Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/10/14 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    I had a sister in law die of cancer. She and my brother were not members of the church. One of times we went to visit and my wife and I both knew she wasn't long for this life we taught her the Plan of Salvation. She was laying in bed as we told her about it and the she sat straight up in her bed and said.....yes...yes....I believe that too. She died about two weeks later. I conducted and spoke at her funeral. Recently my wife went took her name to the Temple and did her work.
  2. 2 points
    Just_A_Guy

    Where is everyone?

    Luckily, if Suzie ever stumps me I've got my oracle ready to go:"Soooosie is a booger braainn!"
  3. 2 points
    People, especially people who are facing their mortality, want to know that they are cared for and thought of by others. Too often we back away when someone we know is facing the end of their life, when instead we should be coming closer. You don't need to do anything grand or exciting, just be there for them, and talk to them. Provide needed service, Help take the load and stress off the surviving caregiver(s).
  4. 2 points
    Farewell Iguy2314. I would simply like to comment on your approach to finding truth compared to the one taught by our missionaries. You urge anyone investigating the Church to start with C.S. Lewis. We urge people to ask of God. There is no more fundamental teaching that our missionaries present than James 1:5-6. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." When a person seeks religous truth, whether to believe in Christ or not, or whether to accept the precepts of a particular denomination as truth, he needs to go to the source: God. I'm sure Iguy2314 did not intend this, but it'll ultimately be the outcome of his approach. His approach is to try to find the smartest guy around and then ask him for truth. The world is full of smart people who all disagree on what the truth is. Such an approach can only lead to confusion or deception. Joseph Smith, although a real person, represents all of us as a proxy in one sense: he had to find out what was true amidst the "war of words and tumult of opinions" in the world around him. He, like Iguy2314 and many of the rest of us, inquired of the smartest, educated, and most well-informed people he could find. He read from the Bible and compared the smart guy's answers to it. Inevitably, he came to the solution that any honest person would come to. There's no way to know. The smart guys were all sincere and convinced they were right. Then he read James 1:5-6. In a modern context, I would paraphrase this passage like this: If you lack knowledge about spiritual things, don't ask Google. Don't ask Yahoo Answers. Don't go to CARM, or MRM, or Ephesians2, or any of the various anti-Mormon ministries out there. Don't go to the Pope, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, or Jimmy Swaggart. The professors of religion at the theological seminaries argue among themselves about what the Bible means. You won't get the answer you seek from them. Instead, ask of God. Joseph Smith learned firsthand that God answers prayers and grants wisdom to those who ask him for it, in faith, believing that they will receive. The one caveat to all this is to set aside your pride and promise to follow God's answer when it comes. Have faith. Asking doesn't come without a price. Revealed truth requires you to commit to it once it is given to you. Clarity comes through personal revelation from God. For any non-LDS visitor that reads this discussion, please ask yourself. Who would you trust more, C.S. Lewis or God? We urge every sincere seeker of truth to study the Bible and the Book of Mormon and then to ask of God if it is true. We ask this confidently knowing that God will never steer you wrong.
  5. 2 points
    I spent five years making far more then normal visits with one of my best friends as he died. His wife told me as I was leaving one of those visits that he really enjoyed when I would come by and talk.
  6. 1 point
    (Note: This is an article I wrote several years ago for the Examiner. I thought you all might enjoy it and that it will lead to interesting discussions.) Latter-day Saints love the Bible and believe it as scripture. Indeed, Joseph Smith went so far as to say that we are the only people who truly believe it as it is written. Modern, sectarian Christians hang Bible verses like ornaments on an artificial tree constructed of man-made creeds, ignoring the passages which conflict with or contradict their doctrines. In the process, they have allowed a number of myths about the Bible to be promulgated because it serves their own ends. The following eight myths are summarized from "Here We Stand" by Joseph Fielding McConkie (1995, Deseret Book) McConkie is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. 1. The Bible is a single book McConkie points out that the Bible is a collection of books which were gathered together by men over thousands of years. The Jewish Bible consists of 24 books that Christians call the Old Testament. The actual books that are agreed upon by Jews came from a council in 90 A.D. in Jamnia (near Joppa, Israel). At his council, it became so contentious that it resulted in bloodshed. (McConkie, 36) Christians have divided these 24 books into 39 and ordered them differently. Their version of the Old Testament comes from the Greek Septuagint, which was rejected by Jews, because of the influence of Greek thought and the inclusion of the Apocrypha. Catholics accept the Apocrypha as scripture because they sustain otherwise unscriptural doctrines, such as masses for the dead and the existence of Purgatory. (McConkie, 37-38) The origin of the New Testament begins with two second-century heretics. Marcion, a bishop's son and a wealthy ship owner, was the first to create a canonical list of books. His list rejected the Old Testament entirely as scripture and "was closed to all but ten of the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke." Macrion's false teachings caused him to be excommunicated from the ancient Church. Macrion's excommunication was so final that the Church gave him back all the money he had donated.(McConkie, 38) The second "heretic" was Montanus who declared that he was the incarnation of the Holy Ghost promised by the Savior to come. He denounced the absence of revelation in the church and the lack of spiritual gifts. To counteract his claims, the church began to teach that there would be no further disruptive revelations and that the canon of scripture was closed. Over the next two centuries, Origen of Alexandria divided the books in his New Testament into classes of acknowledged books and disputed texts. The list of disputed books included James, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. This constituted the oldest Greek manuscript, consisting of 29 books. (McConkie, 39) Eusebius of Caesaria omitted not only the Shepherd and Barnabas from his list, but also the Book of Revelation. Most Greek manuscripts omit it also. Other disputed books which Eusebius rejected were the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, and the Teachings of the Apostles. (McConkie, 39) In 367 A.D., Athanasius sent an Easter letter to the churches of his diocese, listing the books approved for reading in the church. This list matches the current-day New Testament. Thus it wasn't until the fourth century that there was any consensus on which books comprised the Bible. 2. The Bible preceded doctrine Since the Bible didn't exist in its current form in the time of the Bible, how did it then form the basis for the doctrines taught by Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles? "The book was created by the church, not the church by the book." (McConkie, 40) An example of doctrine preceding the Bible would be the Nicene Creed, which was devised by a council in 325 A.D. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged from this council, which took place after the church had declared that revelation had ceased, but before the time that the canon of the Bible was agreed upon. (McConkie, 41) 3. True religion is Bible religion Since the Bible didn't exist in the time of Peter and Paul. "No one who lived within the time period of the Bible ever had a Bible." (McConkie, 41) Therefore, their religion was not "Bible religion." The Bible is the testimony that God interacts with man via revelation and spiritual gifts, directly and personally. It was not based solely upon the words of God to ancient prophets, but to living ones. Why should it not be so today? 4. Everything in the Bible is the Word of God The Bible is the word of God so far as it is translated correctly, but every word in it was not uttered by God. The Bible contains the words of the devil to Adam and Eve in the Garden and to Jesus Christ during his temptation in the wilderness. It contains the words of Adam, Eve, a serpent, angels, prophets, apostles, and their scribes. It even contains the words spoken by Balaam's mule, who chastened him for his cruel treatment. All these are in addition to the words of God spoken to prophets and the words of Jesus Christ himself. (McConkie, 43) 5. The canon is closed Nowhere in the books of the Bible does it say that the canon of scripture is closed. Many will refer to the last lines of Revelation to claim that the book cannot be added to. Since the Bible didn't exist at the time of the writing of the Revelation of John, it couldn't refer to the Bible as a whole. The Revelation remained a disputed book for two centuries after John penned it. Thus the commandment that it should not be added to must refer to that particular scroll which John wrote. We should understand that most scholars believe that John himself "added to" the Bible, because it is commonly believed that he wrote Revelation before the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John came AFTER the book of Revelation in the chronological sequence of Bible texts. The apostle John told us that "...there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one...that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." A similar interdiction against adding to God's word appears in Deuteronomy. Following the logic of those who say the Bible can't be added to because of John's statement, we must consider tossing anything that comes after Moses and Deuteronomy. Man's rejection of further revelation is an attempt to "mute" God and deny that he has power to reveal anything new or essential to mankind. It defends the status quo, having a "form of godliness" but denies the power thereof. Since the Bible itself doesn't claim to contain all God's words, it would require a revelation from God to tell us that the Bible is inerrant, sufficient, persipicacious, and the final authority in all things. Thus, you can see the quandary: it would require a revelation to tell us that there will be no more revelation. The position is logically untenable. 6. The Bible can be interpreted independent of a predetermined ideology McConkie poses a hypothetical situation. Suppose an angel took a copy of the Bible to a people who had no knowledge of it whatsoever and had no predetermined views on its contents. Suppose they built up a church using the Bible as their guide. Can we realistically imagine that they would, using the Bible alone, come up with anything remotely resembling the doctrine of the Trinity? Neither can we imagine that they would come up with a doctrine that one is saved solely by God's grace, without the requirement of faith and obedience to the commandments of God and the ordinances. (McConkie, 50) The Bible doesn't clearly explain how to baptize, who can perform the ordinance, and at what age the ordinance the ordinance can take place. It doesn't explain the duties of bishops, deacons, and elders and what are the limits of their ecclesiastical authority. Thus everyone, including Mormons, must interpret the Bible through an ideological lens. The lens the Jew uses is different than the Christian. The historian will use a different lens altogether. The Mormon's view must necessarily differ from that of Jews, the Christians, and the historian. This realization is important, because we must understand that, without modern day revelation to guide us, one Bible interpretation is no more authoritative than another. The restoration of the Gospel, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, all provide additional light and knowledge that give us the keys to interpret the Bible correctly. Without revelation, it would be impossible to determine whose interpretation is correct, because each interpretation will be influenced by the world view of its proponents. The same scriptures that convince a Jew that it is unlawful to turn on a light switch on the Sabbath day also convince him that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah. (McConkie, 48) The same Bible that convinces Christians to proclaim an end to revelation and miracles also led a young Joseph Smith to "ask of God" and receive a glorious vision of the Father and the Son. 7. To know the Bible is to understand it The Bible is probably the most misquoted book in existence. Paul is probably the most misquoted person ever. The Bible was written by living oracles of God to people who were accustomed to and accepting of the principle of contemporary revelation from God. The counsel and guidance the apostles gave were to people who had a shared understanding. It makes no sense to preach grace to those who haven't repented, been baptized,and had a remission of their sins. It doesn't add up to teach about spiritual gifts and the fruits of the spirit to those who have no right to them. The scriptures don't ask the reader to accept Christ as a personal Savior or to make a committment for Christ, because it is addressed to those who had already accepted Christ by covenant. (McConkie, 53) The cafeteria-style doctrinal approach of contemporary Christian churches is the result of their rejection of modern revelation as a possibility. Without revelation to guide, one must try to cobble together some theology by picking and choosing what fits into one's world view and reject the rest as "metaphors" or "symbolism." (McConkie, 54) 8. The Bible is common ground in missionary work This statement applies especially to Latter-day Saints. We often assume that the Bible is the common ground from which we can build understanding. If there was any semblance of agreement in modern Christianity, do you think there would be a thousand quarelling sects and denominations? (McConkie, 54) Joseph Smith went into the grove to pray because he came to the conclusion that it was impossible to find out which Church he should join by studying the Bible alone. This is a true statement. In this "war of words" and "tumult of opinions" that rages in Christendom, the only way to find the truth is to "ask of God." (James 1:5) Thus the Book of Mormon becomes the preeminent tool for conversion. It offers clear and plain gospel teachings free of sectarian interpretations. It clarifies the Bible's teachings and helps identify the interpolations of men. It also identifies to the sincere seeker, where and how to locate the conduit of personal revelation for himself, independent of anyone or anything else. Latter-day Saints will be more effective by teaching the gospel from the Book of Mormon than from any other source. We should encourage all interested parties to seek truth in prayer and from the Book of Mormon. Finding the truth in this manner identifies the means of obtaining personal revelation, the source of restored authority, how to obtain the ordinances of salvation, and how to live in such a manner as to obtain and keep a remission of one's sins.
  7. 1 point
    Hi, As someone who has just returned to church myself all I can say is do it. Today was my first Sunday back and it was a great day, I had spoke to the missionaries last week and I would highly recommend giving the missionaries in your area a call if you haven't already. All the best and I hope all goes well for you.
  8. 1 point
    Just_A_Guy

    Where is everyone?

    Indeed. There shouldn't be favoritism, obviously; but Suzie can posit questions about-say-Joseph Smith's polygamy, and we know (because she has a history here) that she's just trying to have a discussion, that she isn't trying to undermine anyone's testimony, that she will duly consider and respectfully engage a variety of potentially conflicting posts, and that her contributions will tend to reinforce her own perspective that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.A brand-new member who created his or her first thread with an identical post to Suzie's hypothetical post would get a much shorter leash until we knew what his/her intentions were.
  9. 1 point
    john doe

    Where is everyone?

    Some random thoughts: Part of the problem when actions are taken against a poster is that the person generally vehemently disagrees that they were/are breaking site rules, even when shown exactly what they have done. Everyone thinks they are in the right, and they are being unfairly targeted by certain/all mod staff. Personally I have become less involved on the forums partly because after a while the discussions become the same. People with agendas will always bring up their agenda no matter the topic. I can accurately predict most posters' posts before they chime in on threads. Eventually it all becomes the same to me, and I have no interest in carrying out pointless conversations. If we want to have better and more conversations with more people, we need to learn to see things from perspectives different from our own. Some good posters have been chased off because certain other posters here have goaded them into breaking site rules and then complained that we weren't harsh enough in our punishments. And now you're complaining about them being gone? You got what you wanted. When someone is banned, they're banned. Rarely do they get an opportunity to come back.
  10. 1 point
    There are a lot of variables here. I agree with the idea of having a family council and maybe even a family fast about it. Get everyone on the same frequency. Church councils work this way. The General Authorities will table a matter if unanimity can't be reached rather than force someone to decide something under pressure. Unanimity is one of the signs of inspired guidance given to a group. That said, when the Spirit speaks to the person who holds the keys of presidency in a council and indicates the way to go, and he reveals that to a council over which he presides, it's the duty of the council to set aside doubt and move forward. That can happen sometimes. In a bishopric, matters about calling and stuff, ordinations, etc. can involve some deliberation. Consensus comes eventually. I have learned that, when consensus doesn't come, the Lord doesn't want the decision to be made at that time. Other times, the bishop would receive revelation and the other counselor and I would receive an immediate confirmation of a decision and sustain the Bishop's action. As the father in the home, you have the right to the inspiration and the right of presidency. Your daughter doesn't hold those keys. In a ward, a Primary Teacher doesn't come to the bishop and tell him to release her and call her as the Young Women's Presidency because she had a revelation. She doesn't hold those keys. If your heart tells you this is right and it confirms your daughter's feelings, great. If not, you have the right to revelation and her revelation won't override the one God gives to you. If she's inspired, you'll be inspired to arrive at the same decision. If not, remember, you're the "bishop" of your home. I can't think of a Ward or Stake Council that would go against the inspiration of its presiding authority.
  11. 1 point
    jerome1232

    Where is everyone?

    awww, nobody misses me. BRING OUT THE BAN HAMMER!
  12. 1 point
    andypg

    Ask a Catholic

    A cardinal is a "Prince of the Church" and as I understand it, someone correct me if I'm wrong (there are some things 17 years in Catholic school can't explain), a more elevated bishop. They are given much more responsibilities within the magestarium of the Church. The way I see if, if you are going to compare it to the LDS Church, a cardinal is an apostle (though in Catholicism all bishops are heirs of the apostles). They have administrative roles in running the church. They also are the ones who vote for the next pope. Although Canon Law says any baptized male can be pope, generally the pope is chosen from the cardinals.
  13. 1 point
    bytor2112

    Where is everyone?

    I left for a while because I felt like my internet persona was becoming more and more contentious and cynical and it was carrying over into my real life. I think these forums can shape us both good and bad and sometimes we don't see it. Just felt like a break to regroup was necessary.... I try to avoid current events that center on politics....now and try harder to express a more Christ like attitude in my posts and be less judgmental.
  14. 1 point
    andypg

    Non-LDS view of God

    Thought I should share this. If I ever want to know what a Christian thinks about something, I go to Fr. Robert Barron. He makes quick videos for YouTube on timely topics, and has done a 10 part series on Catholicism for PBS (which I recommend to anyone regardless of faith). This is a video he made for YouTube called "Who God Is & Who God Isn't" Here is a short clip from the episode of the Catholicism series that discusses God. (The entire 1 hour episode on God is well worth watching) To quote Thomas Aquinas, God is Ipsum esse subsistens, that is Subsistent Act of Existing Itself.
  15. 1 point
    pam

    Testimonies

    Oh sure. Just spring right off of me.
  16. 1 point
    mirkwood

    Beware Of This Scam

    Awww...crap...