Heavenguard

Whoopsie-doodle. Sorry, will do! So, what is this blogging you speak of? It interests me :3 ... I didn't mean to continue the thread with another question, I swear it! Hahahaha

Hahaha, Zing! I agree, though, that's pretty true :) I like the last part about preparedness. I feel like it's common sense, but nobody does it. I want to load up the car and the house with 'just in case' gear, but it's not my car, not my house ...

Hey guys, Again with the busy and not really thinking about stuff. (I'll be done-done school in three days though. Yay?) I got a visit this morning by a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses who gave me some stuff concerning (their view on) the Armageddon. I took it. I'll probably read it eventually, just because I want to know what they think and believe, much the same way I'm asking questions about Mormonism and the LDS church. But in the mean time, I'm going to open what I assume is going to be a big can of worms and ask what's the LDS view on the end times? I've read tidbits of stuff here and there, but a general run-thru would be very nice :) Thanks folks. Back to the books

The Earth has seen carbon levels worse than what we have today. The problem is that humanity is drastically speeding up to decades a process that would otherwise take nature hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands (etc) of years. Nature will (if left alone) eventually cycle through highs and lows, but our presence (and industry) is making the cycle very unnatural.

I know someone's going to start getting annoyed with my "Well, technically..."s pretty soon "No Means No" means even within marriage. A man can sexually abuse or even rape his wife if she is not consenting to the act between them. (Sometimes you just might not be 'in the mood' while the other one is.) Of course, this is outside what a marriage should be and sex was meant for, and thus is sinful, but I just wanted to point out that you can't just say "man and wife" and let it be all.

I'd rather say the Book of Mormon (the plates) were buried in America because that is where the Restoration will be than the other way around. Er, what of Israel? >_>

Fair enough. But... Meow :3 Hehehe. Okay, no question for today, I just wanted to see what response(s) would be here. I shall return in a a few weeks, if not a few days :) Have fun without me in the meantime ~

Howdy hey, folks. I have been crazy busy the last little bit. Work + school + church stuff like you wouldn't believe. (Well, okay, maybe you would :) ) But I just though I'd steal away from the other things for a little bit. I haven't really given much thought towards learning about LDS teaching the last few days, but a question popped into my head while I was just browsing thru another thread. We, humanity, essentially "require" Jesus' atonement in order for us to become re-united with God, and, in the future, to become exalted ourselves, yes? Given that God (the Father) was once a moral (and imperfect?) man himself, did he also suffer sin as we do? If this is so, does that mean he would have required his own "Jesus" and his own atonement in the way that we do now?

Were the people of Israel aware of the migrations / aware of what happened to them / where the migrated peoples went (and vice versa)?

Some things we'll never be able to prove, and will always be a theory. Some things just aren't re-creatable, such as the big bang theory. (Don't tell me you have the ability to make a universe :) ) The theory of evolution requires much time, much more time than humans have been able to observe. Give it a few more tens of millions of years ... if the Earth/humanity is still around, perhaps our descendants might have evidence for it, hahaha.

This place came to mind: Beliefnet offers features on religion, spirituality, faith, health, prayer, the Bible, holistic lifestyle, and more There's info and forums for many major religions. I only just browsed a little bit passingly recently, thats why I remember it. I am not able to vouch for its lack (or abundance) of bias.

I agree that obesity is a real problem, especially in the western world. And yes, much of it is a direct result of not just eating habits, but general lifestyle as well. I would also like to point out, however, Job's plight. All his punishments and trials - including his own health - were not self-imposed, but allowed by God to prove to Satan his faithfulness. (For which he was then rewarded to twice everything he had before.) Yes, many people do harm to their own bodies, but there are people whose bodies don't function the way they ought trough no fault of their own.

Are there places where God prohibits the consumption of alcohol, besides for the priests and the Nazarites?

Thanks for the replies :) So long as you keep answerin' em, I'll just keep askin :) In the OT, God commanded that everyone need to sacrifice annually (as well as many other specific outlined occasions) at the temple. Considering that the migrations occurred long before Jesus' time (and the end of the need for offering sacrifices), how did the migrated peoples deal with that? Are the migrated peoples considered to be the fathers of all the Native Americans, or just some? How widely held in the LDS church is the notion that Ezekiel's references to Ephraim and Judah in his prophecies meant the people who'd crossed the ocean, and the Israelites? (I read a book, but I don't know how much of it is just his opinion, and how much of it falls as widely held view.)

Okay then. So the denial of Jesus being both man and God (in other Christian teachigns) is rooted in that the Godship that Mormons attribute to Jesus is different from the Godship that other Christians denominations attribute to him. Fair?

I was pretty unwell about two years ago. I seriously thought I wouldn't live to see, well, two years later. I know for sure I have no fear of death itself. I am only saddened by the idea that I'd be leaving my most beloved friends behind. Now the way I die might be frightening. Some ways more and some less 'comfortable' than others... o_O

I have a lot of random questions that come up as I read along, or as I just think about stuff, and it's getting hard to keep track of them. So I thought to make a thread where I'll just ask my question of the moment, and not really have it be topical. That way I'm not making 10 threads a day, and also not carrying everyone else's off track. And since everyone seems so happy to answer questions, I didn't think anyone would mind :) So I'll start off simple and I suppose I'll work up to bigger questions later. How does the Mormon church (in general) view other Christian denominations? Half-there? A little misguided? Right along side? The differences don't matter, the important stuff's the same? What is the Mormon view on Communion? Transubstantiation? Symbolic/Commemorative? Both? (Neither?) Are there sacraments (as there are 7 Sacraments in the Roman Catholic church)? Whatever happened to the plates after Joseph Smith had finished translating them? Are they still around? (P.S.: Thanks for patience & taking time to answer.)

Then I have another question - What aspect of the Christian "others" thought that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human does LDS teaching not agree with? From the bits and pieces I've picked up so far, LDS teaching states that Jesus was of a spiritual nature, took on a human existence (while still retaining Godship), died (voluntarily as we've agreed), was resurrected, and returned to the Father. Do correct me if I'm making a wrong assumption somewhere. That seems to me that LDS teaching does agree with the idea that Jesus was both man and God at the same time.

I'm going to throw out there that Jesus not only drank wine, but performed the miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding banquet - the finest wine that had been served all evening to boot! At the last supper he told his apostles to drink from his cup that he was giving them. According to the bible (I cannot give reference to other Mormon-specific texts), it isn't the act of consuming alcohol that is deemed as a wrong, but rather it is being in the state of drunkenness that is wrong. Romans 13: 11- 14 11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature. (Can see also 1 Tim 3, 1 Peter 4:3, Deuteronomy 21:20, Galatuans 5:19-21, Isaiah 28) In the above passages, it is not drinking that is condemned, but drunkenness. Sexual immorality is wrong, but sex itself is not wrong. Dissention is wrong, but disagreement is not. Orgies are wrong, but festivities are not. Likewise, drunkenness is wrong, but the act of drinking itself is not. But of course, you don't get drunk without drinking. It's true that God commands sobriety from his Aaron and his sons and the Nazarites. (Probably the Levites too.) Drunkenness is bad because we lose our better judgment and hindrances and may commit wrongful acts we otherwise wouldn't. (For example, Lot's daughters got him drunk before sleeping with him.) Being a non-Mormon Christian, I have no contention with drinking - but I am careful to not let myself be drunk. Examples where wine is not condemned, but accepted, and in some places, even seen as good: Genesis 14:18; A priest of God brings out bread and wine and proceeds to bless Abram Gen 27:28; Isaac blesses Jacob to have an abundance of grain and wine Exodus 29:39; God instructs wine to be included as a drink offering (it is included as a drink offering in many other instances as well) Deuteronomy 7:13 God's blessing (in part) in an abundance of wine (having good crops) And much more, I'm certain.

I agree that Jesus' death on the cross was voluntary in that he made himself subject to the confines of humanity and mortality by becoming man on Earth. I think we all agree that Jesus had authority over the physical realm (as shown by performing miracles and curing sicknesses) and, if he so willed (and without going against the Father's will) could have saved himself just as the passers-by mocked. From this, I suppose, that Jesus withheld using his own divine power over the physical world and his own mortal body and as such 'allowed' himself to die. Is this thinking in line with LDS teaching?

The human body can function for weeks without food. (But only days without water.) But that 40 is used may just mean that he was in the desert 'for a long time' (and not necessarily literally 40 days). 40 was a symbolic number that meant completeness or wholeness, similar to 3, 7 and 10. It is the style of the language. But that's an aside. Your paragraph brings a questions to my mind. I've gathered (from what I've read on the forum, correct me if I'm wrong) that LDS teaching does not agree that Jesus was both God and man (while on Earth) in his nature. Then Jesus was either one or the other. If he is immortal, than he is God, for man is mortal. If he is immortal God (without/above physical human/mortal nature), how did Jesus die on the cross?

Is 'pay' the usuasl word used in the context of tithing? I just usually hear it as 'give' rather than 'pay'. (Random question?)

Yes, I was referring to God the Father, not Jesus. And I'm cool with calling him Elohim, I just didn't know what name to use. I'd started with just calling God "God", but then "God" was recurring so many times in that post that I was even confusing myself, haha. But now that that's brought up, do you mean 'Elohim' as the name of God the Father, or the entire Godhead (Of Father, Son and Spirit/Ghost)? I ask because Elohim is a plural, and from reading things previous in this thread, it seems that LDS teaching differentiates the Father, Son and Spirit as three persons working in one unity (but three beings, nonetheless). (Hm, should that be in another thread, since that's not a discussion about the father and his wife?) Edit: And I don't think I understand LDS teaching about spirit children in general enough to really be able to respond to a-train just yet. (So I'll just wait till another time.)

I have some questions that arose from the (long, haha) reading of this thread. I wouldn't call them challenges so much as curiosity over what Mormonism teaches regarding these: If God (Yahweh, for clarity) was once (or is?) a spirit child, who then became a man who later became an exalted God, then that means that Yahweh was also created (begotten?) by another God before him. If this is so, why ought we worship Yahweh, but not his father who came before him? Why (in the old testament) does Yahweh insist that he is the one and only living God - would that not be a lie if he has a spiritual father before him who is also a God? If Yahweh were a man before, created by his spiritual father, would Yahweh not have worshipped him also? If God is male, and like us (humanity and most animals, even plants need to be pollinated!) in that males cannot 1) singly produce offspring and 2) carry and bear children at all, but rather begets them through his wife, does that not limit God's ability, power and sovereignty over creation? Also, Genesis teaches that God created man from the dust of the Earth and breathed his spirit into them. Eve was then created using Adam's rib. Now, I don't take that literally, but I do take it to mean that he created us by his own power, and not through another's. What is the Mormon view on that aspect of the creation story?

Hi folks. Name's Heavenguard*, feel free to shorten to HG - it's what most people call me on other forums. I'm a Christian, Baptist. I really have no intention of aligning my faith with the LDS', however I think that people of faith have a responsibility to know about and understand other beliefs, especially those that are closely related, in order to have informed discussions. I've taken a World Religions class before, but since it was only a term, it only skimmed the surface of everything. So to this end, I have besides my bible and other Christian texts, a Book of Mormon and a Quran in my possession, as well as some other books on comparing the respective faiths against Christianity/Catholicism. (To throw things up a little more, I also grew up in the Catholic school system and so am fairly/rather familiar with Catholicism too.) I found reading the Quran and the Book of Mormon difficult, given that I don't have even cursory knowledge of what's happening in the text. (Compared to growing up in my church, I at least have general ideas of what's happened before, current to, and after the point I am reading.) Even with the other texts I bought I had difficulty because they only compared doctrines, but didn't have a lot of the supportive information I was looking for - which brings me here. I don't have any questions as of yet, but I'll just romp around the forums to get a feel for things and read some stuff on my own time and will probably come up with stuff later. I suppose my ultimate goals in learning about other faiths in general is to 1) be less ignorant of the diverse world around me (and be able to intelligibly discuss them), and 2) learn more about what I believe by comparison. Other random things about myself ... - currently a student, but not for very much longer - play the ukulele (I like uncommon instruments in general) - took up fencing as a hobby (currently on hiatus) - I like hats, but not baseball caps (this one's really random, haha) - I am a very wordy person (as though you haven't realized this already) - If I had to choose a sin, it'd be gluttony, because boy, do I love food *I typically feel no need to explain my name on other forums, but considering that this is a faith-based one... "Heavenguard" is actually no reference to anything religious. It's really from a videogame - I just liked the sound of it and so adopted it . It was cooler than what I used to go by, hahaha. Oh, and for the record, I'm a lady. Not that I really care if I'm mistakened for a guy (through the name, I might care in person), but from experience, the name usually conjures up the image of a guy for other people. So ... just ... bleh *shrug*.