morality (the anti-polygamy aspect) of the day to rule and ban that religious practice. Iow, do you see the ban on polygamy as a morally sound choice for that larger community since it was repugnant to them even if the way it was enforced wasn’t called for? It sounds from what you have written like you believe the LDS shouldn’t have tried to continue the practice, taken it underground, but just accepted the law at the beginning when it first passed (though challenging it would have been appropriate), is this correct? I am not trying to get you to criticize early leaders for their decision or dismiss the sacrifices as unnecessary. I don’t believe you are doing either even if you disagree with breaking those laws as was done because you are likely assuming they didn’t have the same information/perspective you do, so I am guessing you are not judging their choices in the same way I am not. Also I find civil disobedience very moral and useful in many cases. I think giving up families because the law says so is tragic, but necessary when the other option removes one from them anyway. At least some support can be given if not in jail.

This is actually a very important point. A question that asks for a yes or no answer may seem clear but often is not because of layers of nuance. Had CB asked if it was MORALLY wrong ,it may have been clearer. But then it may be asked , " according to whose morals " . We see lots of internet claims that action X is wrong, followed by multiple comments that it is only wrong if a person is offended .

Question is not vague at all.

This is another part of my icon that I was unable to fit into the limited space given on this Forum. I recognize the importance of LOVE and I acknowledge that one can, also, know by experience. You make a valid point. I do feel; however, that we learn using both: the Mind and the Heart. Comprehension is of the MIND, Understanding is of the Heart, and Realization is of the soul -- being the spirit and the body combined. A hug is just a touch without the understanding of the Heart. We have that dual nature about us. We had it as intelligences: light of truth with the Light of Christ.

Again, the question is sort of vague. "Wrong or right" in what sense? Legal? Equitable? Moral? God's law? Gut feeling? Legally, the Feds could and did enforce these laws, so that was "right" in a legal sense, but the laws themselves had provisions which I think were fundamentally wrong (disenfranchisement of women's votes) and the enforcement mechanisms were quite punitive (physical mistreatment of my GG-Grandfather), and I see both of these as "wrong." If you are asking me about "right" or "wrong" relative to God's perspective, I don't know that I can speak to that. I believe God commanded the early Saints to practice polygamy, and I also believe that we are "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (AoF 1:12), and also that "no man {should} break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land" (D&C 58:1). In (very) rare circumstances, these two principles can come into conflict. When they do, I'll leave such matters to the Lord. Thanks, -Smac

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the Federal Government was correct in passing those laws that banned polygamy?

Exactly. It erodes trust. Everyone else knows what you’re saying, obviously. So we also recognize avoidance, and it impacts good faith assumptions when considering to engage or not to.

The thought that comes into one's mind might make sense to the intellect, BUT it very well might not! So, in this context, I disagree that it is with the mind that we "know". But that's not a hill I'm prepared to die on. I think you are trying to divide communication with the Divine into constituent parts in order to analyze and understand it. Imo that is looking to the intellect for understanding of something that is known only by direct experience. Let me illustrate: Imagine trying to define love by intellectual analysis, dividing it up into logical constituent parts which can be defined and categorized and listed and discussed. Now contrast that with a long hug from someone who loves you with all their heart, and you love them the same. From which do you KNOW what love is - from the analysis and definitions and discussion, or from the hug?

You could have just said you didn't want to answer my question. Do you think it was wrong or right for the federal government to go after the LDS polygamist marriages and put any leader practicing or teaching polygamy into jail? Evidently my question was actually understandable the first time I asked the question. You just didn't want to answer it. Has anyone ever told you that sometimes dicing and slicing a question and an answer into multiple half sentences is not really an answer. I'm perfectly ok with you just saying that you would rather not answer the question. You don't have to go through all this work to not answer.

Please note that the Prophet states that Testimony is to know and to feel. It is with the MIND that we know and it is with the HEART that we feel. These are two witnesses within ourselves that agree in one. This process is like LIGHT, that was mentioned above, Illumination for enlightenment and Heat for warmth and peace.

Your question was somewhat vague. Except there was a law against polygamy. It was legislated, signed into law, and later ruled constitutional. Social norms are uneven as far as whether they reflect "right" and "wrong." Broadly they do, but I think there are a lot of exceptions. I think we need to address the situation as it existed, rather than through some hypothetical. The interactions between Federal actors and the Church and its members were, after all, based on the law. A summary from Grok (in response to "The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862), the Edmunds Act (1882) and the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) were passed for what purpose(s)?") : As a produce of its time, I can understand why this law was passed. I don't have a solid sense of how much of the anti-Mormon sentiment at the time arose from matters other than polygamy, but I think most of the animus arose from that. This would have been proper. The Supremacy Clause and all that. I think this was more problematic, as it was directed more at the institution and less at the individuals participating in polygamy. And these measures were As a Latter-day Saint, I view the federal anti-polygamy statutes (the Morrill Act of 1862, the Edmunds Act of 1882, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887) as lawfully enacted and upheld as constitutional by the courts of their day. Whether the same results would obtain under contemporary free-exercise doctrine is an open question (there were a lot of rumors about the Mormons back then, and distances and communication limitations and whatnot created a pretty nasty rumor mill back east), but evaluating historical legislation solely by present standards risks the presentism fallacy. I have substantial reservations about the extent to which these laws sought not merely to prohibit plural marriage but to punish or dismantle the institutional Church itself. At the same time, the practice of polygamy was genuinely and deeply repugnant to the broader American society of the nineteenth century. To the degree the laws were motivated by religious animus rather than neutral public-policy concerns, their legitimacy is, in my view, diminished. Nevertheless, a functioning society cannot rest on individual “only if I agree” compliance with the law. Absent truly extreme circumstances, citizens are generally obligated to obey the law of the land. I therefore distinguish between de jure and de facto assessments. As a matter of law, the statutes were valid enactments, though certain enforcement mechanisms—test oaths, wholesale disenfranchisement, and related disabilities—were themselves wrongful. As a matter of fact, many of the measures taken under these laws were unduly punitive and harsh. See, for example, this information (compiled by my dad about my great-great grandfather, Alexander F. Macdonald) : Clearly, Alexander was not threatened although he was treated cruelly by his 7th Regiment captors. Thomas Ackley, another military officer recorded in his journal how Alexander Macdonald, sleeping in the guard house hall, exhausted after the long march from Provo, was nearly murdered by an imprisoned soldier. Walking into the room with his ball and chain, “One of these fellows let his iron ball drop, . . . intending for it to strike the Mormon in the head, and would have killed him had it not been that he threw up his arm to save himself, but broke his arm.” (The diarist later identifies the injured man as Alexander Macdonald who was denied medical treatment for his broken arm.) Ackley later expressed amusement at observing Macdonald and other prisoners working “. . . with large sacks of sand tied to them, others with large logs of wood strapped to their backs for punishment. . . . .” Later Alexander was confined to small adobe room, barely large enough for him to stand, and with only a small pile of straw as bathroom facilities. A frantic Elizabeth tried to visit him and bring him bedding and food, but she was turned away. One of the officers had Macdonald brought to his quarters at night to secretly teach him the doctrines of Mormonism. Alexander later told his wife that the young captain believed the teachings but feared that joining the church would jeopardize his military career. Eventually the Army was embarrassed into releasing A.F. Macdonald and he returned to his wife and sons in Springville. Hard to characterize this form of enforcement of the law as "right." Contemporary accounts, such as the above account (arbitrary arrest, prolonged imprisonment under armed guard, physical abuse resulting in a broken arm, and degrading confinement), illustrate excesses that rendered substantial portions of the enforcement morally wrong. Thanks, -Smac

I'm pretty sure that analogy creeps into one of the many heresies. As far as I can tell, there is no good analogy for the Trinity. Every attempt has a little heresy in them. In that analogy, there is a little of Subordinationism. The star is what generates the light and heat. So the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father instead of equal with the Father. There is a little of Modalism. There is only one star and each part of the Trinity is a different "mode" of the star (the star itself, the light, the heat). And there is a little of Partialism. Each part of the Trinity is only a partial part of the whole.

Sounds like three separate gods who happen to work for the same company. They are unified only in their business goals. In orthodox Trinitarianism, the analogy would have the entire radio station as a single, indivisible entity, but it simultaneously exists as the Source (Father), the Expression (Son), and the Broadcast Transmission (Holy Spirit). God is one undivided essence (one “What”) in three Persons (three “Whos”). It may have been Tertullian who gave us this analogy trying to explain the Trinity, in the sense of monotheism. The sun is a singular cosmic entity that has three distinct expressions: • The Father is the Star itself: The hidden source of all the energy, existing out in space. • The Son is the Light/Ray: The visible expression of the star that travels to earth and can be seen directly. • The Holy Spirit is the Heat: The invisible power of the sun that warms the earth and gives life to things. Why it works: You cannot have the sun without its light or its heat—they are not three separate suns, nor is the sun just “pretending” to be hot sometimes and bright other times. They are co-eternal and inseparable, yet distinct.