And if you’re going to regulate homeschoolers, who receive no federal funds and educate no children except their own, when are you going to start regulating home kitchens in the same way we regulate public kitchens. It’s ridiculous. The reason the state does regulate public schools is because they are public institutions. The reason it constitutionally cannot regulate homeschools is because they are NOT.

And since when would public institution with a 25 percent or greater failure rate (25 percent of GRADUATES of public schools are functionally illiterate) monitor the functions of private individuals in their homes, particularly when parents teaching their own near 100 percent success rate when it comes to literacy, and they do substantially better than public schools by every other measure as well?

I have read only half the posts. However (thanks for the blog, needing to vent), to me the bottom line issue here is, the immediate issue here is not what a cult is (although my own feeling is it is pretty much beliefs without size and power), but rather the issue is punishing kids, tots, for what we perceive as the sins of their parents.

Your thinking is straight; and I would take mine in the same direction of planning a freer life for these tots if I could. That said, the immediate problem is reuniting tots with their own families, now. The starting point for this Texas “solution” is destruction, which is definitely not the way to begin.

And while some of the mothers have said they will do anything to get their children back, including leave the reclusive, breakaway Mormon sect, Jessop said Texas ought to require psychiatric evaluations.

“I don’t think there is one of them who is stable enough to get their children back. Mind control is classed as a mental illness and a child’s right to safety far exceeds a mother’s rights.”

“The women in this society will never protect their children. . . . They turn them over to the perpetrators.”

If anyone is interested, it is at:

http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/04/righteousness-vs-spirituality.html

Christians see the “image” of God’s creation (including us) a spiritual quality. As beautiful and good as this mortal creation is and can be, heaven is a more transcendent glory. All the joy, beauty and grace we experience beckons us to trust in God and magnify His glory, the pinnacle of which glory cannot be mortally beholden.

Hawkgrrrl (127): I look forward to your upcoming thread. There are a lot of assumptions and gender role divisions that sometimes are rigidly maintained on this assumption that women are more spiritual. (I believe it is more likely that primal meat-winner males feared being undermined by the creation power of women, and is regrettable that the Judeo-Christian mystical tradition has largely, IMO, perpetuated this fear into inequality and silly justifications for maintaining such.)

I personally find it makes more sense to concede Heaven just likely doesn’t work the way things do on earth.

Things Earthly are in the image of things Heavenly.

I think she’d also happily sign up for terrestrial kingdom living with me, too. (Of course that’s only where we end up anyway as well-intentioned Christians, I guess. *grin*)

Don’t worry… One of us will do your proxy work here on Earth, and you’ll receive those blessings before the eternal judgment in the spirit world. I have no doubt that you’ll be exalted to the Celestial sphere!

As they say, “No empty seats!”

This is an excellent question, one that has been asked of me by several different Christian friends who are curious about what LDS believe and why they believe what they do. I agree that it doesn’t make much sense what import “sealing” means, especially, when one really gets down to it, the only basic Celestial unit is the husband & wife(s).

It also begs the question of the whole procreation thing, too. And here I confess that neither the Christian or LDS belief is very concrete on the matter. If, according to Christians, we abide deep relationships in the hereafter, even if that may not called by the mortal term ‘marriage’ what is the purpose of resurrected sexual organs? Perhaps we are raised androgynous? Perhaps we can participate in emotionally bonding or pleasure sex, but would not need to (or can’t) procreate?

Carlos said, “The difference is that those in the terrestrial [won't] have access to the same blessings as the celestial, especially procreation.” And here is where the LDS belief makes even less sense to me. Are non-topmost-level Celestial beings on downward resurrected androgynous? How does God keep terrestrial beings from procreating? Are they just sterile? (In which case procreation isn’t a vital human identity, nor something which ‘resurrection’ perfects.) Does God punish ‘lower beings’ if they engage in any type of sex, even emotional or playful? Does he abort spiritual pregnancies?

Now the gestation of a spiritual being is certainly unknown, but hey, as much as I love my two kids, if I could enjoy an emotionally bonding, and perhaps even sexually pleasurable relationship without having my wife/soul partner be perpetually pregnant (which is a logical perpetual state if you have to populate worlds) I think she’d also happily sign up for terrestrial kingdom living with me, too. (Of course that’s only where we end up anyway as well-intentioned Christians, I guess. *grin*)

While what I said above is a bit tongue-in-cheek, I personally find it makes more sense to concede Heaven just likely doesn’t work the way things do on earth. I think this is natural given how often Jesus denounced all the way people thought heaven would work (ex: giving in marriage), or affirmed how the Kingdom doesn’t operate by mortal standards of power, glory, righteousness, who deserves admittance, etc. It just may be highly probable that even mortal natures by which we self-identify as extremely important here on earth — gender, sex, marriage, procreation — may not be mirrored in the hereafter the way LDS or Christians expect. Therefore, for now, I’m more content to have faith and enjoy God’s Reign/Kingdom/Heaven on Earth, and put more trust and humility in God’s mercy, righteousness and justice in the hereafter. Most LDS I know seem to really feel similarly even where our doctrines of heaven don’t agree.

Certainly there must be a solid reason for it existing in the food purity laws of Deuteronomy (I can imagine cooking meat in milk of the same species to be not the most healthy thing, maybe prions develop under such conditions or something). But you’ve overlooked its initial context in Exodus 23 where it is listed among regulations as to appropriate forms and methods of worship.

I don’t wish to discount what you’ve contributed to the topic, but we are taught in Sunday School that Scripture has multiple layers of meaning. I think that we are dealing with one such verse here. It would probably be very insightful for all of us if we were to reference the Hebrew and Strong’s Numbers directly on this one.

Aside from that, hawkgrrrl, congrats on the wildest thread on Mormon Matters in quite some time.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/cicero/2008/apr/18/texas_pouring_piss_from_a_boot

I’m trying to get the Conservative-libertarian alliance to take a look at the situation, but we’ll see how it goes.

Hawkgirl: My asumption that women are more righteous then men tends to be driven by my mission experiences.

Women investigators were always easier to get to:
Read the BofM
Attend Church
and commit to Baptism.

In fact Elders often whined about having to give up their best investigators tot he Sister missionaries.

Additionally, when dealing with a part member family usually it was pretty easy to get the non-member wife to investigate the church even if the husband was inactive, but almost impossible to get non-member husbands to- even if the wife was very active.

There were a few exceptions as always. I in fact had a reputation for getting male investigators to church, but even I saw that women seemed more responsive to spiritual promptings. I wonder at what other people’s missionary experiences were.

In any case, I would posit that Zeus and Krishna come from a perversion of genealogical sources, just like Odin (Zeus) and Thor (Herakles) come from the misinterpretation and deification of the Irish/Nordic genealogical oral tradition into a pantheon of paganism.

I’m well aware that Elohim means Gods. It doesn’t particulary matter to me if you reject the usage as a name for the head God. I use it that way and I will continue to use it that way. It works for me, and I don’t care what anybody says. It doesn’t even matter to me if this is a new 20th Century Mormon thing that was never that way in ancient scripture or even in Joseph Smith’s day. I’m a believer in the ability of our leaders to get new revelation, or to even apply things a certain way that were never historically applied a certain way. I’m a veil worker at a temple and I know I stand at the veil for who I stand there for. I know his identity, and I don’t care which name anyone cares to apply to him. Allah is good for me too. Krishna and Zeus are good names too for all that matters to me, if they are referring to the same guy which they are.

A link to the PDF of the original pamphlet is located at the end of article.

‘Mormon’ Women’s Protest covered in the New York Times (March 8, 1886, Wednesday):

MORMON WOMEN PROTEST.
POLYGAMOUS WIVES WHO ARE CONTENT IN THEIR SLAVERY.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9901E0DF1638E533A2575BC0A9659C94679FD7CF

This is our heritage, and we are still seeing the same thing from the media today, over 100 years later!

“Do not cook the kid in the milk of its mother” (Exodus 23:19) is the Old Testament’s condemnation of milk-before-meat theology. It can be translated variously; but the Jews interpret “do not give milk before meat” literally, so they will not cook meats in milks, nor will they have a glass of milk to drink when eating meats, etc.

I interpret the passage as relating to the practice of teaching milky concepts (Elohim as God the Father) before teaching meaty concepts (Eloheim as the Grand Council of the Gods, or simply Gods) as our Church does today.

From my studies, I find that Joseph Smith, Jr., only ever taught quite meaty concepts.

To quote Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 371-372:

Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844

An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James’ translators, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, “In the beginning he head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,” or, as others have translated it, “The head of the Gods called the Gods together.” I want to show a little learning as well as other fools.

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through–Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.

PS: Carlos — Duh! You speak of the Church Handbook of Instruction which I was citing. I thought you meant I was getting my ideas from some “how to be a radical mormon” handbook on some site called provocation.net. I am a professional Internet troll (GNAA anyone?), and trolling is a form of provocation… *wink* Sorry for my confusion.

‘Mormon’ Women’s Protest is a 91-page pamphlet written in 1886 by female leaders of the Relief Society as the final result of some conference they held in an attempt to redress the grievances they had with how the government was treating them for being polygamist (“give us back our husbands”, etc.). It is a very good read, check it out. Mormon women pretty much started the feminist and suffrage movements, and ‘Mormon’ Women’s Protest is a direct artifact of that era.

I think that ‘Mormon’ Women’s Protest is a very pertinent and applicable source to bring to this discussion.

Never heard of Provocation.net, what is this site (looks blank to me)? And what “handbooks” do you speak of?

I try to stick to more legitimate sources, like TPJS, or Key to the Science of Theology, and other classic works (aside from Scripture). I buy them from flea markets, eBay, or download PDFs from Google Books or BYU’s digitized library.

Are you saying that women are not re-sealed “for time and all eternity” to all of their partners upon death by proxy?

Carlos, in response to this, in case you haven’t noticed, Bushman has taken on the anointed-one-Nibley status, chief Church apologist, the one who comes up with the new explanations for everything that is controversial in our history. His theories are starting to take on quasi-official status as did Nibley’s. I don’t find fault with Bushman, because he is doing his best with a very messy thing, namely New Mormon History. And if he can put an apologetic spin on it so people who haven’t found a way to live on their own light can retain faith, more power to him. As for people that are advanced in history and doctrine to the point where no controversy can shake them, they can shed themselves of the FARMS/Nibley/Bushman type apologetics for real advanced history that isn’t pretty, but are able to still retain testimony because they are grounded in the Holy Ghost. I know about Adam God and Mountain Meadows Massacre, and yet I can still sing Give Said the Little Stream with the best of them, and I feel the Holy Ghost burning in my heart. I don’t need apologetics to know that Joseph Smith was a prophet even though he practiced Polyandry, but some people do. I don’t need apologetics to explain away Brigham Young’s Adam God theory to know that Brigham Young was a prophet, yet Adam God is false. Because I feel the Holy Ghost burning in my bones and I know that Brigham Young was a prophet of the Most High God. So let them have their spin until they are ready for the good stuff, so they won’t choke on it.

I have no idea what the heck this means. Please explain.

Ahman is one of the names of the Father, but Elohim is the Hebrew name for the Father and it is certainly one of many valid names. Adam is also another, and no, he is not Michael. He was the first Adam who had a son named Michael, who was the guy that ate the fruit and fell into mortality. This Adam never fell into a mortality after his resurrection, contrary to the messed up Adam God Theory.