Leaderboard

When I see threads like this, I inwardly cringe and want to close my eyes, plug my ears, and recite nonsense poetry, the periodic table, the states and their capitals, or just about anything else. (I exaggerate only slightly.) I think conversations such as that into which this thread has morphed are why some think we are a bizarre, sci-fi-based non-Christian cult worshiping the god of Planet Kolob. Anyway, I thought I'd respond to one aspect of this discussion. Not in every case. In many old languages, including English, the word for "virgin" (such as the English word "maiden") simply means a young woman or girl, either sexually immature or just coming of age, with the suggestion but not necessarily denotation of lack of sexual experience. I don't know ancient Greek or Aramaic (or any other ancient language). As far as I understand our doctrine, we believe Mary to have been sexually chaste, which for a never-married woman would normally imply virginity (in the sexual sense). Other than the possibly ambiguous use of the term "virgin", I don't know of any scripture that inarguably states that Mary was completely sexually inexperienced, such as is true with e.g. Rebekah, but I also don't know of any scripture that even hints otherwise. Isaiah spoke of a virgin conceiving in what looks like obviously metaphorical language; Christians long ago took that as a literal description. Until revelation to the contrary takes place, I will assume that Mary was a completely sexually inexperienced young bride who was impregnated by the power of God under the influence of the Holy Ghost, and will refrain from public (or probably even private) speculation as to how that event took place. The point being, I agree doctrinally with Anddenex, but I don't think an argument based on the terminology used ("virgin") is useful in this case.

Honestly threads like this are examples of something I find deeply wrong within some of the attitudes of some members. In my mind the line has been crossed. Here's the end-all of what the discussion should be, imo. First, we who know better and reverence our God should not be discussing Him between ourselves in this manner. It's not productive. It's not spiritual. It's not "just for fun". It's not educational. It's simply and plainly wrong. Second, if someone outside our faith who does not know better (or is being intentionally inflammatory) brings it up, our response should be simple. We don't know the mechanics of Mary's conception. What we do know is that there is no scriptural support for God and Mary having physical intercourse. The scriptures call it a virgin birth. There is no reason to speculate beyond that. Wresting with the scriptures beyond that is inappropriate. We know Jesus was God's son. We know Jesus was Mary's son. The scriptures state both plainly. But we know Mary was a virgin. Yes, speculation going beyond that is, in my opinion, line crossing -- and not only line crossing, but disrespectful line crossing. Now I will grant that, finding the subject inappropriate, I have not read through all of the posts here. So perhaps I'm judging unfairly and too harshly. But I've read enough to believe that the line hasn't just been flirted with.

This week while counseling family, I had a rare epiphany. The three temptations of Christ (found in Matthew 4:1-11) seem pretty superficial at first glance, but with further insight they become quite profound. 1) Command that these stones be made bread. - Christ had just fasted for 40 days. No doubt He was hungry. The superficial temptation is to satisfy our physical carnal desires. But deeper, is the sin of Pride. Satan was tempting Christ to use his creative powers to prove that He was God by transmuting stone to bread. Beware of Pride And Christ's response - Deuteronomy 8:3 2) If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down. - Satan even quotes scripture Psalm 91: 11-12 to bolster his temptation. The superficial temptation is to rely upon others, and once again to prove his godly powers. But as I studied this - and recalled the events in Gethsemane, coupled with hardship that occurs during a normal lifetime. I recognized that Satan was going to a much darker place. He was trying with all his might to cause Despair to enter into the heart of our Lord and Savior. Real despair - the type that leads to concepts of suicide or annihilation. Despair is a tool of the Devil, it is the complete absence of Hope. Both of these temptations are of an emotional nature. There are times in our lives when all seems at loss and no forward progress appears as a possibility. We must recognize that Despair is from the Evil One and fight it with hope. Do Not Despair Christ's response - Deuteronomy 6:16 3) All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. On the surface once again we see the temptation for worldly stuff. But it was at the cost of changing allegiances from God to Satan. As I look deeper though, I perceive a common sin that many of us indulge. We seek Shortcuts, the path of least resistance. God wants all of his children to have - all that He has. But He wants us to obtain these gifts, rewards, property, and increase through the process of overcoming all things. Only when we deserve the rewards should we have them. These sins can be somewhat perceived as a spiritual nature. Christ created the Earth. At age 12 He could have overcome Rome and conquered the entire world. When Peter smote off of the Roman centurion's ear, Christ stated, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" A single roman legion is considered 5,000 soldiers. Imagine 5,000 military soldiers invading your hometown. And recognize that a single angel of the Lord killed over 185,000 men in 2 Kings 19:35. Jesus was proclaiming his authority to command a dozen legions of Angels! But He didn't. He bid his time and suffered the will of the Father in all things. How many times do we seek after things that we have not earned. Fornication or adultery, purchasing goods on debt, unjust abuse of power, dishonest dealings with our fellow man to produce lucre we did not earn. God wants us to have everything, but He wants us to earn it, so that we can be a wise steward and use our increase to bless others. There is no heavenly lottery. Christ's response - Deuteronomy 6:13-14 Pride is the root of all sin. Despair is a tool of the Devil, we have no business dwelling with despair. If darkness gathers we must use the light of hope to dispel its effects. In ourselves and others. And we must trust in the Lord to have the patience and work ethic to achieve the gifts and increase that the Lord has in store for us.

An appeal to authority is not per se a logical fallacy, though in classical logical thought it doesn't count as a proof. The fallacy is in saying, "I'm right BECAUSE So-and-so agrees with me, and he's an authority." Saying rather, "I'm right, AND Authority So-and-so agrees with me" is just a buttress to the argument, probably more a rhetorical flourish* than an attempt at proving the point. In a revealed religion, where truth is determined by the word of God and the word of God comes through authorized channels, I think a very strong argument can be made that a legitimate appeal to proper authority is never a logical fallacy. * Really? "Flour-ish"? Meaning "like flour?" I first wrote "fluorish", but that didn't look right, and I got the red squiggly underneath. Normally I hate spell-check, but in this case it saved me from an embarrassing mistake. The "flour-" in "flourish" has the obvious underlying meaning of "flower", something that grows and adds an attractive accent. It is part of a family of words such as "florid", "florist", and "Florence"**, all sharing a common root (npi) in the Latin word floreo "to bloom"***, which itself comes from the Latin flos "flower". Not really sure where that following "u" comes from; my guess would be French. Frenchified words always seem to stick a "u" after the "o", which is why British English talks about harbouring honourable neighbours from humourous rumours of colourful flavours of belaboured splendour****. I wondered why I had thought that the u-first spelling, "fluor-", was correct. In researching that a bit, I found that it's the root found in the words "fluorescent" and "fluorine", and that in English it has a distinctly chemical usage. But get this: It ultimately derives from the Latin root fluor "a flow", which in turn comes from the word fluere "to stream, to flow". I'm reminded of the French word fleuve "river". Since flowers are common on river banks, I'm guessing the Latin words flos and fleure are also etymologically related. It's times like this when I wish I could split myself into different people, one of whom would be some sort of linguistic professor or researcher. ** "Florence", the beautiful Italian city, was called in Latin Florentia, taken from florens "flowering". It's built on a river in a fertile area, where there are (or used to be) lots of flowers. The modern Italian name for the city is Firenze, which sounds slightly but not really all that much like the Italian word for "flower", fiore. In this case, the English (transliterated) name for the city is closer to the original name than the modern Italian name. This is true in quite a few cases, actually; the old Greek city Neapolis (Greek neo- "new" and polis "city"—unsurprisingly, this was a pretty common name among Greek colonies) became "Naples" in English, but in modern Italian it's Napoli. I think the English is closer, but it's a toss-up. When we speak of the three-flavored ice cream, we call it "Neapolitan", which means "from the city of Neapolis", which we call Naples*****. In Italian, the same terms is napolitano, meaning of course "from Napoli". So while our English name "Naples" is arguably closer to the original than the Italian Napoli, their word is a lot more consistent and recognizable across various forms. *** Actually, floreo means "I bloom". For some reason, Latin verbs are identified using the first-person singular present active indicative conjugation (e.g. "I eat", "I sleep", "I gesticulate", "I bloom") rather than the infinitive form that most European languages today commonly use to identify the verb (e.g. "to eat", "to sleep", "to gesticulate", "to bloom"). If you ask a Latin professor, "What's the Latin word for 'to love'?", he will probably answer you, "It's 'amo'." If the professor is a pedant—common enough among humanities faculty members—he might say, "It's 'amo, amas'", giving both the first- and second-person singular (present active indicative) conjugations. Ain't Latin great? At least, as we teach it today. **** Don't even get me started on "foetus". ***** How many of you knew that "Neapolitan" means "from Naples"? Be honest, now. I don't think I knew that until after I had served in Naples. And if getting "Neapolitan" from "Neapolis" seems strange, compare our word "cosmopolitan", which literally means "from the cosmopolis", the "world city".

This is called an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. Oh...wait....we're LDS. Authority counts in this world.

I personally see two issues with this, but only share the main one: Virgin - Virgin means not having sex with "any" and "all" males. The state or glorified state of the man doesn't matter. Virgin is virgin.

No, there were thirty of us meeting in the high council room, sitting around the table in the middle of the room and lining the walls of the room. Basically a circle within a circle. Ten had beards. There were 23 with beards in sacrament meeting but some go to the primary, some to the young men and then there’s those who just sit in the foyer or leave after sacrament meeting. A member of our bishopric has a beard, the ward clerk and two assistant clerks have beards. Two members of the elders quorum presidency have beards and a member of the Sunday school presidency has a beard. Three bearded men teach Sunday school and four teach primary. Our ward family history consultant who is also a school district superintendent also has a beard.

word for word. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method#Question:_Was_every_word_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_provided_directly_from_God.3F

A few weeks back I counted in priesthood meeting. A full 1/3 of those in attendance had beards.

What am I? A dictionary? Anyhow, honestly, I almost regret my reply in that I really have no interest in discussing this particular subject, considering it inappropriate. Whether that feeling stems from an "ick" factor or not isn't something I'm concerned with finding out.

Wednesday weigh-in... 5 more lbs down, for a total of 10.

Blessed be the Wicked by Bartley I never realized how completely nuts you have to be to hate us! This is a detective novel that is set in Utah and is anti. It tries so hard to find reasons to hate us. The idea is that the church has declared that there are ‘unforgivable’ sins. Well, yes. There is one but no one I have ever met, understands it! Okay, back to the plot: So as some sins are unforgivable, this is so nuts, you have to kill the sinner! Can anyone follow that logic? I can’t! Next: Apparently we have a committee that monitors all the communications including emails of suspected apostates. That would have to be a huge committee! I picked this book up with no suspicions and it just started in on this lunacy! I have to keep reading and find out how we are these cold hearted murders!

I am writing an article about the Freedman's Bureau files as part of my calling as a genealogy person (sorry, I'm a terrible callee. I think they changed the name for this calling, but I forget. It's late.). Anyway, the digitization for this project was completed in 2016. These documents are supplemented with other documents held by the Smithsonian and you can volunteer to transcribe these documents. I want the white members to know that they can do this work, too; don't just save it for the black folks. I'd like to say that they would get blessings for contributing to the project, which will help black Americans, who have never had access to Civil War era family history before, to do their family history and temple work. Can you get blessing for doing something like this for other people? Do regular church members have the doctrinal right to say that someone will get blessings for doing a particular thing? Inquiring minds, etc., etc.

If the Holy Bible was the breath of Jesus Christ first and foremost, why do we accept the Book of Mormon of equal standing? I'm just a little bit confused on why the Book of Mormon is needed when the Holy Bible is God's message to us. I'm new to the faith and still exploring a lot of questions.

This is one of those things where it can be questionable on what they thought specifically. They never came out and specified exactly what they meant in most of their statements, though many have leapt to what they meant with certain convolutions of logic. The most that normally was stated was that the Lord was the Son of the Father, just as any of us our children of our Fathers. Just as we are naturally created, so was he. However, they don't go into details (thankfully, that could be a little disturbing if they did so), though there have been a few (the McKonkie's were some that inferred more at times) that have implied a more direct implication towards what you have hinted at regarding an exalted man vs. a mortal man and the terminology. However, in a world where we already know how someone could have a child without ever actually being intimate, it seems that one who is greater than us all and knows all things could have many ways beyond what we can even understand or comprehend on how a child could be his and a mortal woman. This is an argument that has been utilized by enemies of Christians previously. The basis is looking at the Old Testament where a prophet was told to take a virgin to wife, but in that particular syntax it meant a young lady. As this was symbolic of the birth of the Messiah some have leapt on it to mean that Mary was merely a young woman and that she and Joseph had done things and thus the Lord was a mere mortal instead of the Divine being that we KNOW he was. WE must see it in the context that it was utilized with, and the understanding that it was used in the time of translation as well as the way word itself is utilized in the New Testament. However, one of the stronger evidences we have is that the terminology of the word in Joseph Smith's time when used was normally very similar to what we MEAN when we say Mary had never known any man in the Biblical sense and hence was pure and thus a virgin. When he translated the Book of Mormon, in the book of Alma, chapter 7 it states... Thus, I tend to believe that she was as the scriptures explain and how most would understand it. HOW this was done, I do not know except for how the scripture above states...that she was overshadowed and conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. As per the prophets we also know that he was the REAL son (biologically speaking) of his Father and that it was done in the natural way of things...but what this means...I do not know exactly. It is most likely, as we see this explanation of conception in both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon that it had to do greatly with the power of the Holy Ghost, but how this was accomplished is anyone's guess. It could be as some have explained it in a more carnal way, or it could be some way that we yet cannot comprehend (and I lean more towards the latter) and thus, the best we could understand it is exactly as how the scriptures have explained it.

What a novel idea!

I’m inclined to believe with you, but the doubt comes from the facts that a) several important folks have thought otherwise, and b) in the OT, “virgin” is not necessarily virgin.

I very much empathize with the social commentary. As a much younger man I was part of the "civilian" group that developed and proposed the Church Handbook policies addressing such matters (under assignment from and for the Brethren's approval). I understand that conception can mean implantation, but I'm not sure, from what i understand of Jewish physician (rather, "healer") or husbandman practices at the time these scriptures were written, that the ancients conceived of it that way... Yes, I think Jesus innately possessed that power by virtue of what He inherited from His Physical Father, and that He fully developed the ability to exercise that power along the way of normal human development, presumably because He remained sinless throughout His life. I think His remarks to Martha in John 11 have to do with the principle of "speaking of things to come as though they had already come," since she had already confessed her faith in the future resurrection. He was clarifying Himself as the source of that resurrection (as He had done in chapter 10 and which served as division / decision point). In verse 41-42, it is still evident that Jesus relied upon the Father to carry out this miracle of raising (not resurrecting) the dead. "Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always..." In 3 Nephi, even resurrected, He prays to the Father for certain miracles, but after His resurrection His particular assertion to Martha was fulfilled.

Yesterday worked. Breakfast: Yogurt. Lunch: loaded brisket potato, hold the butter & sour cream, had coleslaw instead of my usual fried okra. Family had chicken parmesan burgers for dinner, I had mine. And didn't snack or graze or stuff on what was available. Hit my goal on the scale this morning. 3 days of being good, and I'm down 7 lbs. Time for cheat day! Then, back to my newfound strength and habit tomorrow.

The legality of partial-birth abortion varies here by state, but the trend is not in the right direction. Since the Supreme Court basically stripped unborn babies of their rights, there's nothing stopping partial birth abortion in all 50 states, were the U.S. Congress so inclined. In fact, that was part of Clinton's platform in 2016.

With colored shirts?

It was good of you to share this, and to clarify about just thinking through ideas and not declaring doctrine. And, given the tangent, I will leave it at that. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Happy #LEOAppreciation day to @mirkwood, even if he does prefer this to a Glock.

A casting out of evil spirits has its limitations with the Holy Priesthood and with faith. If you cast wicked spirits out in the name of Christ and then grievous sins are committed in the area the spirits can come back. I heard a situation about someone playing with ouji boards in a house. A blessing was pronounced by the Priesthood and the evil spirits were cast out. A person then began committing fornication in the house. He told me that weird things would happen in his room. Objects would occasionally be moved off a shelf or out of place for no reason. Personages would be seen. Once unclean spirits are cast out do not do things that will open the door to invite them back.

I get your point, but this reads to me that God is definitely involved.

Some good insights. It's interesting that even in LDS theology there are massive holes. We certainly have a long ways to go to get all the doctrine lined up. My own view is that none of us earn Celestial glory in this life, it's too hard. Celestial glory requires perfection which is complete spotlessness and sinlessness. Our progression takes us through the telestial kingdom with it's glory of the Holy Ghost for those worthy, to the terrestrial with it's glory of the resurrected Christ for those worthy, to the Celestial with it's glory of the presence of the Father. Much of our progression will happen in the millennium. Paramount to the conversation though is the fact that in order to be saved from hell one must become perfectly spotless as the scriptures teach. This means that the person must become changed from their fallen and carnal state to a godly state full of righteousness. Christ will not nor cannot save a person in their sins. Said another way, Christ cannot nor will not save a person who has not taken upon him or herself all of the saving laws and ordinances by covenant in the Lord's holy temple. Living by all of these covenants are not possible on this Earth. But, they will be available in their fullest in the next life during the millennium. Have you ever wondered what we will be doing for a thousand years on the earth void of Satan? Perfecting ourselves through Christ. Thus, at the end of the millennium Christ will then present the kingdom, as a singular kingdom, to the Father perfectly spotless. Christ will save no others. This is where I like to bring in the parable of the wheat and the tares. In the parable the wheat represent the children of God- the righteous. The tares are the children of the devil- the wicked. In the end, at harvest, the wheat are all stored in the garners to be crowned with Celestial glory while the tares are all bound to be burned. This saving the wheat with Celestial glory is the singular kingdom Christ has made spotless. There are no other options, only those two. 65 Therefore, I must gather together my people, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, that the wheat may be secured in the garners to possess eternal life, and be crowned with celestial glory, when I shall come in the kingdom of my Father to reward every man according as his work shall be; 66 While the tares shall be bound in bundles, and their bands made strong, that they may be burned with unquenchable fire. (D&C 101:65-66)

Thanks for sharing. That is a crazy experience. A very wise member in the church once taught me that when you cast out evil, always do so by adding something to the effect of, "and I place you under lock and key until after the Millennial Reign." That way, the same evil spirits can't come back to harass you. With the Priesthood power we have the power to bind and loose things spiritual here on earth. When the apostles “bound” something, or forbade it on earth, they were carrying out the will of God in the matter. When they “loosed” something, or allowed it on earth, they were likewise fulfilling God’s eternal plan.

Why do I have the very strong feeling that this is not the direction the brethren wanted people to go with this week's study?

I’m game. Probably should start another thread. I have already derailled this one. Originally, I was just trying to put forth the idea that Joseph & Mary’s geneology is only there to legitimize His claim. Really.

Couldn't help but check. It was like a burglar had just broken into my home. We check on her occasionally anyway to make sure the blanket is still covering her, so doing one extra check isn't a big deal.

Because if they weren't married then it is adultery.

Yeah I knew it had been based on a story in Germany but didn't remember the details. This stuff is why the Catholic church is super careful to vet cases like this to completely eliminate the possibility of mental illness before proceeding with an exorcism. I get why they do that, and definitely a vetting process is called for, but I wonder about cases where it's legitimately something supernatural but an effective treatment is delayed... That, plus our knowledge of psychology is still way underdeveloped, yet it's used as the gold standard, even by an organization that's supposed to be entirely spiritual. When it comes to treating someone in such a situation, I can't help wondering, why delay the exorcism? Why not take steps there concurrent with medical treatment? It's what we do, isn't it? Provide blessings before, during and after medical efforts?

Well it certainly hasn't stopped me

And there is the kicker. A perfect glorified body which produced the "egg" could not have produced a body that was mortal and that could die. If so, our earth life also becomes obsolete because Heavenly Father and Mother could have easily born us already in such a manner. I wouldn't need an earthly father and mother to obtain a body of flesh and blood.

Agreed completely. I sometimes wonder if temptations that we struggle with chronically, like the desire to view adult material, use unhealthy substances, etc. are the result of those kinds of influences. Maybe even possession, in some cases? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Shortly after my divorce was final and before I met and married 2nd husband, I was at a member couples home along with the Elder Missionaries and another non-member couple. The Husband was telling of a time that he, his companion and the husband of a non-member wife were having dinner at the couples home. They (the member & his companion) had been asked by the wife for a blessing. She felt she was constantly being attacked by gremlins. Tugging at her pant legs, pulling on the curtains, high-jinks around her and the house, but only when her husband was at work. They blessed her and banished the adversary from her. Then they blessed the house, room by room. As they went into each room they ALL saw this black cloud like substance slithering along the walls baseboards as it went under furniture to get away from them. The wife ran outside and opened the kitchen door so that the black had to go out that way. Okay, fast forward a number of years, I am now married to 2nd Husband (who by the way is active in church, temple recommend holder & user, valiant in his Melchizedek p.hood.) and have moved from Central Coast Oregon to the middle of Arizona. In the first two months I have met his mother who is now between stage 2 and stage 3 Alzhimetxzer, his worthless meth addict/selling baby brother and the thing he calls his wife and baby brothers 3 youngest daughters, who wife is pimping out to get money to buy more meth &/or cocaine. Mom's home is the most horrible feces infested place outside of a derelict dog kennel I have ever seen. Dog, cat, rodent AND human feces!! One day while alone at our home, I felt besieged by the black slime like evil. It not only is creeping along the floorboards but also up the corners of the walls and along the ceiling moldings. I just can't stand to be in the house alone, so I go to the shopping malls, eat lunch, go to the movies, eat dinner and finally Hubby gets home from work at midnight. I am sitting outside in the car waiting for him. When I tell him what I have seen, felt and the fear and oddly enough the disgust. He blesses the house. By now my two cats are in the extra room we used for our computer room. Hubby blesses this room first, then I shut the cats in. Before he starts in any of the other rooms I make sure all the windows are shut tight as well as all of the exterior doors EXCEPT the front door. As he blesses each room, out of the corner of my eyes I can see the black slime moving away from us, until it finally goes out the front door. That night is the first night that I haven't felt pinned to the bed. Now every time Baby Brother or one of his brood called or even came to the house, and we discussed what the conversation was, Hubby had to re-bless the house and cast out the adversary. Every prayer we had needed to have the plea for Father to banish the adversary from us. EVERY SINGLE PRAYER. When I would feel pinned to the bed, or that an elephant was laying on me, or that there wasn't enough oxygen in the room to breathe, I would wake Hubby up to pray with me. THIS only happened after us talking about baby brother &/or his family. So, our new rule was we only discussed baby brother outside of the house AND not in the car either. Coming to this new home in Oregon, Hubby blessed the house before we even moved the bulk of our possessions into the house. We curtail any talk of baby brother or the three youngest girls. We also don't watch shows that have a lot of foul words, depict demons or satan as okay things. When I start to see black slime/clouds or feel paralyzed in bed, or that the air is too thick & hot, then we have to review what we have been doing to invite this evil into our home, stop it, and Hubby then blesses the home again. One thing else is that Satan and his minions CANNOT do is hurt children aged 8 and under. That doesn't mean they can't sense and in some cases see them, but they CANNOT be hurt or possessed by them.

Oh, yeah, I get that doesn't work for everyone. My husband gave me the stink eye when I told him this. He thoroughly disagrees with it. And, hey! It works for him to have his cheat days. He's lost a lot of weight doing so. I just have to change my way of thinking of food. I certainly don't ban unhealthy foods, I just have to limit them or try to make them healthier (I still have a brownie or cookie, but the ones I choose are so much healthier than Betty makes or that Mrs. Fields chick). I have a tradition on Superbowl Sunday to eat snack foods or make a decent meal with dessert--I'll probably do the same just make it a healthy meal with a small splurge rather than the day long splurge fest I normally would do.

I vote sleep paralysis.

Have you considered that Adam and Eve were real literal people but that elements of what has been passed down over the ages has become allegorical? Just because someone believes something about a person that may not be accurate does not mean that everything about that person is a fake and a lie. The Traveler

I think, if my goal were to confuse humanity and lead them astray, that's a tactic I might use. If you can convince people that these things are purely psychological, it not only discourages them from seeking spiritual solutions, it also erodes their faith in the wisdom of their spiritual leaders entirely. I'm not suggesting that every case must be supernatural, or that psychology is wrong. I just think we need to remain aware that it isn't always one or the other, and use the right tool for the job.

Something can actually be both. David is a prime example of this, being a type and shadow in representation of the Savior as being a literal King and Savior of Israel from it's enemies. Another thing that probably can be taken as literal and yet is deeply symbolic is the story if Abraham and Issac. Issac was Abraham's only begotten son via Sarah (though he had another, it was not his chosen son...one may even be able to see a symbolism in that via Adam...but that's another story) and Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Issac. This story can be also seen as allegory in regards to the coming Lord and his sacrifice and atonement for us. However, perhaps an easier item to see literally and yet allegorical would be that of animal sacrifice. On it's face, animal sacrifice occurred in ancient Israel. Historically it literally happened. However, there is also a deeper meaning behind it than just a mere ancient ritual. Christianity knows that the real meaning behind animal sacrifice was as an allegorical representation of the Lord. It is full of symbolism and meaning that means a great deal. Allegory is deeply imbedded in the scriptures and the ability to see it is very important for one to understand why the stories are told in the way they are and how many are fulfilled in the New Testament, as well as how prophecy has shown our latter days as well as the millennium to come. In regards to Native Americans, DNA evidence is not yet perfect, and MUCH of it is very questionable. The majority of DNA they are basing their evidence on regarding the Hebrews are the Jews...but the Jews are NOT the ONLY Hebrews. They are Hebrew, but not all Hebrews are Jews. What science has correlated are the similar DNA between the Jewish Hebrews and what we may call the Caananites. For all we know, they are correlating the Caananite or other tribal blood of the region which has NOTHING to do with the genetics of the actual Hebrew tribes. Much of the correlation between the Jews and the majority of the Lost tribes was several thousand years ago, and a correlation that far back is a lot tougher to predict. In fact, much of their statements in regards to where DNA came from is reliant on what is basically guesses on anything over 500 years ago. Various ideas about where the Lost tribes went or where the remnants are cover a vast arena, including several tribal groups that are located in Asia. Thus, if there was a connecting DNA between groups in Asia and North America it would make a LOT MORE SENSE that perhaps these may be the actual Hebrew DNA and related to the actual original DNA of the Hebrews rather than the DNA connected to groups in the Middle East. In essence, we do NOT know what DNA really represents past the 500 year mark except for guesses regarding evidence we have from various sites we have found (and as DNA from the Middle East in some instances they would use would date PRIOR to the Hebrew arrival to that area...one could wonder if it represents those who originally inhabited the area of Canaan or if it represents the Hebrew tribes...science right now COUNTERS the bible and claims that they both were there originally and there was no Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph or even Moses. Right now, scientific ideas are that there is no Hebrew blood with Native American DNA. If we have any evidence (though it is still pretty scarce on this point to be honest) it points that the Native Americans are not related to those from Ancient Israel, but in fact are more closely related to what we have thought in the past with them being DISTANTLY connected to those from Asia. In some ways, the experiments done in this were made with these expectations. However, science is always changing and what is false today could become true tomorrow and what is true today could become false tomorrow. It is a relatively new science, and pinpointing exact items is getting better but there is still a LOT we do not know. Currently what I believe and what I do professionally DO NOT MESH. They cannot intermingle as they conflict with each other. The evidence we possess does not correlate with what my belief is. I CANNOT be a bible literalist as a Historian. Professionally, the evidence does not support such a thing. However, outside of my professional life, I feel that the Bible is literal and that what it tells us occurred in Genesis actually DID happen.

I mean, I know you're right, but this isn't just weird or even unsavory personal behavior. This is someone putting complete cluelessness on display. "I'm gonna have a beer to show how hip and cool I am. Want one, sweetie?"

You guys ever consider that maybe it was just for the sake of clarity - as in "this guy named John, son of this wife; not that guy name John, son of that other wife"?

It's not a mistaken identity. It's a cover-up. The mother identified the killer as white complete with the stereotypical red pick-up. The actual killer is in her Facebook friends list and was riding a black suv. This is now looking like a drug-deal gone bad pinning the thing on a mythical white guy and his pick-up. The wanna-be-black guy Shaun King sensationalized the story which makes it ironic because the sensationalization is the reason why the 2 black guys got caught.

I grew up in the '70's. The evil thing you didn't wanna be called then, was a communist. Or a hippie. You could be an ungodly evildoer bent on world domination by eliminating American rights, or you could be an unwashed lazy drug-doing slob having sex and making babies out of wedlock. These things were pretty universally condemned in culture, the media, and the family dinner table. The same sort of gut-reflex "we all understand how bad this is" stuff I see from people in their teens to early 30's today regarding racism, is the exact same stuff I saw back then. Just now, the sheep-bleat-o-matic engine is directed at racists and people who don't respect women. Don't get me wrong, communism, sloth, drug abuse, unwed childbirth, racism, and rape are all bad things. It's just the fervor at which people are willing to whip themselves into, at the prospect of such behavior, just ain't where it's at. Back in my day, we rubbed our hands together with gleeful anticipation at the prospect of a flag-burning amendment, because it would basically allow us to get violent with the WRONG (tm) sort of people. These days, the quickest way to defeat Thanos is to make public some of his racist tweets from the '90's. If you want to be truly mature, you need to know more than what you believe, you need to know why you believe it. Real quick - without looking anything up on the internet - write a few paragraphs about why racism is evil. If you can't do it (without using the word "Trump"), you should put less effort into publicly speaking out against it, and more effort into educating yourself.

I agree with @Vort here. There is no getting around the fact that the Book of Mormon is "racist" per the world's view. I'm not sure why it's not plainly obvious the the "curse" of darker skin was a relative thing. It was a condition the Lord set up to be a curse, specifically that said condition would bring upon the people certain impediments. It is not inherent therein that the condition itself is a de facto cursed state across all time and space. The same sort of understanding can be applies to some of the now "disavowed" ideas concerning race -- specifically that someone may have been born into a state because of their pre-earth life choices. The reality that someone is born into a time where whatever physical characteristics they have might bring certain hardships upon them does not imply that those physical characteristics are, in and of themselves, negative. One could say the same of anyone born into any situation where they might face certain difficulties. (Please note: I'm not suggesting the disavowed theories are or are not accurately disavowed, but merely wondering how this obvious point isn't obvious).

What do you suppose was the excuse of the west African tribesmen who captured and sold other tribe's members to the Portuguese slavers? Your analysis may be roughly accurate, but your parenthetical editorializing is, IMO, wrong. Referring the skin color does not "rightfully" merit a cringe in every case. In reading your words, I sense an attitude of trying to disassociate the Church and its doctrine from ideas of race that, here and now, are considered embarrassingly politically incorrect. In some cases, that is appropriate; in others, not so much. I choose to embrace our doctrine, consider different possible interpretations, and try to go with what's currently being taught by our prophets, without giving undue (meaning any) consideration to the opinions of the world. The fact is that people come in different races, as God created them. By the stated standards of the world, God himself is inarguably racist. I don't really care that much about whether Joe Gentile thinks the Church is racist, or that I'm racist for being a member. My loyalties lie with God and the kingdom he has established. The Church will never, ever, ever be popular with the masses, worlds without end. I have little interest in fighting against that unchangeable reality. I'm more interested in learning how to be loyal to the truths we have received, even when they seem—even when they ARE—racist in the eyes of the world and the worldly. For example: The so-called "Priesthood ban" before 1978 was of God. Period. That's my considered opinion, and I'm unlikely to change it unless and until the Church's apostles teach otherwise. I know it's considered "racist" by the world and by "leftist Mormons" (but I repeat myself). So be it. Better to die a believing Latter-day Saint than live as a reed in the wind,, blowing about with every change of societal doctrine and disloyally betraying the truths one has received from God's kingdom. I agree with this line of reasoning, which I think can reasonably be considered probable and not mere speculation. Interesting, then, that Mormon identifies himself as a "pure descendant of Lehi". Pure descendant of Lehi—as opposed to what? I can think of two possibilities: Mulekites and "gentiles", those whom we might speculate were the pre-Lehite aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas. After dozens of generations, how would Mormon know that his ancestry contained no one besides descendants of Lehi's original group? I'm guessing Mormon was considering only a patriarchal line, which he could trace straight back to Lehi—though perhaps not Nephi, since he didn't say he was a "pure descendant of Nephi". The point is that even 300 years after Christ's visit, the righteous still considered their lineage of great importance. It seems to me that this is the very kernel of so-called "racism": The concern about and even pride in one's ancestry.

I go with my two kids age 5 and 2 on my own as my husband isn't a member. I spend a lot of time sitting in the RS room and have the sacrament brought in there.

Nope I agree with you Vort, it is almost a part time job they are fairly compensated. When you add in the pensions and other benefits they are very well compensated