FigBearingThistle

If you'll charter the Concord, I'll go.

"Life is hard...and then we die." I inherited the worry gene from my mother. And I find that I can never fully enjoy the good times, because I know they will end, and hard times will be in store. But, I guess part of this mortal experience is learning how to recognize good, and evil is required for that to happen.

I would start now for sure. But consider that the Spirit may prompt you as to the missed tithes-one way or the other. I think it would be symbolic of going the extra mile and doing more than was commanded, if you did, however.

Exactly. I despise it too for the same reason. Like a cheap sales slogan.

Speaking of non-scriptures quoted as scripture, how about "I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it." (presumably a quotation from God telling us that being born, living, and dying would be worth it.) It almost sounds like a sales commercial to me.

U.N. scientists estimate that about 100 species become extinct every day throughout the world. I don't know what happened to the horses in the Book of Mormon, or the elephants from the Book of Ether. The BoM does not indicate that they were widely used, or a big part of their day to day living. Cureloms and Cumons aren't exactly terms that our modern culture is familiar with. My theory is that cultures and civilizations sometimes regress and degenerate. Such happened during the dark ages in Europe. I think that many animals were hunted to extinction in order to support large populations during times of famine, and war. A helpful hint: While you are reading this message, look at the top right of the screen for "display modes" Choose threaded mode, and it will be easier to see who is replying to what. Thanks.

I think there may be some peer-pressured-intellectualism creeping in with some of these scholars. They are either frustrated that swords, horses, and chariot wheels haven't been unearthed, or they are preparing others for the possibility that such things wont be found in their lifetime. Personally, the mention of breastplates and swords cankered with rust (Mosiah 8:10-11) tells me that these things actually existed, and it is a testimony to me that cultures and civilizations can deteriorate and regress with apostasy and wickedness. I think we all saw this with the dark ages. As for the picture, it may not be wholly accurate, but accuracy is not the reason I like it. It means something to me that goes beyond the accuracy of the painting.

You just used a big word on me. I had to look it up. :) What's it anachronistic in comparison to?

Obviously, from these verses, repentance is meant to be a struggle. If not, the gift of forgiveness would not be seen for it's true value.

Thanks,In a sense, all we can do is "choose". That power has been given to us.

Interesting, and thanks. I especially like the one about "weakness(es)" Regarding the one about grace, a similar phrase could be this: After all you can do to make a life and living for yourself and family, it is by air, water, and food that you live from day to day.

That self esteem is important is not the question, in my mind. It is the 'best process' of obtaining that personal self-esteem that is the question, here.

Thanks, Elgama. I think we basically agree.My feeling is that self-love shouldn't even be the issue. From my experience, when we feel best about themselves, it is because we are obeying the commandments and serving others, and forgetting about ourselves, not because we are focusing on ourselves. That personal self esteem that people yearn for so much is, in my opinion a natural by-product[/ of obedience, and self-sacrifice, and not the direct result of conscious self building. And I think the activities you described are not self-oriented pursuits, but more a submission of self to God's will. I think those that have the best "self esteem", to use the modern vernacular, are unconscious of their own "healthy self-esteem" because they are focused on more worthy pursuits than self-building.

Here is my "highly opinionated" short list of some common scriptural misquotations or mis-interpretations in the Church which have bothered me for years. There are others, but these are a start. Feel free to add to these. 1. D&C 82:3 (also Luke 12:48) Incorrect: For of him unto whom much is given, much is ... 'expected'. Correct: For of him unto whom much is given much is required; This quote bothers me, because there is a distinction between expectations and requirements. The distinction being, that expectations are unwritten benchmarks held in he mind. Because they are not written, they are not clear, and they cannot be sufficiently met to the satisfaction of the expectation setter. Like a spouse who struggles to meet the imagined and undefined expectation of the husband or wife. Requirements are clearly set benchmarks that are spoken or written, and can therefore be understood, and attained to the proof and satisfaction of all. God has not given us vague expectations, but has written his requirements and commandments for all to read, and these requirements are the same for all. 2. Matt 7:1 (and 2) Incorrect: "Judge not that ye be not judged." This often leads to an incorrect interpretation when it is ended at this point. Correct: 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. This one is obvious to most. Since we are commanded to discern between good and evil, this is not an injunction cease from judging between what is morally right and wrong. The second verse shows the correct context, that we are to employ "righteous" judgment, so that a righteous judgment may be passed upon us.(See Alma 41:14) 3. Mark 10: 25-26 Incorrect: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. The error is in stopping the quote at this point, excluding verse 26. Correct: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? Verse 26 is why I don't believe that this scripture is referring to some gate that camels had to crawl through with packages removed, in order to enter the city...a notion commonly held in the Church. Hugh Nibley called this notion a middle-aged invention for the purpose of soothing the consciences of the 'well-heeled' within some priest's congregation. Why would the apostles be 'astonished out of measure' if this camel/gate thing was what Jesus was referring to? 4. Incorrect: "Thou shalt Love thy Neighbour as Thyself." This is incorrect insofar as people take it as a command to love ourselves by "looking out for no. 1", and making ourselves the greatest priority in life. This scripture gets mingled with the Pop-Psychology nonsense which says that we cannot properly love others unless we first learn to love ourselves. In my mind, this philosophy of Man has produced a generation of individuals who think that the pathway to self-esteem and happiness begins with self-service, and adornment. This does not seem scriptural to me. We are told in the scriptures that when we self-seek, we lose our life, but when we lose our life in the God's cause, we find ourselves. (See D&C 98:13) Our degree of self-love, (whether we love ourselves, or loath ourselves), should not be the model for how we love others. IMO. Finally, one must ask: "Who was Jesus speaking to? An audience with low self esteem, or an audience who had no problem already loving themselves?" More Correct: "As I have loved you, love one another" (This puts Jesus as the Model) "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" (a 'new' commandment as Jesus calls it.) (John 13:34) And a combination hybrid: "Love your neighbor, as you would want your neighbor to love you." This sets a standard based on an ideal. Others are welcome to add additional scriptural misquotations, and misinterpretations as you see them.

The trend of many critics to hop aboard the anti BofM DNA Mantra-wagon, by the way, is unfounded, and born of ignorance. DNA doesn't prove or disprove any of the BoM claims. The power of the Book of Mormon is the testimony from the Holy Ghost. It has always been so.

We aren't told either way, in the BofM. However, consistent with the idea that God would scatter Israel to mingle with the other inhabitants of the earth, it seems logical to me that Lehi, Ishmael, and Mulek, were brought to the Americas in part to do just that. The sudden appearance of Jeredite names among the Nephites either points to the fact that King Mosiah translated the plates that Limhi's people found, and so people got the idea for new names, or that there were still some disorganized remnants of Jaredites in the Americas. Finally, if Mulek could be led to the Americas from Jerusalem, why not other groups as well? Even other Israelites whom the Lord led here? Why not a land bridge from Asia?

The law of tithing is for every member, no matter how meager the income. By paying tithing, we receive blessings which we could not receive otherwise. This is a matter of faith. Those outside the church would not understand the principle of obedience and blessings, but those who have lived the law have seen evidence for the direct connection between the two. She can always talk to her bishop to receive assistance, food, clothing, etc., but withholding tithing would prevent her from the blessings from God for which she is otherwise fully entitled.

Thanks, I'm kind of counting both the Celestial and Terrestial as righteous in that they come forth during the 1st resurrection. But I'm leaning toward the notion that there is no inheritance of these "kingdoms" until after the Millenium and the Final Judgement.

Can anyone find an LDS source for me that tells if the final judgement is in 2 parts or 1 part. According to my understanding, as the Millenium begins, so begins the 1st resurrection. This is when the righteous are resurrected. While the wicked await their resurrection while suffering for a 1000 years, until the end of the Millenium. My question is, will the righteous be judged immediately after their resurrection, or do they live on in their resurrected state for a thousand years to be judged at the conclusion of the Millenium when the wicked are also judged?

Ignore

Vikier, According to my understanding of LDS doctrine, Hell a condition and place where the wicked go after death and before the resurrection, while they await the judgement and resurrection. When Christ returns for His 2nd Coming, the 1st resurrection will begin, wherein the righteous will be resurrected and judged. Christ will reign for 1000 years (millenium) during which time the wicked will suffer in hell awaiting their own resurrection and judgement. At the end of the millenium, the wicked in hell will have repented of their sins, and will be washed clean by the atoning Blood of Jesus Christ, and after being judged according to their deeds in life, will also be saved, but in the lowest of the 3 heavens (The Telestial Kingdom), away from the presence of God the Father, and His Son. So, depending on the context of the conversation, people do not remain in hell forever, according to LDS doctrine. There is, however a condition of "outer darkness" which continues on forever. This is a place intended for those who reject Jesus Christ as their Savior after having an absolute knowledge that he is the Savior. This is the place for those who want nothing to do with Jesus Christ and his atonement. This is the place for those who commit the unpardonable sin. But to commit this sin, you would probably have to have seen the Savior, and had a perfect knowledge of him and what He has done for you, and then reject him.

Thanks, Heather. I think the opposition has a head start on the Church with this particular media right now, particularly opposition to the LDS Church. So I am happy to see this take place. Both sides will grow, undoubtedly, but that is essential in order for personal responsibility for our discernment and choices to take place. Thanks.

Yes, for me it fits in well with the idea that the blood of Israel would be sprinkled throughout the earth, including sprinkled among possible non-Abrahamic ancestors in the Americas. Remember, though, Zoram, Sam, Jacob, Joseph, Lehi's daughters and the sons and daughters Ishmael, and the Mulekites--all coming into play before the really big wars are mentioned. I tend to think that not all the Jaredite ancestors were destroyed, rather that the civilization was destroyed. I tend to think there were others here when Lehi and Mulek arrived. But on the other hand, if they had large families, they could easily double in size every 12 1/2 years, and 10 married couples could become a million people in a couple of hundred years. But I'm not going to commit my faith either way on this one, because to do so, sets me up for possibly being shaken some day.

I don't think we can say that the Brass Plates were written in Reformed Egyptian. We are told in the BoM that they were written in Egyptian. And, yes, there were several forms of Egyptian script. But the term "Reformed Egyptian" is used both as a noun and an adjective in the BoM. It is a adjective because it describes that it is a alteration style of Egyptian script. It is a Noun because it describes a "unique" style of altered Egyptian that the Nephites themselves developed. Mormon 9: 32 32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. This sounds plausible to me. 1 Nephi 5:16 And thus my father, Lehi, did discover the genealogy of his fathers. And Laban also was a descendant of Joseph, wherefore he and his fathers had kept the records. Perhaps Joseph (sold into Egypt) was instrumental in the preservation of the Brass Plates at some time.

Michael Ash says the following: "Thus, three possibilities were suggested for the creation of man’s physical body: 1) evolution via a natural process as directed by the power of God; 2) transplantation from another sphere; 3) birth in mortality by other mortals. None of these three fits the typical “creationist” model." Regarding these possibilities: 1) Adam and Eve were immortal, and would have had to come from immortal parents, IMO. Also, we are told in 2nd Nephi that there was no childbirth or death before the Fall--(at least for Adam and Eve). 2)We are told that Adam and Eve are created from the elements (dust) of this earth, and not another one, 3 3) How could Adam and Eve be born immortal, by mortals? IMO, Adam and Eve were born of Immortal Parents who must have come down to this earth, and dwelt here for a time, and formed (or bore) Man in their image and likeness. The Last 2 verses of Luke 3 gives a big clue IMO. As for evolution, I think it exists, but the process does not create entirely other species unless perhaps the Lord commands it to, but I don't think He does that either. God is still a man as are we, and I don't think that the ancient fossilic caveman is really a "man" in the sense that God is a man. I fall into the "evil evolution" camp insofar as it can be construed to degrade man's divine origin and inheritance.