Ask a Mormon [Archive] - Page 16 - Sean Hannity Discussion

oldtimer

June 17th, 2008, 11:17 pm

Here's the entire listing from BLB.

1) wind, breath, mind, spirit (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
a) breath (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
b) wind (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
1) of heaven (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
2) quarter (of wind), side (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
3) breath of air (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
4) air, gas (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
5) vain, empty thing (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
2) courage (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
3) temper, anger (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
4) impatience, patience (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
7) prophetic spirit (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
e) spirit (as seat of emotion) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
1) desire (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
2) sorrow, trouble (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
f) spirit (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
1) as seat or organ of mental acts (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
2) rarely of the will (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
3) as seat especially of moral character (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
g) Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
4) as endowing men with various gifts (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
5) as energy of life (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)
7) never referred to as a depersonalised force (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv)

So you see, as I mentioned in the previous post, a plethora of definitions, therefore usage is the key.You may need a little training in dictionaries. There are 4 meanings and the other listing are for clarifications of the 4 different meanings. The 4 meanings are: wind, breath, mind, spirit.

Ref. for other forum readers: http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv

Fire Watch

June 17th, 2008, 11:18 pm

You may need a little training in dictionaries. There are 4 meanings and the other listing are for clarifications of the 4 different meanings. The 4 meanings are: wind, breath, mind, spirit.

Ref. for other forum readers: http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07307&t=kjv
The reference wasnt really necessary, my entire post was a hyperlink to the BLB page. We could all use more training and education. As I stated several times, usage of the word determines the definition.

oldtimer

June 17th, 2008, 11:22 pm

The reference wasnt really necessary, my entire post was a hyperlink to the BLB page. We could all use more training and education. As I stated several times, usage of the word determines the definition.Understanding of culture determines our quality of definition; and our understanding of definitions.

Fire Watch

June 17th, 2008, 11:24 pm

Understanding of culture determines our quality of definition; and our understanding of definitions.
Indeed.

That's why I mentioned earlier that a basic/rudimentary understanding of the language is required. Being partially raised by an Orthodox Jewish Grandmother, I have a diminutive background in the language, culture, and beliefs.

Forcing a 19th century man's (Joseph Smith) understanding upon scripture does nothing to discover the truth of a passage.

oldtimer

June 17th, 2008, 11:32 pm

That's why I mentioned earlier that a basic/rudimentary understanding of the language is required. Being partially raised by an Orthodox Jewish Grandmother, I have a diminutive background in the language, culture, and beliefs.The culture of Modern Orthodox Judaism came from a single sect of Judaism, Pharisaic which rose to power just before the time of Christ. The other groups were destroyed. The culture and language we have today is 2000 year removed version of a single sect’s culture at the time of Jesus Christ. That sect’s culture is 2000 years removed from Moses, who compiled the text you are referencing.

You are no expert of the culture of Moses, who was raised Egyptian.

Fire Watch

June 17th, 2008, 11:37 pm

You are no expert of the culture of Moses, who was raised Egyptian.
Neither are you. So when there's a contention or debate, the only honest thing to do is to read the word, and accept it in context.

So once again.

I have no problem with that. The spirit and soul seem to not be the same thing here as a spirit AND body are mentioned. Man had a spirit, but without a body he couldn't be a living soul .
The Hebrew used in this passage doesnt support that conclusion. The word translated "soul" in Genesis 2:7 is "nephesh". It's defined as:

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
b) living being (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
c) living being (with life in the blood) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
e) seat of the appetites (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
f) seat of emotions and passions (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
g) activity of mind (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)

So, when it says "and man became a living soul", it's saying that prior to that becoming, he was not a soul, a self, a life, a creature, a person. He was without appetite, without mind, was not a living being, he had no desire, emotions, or passion. He was not a man , a self, a person or individual.

oldtimer

June 17th, 2008, 11:44 pm

Neither are you. So when there's a contention or debate, the only honest thing to do is to read the word, and accept it in context.

So once again.No, the honest thing to do is to read the entire word and accept its context.

You are reading the scripture like someone hitting middle-c on a piano and saying they are playing Handel's Messiah. If you allow yourself to consider all 88 keys as well as the pedals, you will have a much more beautiful rendition of the Lord's word.

Cross-referencing will help you feast on the word, not nibble....

Constantine the Great

June 17th, 2008, 11:47 pm

Tell you what.....Let's take this up again in a hundred years. There will be more information by then.
Sounds like a plan. I'll be there.

Fire Watch

June 17th, 2008, 11:49 pm

:))No, the honest thing to do is to read the entire word and accept its context.

You are reading the scripture like someone hitting middle-c on a piano and saying they are playing Handel's Messiah. If you allow yourself to consider all 88 keys as well as the pedals, you will have a much more beautiful rendition of the Lord's word.

Cross-referencing will help you feast on the word, not nibble....

See, I view the Bible as like the worlds finest concert grand piano, and you're trying to duct tape a Wal*Mart brand childs keyboard to the top and tell me that it's the perfect compliment to the Bible, that it will make the Bible play more true, and sound even better. I dont buy it, sorry. (see, we both can play the immature snarky smart alec)

coMITTed

June 17th, 2008, 11:51 pm

oldtimer

June 17th, 2008, 11:53 pm

:))

See, I view the Bible as like the worlds finest concert grand piano, and you're trying to duct tape a Wal*Mart brand childs keyboard to the top and tell me that it's the perfect compliment to the Bible, that it will make the Bible play more true, and sound even better. I dont buy it, sorry. (see, we both can play the immature snarky smart alec)I have provided many verses, and you stayed with a single verse. You may view the Bible as the worlds finest concert grand piano, but in this case, you are playing a single note.

According to Gen 2:7 and Ecc 12:7 the human spirit comes from God. It joins together with the body - likened to dirt - same scriptures - to make a living soul - Gen 2:7.

The spirit separates from the body at death - James 2:26 - the body returns to the dust and the spirit to God who gave it - Ecc 12:7, Luke 23:46, Acts 7:59.

For the life of me I don't understand what that has to do with a pre-existence on some spiritual plane before before spirit and body are joined together here on earth during this lifetime.

In error I quoted RayMan. Here is what I meant to quote:
Ponder: Gen. 2: 4-5; Num. 16: 22; Num. 27: 16; Job 38: 7; Ps. 82: 6; Eccl. 12: 7; Jer. 1: 5; Zech. 12: 1; John 9: 2; Acts 17: 28; Rom. 8: 16; Rom. 8: 29; Eph. 1: 4; Heb. 12: 9; Jude 1: 6; Rev. 12: 7.

Ponder also: Prov. 8: 22-31; John 1: 2, 14; John 8: 58; John 16: 28; John 17: 5, 24; 2 Tim. 1: 9; Titus 1: 2.

Fire Watch

June 17th, 2008, 11:53 pm

Except that the BoM isn't at all like a cheap toy--more like a string quartet to add to the concert piano's harmony, combining to form an even more beautiful symphony of the Lord's word.

Thanks for trashing our sacred scripture by comparing it to a piece of plastic, though ;).
Hey, he made a rude comment, I played along. Thanks for ignoring his and taking offense at mine though ;).

oldtimer

June 17th, 2008, 11:56 pm

Hey, he made a rude comment, I played along. Thanks for ignoring his and taking offense at mine though ;).I did not trash the Bible in any fashion. You had no provocation to trash the BoM. You are a royal piece of work.

Fire Watch

June 17th, 2008, 11:56 pm

I have provided many verses, and you stayed with a single verse. You may view the Bible as the worlds finest concert grand piano, but in this case, you are playing a single note.
You have to get the 1st note right to be able to say you've played the music correctly. You're discarding the first note and contorting the rest to fit. It simply cant be done that way. Since this has turned from a civil discourse into yet another argument, I believe I'm finished for the evening.

Fire Watch

June 17th, 2008, 11:57 pm

I did not trash the Bible in any fashion. You had no provocation to trash the BoM. You are a royal piece of work.
No, you simply took a cowardly back-handed swipe at me :)).

oldtimer

June 17th, 2008, 11:58 pm

No, you simply took a cowardly back-handed swipe at me :)).No, I did not. I stated a fact that you were referencing a single verse.

Why did you get angry at the middle-c comment? (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/16/2#2)

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 12:41 am

Originally Posted by scipio337
Which all only adds to my argument that the Bible, if corrupted, is worthless. Per your argument, its doctrine and what is contained therein can't stand on its own. What is that subjective measuring stick then? "If it contradicts LDS Doctrine or canon (Mary "conceived of the Holy Spirit"), it is corrupted, if it doesn't, it is truthful?

As your belief, that's fine, but the logic of it all screams to me "what is it good for then?", if other canon is the authority, not the Bible.
<snip>

I have also wondered whether what you wrote above is the yardstick for deciding which portions of the Bible are accurate.

ETA - This is an excerpt from a conversation scipio and Reeder had earlier today. I am wondering whether scipio is essentially on the money with the scenario he posits or if there is some other way in which the LDS decides which parts of the Bible are inaccurate or corrupted. Thanks

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 12:52 am

Originally Posted by Fire Watch

See, I view the Bible as like the worlds finest concert grand piano, and you're trying to duct tape a Wal*Mart brand childs keyboard to the top and tell me that it's the perfect compliment to the Bible, that it will make the Bible play more true, and sound even better. I dont buy it, sorry. (see, we both can play the immature snarky smart alec)

Originally Posted by oldtimer
I have provided many verses, and you stayed with a single verse. You may view the Bible as the worlds finest concert grand piano, but in this case, you are playing a single note.

Quote:Originally Posted by RayMan
According to Gen 2:7 and Ecc 12:7 the human spirit comes from God. It joins together with the body - likened to dirt - same scriptures - to make a living soul - Gen 2:7.

The spirit separates from the body at death - James 2:26 - the body returns to the dust and the spirit to God who gave it - Ecc 12:7, Luke 23:46, Acts 7:59.

For the life of me I don't understand what that has to do with a pre-existence on some spiritual plane before before spirit and body are joined together here on earth during this lifetime.

Hi oldtimer,
Don't want to get all up into the rhubarb you and FW were having but I am curious why you complained about FW playing a one note song and then quoted my little sermonette where I start with the same scripture and then build on it with a number of scriptures that fill in the background on the same picture he was painting.

Thanks.

oldtimer

June 18th, 2008, 12:53 am

oldtimer

June 18th, 2008, 12:55 am

Hi oldtimer,
Don't want to get all up into the rhubarb you and FW were having but I am curious why you complained about FW playing a one note song and then quoted my little sermonette where I start with the same scripture and then build on it with a number of scriptures that fill in the background on the same picture he was painting.

Thanks.An error my friend. I meant to post a previous post of mine. I will correct it now. Thanks a lot.

(But your's work as well.)

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:07 am

An error my friend. I meant to post a previous post of mine. I will correct it now. Thanks a lot.

(But your's work as well.)

I got no problem with it being there.
I believe the same as FW. I just use more scripture to illustrate my point. I thought you were using me to show the whippersnapper how to do it right. :dance:

Getting late for me. Have a great night's sleep.

Old Tex

June 18th, 2008, 1:11 am

According to Gen 2:7 and Ecc 12:7 the human spirit comes from God. It joins together with the body - likened to dirt - same scriptures - to make a living soul - Gen 2:7.

The spirit separates from the body at death - James 2:26 - the body returns to the dust and the spirit to God who gave it - Ecc 12:7, Luke 23:46, Acts 7:59.

For the life of me I don't understand what that has to do with a pre-existence on some spiritual plane before before spirit and body are joined together here on earth during this lifetime.

Let's look at this as if it is a Three Act Play. Right now we are near the end of the second act. If someone comes in now and did not see the First Act, things will be a little confusing to them. And that's what we have done. We have come in (That is, been born. Our spirits have entered the bodies prepared for us) near the end of the Second Act.

Let's look closer at this Second Act. It is the shortest act of the three. It encompasses each of our mortal births into a body made of the same elements that the earth is made of. We will live in it for a time and then our mortal body will return to it's elements. Our spirit (which is the "real" us) proceeds to the third act. (That life after mortality.)

Let go to the begining of the First Act, because if we are going to understand the Second Act, we must know what happened in the First.

The First Act covers the period of our life before our spirit took on a mortal body. The time when we all lived in a much better place with our Heavenly Parents. In a time when we did not understand what "sin" and hardship was. In a time when we could not advance past where we were because we were far from "mature" because of our lack of expierence. Everyone's desire was to be able to gain that expierence which would result in us becoming more like our Heavenly Parents. In short, we had to have our eyes opened to reality. Indeed, we needed to know good and evil, as the "gods" did.

A plan was put forth to accomplish this, but it required that we should be able to be placed where we could exercise our own choice to do whatever we chose, in other words, to "sin" if we decided to. So an earth was created and the stage was set so that "sin" could be introduced.

The plan also allowed for our "sin" to be compensated for and one was chosen who would be the atonement for all the sins everyone would committ, from Adam forward.

That individual was the first born Son of God who, with the help of others, created the earth and was known as Jehovah, until He was born into the flesh and was known as Christ.

Christ is our elder brother. He volunteered to redeem us by paying for our sins so we can again become sin free and again enter into the presence of our Heavenly Parents, only this time with a resurrected body of flesh and bone like our Elder Brother and our Heavenly Parents have.

Once we understand what happened in Act One, we see much clearer why things are like they are in Act Two, and we know what we are to expect in Act Three. We expect to return to our Heavenly Parents that we knew in our "First Estate" (Act One), and we are looking for a grand home coming when it happens.

You see, LDS don't just look forward to "going to Heaven". LDS look forward to "going Home" to our Heavenly Parents and those we knew before our start on our trip through mortality. That's what drives us. That's why understanding one's premortal existance is important. It give one understanding and motivation that one does not have without it. This is as real as anything is to LDS. This is why we have such a robust missionary program. We want others to understand what we understand. This is what accounts for the reports of how Latter Day Saints live their lives and help others.

LDS don't see their life as begining at birth in this sinful world. We see our life begining long before that among Holy Beings. And we see this mortal life as one that we are mearly passing through on the way back to where we desire to be again.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:12 am

I believe the Bible today (as a Mormon) as I did when I was Southern Baptist.

I spent about a dozen years in the SBC so when you say that it makes me wonder whether you use the same caveat I have seen other LDS members use
(and I know I won't get this verbatim so give me some grace ya'll) along the lines of:

"we believe the Bible to be true insofar as it is correctly translated."

I know as a Southern Baptist I simply would never have considered making a statement like that. We believed the King James was correctly translated. Sure some words needed to be updated every couple hundred years, i.e. "conversation" no longer means "manner of life" as it did four hundred years ago but we believed it to be the Word of God without error.

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 1:15 am

I thought you were using me to show the whippersnapper how to do it right. :dance:
Whippersnapper?!?!?! I'll be halfway to 64 next month!

oldtimer

June 18th, 2008, 1:18 am

I spent about a dozen years in the SBC so when you say that it makes me wonder whether you use the same caveat I have seen other LDS members use
(and I know I won't get this verbatim so give me some grace ya'll) along the lines of:

"we believe the Bible to be true insofar as it is correctly translated."

I know as a Southern Baptist I simply would never have considered making a statement like that. We believed the King James was correctly translated. Sure some words needed to be updated every couple hundred years, i.e. "conversation" no longer means "manner of life" as it did four hundred years ago but we believed it to be the Word of God without error.The LDS 8th Article of Faith begins, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly."

Yet, this statement is outside of what I said earlier and is not part of the debate. What I believed the Bible said as a SBC is the same as I believe today.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:19 am

Whippersnapper?!?!?! I'll be halfway to 64 next month!

You have no idea how much money I can save by getting to Denny's by 4 on a weekday.

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 1:21 am

You have no idea how much money I can save by getting to Denny's by 4 on a weekday.
We save money going out to eat by finding buffets that dont charge for children:))

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:21 am

The LDS 8th Article of Faith begins, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly."

Yet, this statement is outside of what I said earlier and is not part of the debate. What I believed the Bible said as a SBC is the same as I believe today.

Fair enough. I got no problem believing you believe the Bible my friend, just wanted to be sure we were on the same page.

(And FW is so a whippersnapper, but the fact that I am old enough to be his dad makes me older than I ever thought I would get to be!)

oldtimer

June 18th, 2008, 1:22 am

Whippersnapper?!?!?! I'll be halfway to 64 next month!It's the attitude that defines the person as a Whippersnapper, not necessarily the age.

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 1:23 am

Fair enough. I got no problem beieving you believe the Bible my friend, just wanted to be sure we were on the same page.

(And FW is so a whippersnapper, but the fact that I am old enough to be his dad makes me older than I ever thought I would get to be!)
My dad is 53, so you may very well be old enough to be my father.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:24 am

We save money going out to eat by finding buffets that dont charge for children:))

If I was still feeding all the three of my kids you can bet I would do the same. We used to love places like that.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:26 am

My dad is 53, so you may very well be old enough to be my father.

Three months from my 54th birthday as I type. Wife and I celebrate our 35th anniversary in October. If we hadn't waited ten years to have our firstborn I would have an empty nest and probably be retired by now. As it is my baby girl is 18 and graduated High
School last week.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:27 am

It's the attitude that defines the person as a Whippersnapper, not necessarily the age.

Exactly! You hold him and I'll smack him with my cane.:))

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 1:27 am

It's the attitude that defines the person as a Whippersnapper, not necessarily the age.
In my 32 yrs, I've been a platoon Sgt in the US Marine Corps. I've led them into combat and in peace. I currently have 9 Mississippi state narcotics agents under my command. I am the proud parent of 5 yr old triplets. I've been married 9 yrs to a wonderful wife, and I've annoyed a few libs along the way as a member of the staff here. I feel I've earned my trust and my stripes, but I have a long way to go. My dear Grandmother who died a few years ago at the age of 94 was more of a whippersnapper than I could hope to be.

oldtimer

June 18th, 2008, 1:28 am

Fair enough. I got no problem beieving you believe the Bible my friend, just wanted to be sure we were on the same page.

(And FW is so a whippersnapper, but the fact that I am old enough to be his dad makes me older than I ever thought I would get to be!)Thank you. From about 12 years old I have believed I existed with God before I was born. I came to this decision from studying the Bible versus I quoted, as well as more.

JenT

June 18th, 2008, 1:30 am

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:31 am

Let's look at this as if it is a Three Act Play. Right now we are near the end of the second act. If someone comes in now and did not see the First Act, things will be a little confusing to them. And that's what we have done. We have come in (That is, been born. Our spirits have entered the bodies prepared for us) near the end of the Second Act.

Let's look closer at this Second Act. It is the shortest act of the three. It encompasses each of our mortal births into a body made of the same elements that the earth is made of. We will live in it for a time and then our mortal body will return to it's elements. Our spirit (which is the "real" us) proceeds to the third act. (That life after mortality.)

Let go to the begining of the First Act, because if we are going to understand the Second Act, we must know what happened in the First.

The First Act covers the period of our life before our spirit took on a mortal body. The time when we all lived in a much better place with our Heavenly Parents. In a time when we did not understand what "sin" and hardship was. In a time when we could not advance past where we were because we were far from "mature" because of our lack of expierence. Everyone's desire was to be able to gain that expierence which would result in us becoming more like our Heavenly Parents. In short, we had to have our eyes opened to reality. Indeed, we needed to know good and evil, as the "gods" did.

A plan was put forth to accomplish this, but it required that we should be able to be placed where we could exercise our own choice to do whatever we chose, in other words, to "sin" if we decided to. So an earth was created and the stage was set so that "sin" could be introduced.

The plan also allowed for our "sin" to be compensated for and one was chosen who would be the atonement for all the sins everyone would committ, from Adam forward.

That individual was the first born Son of God who, with the help of others, created the earth and was known as Jehovah, until He was born into the flesh and was known as Christ.

Christ is our elder brother. He volunteered to redeem us by paying for our sins so we can again become sin free and again enter into the presence of our Heavenly Parents, only this time with a resurrected body of flesh and bone like our Elder Brother and our Heavenly Parents have.

Once we understand what happened in Act One, we see much clearer why things are like they are in Act Two, and we know what we are to expect in Act Three. We expect to return to our Heavenly Parents that we knew in out "First Estate" (Act One), and we are looking for a grand home coming when it happens.

You see, LDS don't just look forward to "going to Heaven". LDS look forward to "going Home" to our Heavenly Parents and those we knew before our start on our trip through mortality. That's what drives us. That's why understanding one's premortal existance is important. It give one understanding and motivation that one does not have without it. This is as real as anything is to LDS. This is why we have such a robust missionary program. We want others to understand what we understand. This is what accounts for the reports of how Latter Day Saints live their lives and help others.

LDS don't see their life as begining at birth in this sinful world. We see our life begining long before that among Holy Beings. And we see this mortal life as one that we are mearly passing through on the way back to where we desire to be again.

Thanks OLD TEX,
That gives me a much better idea of where you guys are coming from with the idea of pre-mortal existance and helps me to understand hillplus's posts earlier better also.

orbitaldecay

June 18th, 2008, 1:34 am

oldtimer

June 18th, 2008, 1:35 am

In my 32 yrs, I've been a platoon Sgt in the US Marine Corps. I've led them into combat and in peace. I currently have 9 Mississippi state narcotics agents under my command. I am the proud parent of 5 yr old triplets. I've been married 9 yrs to a wonderful wife, and I've annoyed a few libs along the way as a member of the staff here. I feel I've earned my trust and my stripes, but I have a long way to go. My dear Grandmother who died a few years ago at the age of 94 was more of a whippersnapper than I could hope to be.A 94 year old lady has the right to be a whippersnapper to me any time she wishes. I grant women, especially the grand dames of our society, many rights I will not grant men.

I thank you for your service to our great nation Marine. I ask God to bless you and the souls in which he has entrusted to your care with greater faith, even unto knowledge; wisdom; humility; patience; and love for all God’s creatures.

orbitaldecay

June 18th, 2008, 1:35 am

Thanks oldtimer,
That gives me a much better idea of where you guys are coming from with the idea of pre-mortal existance and helps me to understand hillplus's posts earlier better also.

Don't get our old guys mixed up, sheesh.

Edit: That's better. ;)

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:36 am

In my 32 yrs, I've been a platoon Sgt in the US Marine Corps. I've led them into combat and in peace. I currently have 9 Mississippi state narcotics agents under my command. I am the proud parent of 5 yr old triplets. I've been married 9 yrs to a wonderful wife, and I've annoyed a few libs along the way as a member of the staff here. I feel I've earned my trust and my stripes, but I have a long way to go. My dear Grandmother who died a few years ago at the age of 94 was more of a whippersnapper than I could hope to be.

I got a feisty grandma left myself. She is like 87 now. Hope to have her around for another 10 years. When I use the term whippersnapper there is no negative connotation. Plenty of people around that just toe the line, I never have felt comfortable with being that way myself.

My older brother spent 22 years in the armed services, A.F. and then Navy, starting in Vietnam in '70. The older I get the better off I think I would have been if I had done time in the Service. God bless you for putting yourself in harm's way for the rest of us FW.

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 1:36 am

Which is more difficult?

The triplets or combat in the Marines?
The triplets are more difficult, but more of a blessing. Marines follow orders, they're easy.;)

Predecessor

June 18th, 2008, 1:38 am

oldtimer

June 18th, 2008, 1:38 am

Don't get our old guys mixed up, sheesh.I am OK with it. I thought that might be a case of early oldtimers. :)

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 1:39 am

I got a feisty grandma left myself. She is like 87 now. Hope to have her around for another 10 years. When I use the term whippersnapper there is no negative connotation. Plenty of people around that just toe the line, I never have felt comfortable with being that way myself.

My older brother spent 22 years in the armed services, A.F. and then Navy, starting in Vietnam in '70. The older I get the better off I think I would have been if I had done time in the Service. God bless you for putting yourself in harm's way for the rest of us FW.
I didnt take offense. It's very hard to offend me. I apologize if I come off as offended at times, it really isnt my intent. I view the discussions here as folks sitting around a table at the local bookstore simply having a conversation. I guess I should take into account that not all share that view of the interactions here.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:40 am

Don't get our old guys mixed up, sheesh.

D'oh! I would like to say something stronger but this is the RF.
Thanks. This is what happens when I stay up after 9pm. :redface:

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:42 am

I didnt take offense. It's very hard to offend me. I apologize if I come off as offended at times, it really isnt my intent. I view the discussions here as folks sitting around a table at the local bookstore simply having a conversation. I guess I should take into account that not all share that view of the interactions here.

I am about as worried about offending you as I am about offending a rock. :))

You have a keen sense of humor. Almost impossible to offend somebody with a sense of humor.

oldtimer

June 18th, 2008, 1:42 am

I didnt take offense. It's very hard to offend me. I apologize if I come off as offended at times, it really isnt my intent. I view the discussions here as folks sitting around a table at the local bookstore simply having a conversation. I guess I should take into account that not all share that view of the interactions here.When people cannot see facial expressions and body language (as with writing), we often read wrongly the meaning. We often take offense when it is not intended.

orbitaldecay

June 18th, 2008, 1:42 am

D'oh! I would like to say something stronger but this is the RF.
Thanks. This is what happens when I stay up after 9pm. :redface:

You could always use the infamous Mormon Substitute swear words:

Heck
Fetch
Crud
Flip

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:43 am

I am OK with it. I thought that might be a case of early oldtimers. :)

Who were you again now?

Where's my nurse?

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:43 am

You could always use the infamous Mormon Substitute swear words:

Heck
Fetch
Crud
Flip

Crud probably works here.

Or dang. Do you guys say dang?

orbitaldecay

June 18th, 2008, 1:44 am

Crud probably works here.

Or dang. Do you guys say dang?

How could I forget dang!

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 1:46 am

I got a feisty grandma left myself. She is like 87 now. Hope to have her around for another 10 years.
My grandmother, the beautiful Jewish woman that she was, was always energetic and lived life to the fullest. She wasnt happy of course of the religious direction my Mother took, but she respected her decision. My grandmother as I mentioned before was an Orthodox Jew. She married a Sicilian Jew, my grandfather, who later converted to Roman Catholic. My Mother followed in his footsteps. My Grandmother wasnt really ecstatic about my belief in Jesus as the messiah, but she was thrilled about my strict monotheistic leanings. In her view, I at least got it half right. I remember her having vigorous "discussions" with the nuns and the Priest from my Mothers Church. I would sit behind the couch hidden and soak it all up. She would always pretend she didnt know I was there. She also always had time to play catch with me and my cousins. She was a great woman and I miss her dearly.

oldtimer

June 18th, 2008, 1:46 am

Who were you again now?

Where's my nurse?Ever see the 2004 movie, "The Notebook?"

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:46 am

How could I forget dang!

At the Christian Academy my kids went to dang was kind of all purpose. Right up there with hecka.

Its gotta be hecka in California not heck.

oldtimer

June 18th, 2008, 1:49 am

You could always use the infamous Mormon Substitute swear words:

Heck
Fetch
Crud
FlipMy mom and dad would not allow us (6 children) to use substitute words, even after I had children (6 again) of my own.

Off to bed.....

orbitaldecay

June 18th, 2008, 1:51 am

My mom and dad would not allow us (6 children) to use substitute words, even after I had children (6 again) of my own.

Wow you must have been raised Strict Orthodox Mormon. ;)

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 1:51 am

I am about as worried about offending you as I am about offending a rock. :))
:)) spend a few years having Marine Drill Instructors and Sgts calling you everything but a human being, and with the inter-service jibes from the squids, and the Army, or grow up in an inner-city Italian neighborhood, you'll develop thick skin..no worries.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:52 am

:)) spend a few years having Marine Drill Instructors and Sgts calling you everything but a human being, and with the inter-service jibes from the squids, and the Army, or grow up in an inner-city Italian neighborhood, you'll develop thick skin..no worries.

My wife and I have been assisting at a Church of God of Prophecy pastored by an old buddy of mine who was a Marine. Some of the stories he tells....:pray:

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 1:53 am

My wife and I have been assisting at a Church of God of Prophecy pastored by an old buddy of mine who was a Marine. Some of the stories he tells....:pray:
I would imagine they're not appropriate for this particular sub-forum.:))

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 1:57 am

I would imagine they're not appropriate for this particular sub-forum.:))

Not so much. Don't want to give the reading public bad dreams.

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 1:58 am

:))

Old Tex

June 18th, 2008, 2:04 am

Crud probably works here.

Or dang. Do you guys say dang?

Just those of us from Texas, only we pronounce it day-ng and with a long "a".

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 2:42 am

My mom and dad would not allow us (6 children) to use substitute words, even after I had children (6 again) of my own.

Off to bed.....

When our three kids were growing up my wife wouldn't let them say butt. They had to say bottom. I used to use the "b" word just so I could hear them say "I'm gonnna tell Mom," and I could respond, "go ahead."

Mom was not amused but did have to admit to the kids that she was not the boss of me and I could say butt if I wanted to. I on the other hand always told the kids they had to obey Mom and not say butt.

For me, it was a win-win situation. :))

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 2:45 am

Just those of us from Texas, only we pronounce it day-ng and with a long "a".

For those of us with Arkansas roots, dang is a three syllable word.

duh-ayn-ga.

Hey Drew,
How do ya'll pronounce it in Alabama?

MobyMule

June 18th, 2008, 8:28 am

In my 32 yrs, I've been a platoon Sgt in the US Marine Corps. I've led them into combat and in peace. I currently have 9 Mississippi state narcotics agents under my command. I am the proud parent of 5 yr old triplets. I've been married 9 yrs to a wonderful wife, and I've annoyed a few libs along the way as a member of the staff here. I feel I've earned my trust and my stripes, but I have a long way to go. My dear Grandmother who died a few years ago at the age of 94 was more of a whippersnapper than I could hope to be.

Thanks for helping take out the trash in my state and keep my children safe. And keep annoying those pesky libs. Lord knows our state gov't needs more true conservatives in it at every level.

We have quite a few Law enforcement officers in various state and local position in our ward and stake. It always amazes me how much time and effort they have to put in but they love what they do and realize how important it is. Thank God for such people as yourself and them who sacrifice so much for others.

Predecessor

June 18th, 2008, 9:50 am

The Hebrew used in this passage doesnt support that conclusion. The word translated "soul" in Genesis 2:7 is "nephesh". It's defined as:

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
b) living being (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
c) living being (with life in the blood) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
e) seat of the appetites (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
f) seat of emotions and passions (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)
g) activity of mind (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05315&t=kjv)

So, when it says "and man became a living soul", it's saying that prior to that becoming, he was not a soul, a self, a life, a creature, a person. He was without appetite, without mind, was not a living being, he had no desire, emotions, or passion. He was not a man , a self, a person or individual.

So I thought about this overnight and...

Here's where we differ -- and I'm not attacking your perspective -- it may well be correct. I'm trying to better understand our positions and therefore understand why we see things differently. Again, where we differ:

The information regarding pre-mortal existence does not stem from Genesis 2:7 -- rather it roots from modern revelation. In this case the Bible is being used to determine this truth. I have no problem with this but understand that we Mormons do not consider the Bible perfect and conclusive to doctrine. We feel there are additional sources of info ;) But I understand why you search for support from the Bible exclusively.

Therefore when I read Genesis 2:7 and I read "living soul" it seems fair to me to assume that could be all and exactly what the author intended. If it doesn't jive with my belief, then I seek knowledge and inspiration regarding the matter from the Lord in prayer. Along the way I will reference current and past prophets who I feel are and were more in tune with understanding the plan of the Lord than myself. I feel the process was probably similar to how it might have been in the early church -- when unsure of a doctrine, seek guidance from the Lord and while at it, throw a letter over to one of the Apostles (say Paul since he's pretty good at writing back) for additional clarity. In similar matter, that's how it works for Latter-day Saints today. Does this process seem practical or flawed? (Curious how all might view).

From your response, I don't get the feeling that the idea of pre-mortal existence itself is implausible. Rather your test for veracity concerns a hermeneutic translation of the Bible searching for reference to either support or deny the claim. You provided source to to support that the translation of the scripture above includes several meanings for the word soul -- to encompass "life, creature, person, etc." You then continue to define by including the description "without appetite, without mind, etc" -- Are these definitions added by you or were they gathered from the linguistic translation as well? My problem with discovering several varied linguistic and scientific definitions of the word "soul" is, if Moses (the presumed author) meant all of those things, why not include them in the first place? Also, it almost seems to me like someone or several scholars got together and fashioned a kind of Rosetta Stone for the bible by using their best scientific translation of words that were written thousands of years ago. Not a offensive, but to me, seems more "scientific" and less spiritual. Anyway, my point of the post was not to malign the hermeneutic theory but to make sure I understood how it works better. So I've written how the process translates to me personally based on what I've read from you and others on these boards. Do I understand the basic principles? Or am I missing something? Thanks.

Reeder

June 18th, 2008, 10:56 am

Most Christians wouldnt say that from what I understand.

Genesis 2:7 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Genesis+2:7&version=9)
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Scripture says God breathed into his nostrils, and man became a living soul. If man became, it means that prior to that becoming, he wasnt.

D&C 88

15 And the spirit and the body are the soul of man.

16 And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.

It is our belief that mankind was once "spirit"..........and that when our spirit enters our mortal body, it becomes a living soul.

EDIT TO ADD:// I'm way behind. It looks like you guys have already been over all of this.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 11:04 am

D&C 88

15 And the spirit and the body are the soul of man.

16 And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.

It is our belief that mankind was once "spirit"..........and that when our spirit enters our mortal body, it becomes a living soul.

EDIT TO ADD:// I'm way behind. It looks like you guys have already been over all of this.

So you have some kind of reasonable excuse for your slackage? :whistle:

Snagglepuss

June 18th, 2008, 11:14 am

For me to be a mormon, I would have to start out by saying that my God is allowing a lie to be preputated that effects billions of souls..

Sorry, i can't do thatWhat are your thoughts on the Koran then?

Reeder

June 18th, 2008, 11:19 am

I have also wondered whether what you wrote above is the yardstick for deciding which portions of the Bible are accurate.

ETA - This is an excerpt from a conversation scipio and Reeder had earlier today. I am wondering whether scipio is essentially on the money with the scenario he posits or if there is some other way in which the LDS decides which parts of the Bible are inaccurate or corrupted. Thanks

And I typed out a nice, long response to this question yesterday.......twice........and both times it timed out on me and erased everything I did. I need to use Wordpad more often!!

Anyway, my wife and I had just read an article related to this very subject the night before scipio brought it up. We were reading a talk given by Henry B. Eyering of the First Presidency of the LDS Church. In it, he said:

In our own time we have been warned with counsel on where to find safety from sin and from sorrow. One of the keys to recognizing those warnings is that they are repeated. For instance, more than once in general conferences, you have heard our prophet say that he would quote a preceding prophet and would therefore be a second witness and sometimes even a third. Each of us old enough to listen heard President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) give counsel on the importance of a mother in the home and then heard President Ezra Taft Benson (1899–1994) quote him, and we have heard President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) quote them both.

The Apostle Paul wrote, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1). One of the ways we may know that the warning is from the Lord is that the law of witnesses, authorized witnesses, has been invoked. When the words of prophets seem repetitive, that should rivet our attention and fill our hearts with gratitude to live in such a blessed time.

Now, I understand that I'm not directly answering your question, and you may not be satisfied by this response, but it makes sense to me. The Bible is a beautiful Book of scripture. Much (in fact most - I believe) of what is written therein is pure and inspired. However, the Bible is the ONLY Book of scripture (within the LDS canon of scripture) that has undergone translation after translation.......year after year. We have no way of knowing who translated it anciently, and whether or not it was done so by the gift and power of God. How do I know that some corrupt scribes 1500 years ago didn't change certain passages of scripture to mesh with their own belief system? The answer.......I don't.

The BoM, D&C, and PoGP have NOT been through that process, and I believe them to be pure and completely uncorrupted. I don't believe them to be absolutely perfect in every way, because man is prone to make mistakes......even inspired man. But I believe them to contain the pure word of God.

So, looking at the Bible (through my eyes), I have no way of knowing if anything has changed in the Bible since the records were originally written. I suspect that certain things HAVE changed because they don't quite square up with what the other books of scripture say (i.e. the "God is a spirit" scripture I referenced earlier). That does not mean I just throw it aside. Instead, I look for repetitions by the Prophets. As Henry B. Eyering stated earlier, "When the words of prophets seem repetitive, that should rivet our attention." Thats why I use it. It is ANOTHER witness of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Like I said earlier, you may not like or even understand that answer, but there it is in a nutshell. :)

Reeder

June 18th, 2008, 11:24 am

You have no idea how much money I can save by getting to Denny's by 4 on a weekday.

:))

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 11:24 am

Thanks. So if I am understanding correctly, scipio was correct in saying that the LDS decides what is correct in the Bible by what agrees with your prophets and the BoM.

Just trying to get an understanding of the process.

BTW - I hate writing a really long, brilliant post and having it disappear into the ozone.
Nowadays I keep notepad open on my desktop at all times so I can work in it and then copy and paste for post.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 11:25 am

:))

That's it. You're going into the whippersnapper file along with FW. I am keeping track of you two.

Snagglepuss

June 18th, 2008, 11:26 am

An honest question, Reeder, or any LDS, for that matter:

if we are all Spirit Children, what is the difference between me and Christ? Are there any ontological differences, or is he Christ and I'm what I am just because he is older, and has "progressed" further?Well, at least one of the differences is, He is the only one who was perfect, even in the pre-mortal life. As for the details and technicalities on why that was so, I'll fully admit that I have no idea. As far as I know, it has never been revealed, and thus I assume it is not pertinent to my salvation.

Reeder

June 18th, 2008, 11:26 am

Reeder

June 18th, 2008, 11:28 am

Thanks. So if I am understanding correctly, scipio was correct in saying that the LDS decides what is correct in the Bible by what agrees with your prophets and the BoM.

Just trying to get an understanding of the process.

I would have to say yes to that statement. It probably ticks off a lot of other Christians, but its the truth, nevertheless. And while it may appear to others that the Bible would be useless in that circumstance, I can assure you that it isn't. I use the Bible on a daily basis.

BTW - I hate writing a really long, brilliant post and having it disappear into the ozone.
Nowadays I keep notepad open on my desktop at all times so I can work in it and then copy and paste for post.

And I will follow your example from here on out.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 11:30 am

I would have to say yes to that statement. It probably ticks off a lot of other Christians, but its the truth, nevertheless.

<snip>

I just like knowing where the folk around here are coming from on matters like this. I appreciate your candor.

Predecessor

June 18th, 2008, 11:39 am

Thanks. So if I am understanding correctly, scipio was correct in saying that the LDS decides what is correct in the Bible by what agrees with your prophets and the BoM.

Just trying to get an understanding of the process.

With Reeder on this. Essentially, the LDS perspective is that Prophets and Apostles called of God trump existing scripture.

From where I sit, that's how it seems to have been in the early church as well: You had the Old Testament. Jewish scholars translated and interpreted throughout the years. Then Jesus comes along and says, "things are a changing..." -- The Jewish scholars said, "Now wait just a minute, what your saying doesn't jive with the Torah!" -- Peter and the Apostles continued to receive revelation regarding the direction of the church. Members of the early church could have decided to follow only the scholarly interpretation of the Torah or exercise faith that the Apostles were receiving revelation from God that enlightened and filled in more of the story.

Reeder

June 18th, 2008, 11:47 am

With Reeder on this. Essentially, the LDS perspective is that Prophets and Apostles called of God trump existing scripture.

From where I sit, that's how it seems to have been in the early church as well: You had the Old Testament. Jewish scholars translated and interpreted throughout the years. Then Jesus comes along and says, "things are a changing..." -- The Jewish scholars said, "Now wait just a minute, what your saying doesn't jive with the Torah!" -- Peter and the Apostles continued to receive revelation regarding the direction of the church. Members of the early church could have decided to follow only the scholarly interpretation of the Torah or exercise faith that the Apostles were receiving revelation from God that enlightened and filled in more of the story.

Good comparison, Pred! The Old Testament is still very useful and spiritual, even though it was written before the New Testament came into play. We still use it even today. It contains beautiful stories of faith, repentance, courage, and love of God.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 11:49 am

With Reeder on this. Essentially, the LDS perspective is that Prophets and Apostles called of God trump existing scripture.

From where I sit, that's how it seems to have been in the early church as well: You had the Old Testament. Jewish scholars translated and interpreted throughout the years. Then Jesus comes along and says, "things are a changing..." -- The Jewish scholars said, "Now wait just a minute, what your saying doesn't jive with the Torah!" -- Peter and the Apostles continued to receive revelation regarding the direction of the church. Members of the early church could have decided to follow only the scholarly interpretation of the Torah or exercise faith that the Apostles were receiving revelation from God that enlightened and filled in more of the story.

Aww. You guys always agree with Reeder. It's those smileys of his. :))

Reeder

June 18th, 2008, 11:50 am

Aww. You guys always agree with Reeder. It's those smileys of his. :))

http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/0002022F.gif

scipio337

June 18th, 2008, 11:55 am

Well, at least one of the differences is, He is the only one who was perfect, even in the pre-mortal life. As for the details and technicalities on why that was so, I'll fully admit that I have no idea. As far as I know, it has never been revealed, and thus I assume it is not pertinent to my salvation.It is one of the beliefs that strikes me as "different". I read about it in a FARMS review outlining the similarities/differences between the doctrines of theosis and exaltation.

Here's what stuck out to me:

The doctrine of theosis presupposes that there is a fundamental distinction between uncreated being and created being. God, that is, the three divine persons who are the one God, are understood to be uncreated and eternal. God always has been divine and always will be divine. Human persons, on the other hand, are created from nothing—creatio ex nihilo. They are forever dependent on God for existence. Thus, the divine nature, the nature of God, is fundamentally different from human nature, the nature of human persons. In fact, one can speak of an ontological divide or chasm separating the two: the former is unoriginate, the latter is originate.

The doctrine of exaltation presupposes that God is of the same species as human persons. There is no distinction between uncreated and created beings or persons since all persons, divine as well as human, are uncreated. In other words, intelligence, the core or essence of every person (whether divine or human) is self-existent and eternal, uncreated and uncreatable. Through the process of spirit birth, intelligences are clothed by divine parents with spirit bodies and become autonomous, conscious selves. And just as with human children in relation to their human parents, the spirit children of divine parents possess the innate capacity, as a fact of their spirit birth, to progress and grow up into the likeness of their divine parents.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/paperschapter.php?paperid=7&chapid=63

I believe that humans, (or our premortal "intelligence") are ontologically different and an entirely different "species" than G*d. It seems the LDS belief is the opposite. Kinda gnostic, in flavor.

Snagglepuss

June 18th, 2008, 12:02 pm

It is one of the beliefs that strikes me as "different". I read about it in a FARMS review outlining the similarities/differences between the doctrines of theosis and exaltation.

Here's what stuck out to me:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/paperschapter.php?paperid=7&chapid=63

I believe that humans, (or our premortal "intelligence") are ontologically different and an entirely different "species" than G*d. It seems the LDS belief is the opposite. Kinda gnostic, in flavor.Indeed, I would say you are correct in your observation that we LDS believe that we are of the same species as our Heavenly Father and Christ, just at a different stage of our development, much like a catapillar becomes a butterfly. As for flavors though, I much prefer chocolate. ;)

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 12:08 pm

where you have served in the military? (Iraq, Afghanistan, or other)
Yes, those places more than once each and other places.

Snagglepuss

June 18th, 2008, 12:21 pm

:)) spend a few years having Marine Drill Instructors and Sgts calling you everything but a human being, and with the inter-service jibes from the squids, and the Army, or grow up in an inner-city Italian neighborhood, you'll develop thick skin..no worries.
You know, we made fun of (good-naturedly) the Marines a lot back when I was in the Army, but I will say this: Of all my interactions with members of the military, the Marine Officers I knew were the most squared away people I've ever had the privilege of meeting. Top class people. :)

Fire Watch

June 18th, 2008, 12:22 pm

My father retired from the Corps as a Lt. Colonel. He was let's say "less than thrilled" about my decision to go enlisted.

Reeder

June 18th, 2008, 12:23 pm

Yes, those places more than once each and other places.

Wow!

Snagglepuss

June 18th, 2008, 12:28 pm

My father retired from the Corps as a Lt. Colonel. He was let's say "less than thrilled" about my decision to go enlisted.Well I'm sure he at least took comfort with the fact that you didn't decide to be a 'Squid'.
;)

hillplus

June 18th, 2008, 12:46 pm

I like to look at the way God set up the earth. He set it up in family units with a father and mother and children and throughout the generations we are bound together in families. I ask why He would set it up that way. Well, because that is the way it is with Him. It is the best way for children to learn and grow. We are His children. Our eldest Brother is looking out for us, showing us the way to be.
It kind of goes along with my other question about the purpose of life. If God wanted to create someone to be with him, then why all this earthly experience, why not just create people and be done?

Old Tex

June 18th, 2008, 1:39 pm

D&C 88

15 And the spirit and the body are the soul of man.

16 And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.

It is our belief that mankind was once "spirit"..........and that when our spirit enters our mortal body, it becomes a living soul.

EDIT TO ADD:// I'm way behind. It looks like you guys have already been over all of this.

We still need to hear from you on this and other points Reeder.

Old Tex

June 18th, 2008, 1:48 pm

And I typed out a nice, long response to this question yesterday.......twice........and both times it timed out on me and erased everything I did. I need to use Wordpad more often!! :)

I lost a couple of replies I had spent some time on because this site wouldn't open and take them also. I have started doing a "copy" and just holding it on the "clipbaord" until it will go through. In some cases I have had to paste it in and try to send it later.

Old Tex

June 18th, 2008, 2:09 pm

From where I sit, that's how it seems to have been in the early church as well: You had the Old Testament. Jewish scholars translated and interpreted throughout the years. Then Jesus comes along and says, "things are a changing..." -- The Jewish scholars said, "Now wait just a minute, what your saying doesn't jive with the Torah!" -- Peter and the Apostles continued to receive revelation regarding the direction of the church. Members of the early church could have decided to follow only the scholarly interpretation of the Torah or exercise faith that the Apostles were receiving revelation from God that enlightened and filled in more of the story.

If we could only get that concept across many would see things more clearly.

Reeder

June 18th, 2008, 6:08 pm

We still need to hear from you on this and other points Reeder.

I didn't finish reading through it all, but it looked like it was turning into a "this is how it translates" conversation......which I know very little about.

basilisk

June 18th, 2008, 7:41 pm

My father retired from the Corps as a Lt. Colonel. He was let's say "less than thrilled" about my decision to go enlisted.
He probably gave you crap about not living up to your potential, I'd bet. My dad retired a Captain and had very high expectations for me, too. I never enlisted, though.

Constantine the Great

June 18th, 2008, 7:47 pm

In my 32 yrs,....

Nice, Im not the baby of the RF regulars. :)):))

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 9:46 pm

Why are you Mormons allowed to set up a thread like this to explain your beliefs but, there isn't a similar thread for other religions?:)

You can start one. There is an Ask a Lukewarm Christian Thread as an example.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 9:48 pm

Nice, Im not the baby of the RF regulars. :)):))

I think andrewinsureal probably has that dubious distinction. Or maybe Reeder. I think someone told me Reeder is like 21.

HokieCougarVandal

June 18th, 2008, 9:48 pm

You can start one.
Or two if your up to it.
:mrgreen:

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 9:49 pm

Or two if your up to it.
:mrgreen:

Yep. Just gotta hit the old New Thread button and plop in a title and opening post.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 9:50 pm

Oh and Jade,
BTW. I am not a Mormon nor do I play one on the RF. Just like hangin' out with them.

HokieCougarVandal

June 18th, 2008, 9:53 pm

Oh and Jade,
BTW. I am not a Mormon nor do I play one on the RF. Just like hangin' out with them.
But did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night?
:D

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 9:56 pm

But did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night?
:D

And loved it.

Old Tex

June 18th, 2008, 10:14 pm

Why are you Mormons allowed to set up a thread like this to explain your beliefs but, there isn't a similar thread for other religions?:)

We weren't "allowed" to set it up a thread. An LDS member choose a title for a thread and started it just like anyone can. You can start one on any topic you want. Just click the "Start a Thread" button and type in whatever your heart desires.

orbitaldecay

June 18th, 2008, 10:43 pm

Oh and Jade,
BTW. I am not a Mormon nor do I play one on the RF. Just like hangin' out with them.

I made that mistake; for the first 3 or so months I was on Hannity forums I thought Rayman was LDS.:doh:

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 10:43 pm

I made that mistake; for the first 3 or so months I was on Hannity forums I thought Rayman was LDS.:doh:

I get that a lot. I probably need to start cussin' more so people can tell I'm not LDS.

noelle12

June 18th, 2008, 11:05 pm

I get that a lot. I probably need to start cussin' more so people can tell I'm not LDS.

I never knew my grandmother, but my mom used to tell me that my grandmother (LDS) could cuss with the best of them (she blamed her "welsh temper"). So I guess cussing alone won't do it.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 11:17 pm

I never knew my grandmother, but my mom used to tell me that my grandmother (LDS) could cuss with the best of them (she blamed her "welsh temper"). So I guess cussing alone won't do it.

Dang! I mean Crud!

bluebird

June 18th, 2008, 11:22 pm

I get that a lot. I probably need to start cussin' more so people can tell I'm not LDS.

Have you ever heard of J. Golden Kimball? He was a General Authority who is/was known for his colorful language.

RayMan

June 18th, 2008, 11:23 pm

Have you ever heard of J. Golden Kimball? He was a General Authority who is/was known for his colorful language.

I have heard of him. Haven't ever heard him. I believe I have read a few writings of his that have been posted here. "Colorful," eh? :whistle:

bluebird

June 18th, 2008, 11:41 pm

noelle12

June 18th, 2008, 11:52 pm

Okay, so I have a question for the other LDS folks here.
. . .
Okay. I think I got it now. We have the Anti-Nephi-Lehis -- covenanted not to fight, buried their weapons, allowed the Lamanites to "fall upon them." And we have Captain Moroni and the Title of Liberty -- "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children..." -- basically defend our freedoms and our rights.

My question is, how do you know which way you should react to an attack? When do you lay down your arms and when do you pick them up and fight with all you have? I'm thinking of any time for anything, not literally a physical fight, mind you.

That is an excellent question, and I'm not sure that I have an answer, but I will share my thoughts on the topic. The Anti-Nephi-Lehis had a history of bloodshed and murder. They buried their weapons of war because they did not want to, in any way, return to their old ways. They made a specific covenant that was not necessarily required of them, but that they took upon themselves because their change of heart was so complete that they would rather die than kill.

Their children, the "Army of Helaman," did go to war to defend their families.

Captain Moroni was a righteous man. He, and those in his army had never shed the blood of anyone in hatred and anger, only in the defense of their God, their religion, their freedom, their peace, their wives and their children.

orbitaldecay

June 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

Okay, so I have a question for the other LDS folks here.

This is now my 5th attempt at starting this question. As someone who tutors college students in English and helps them improve their writing, you'd think I'd have an easier time getting my thoughts down. Not so. I have the question in my head, but I can't get it to sound right when I type it. :wall:

Okay. I think I got it now. We have the Anti-Nephi-Lehies -- covenanted not to fight, buried their weapons, allowed the Lamenites to "fall upon them." And we have Captain Moroni and the Title of Liberty -- "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children..." -- basically defend our freedoms and our rights.

My question is, how do you know which way you should react to an attack? When do you lay down your arms and when do you pick them up and fight with all you have? I'm thinking of any time for anything, not literally a physical fight, mind you.

That is a good question.

From what I understand the Anti-Nephi-Lehies made a UNIQUE covenant, because they were once violent in the past. (oops ending a sentence with a preposition:doh:)

Would someday God command us to allow ourselves to be slain? Possibly.
But in my own opinion, defending ones self, religion, family is not in itself an unrighteous act. I look to Capt. Moroni for that standard.

Alma 55:19:
But behold, this was not the desire of Moroni; he did not delight in murder or bloodshed, but he delighted in the saving of his people from destruction; and for this cause he might not bring upon him injustice, he would not fall upon the Lamanites and destroy them in their drunkenness.

orbitaldecay

June 18th, 2008, 11:59 pm

Not that I want to destroy anyone in their drunkenness.:shifty:

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 12:00 am

Not that I want to destroy anyone in their drunkenness.:shifty:

That is considered impolite these days. Not good form at all. :whistle:

justamere10

June 19th, 2008, 12:33 am

Okay, so I have a question for the other LDS folks here.
...
My question is, how do you know which way you should react to an attack? When do you lay down your arms and when do you pick them up and fight with all you have? I'm thinking of any time for anything, not literally a physical fight, mind you.

I think everyone has a right and a duty to defend themselves and their family against physical aggression. You lay down your arms when you're out of ammo or enemies headed your way. :-)

Predecessor

June 19th, 2008, 1:37 am

Good question blue, definitely food for thought. I appreciate the insight and perspective from others so far on this as well.

In thinking about your specific query regarding "how do you know which way you should react to an attack? When do you lay down your arms and when do you pick them up and fight with all you have?" -- I don't feel there is a definite black and white crystal clear formula for reaction in that circumstance. When this is lacking, the only recourse is to rely on the Spirit for guidance... and we may well be surprised by the direction we receive.

Nephi was directed by the Spirit in dealing with Laban in an entirely different manner than he originally anticipated. Peter, feeling the natural urge to defend the very Son of God vigorously charged the Roman Soldiers only to be quelled by the Savior himself. Ammon showed his prowess in the field why Alma and Amulek submitted to confinement in prison. I believe the Anti-Nephi-Lehies were inspired by the Lord to covenant as they did and Captain Moroni in kind was directed by the Spirit to defend his family and his liberty.

For me personally, I try to be prepared to follow either direction when the battle commences and hope that I am worthy and brave enough to follow whichever path the Spirit may direct. Either course will require courage, humility, and strength.

bluebird

June 19th, 2008, 1:59 am

Thanks, everyone for your input. I was kind of thinking along the same lines of all of you, actually.

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 2:09 am

Thanks, everyone for your input. I was kind of thinking along the same lines of all of you, actually.

Another example of Mormon insidiousness. You guys all get along politely. Maybe TOO politely. :mrgreen:

Love and admire you guys. Peace and have a good nights rest.

orbitaldecay

June 19th, 2008, 2:51 am

Another example of Mormon insidiousness. You guys all get along politely. Maybe TOO politely. :mrgreen:

Love and admire you guys. Peace and have a good nights rest.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. :shifty:

We're in the basements of our temples discussing ways to take over Hannity Forums as well as the USA.
~Alluded to Rosanne Barr

muahahahahah

noelle12

June 19th, 2008, 7:41 am

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. :shifty:

We're in the basements of our temples discussing ways to take over Hannity Forums as well as the USA.
~Alluded to Rosanne Barr

muahahahahah

Don't give it away! Dang it, too late! :wall:

Marleysdaddy

June 19th, 2008, 8:15 am

coMITTed

June 19th, 2008, 9:24 am

I read this morning that Mormons consider the angel Gabriel and Noah to be the same person - the thing I was reading was about Gabriel and the role he plays in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Can anyone elaborate on the Gabriel/Noah thing? Thanks in advance.

There is indeed something in Mormon doctrine about the angel Gabriel being the post-mortem/pre-resurrected Noah, but I'm not sure what source that's coming from (perhaps someone else could provide a link?). We also believe the archangel Michael to be the pre-mortal Adam. That's one interesting distinction between the LDS and other Christian faiths--we don't draw a distinction between man and angels--angels ARE men, either pre-mortal or post-mortal, sent to do God's bidding with their fellow men.

noelle12

June 19th, 2008, 9:26 am

I read this morning that Mormons consider the angel Gabriel and Noah to be the same person - the thing I was reading was about Gabriel and the role he plays in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Can anyone elaborate on the Gabriel/Noah thing? Thanks in advance.

I can confirm that LDS (Mormons) do believe that Noah (of the Ark fame) is the same being as the Angel Gabriel.

Here is an article that appeared in the February 1998 issue if the Ensign (the LDS church magazine) about Noah. (Click here.) (http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=394657b60090c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1)

I don't know anything about the role he plays in Islam, though.

Marleysdaddy

June 19th, 2008, 9:37 am

I can confirm that LDS (Mormons) do believe that Noah (of the Ark fame) is the same being as the Angel Gabriel.

Here is an article that appeared in the February 1998 issue if the Ensign (the LDS church magazine) about Noah. (Click here.) (http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=394657b60090c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1)

I don't know anything about the role he plays in Islam, though.

Thanks...In Islam, Gabriel quoted god to Mohammad who memorized the quotes and those quotes became the Qur'an.

Old Tex

June 19th, 2008, 10:12 am

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. :shifty: We're in the basements of our temples discussing ways to take over Hannity Forums as well as the USA. ~Alluded to Rosanne Barr
muahahahahah

Well that leaves us out here in the Houston area. Our Temple don't have a basement.

noelle12

June 19th, 2008, 10:13 am

Well that leaves us out here in the Houston area. Our Temple don't have a basement.

Sure, that's what they said about the Alamo too. "There's no basement in the Alamo!" (Name that movie reference.)

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 10:13 am

I think andrewinsureal probably has that dubious distinction. Or maybe Reeder. I think someone told me Reeder is like 21.

27, bro.........27. :)

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 10:15 am

I get that a lot. I probably need to start cussin' more so people can tell I'm not LDS.

We're not allowed to cuss?! :eek: :mrgreen:

noelle12

June 19th, 2008, 10:15 am

27, bro.........27. :)

still a baby!

MobyMule

June 19th, 2008, 10:16 am

27, bro.........27. :)

Haha. So you ready to be a Bishop yet? At least most don't get called to be Bishops at 22 like Pres. Monson. My head spins on that one. What an awesome responsibility and what a great job he did at such a young age.

noelle12

June 19th, 2008, 10:16 am

We're not allowed to cuss?! :eek: :mrgreen:

Don't tell that to my bishop's wife. She said, after her husband was called to be the bishop that she had obviously not cussed enough!

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 10:20 am

still a baby!

http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020184.gif

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 10:21 am

Haha. So you ready to be a Bishop yet? At least most don't get called to be Bishops at 22 like Pres. Monson. My head spins on that one. What an awesome responsibility and what a great job he did at such a young age.

My wife's younger brother is only 24, and he's already been in two bishoprics (he was second counselor both times).

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 10:21 am

Don't tell that to my bishop's wife. She said, after her husband was called to be the bishop that she had obviously not cussed enough!

:)) Ironic

Predecessor

June 19th, 2008, 10:22 am

Sure, that's what they said about the Alamo too. "There's no basement in the Alamo!" (Name that movie reference.)

Time to flex my movie prowess...Pee-Wee's Big Adventure! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089791/)

Snagglepuss

June 19th, 2008, 10:23 am

Haha. So you ready to be a Bishop yet? At least most don't get called to be Bishops at 22 like Pres. Monson. My head spins on that one. What an awesome responsibility and what a great job he did at such a young age.The thought of me as a Bishop at that age makes even my ancestors quiver in terror. Of course, the thought of me as a Bishop at all is not much different....

MobyMule

June 19th, 2008, 10:28 am

My wife's younger brother is only 24, and he's already been in two bishoprics (he was second counselor both times).

Good for him. I have been a 2nd and 1st counselor in a Branch Presidency and a 2nd counselor in a Bishopric. I have also been the bulletin maker person and I loved that one :). I haved loved all my callings and although some are much easier and not as time consuming as others I have learned so much about the true love and mercy our Savior has for us through each one. It truly has been a blessing to me in every calling I've ever held.

MobyMule

June 19th, 2008, 10:29 am

The thought of me as a Bishop at that age makes even my ancestors quiver in terror. Of course, the thought of me as a Bishop at all is not much different....

LOL. I'm sure you would do better than you believe.

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 10:35 am

Good for him. I have been a 2nd and 1st counselor in a Branch Presidency and a 2nd counselor in a Bishopric. I have also been the bulletin maker person and I loved that one :). I haved loved all my callings and although some are much easier and not as time consuming as others I have learned so much about the true love and mercy our Savior has for us through each one. It truly has been a blessing to me in every calling I've ever held.

Thats great, Moby! Currently I'm the Elder's Quorum President in my ward. I love being able to serve the people who live in my community. Just last week we (as an Elder's Quorum) went down to a rehabilitation clinic for people who have had hip and knee surgeries and the like. Most of the folk there were very old.........VERY OLD :D. We provided a short sacrament meeting for them and were also able to take the sacrament around to those in the clinic who were unable to leave their rooms. It was a very spiritual experience. We will be providing sacrament meeting for them for the remainder of the month.

Predecessor

June 19th, 2008, 10:40 am

Most of the folk there were very old.........VERY OLD :D.

RayMan old? Or Whippersnapper old? :angel:

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 10:42 am

RayMan old? Or Whippersnapper old? :angel:

Hey! I'm just deaf, not blind.

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 10:46 am

RayMan old? Or Whippersnapper old? :angel:

:)) Do I dare answer this?.......

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 10:48 am

:)) Do I dare answer this?.......

No.

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 10:49 am

No.

http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020146.gif

Predecessor

June 19th, 2008, 10:58 am

:idea: If I had money, and it was 1950, I'd produce the "Ray & Reeder Show"

Sure to delight our studio audiences :clap:

'Course back then Reeder would have still just been a spirit looking forward to his turn on earth (shameless LDS doctrine plug) and RayMan would have been "RayBoy."

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 10:59 am

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 11:09 am

I get the "Abbot" character. Reeder is SO "Costello."

You mean this old fart?:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a136/Reeder113/Costello.jpg

Doh! :doh: Wrong Costello!!

noelle12

June 19th, 2008, 11:11 am

Time to flex my movie prowess...Pee-Wee's Big Adventure! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089791/)

yeah. :clap:

Snagglepuss

June 19th, 2008, 11:28 am

You mean this old fart?:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a136/Reeder113/Costello.jpg

Doh! :doh: Wrong Costello!!Man, he is getting old.....that's making me feel old...

Old Tex

June 19th, 2008, 11:28 am

Thats great, Moby! Currently I'm the Elder's Quorum President in my ward. I love being able to serve the people who live in my community. Just last week we (as an Elder's Quorum) went down to a rehabilitation clinic for people who have had hip and knee surgeries and the like. Most of the folk there were very old.........VERY OLD :D.

We provided a short sacrament meeting for them and were also able to take the sacrament around to those in the clinic who were unable to leave their rooms. It was a very spiritual experience. We will be providing sacrament meeting for them for the remainder of the month.

Good for you reader. I was an Elder's Quorum President many years ago. An Elders Quorum, if properly led, can be a great assist to a Bishop. I was also a Counselor in the Bishopric, but the calling I really enjoyed was that of Ward Clerk, which is kind of an "invisable" calling to most members, but a ward clerk is in every meeting that a Bishop is in on the ward level and some on the stake level.

That's in addition to taking care of the ward financial records, writing all the checks needed, recording all the baptisms and ordinations, sending member records out and receiving records on new move-ins, and making various kinds of reports.

I served with four different Bishops in a row and was very close friends with all of them. The last one I served with kiddingly referred to me as "Radar" because I got to where I anticipated his needs on so many things. Unfortunately, my series of health problems won't allow me to keep the kind of activity I once could, but I still have responsibilities in the High Priest Group.

The more one sees how the Church is organized to help in both the temporal and spiritual needs of people (members and non members) one can't help but marvel at what the Lord had given us .

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 11:38 am

Good for you reader. I was an Elder's Quorum President many years ago. An Elders Quorum, if properly led, can be a great assist to a Bishop. I was also a Counselor in the Bishopric, but the calling I really enjoyed was that of Ward Clerk, which is kind of an "invisable" calling to most members, but a ward clerk is in every meeting that a Bishop is in on the ward level and some on the stake level.

That's in addition to taking care of the ward financial records, writing all the checks needed, recording all the baptisms and ordinations, sending member records out and receiving records on new move-ins, and making various kinds of reports.

I served with four different Bishops in a row and was very close friends with all of them. The last one I served with kiddingly referred to me as "Radar" because I got to where I anticipated his needs on so many things. Unfortunately, my series of health problems won't allow me to keep the kind of activity I once could, but I still have responsibilities in the High Priest Group.

The more one sees how the Church is organized to help in both the temporal and spiritual needs of people (members and non members) one can't help but marvel at what the Lord had given us .

Thats great, Tex! Personally, I would love to be in the Scouting Program. I loved being a part of the Scouts growing up! But I'll go where the Lord wants me.

You are right about one thing, though.........the more one sees how the Church is organized to help in both the temporal and spiritual needs of people - the more I marvel at what the Lord has given to us, and the love that He has for us.

Old Tex

June 19th, 2008, 11:43 am

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a136/Reeder113/Costello.jpg

Doh! :doh: Wrong Costello!!

Lou Costello, half of the comedy team of Bud Abbout and Lou Costello. The one that don't know "Who's on First". That was back when entertainment was simpler and funnier before it contained profanity and "bathroom humor."

Predecessor

June 19th, 2008, 11:55 am

Thats great, Tex! Personally, I would love to be in the Scouting Program. I loved being a part of the Scouts growing up! But I'll go where the Lord wants me.

You are right about one thing, though.........the more one sees how the Church is organized to help in both the temporal and spiritual needs of people - the more I marvel at what the Lord has given to us, and the love that He has for us.

I don't know Reeder, the Scouting Program is a lot of work. I don't think you'd like it very much. Next week, I'll have to take time off of work to head up to the mountains for Scout Camp where I will be running the Rifle & Shotgun Merit Badge program. When I'm not on the range I'll have to take hikes in the morning, eat fattening dutch oven cooking, drink mountain spring water, breath fresh air, read a book or two, and relax by the campfire at night before I gaze at the stars. And then I have to do all of that over and over again for 5 whole days. You see? Very burdensome. It's not easy but I do it for the boys. Ahh, the sacrifices of a we YM Leaders make. It's a cross I must bear...

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 11:56 am

I don't know Reeder, the Scouting Program is a lot of work. I don't think you'd like it very much. Next week, I'll have to take time off of work to head up to the mountains for Scout Camp where I will be running the Rifle & Shotgun Merit Badge program. When I'm not on the range I'll have to take hikes in the morning, eat fattening dutch oven cooking, drink mountain spring water, breath fresh air, read a book or two, and relax by the campfire at night before I gaze at the stars. And then I have to do all of that over and over again for 5 whole days. You see? Very burdensome. It's not easy but I do it for the boys. Ahh, the sacrifices of a we YM Leaders make. It's a cross I must bear...

You're the devil's advocate. Why do you tempt me? :)

Old Tex

June 19th, 2008, 12:09 pm

Thats great, Tex! Personally, I would love to be in the Scouting Program. I loved being a part of the Scouts growing up! But I'll go where the Lord wants me.

You are right about one thing, though.........the more one sees how the Church is organized to help in both the temporal and spiritual needs of people - the more I marvel at what the Lord has given to us, and the love that He has for us.

I've never been much of a scouter, but if my upbringing had been different I may have been. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I read a while back that the LDS Church was the largest supporter of both the Cubs, and the Boy Scouts, and that some forty percent of all Boy Scout troops were the troops formed in the LDS Church.

I have heard that the Church has a program very simular to the scout program ready to go for LDS boys in case the Boy Scouts of America are forced to start usuing homosexuals as scout masters. There is a lot of pressure being applied on them to do this.

Old Tex

June 19th, 2008, 12:23 pm

I don't know Reeder, the Scouting Program is a lot of work. I don't think you'd like it very much. Next week, I'll have to take time off of work to head up to the mountains for Scout Camp where I will be running the Rifle & Shotgun Merit Badge program. When I'm not on the range I'll have to take hikes in the morning, eat fattening dutch oven cooking, drink mountain spring water, breath fresh air, read a book or two, and relax by the campfire at night before I gaze at the stars. And then I have to do all of that over and over again for 5 whole days. You see? Very burdensome. It's not easy but I do it for the boys. Ahh, the sacrifices of a we YM Leaders make. It's a cross I must bear...

More power to you. Both the Young Men and the Young Women leaders in the Church have a major responsibility. You are helping to reinforce the rightousness of the next generation.

The scouts in our ward are gone this week. One of their favorite places to go is to do some white water canoeing on a river in Arkansas.

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 12:25 pm

I don't know Reeder, the Scouting Program is a lot of work. I don't think you'd like it very much. Next week, I'll have to take time off of work to head up to the mountains for Scout Camp where I will be running the Rifle & Shotgun Merit Badge program. When I'm not on the range I'll have to take hikes in the morning, eat fattening dutch oven cooking, drink mountain spring water, breath fresh air, read a book or two, and relax by the campfire at night before I gaze at the stars. And then I have to do all of that over and over again for 5 whole days. You see? Very burdensome. It's not easy but I do it for the boys. Ahh, the sacrifices of a we YM Leaders make. It's a cross I must bear...

My condolences. :rolleyes:

Hey! I finally got to use the rolling eyes smiley!

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 12:27 pm

My condolences. :rolleyes:

Hey! I finally got to use the rolling eyes smiley!

Then its off to the TTTM for me. :mrgreen:

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 12:34 pm

Then its off to the TTTM for me. :mrgreen:

I'd double dog dare you but that is probably a bannable offense in itself. Why must the mods run such a civil board!

I hope that doesn't get interpreted as COM. :wall:

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 1:14 pm

I'd double dog dare you but that is probably a bannable offense in itself. Why must the mods run such a civil board!

I hope that doesn't get interpreted as COM. :wall:

:))

You triple-dog dare me......and maybe I'll fold. Maybe I'll even stick my tongue to a frozen flag pole.

Predecessor

June 19th, 2008, 1:19 pm

:))

You triple-dog dare me......and maybe I'll fold. Maybe I'll even stick my tongue to a frozen flag pole.

Just don't shoot your eye out.

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 1:21 pm

:))

You triple-dog dare me......and maybe I'll fold. Maybe I'll even stick my tongue to a frozen flag pole.

Easy enough to say in June, big guy. Get back to me at Christmas. ©

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 1:22 pm

Just don't shoot your eye out.

Man, you ARE good.

Since you're a Mormon, let me ask you this:

Identify the movie that corresponds to this quote:

"Why didn't you just knock on the door? I would've gotten it for ya!"

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 1:23 pm

Easy enough to say in June, big guy. Get back to me at Christmas. ©

You don't keep flagpoles in your freezer in June? Wierdo.

Predecessor

June 19th, 2008, 1:48 pm

Man, you ARE good.

Since you're a Mormon, let me ask you this:

Identify the movie that corresponds to this quote:

"Why didn't you just knock on the door? I would've gotten it for ya!"

Mobsters and Mormons? The Singles Ward - Part 7? Pirates of the Great Salt Lake?

Haven't a clue. I haven't watched many of the Mormon culture films. Time is precious brother ;)

Reeder

June 19th, 2008, 1:48 pm

Mobsters and Mormons? The Singles Ward - Part 7? Pirates of the Great Salt Lake?

Haven't a clue. I haven't watched many of the Mormon culture films. Time is precious brother ;)

:))

James Earl Jones in "The Sandlot."

Nice try. Looks like your powers are fading. :)

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 1:52 pm

:))

James Earl Jones in "The Sandlot."

Nice try. Looks like your powers are fading. :)

"You're killin' me here Smalls."

Predecessor

June 19th, 2008, 2:11 pm

:))

James Earl Jones in "The Sandlot."

Nice try. Looks like your powers are fading. :)

Just call me Captain Chagrin -- So obvious now that I look at it.

You totally threw me off with the "Since you're a Mormon..." ruse. Throw that in with the "knock on the door" part of the quote and I was thinking it was from a cheesy Mormon missionary culture movie.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

bluebird

June 19th, 2008, 2:19 pm

27, bro.........27. :)

Still younger than me.

noelle12

June 19th, 2008, 6:48 pm

bump

basilisk

June 19th, 2008, 7:26 pm

You guys are weird.

Frazzled

June 19th, 2008, 7:29 pm

You guys are weird.

...or wired...:shifty:

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 8:11 pm

noelle12

June 19th, 2008, 9:12 pm

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 9:16 pm

how do you put the copyright sign on your post?

I will pm you. If the knowledge became public I would have to...you know how it goes. ©

noelle12

June 19th, 2008, 9:23 pm

I will pm you. If the knowledge became public I would have to...you know how it goes. ©

Thanks! I promise to only use my powers for good! :angel: ©

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 9:47 pm

Thanks! I promise to only use my powers for good! :angel: ©

One thing though. Copyright your work in front of the smiley. Someone else wrote him ©

:))

noelle12

June 19th, 2008, 9:49 pm

One thing though. Copyright your work in front of the smiley. Someone else wrote him ©

:))

Fine, every once in a while I will use my powers for bad, but not too often! © :twisted:

RayMan

June 19th, 2008, 9:51 pm

Old Tex

June 20th, 2008, 1:18 am

I will pm you. If the knowledge became public I would have to...you know how it goes. ©

It won't matter. Those wiki people will publish it anyway.

Old Tex

June 20th, 2008, 3:26 pm

I'd double dog dare you but that is probably a bannable offense in itself. Why must the mods run such a civil board!

I've heard the words "double dog dare" since I was a kid, but I never did understand what a dog, or even a double dog, had to do with a dare.

RayMan

June 20th, 2008, 3:40 pm

I've heard the words "double dog dare" since I was a kid, but I never did understand what a dog, or even a double dog, had to do with a dare.

An internet search shows that apparently NOBODY knows where the phrase comes from, but it is considered to me the ultimate dare amongst kids.

The triple-dog dare only exists in the movie A Christmas Story and Reeder's earlier post. It is a totally bogus dare. © :mrgreen:

noelle12

June 20th, 2008, 4:42 pm

An internet search shows that apparently NOBODY knows where the phrase comes from, but it is considered to me the ultimate dare amongst kids.

The triple-dog dare only exists in the movie A Christmas Story and Reeder's earlier post. It is a totally bogus dare. © :mrgreen:

I just googled "double dog dare" and the site I referenced had the following sequence of escalating challenges:

I dare you
I double dare you
I double dog dare you
I black dog dare you
I double black dog dare you.

I had never EVER heard of black dog dares, so that might be completely off base, but since the expression began long before I was around, maybe the black dog dares have simply disappeared.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled religious conversation. ©

Old Tex

June 20th, 2008, 7:19 pm

I just googled "double dog dare" and the site I referenced had the following sequence of escalating challenges:

I dare you
I double dare you
I double dog dare you
I black dog dare you
I double black dog dare you.

That makes me wonder........would an old Southern Democrat say, "I yeller dog dare you"?:mrgreen:

RayMan

June 20th, 2008, 7:31 pm

That makes me wonder........would an old Southern Democrat say, "I yeller dog dare you"?:mrgreen:

Would that be a "Yeller Dog Democrat?"

-------------------------------------------------------------
For those born north the Mason/Dixon Line:

Yeller = Yellow

Ex: Old Yeller. The name referred to his color not his vocal abilities.

Shabbat Shalom, ya'll. ©

noelle12

June 20th, 2008, 8:11 pm

Would that be a "Yeller Dog Democrat?"

-------------------------------------------------------------
For those born north the Mason/Dixon Line:

Yeller = Yellow

Ex: Old Yeller. The name referred to his color not his vocal abilities.

Shabbat Shalom, ya'll. ©

It has been a long time since I read that book, but if memory serves, the name Old Yeller did in fact refer to his vocal abilities as well as his color. I could be proven wrong here, it has been a long time.

Please note that out of respect for your copyrighted post, I merely emphasized the content in question, I did not remove any of the irrelevant content (irrelevant to my post). © :mrgreen:

RayMan

June 20th, 2008, 9:06 pm

It has been a long time since I read that book, but if memory serves, the name Old Yeller did in fact refer to his vocal abilities as well as his color. I could be proven wrong here, it has been a long time.

Please note that out of respect for your copyrighted post, I merely emphasized the content in question, I did not remove any of the irrelevant content (irrelevant to my post). © :mrgreen:

You could well be right. I never read the book. The IMDB page for Old Yeller describes the plot thusly: "A boy brings a yellow dog home. The dog loves the family as much as they love him, but can the love last ?"

Thank you for respecting the copyright status of my post. You will kindly notice I have reciprocated. ©

noelle12

June 20th, 2008, 10:20 pm

You could well be right. I never read the book. The IMDB page for Old Yeller describes the plot thusly: "A boy brings a yellow dog home. The dog loves the family as much as they love him, but can the love last ?"

Thank you for respecting the copyright status of my post. You will kindly notice I have reciprocated. ©

It really is a good book. If you haven't read it, I think you should. It'll make you cry.

RayMan

June 20th, 2008, 10:30 pm

It really is a good book. If you haven't read it, I think you should. It'll make you cry.

Do you remember the pep talk scene in "Stripes" when Bill Murray asks "who cried when Old Yeller died?"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zCHTzumpk4Q&feature=related

Whole clip is great but to get to "Old Yeller" fast forward to about 2:55. ©

noelle12

June 20th, 2008, 10:33 pm

Do you remember the pep talk scene in "Stripes" when Bill Murray asks "who cried when Old Yeller died?"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zCHTzumpk4Q&feature=related

Whole clip is great but to get to "Old Yeller" fast forward to about 2:55. ©

I admit, I cried.

RayMan

June 20th, 2008, 10:36 pm

Old Tex

June 21st, 2008, 12:49 am

Would that be a "Yeller Dog Democrat?"

Back in the 1930s (and earlier) a Yellow Dog Democrat was a Democrat in the South who, would "vote for an old Yellow dog" before they would vote for a Republican. My family used to be full of them, but what Democrats were then, and what they are now, are two widely different things.

RayMan

June 21st, 2008, 1:39 am

Back in the 1930s (and earlier) a Yellow Dog Democrat was a Democrat in the South who, would "vote for an old Yellow dog" before they would vote for a Republican. My family used to be full of them, but what Democrats were then, and what they are now, are two widely different things.

I know. My whole family (both sides) is from the South. Came out to Richmond CA during WWII to work in the Kaiser shipyards building Liberty Ships. I have an aunt who was a runner up for Miss Little Rock in like 1940 and was doing the Rosie the Riveter thing in Richmond in 1942.

Bigcanuck

June 21st, 2008, 6:35 pm

Ah yes, Old yeller... great movie.

I actually slightly prefer Where the Red Fern Grows. Boy had to work for his dogs.. and Joseph Smith is the main Character. Very sad.. Cried in both movies. :((

oldtimer

June 21st, 2008, 9:30 pm

I know. My whole family (both sides) is from the South. Came out to Richmond CA during WWII to work in the Kaiser shipyards building Liberty Ships. I have an aunt who was a runner up for Miss Little Rock in like 1940 and was doing the Rosie the Riveter thing in Richmond in 1942.Because of the GI Bill, many southerners were able to go to college in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Then their children started going in the 1960’s and 1970’s. At that point, as a result of this education, the south developed a middle-class. The educated middle-class looked at their leaders and realized the racist southern democrat leaders had not only manipulated the blacks for many decades, they had manipulated them as well. That is when you saw a mass exodus from the democrat party in the south.

Old Tex

June 21st, 2008, 10:30 pm

Because of the GI Bill, many southerners were able to go to college in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Then their children started going in the 1960’s and 1970’s. At that point, as a result of this education, the south developed a middle-class. The educated middle-class looked at their leaders and realized the racist southern democrat leaders had not only manipulated the blacks for many decades, they had manipulated them as well. That is when you saw a mass exodus from the democrat party in the south.

I know for a long time after my wife and I were married (50s and 60s) there was no way one could vote for a Republican in this county. There simply was no one running as a Republican. (I'm speaking of county and state elections.)

A good friend who decided to run for county sheriff had to run as a Democrat because there was no Republican party in the county and consequently, no place to vote for one.
How things have changed. Now the county is 100% Republican, but we still have the same "good old boy-ism". It's built into the system.

Old Tex

June 21st, 2008, 10:33 pm

Ah yes, Old yeller... great movie.

I actually slightly prefer Where the Red Fern Grows. Boy had to work for his dogs.. and Joseph Smith is the main Character. Very sad.. Cried in both movies. :((

That title sounds familiar. I think I was watching it on the BYU channel one night and fell asleep. If so, maybe I can catch it again.

Snagglepuss

June 21st, 2008, 10:49 pm

You would pretty much have to be the Antichrist not to. © :cool:Dang it! I knew there was something wrong with me, but I didn't think it was THAT serious! :shifty:

noelle12

June 22nd, 2008, 6:36 am

Ah yes, Old yeller... great movie.

I actually slightly prefer Where the Red Fern Grows. Boy had to work for his dogs.. and Joseph Smith is the main Character. Very sad.. Cried in both movies. :((

I have not seen the movie of Where the Red Fern Grown, but I read the book (a long time ago). Also quite a tear jerker. I think you are mistaken about the name of the main character, though. His name was Billy. (I didn't remember that on my own, I had to look it up.)

orbitaldecay

June 23rd, 2008, 2:29 am

Do you drink caffeinated sodas?
Are they anti-WoW?

Predecessor

June 23rd, 2008, 6:46 am

Do you drink caffeinated sodas?
Are they anti-WoW?

Anti-World of Warcraft? As far as I know they won't affect your game-playing experience. ;)

OK - It's VERY early for me right now and I'm just a little groggy (from just waking up not from all of the caffeine :) ) so I apologize for the lame joke.

IMO, no. Caffeinated beverages are not officially against the Word or Wisdom. There may be general authorities who feel they should be officially added, nevertheless, they have not been. Nutritionally, it doesn't really matter if it's caffeinated or not, soda in general is not really all that beneficial but it doesn't stop many a Mormon (including myself from time to time) from guzzling the stuff on a regular basis.

noelle12

June 23rd, 2008, 8:56 am

Do you drink caffeinated sodas?
Are they anti-WoW?

I do not drink caffeinated sodas.

They are not anti-WoW.

Somebody told me a story (I doubt it is true, but it is a little funny) about a general authority who went to some community event, stopped at a concession stand and ordered a soft drink. The person behind the counter was LDS and recognized the general authority, and apologized because the only paper cups they had were cups with the Coca-cola logo on them. The general authority said (supposedly) "I don't care if there is coke on the cup, as long as there is coke in the cup."

hillplus

June 23rd, 2008, 10:18 am

President Hinckley said to Larry King, "no caffeine." That said, I do like a nice cold Cherry Coke. In SLC they have caffeine free everything, Cherry Coke, Mountain Dew etc...

basilisk

June 23rd, 2008, 12:38 pm

President Hinckley said to Larry King, "no caffeine." That said, I do like a nice cold Cherry Coke. In SLC they have caffeine free everything, Cherry Coke, Mountain Dew etc...
I have never seen a caffeine-free Mountain Dew. Isn't that like water-free watermelon?

orbitaldecay

June 23rd, 2008, 12:50 pm

Some LDS think that the reason we don't coffee or tea is because there is caffeine in them. Although it makes a good excuse, the real reason we don't drink hot drinks is because we have been commanded not to.
Although, I highly respect those who abstain from caffeine out of principle.

As for me, I like Dr. Pepper, Coca-cola, etc. :mrgreen:

Reeder

June 23rd, 2008, 1:07 pm

I have never seen a caffeine-free Mountain Dew. Isn't that like water-free watermelon?

:))

Believe it or not, I have seen caffeine-free Mt. Dew at my local WalMart.

noelle12

June 23rd, 2008, 1:18 pm

. . .the real reason we don't drink hot drinks is because we have been commanded not to.

I agree with this statement 100%. (Maybe even a little bit more.)

HokieCougarVandal

June 23rd, 2008, 4:18 pm

:))

Believe it or not, I have seen caffeine-free Mt. Dew at my local WalMart.
Same here ... in the 2-liter variety ... but still can't get it with the fountain drinks.:cry:

But that does not bother me when I stop at a convenience store.
:twisted:

Reeder

June 23rd, 2008, 4:24 pm

Same here ... in the 2-liter variety ... but still can't get it with the fountain drinks.:cry:

But that does not bother me when I stop at a convenience store.
:twisted:

:D I feel the same way, my friend.

HokieCougarVandal

June 23rd, 2008, 4:34 pm

Do you drink caffeinated sodas?
Yes

Are they anti-WoW?
Depends on who you talk with and how each was raised/taught.

IMO, they're not anti-WoW, but the prophets have counseled us while speaking of the WoW to have moderation in all things. So, for me anyways, I'll have one in the morning at work to get me going. My co-workers kid me that it must be my "Mormon coffee."

noelle12

June 23rd, 2008, 4:48 pm

I don't remember much of the interview that Larry King had with the late prophet, Pres. Hinckley, but I remember an interview on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace. The conversation regarding the Word of Wisdom was as follows:

Mike Wallace: No alcohol, no tobacco, no coffee, no tea, not even caffeinated soft drinks...
Gordon B. Hinckley: Right.
Mike Wallace: ...eat meat sparingly, exercise...
Gordon B. Hinckley: Right.
Mike Wallace: ...get plenty of sleep.
Gordon B. Hinckley: Right. It's wonderful!

Basically Mike Wallace lumped caffeinated soft drinks together with alcohol, tea, coffee and cigaretttes. Pres. Hinckley didn't elaborate about caffeinated soft drinks after the question, but in my opinion the question and the forum were not conducive to that kind of discussion. I will say that that very brief mention is what it took for me to stop drinking caffeinated soft drinks. I never drank them much anyway, so quitting was no big deal, and I have occasionally had a Dr. Pepper since then.

Old Tex

June 23rd, 2008, 5:11 pm

I don't remember much of the interview that Larry King had with the late prophet, Pres. Hinckley, but I remember an interview on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace. The conversation regarding the Word of Wisdom was as follows:

Basically Mike Wallace lumped caffeinated soft drinks together with alcohol, tea, coffee and cigaretttes. Pres. Hinckley didn't elaborate about caffeinated soft drinks after the question, but in my opinion the question and the forum were not conducive to that kind of discussion. I will say that that very brief mention is what it took for me to stop drinking caffeinated soft drinks. I never drank them much anyway, so quitting was no big deal, and I have occasionally had a Dr. Pepper since then.

I remember that interview. As I recall Pres Hinckley started answering after Wallace mentioned what he thought was going to be the last item in the question and Wallace then mentioned caffine and Pres Hingkley just let his answer stand.

noelle12

June 23rd, 2008, 5:24 pm

I remember that interview. As I recall Pres Hinckley started answering after Wallace mentioned what he thought was going to be the last item in the question and Wallace then mentioned caffine and Pres Hingkley just let his answer stand.

That's how it seemed to me too.

oldtimer

June 23rd, 2008, 11:04 pm

That's how it seemed to me too.Sounds like I remember. But we should minimize soft drinks in general, caffeine or not. Sugar, non-sugar sweeteners, caffeine and all that stuff is not good for us. We need to manage our nutrition by the spirit of the WoW, not by the letter.

Remember, the 89th Section has versus that are often overlooked:
3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.
4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation…

The way I read this, following the letter of the law is the minimum. Evil and conspiring men of the last days are the motivation of this revelation. Since this revelation revolves around things we take in our bodies, these evil people are making things that are addictive and dangerous for our health, all for their own gain.

Old Tex

June 24th, 2008, 1:05 am

Sounds like I remember. But we should minimize soft drinks in general, caffeine or not. Sugar, non-sugar sweeteners, caffeine and all that stuff is not good for us. We need to manage our nutrition by the spirit of the WoW, not by the letter.

Remember, the 89th Section has versus that are often overlooked:
3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.
4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation…

The way I read this, following the letter of the law is the minimum. Evil and conspiring men of the last days are the motivation of this revelation. Since this revelation revolves around things we take in our bodies, these evil people are making things that are addictive and dangerous for our health, all for their own gain.

Yes, I think all of us will agree with you Oldtimer. I keep some diet Pepsis in the ice box for when I get a "craving" which isn't all that often. And then there are those times when I give in to chocolate covered peanut clusteers. They far exceed any Twinkie I ever ate, in spite of what some claim.:evil:

Reeder

June 24th, 2008, 11:56 am

Sounds like I remember. But we should minimize soft drinks in general, caffeine or not. Sugar, non-sugar sweeteners, caffeine and all that stuff is not good for us. We need to manage our nutrition by the spirit of the WoW, not by the letter.

Remember, the 89th Section has versus that are often overlooked:
3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.
4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation…

The way I read this, following the letter of the law is the minimum. Evil and conspiring men of the last days are the motivation of this revelation. Since this revelation revolves around things we take in our bodies, these evil people are making things that are addictive and dangerous for our health, all for their own gain.

I believe you're exactly right, oldtimer. In fact, back in college I had an Institute teacher who said the same thing.......that soda pop in general is not good for your health (caffeine or not). I don't believe its a crime to have a soda pop every now and then, but when we are drinking it on a daily basis, or multiple cans per day, we are not treating our bodies the way we should. Its not healthy.

Old Tex

June 24th, 2008, 6:17 pm

Dang it! I knew there was something wrong with me,.........

Hmmmm!:whistle:

hillplus

June 24th, 2008, 9:16 pm

totally off subject. did anyone hear that the church is asking the saints in CA to help in any way they can to defeat the new law regarding same sex marriage? It's war!

noelle12

June 24th, 2008, 10:51 pm

totally off subject. did anyone hear that the church is asking the saints in CA to help in any way they can to defeat the new law regarding same sex marriage? It's war!

I had not heard anything, but then I am nowhere near CA either. What can they do? Any ideas?

hillplus

June 24th, 2008, 11:42 pm

I had not heard anything, but then I am nowhere near CA either. What can they do? Any ideas?

obviously, the church cannot become personally involved. Part of the letter read in sacrament meeting below:

LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson and his counselors, President Henry B. Eyring and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, said, "Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."

"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

HokieCougarVandal

June 25th, 2008, 10:40 am

obviously, the church cannot become personally involved. Part of the letter read in sacrament meeting below:

LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson and his counselors, President Henry B. Eyring and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, said, "Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."

"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

Yeah, I'd heard about that.

But that begs the question, if the church is asking its members to "do all you can to support ...", doesn't the church then become personally involved? Granted we all have our agency to decide whether or not to follow the counsel of our leaders. However, as far as I can recall, the church hasn't actively advocated anything political, usually leaving it up to the members to decide the governments course of action (i.e. voting). This statement seems to veer from that position in urging the members to do something specific.

Upon further inquistion:

The Church does not:

Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.

The Church does:

Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.

Gay marriage is a platform. So isn't the church endorsing opposition to this platform (does not) because of its moral consequences (does)?

noelle12

June 25th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Yeah, I'd heard about that.

But that begs the question, if the church is asking its members to "do all you can to support ...", doesn't the church then become personally involved? Granted we all have our agency to decide whether or not to follow the counsel of our leaders. However, as far as I can recall, the church hasn't actively advocated anything political, usually leaving it up to the members to decide the governments course of action (i.e. voting). This statement seems to veer from that position in urging the members to do something specific.

Upon further inquistion:

The Church does not:

Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.

The Church does:

Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.

Gay marriage is a platform. So isn't the church endorsing opposition to this platform (does not) because of its moral consequences (does)?

As I understand the term, gay marriage is a plank in the platform of the democrat party.

A platform is the overall party aims and principles.
A plank is an endorsed policy within a platform.

HokieCougarVandal

June 25th, 2008, 12:38 pm

As I understand the term, gay marriage is a plank in the platform of the democrat party.

A platform is the overall party aims and principles.
A plank is an endorsed policy within a platform.

Understood. But doesn't the action on one plank reverberate throughout the platform? I mean, if the church takes a political stance on one issue, what's to stop the action on another? Or for others to question the church's stance on different topics of interest?

Snagglepuss

June 25th, 2008, 1:40 pm

Understood. But doesn't the action on one plank reverberate throughout the platform? I mean, if the church takes a political stance on one issue, what's to stop the action on another? Or for others to question the church's stance on different topics of interest?IMO, the fact that the Democratic/Republican Parties have chosen to make this a political issue does not alter the fact that it is still both a moral and a religious freedom issue, thus still falling under the purview of the Church.

I believe one of the risks involved in this issue is that making same-sex marriage legal is that it is one step toward making it illegal to deny marriage to same-sex couples. This means that it is conceivable that the Church could be forced into performing same-sex marriages, or stop marrying couples altogether. Neither of these options is a tenable position for the Church, or indeed for many religions in general. Some may say that our 1st Amendment rights would prevent that from happening, but we of all religions should know that the Free Exercise Clause hasn't prevented the govt from outlawing certain religious rights concerning marriage.

sketptic_1

June 25th, 2008, 1:47 pm

As I understand the term, gay marriage is a plank in the platform of the democrat party.

A platform is the overall party aims and principles.
A plank is an endorsed policy within a platform.

Gay marriage is an issue. What politicians do with it doesn't change it from being an issue. seems to me it's right in line with the church's statements.

HokieCougarVandal

June 25th, 2008, 2:19 pm

noelle12

June 25th, 2008, 3:01 pm

Understood. But doesn't the action on one plank reverberate throughout the platform? I mean, if the church takes a political stance on one issue, what's to stop the action on another? Or for others to question the church's stance on different topics of interest?

Almost thirteen years ago the First Presidency shared "The Family: A Proclamation to the World (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=true)" with the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It begins with "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

It's final sentence is "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

I believe that the efforts of the LDS church with regards to the situation in California is reaffirming what was said in this Proclamation. Calling upon "responsible citizens and officers of government . . . to promote these measures" is not taking a political stance, but is rather taking a moral stance, and one that did not just occur based on the political climate we are currently in.

HokieCougarVandal

June 25th, 2008, 3:16 pm

I believe that the efforts of the LDS church with regards to the situation in California is reaffirming what was said in this Proclamation. Calling upon "responsible citizens and officers of government . . . to promote these measures" is not taking a political stance, but is rather taking a moral stance, and one that did not just occur based on the political climate we are currently in.

While that may be correct, the political climate nowdays is such that some moral issues have become political issues ... dangerous for both sides of the addressed issue.

Old Tex

June 25th, 2008, 3:17 pm

I believe one of the risks involved in this issue is that making same-sex marriage legal is that it is one step toward making it illegal to deny marriage to same-sex couples. This means that it is conceivable that the Church could be forced into performing same-sex marriages, or stop marrying couples altogether.

And there you have touched upon the core of the matter, Snag. Who would gain by having the ability to cease all Eternal marriages? I think we need to look past the obvious and think about those principalities and powers of darkness that Paul mentioned that he was struggling against in his day. They are still here.

Snagglepuss

June 25th, 2008, 3:22 pm

And there you have touched upon the core of the matter, Snag. Who would gain by having the ability to cease all Eternal marriages? I think we need to look past the obvious and think about those principalities and powers of darkness that Paul mentioned that he was struggling against in his day. They are still here.Yep...

scipio337

June 25th, 2008, 3:29 pm

IMO, the fact that the Democratic/Republican Parties have chosen to make this a political issue does not alter the fact that it is still both a moral and a religious freedom issue, thus still falling under the purview of the Church.

I believe one of the risks involved in this issue is that making same-sex marriage legal is that it is one step toward making it illegal to deny marriage to same-sex couples. This means that it is conceivable that the Church could be forced into performing same-sex marriages, or stop marrying couples altogether. Neither of these options is a tenable position for the Church, or indeed for many religions in general. Some may say that our 1st Amendment rights would prevent that from happening, but we of all religions should know that the Free Exercise Clause hasn't prevented the govt from outlawing certain religious rights concerning marriage.Oh please! Now you're defending polygamy by trashing same sex marriage?

Ignoration elenchi, anyone. Marriage has historically been between ONE man, and ONE woman, historically and institutionally throughout western civilization, something The Family: A Proclamation to the World (conveniently) fails to recognize.

You're comparing apples to rutabagas. The scenario of forcing religions to marry same sex couples would clearly be a free exercise violation.

See Jefferson's Danbury letter.

Reeder

June 25th, 2008, 3:35 pm

Oh please! Now you're defending polygamy by trashing same sex marriage?

Ignoration elenchi, anyone. Marriage has historically been between ONE man, and ONE woman, historically and institutionally throughout western civilization, something The Family: A Proclamation to the World (conveniently) fails to recognize.

You're comparing apples to rutabagas. The scenario of forcing religions to marry same sex couples would clearly be a free exercise violation.

The Proclamation is not addressing the history of western civilization. It is addressing the importance of the family unit according to God as voiced by His Prophets. Period! Why anyone would attempt to criticize such an inspired document is beyond me.

scipio337

June 25th, 2008, 3:47 pm

The Proclamation is not addressing the history of western civilization. It is addressing the importance of the family unit according to God as voiced by His Prophets. Period! Why anyone would attempt to criticize such an inspired document is beyond me.Marriage isn't part of the family?

Reeder

June 25th, 2008, 3:50 pm

Marriage isn't part of the family?

Of course it is, scip, but the document is not part of a history book. Is there something within the Proclamation that you find offensive or incorrect? I'd be happy to discuss it with you further.

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

scipio337

June 25th, 2008, 4:00 pm

Of course it is, scip, but the document is not part of a history book. Is there something within the Proclamation that you find offensive or incorrect? I'd be happy to discuss it with you further.

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.htmlI don't want to dig up the whole polygamy issue, been there, done that, bought the T-shirt ;)

I just hope I'm not the only one who sees the preposterousness in comparing denial of plural marriage to forced same sex marriage in the context of free exercise.

Reeder

June 25th, 2008, 4:07 pm

I don't want to dig up the whole polygamy issue, been there, done that, bought the T-shirt ;)

I just hope I'm not the only one who sees the preposterousness in comparing denial of plural marriage to forced same sex marriage in the context of free exercise.

I'd like to stay away from the issue as well. I'm not the one that brought it up in the first place, so I won't comment on it any further. I just found it curious that someone could look at the Proclamation and find ways to criticize it.

It says things like, "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God,"......"the means by which mortal life is created [is] divinely appointed,"......."Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children,"........and "the family is ordained of God."

Snagglepuss

June 25th, 2008, 4:10 pm

Oh please! Now you're defending polygamy by trashing same sex marriage? I'm not defending polygamy at all. What I am saying is, the govt has taken it upon itself to decide what religious practices are or are not acceptable. Trust me....I have no desire for polygamy to be reinstated as Church practice. But I don't think it should be the govt's decision.

Ignoration elenchi, anyone. Marriage has historically been between ONE man, and ONE woman, historically and institutionally throughout western civilization, something The Family: A Proclamation to the World (conveniently) fails to recognize. I disagree, but as it is not germaine to the current topic.....

You're comparing apples to rutabagas. The scenario of forcing religions to marry same sex couples would clearly be a free exercise violation.
Hogwash....You clearly didn't read what I said....

This means that it is conceivable that the Church could be forced into performing same-sex marriages, or stop marrying couples altogether.
(emphasis added)

If the govt can say that a church must offer adoptions to homosexual couples, despite said churches opposition to homosexuality, or stop offering adoption services altogether, then they can do the same thing for marriage. All it would take is the "right" (and I use that term as sarcastically as possible) combination of USSC justices. If you doubt that, you are clearly kidding yourself.

Old Tex

June 25th, 2008, 4:21 pm

Oh please! Now you're defending polygamy by trashing same sex marriage?

OK, I just figured out why you thought that something about polygamy was mentioned. I presume that you are referring to my reference to "eternal marriage". I had no thought of polygamy in mind when I mentioned eternal marriage.

I had in mind the marriage of my wife and I in the Temple, as well as those of thousands of others that take place in all the Temples each year. Why polygamy pops up in your mind, I have no idea.

scipio337

June 25th, 2008, 4:26 pm

I'm not defending polygamy at all. What I am saying is, the govt has taken it upon itself to decide what religious practices are or are not acceptable. Trust me....I have no desire for polygamy to be reinstated as Church practice. But I don't think it should be the govt's decision.Have you read the Reynolds decision?

I disagree, but as it is not germaine to the current topic.....I agree, it isn't relative.....

If the govt can say that a church must offer adoptions to homosexual couples, despite said churches opposition to homosexuality, or stop offering adoption services altogether, then they can do the same thing for marriage. All it would take is the "right" (and I use that term as sarcastically as possible) combination of USSC justices. If you doubt that, you are clearly kidding yourself.No, I don't think it is a valid comparison. Because A) adoptions aren't a sacremental practice of said faith, and B) Catholic Charities voluntarily stopped providing adoptions. There was no state injuction. The primary concern was the court costs involved in what was a very small part of their ministry. It was also an extremely localized (Boston only) issue.

scipio337

June 25th, 2008, 4:29 pm

OK, I just figured out why you thought that something about polygamy was mentioned. I presume that you are referring to my reference to "eternal marriage". I had no thought of polygamy in mind when I mentioned eternal marriage.

I had in mind the marriage of my wife and I in the Temple, as well as those of thousands of others that take place in all the Temples each year. Why polygamy pops up in your mind, I have no idea.It was in response to Snags' comment,

.......the Free Exercise Clause hasn't prevented the govt from outlawing certain religious rights concerning marriage.

which I thought was a reference to polygamy. I've been wrong before, though.

Snagglepuss

June 25th, 2008, 4:46 pm

Have you read the Reynolds decision? Yes I have, and you want to talk about "comparing apples to rutabagas"? Comparing plural marriage to human sacrifices is beyond ridiculous.

No, I don't think it is a valid comparison. Because A) adoptions aren't a sacremental practice of said faith, and B) Catholic Charities voluntarily stopped providing adoptions. There was no state injuction. The primary concern was the court costs involved in what was a very small part of their ministry. It was also an extremely localized (Boston only) issue.You're right...the Catholic Church voluntarily stopped the practice, but that was their way of getting around the ruling that they would have to provide adoption services to same-sex couples. The fact that they had to make that decision at all is bogus, IMO, but they did. And again, if you really think that religions are in no danger of having to make a similar decision re: marriage, I'll just repost this for you...

All it would take is the "right" (and I use that term as sarcastically as possible) combination of USSC justices. If you doubt that, you are clearly kidding yourself.