Vanhin

Heck no. I preach this stuff to my girls every day. Though, it surprises me that they still want their husbands to be like me (maybe not so round). I'm a "fixer-upper". Regards, Vanhin

I maintain that ultimately, a trial of our faith precedes the "sure" witness, which comes by the Holy Ghost. This trial need not be a solitary event, attached only to the time that a question to God has been submitted (like with Enos, see Enos 1). You may have already been sufficiently tried, prior to the petition, and God answers right away because of you faithfulness. However, God may, in his wisdom, try you again, to see if you will keep his commandments in various situations. Indeed, from a Mormon perspective, this life is a time of trial to begin with, for those who are accountable for their actions. To live by faith is a blessing and a protection to us, yet we must gain knowledge to be saved (John 17:3). Consider the following words from the beginning of one of the most profound sermons from the Book of Mormon on faith and testimony. It demonstrates how faith is a protection to us. Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it. And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression? (Alma 32:17-19) The rest of the chapter displays the dynamic between the "trial of faith" and the acquisition of spiritual knowledge. We must plant the seed, and nourish it, in faith, in order to see if it is a good seed or not, and to enjoy the fruit thereof in the end. Regards, Vanhin

Well, I think there were a few others in line before him. We'll let Roundearth just respond to who he wants to. He has a green-light to ignore any flaming. Regards, Vanhin

Yep, it's not fair to expect Roundearth to be able to keep up with every conversation, and effectively answer every post. That can be quite cumbersome. I've felt a similar disadvantage at times when participating at other forums where the participants were predominantly non-LDS, and each one presented their own arguments. However, Roundearth had to have anticipated that he was going to have to have this conversation with multiple opponents. Good thing Godless joined him to help him out. :) I say we give him some time to catch up. Regards, Vanhin

Mute, I read through your posts on "ministering to Mormons" thread. Well done brother. Whatever you decide to do in life, continue to be fair and loving towards the downtrodden, and defend all faiths against falsehoods and persecution. God will return every good deed in kind. And... why don't you just come on back. :) Regards, Vanhin

I thought this was interesting. Is it possible that Shem and Melchizedek are the same person? Alma E. Gygi Alma E. Gygi, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Nov. 1973, 15–16 This question is frequently asked and is an interesting one. Let us examine first what we know about Shem. Although the Bible names Shem as the eldest son of Noah (Gen. 5:32), modern-day revelation places Japheth as the eldest (Moses 8:12). Both reports, however, are harmonious in naming Shem as the progenitor of Israel and in the fact that the priesthood descended through Shem to all the great patriarchs after Noah. (1 Chr. 1:24–27.) In this patriarchal order of priesthood, Shem stands next to Noah. He held the keys to the priesthood and was the great high priest of his day. 1 Living contemporary with Shem was a man known as Melchizedek, who was also known as the great high priest. 2 The scriptures give us the details of Shem’s birth and ancestry but are silent as to his ministry and later life. Of Melchizedek, however, the opposite is true. Nothing is recorded about his birth or ancestry, even though the Book of Mormon states that he did have a father. (Alma 13:17–18.) Concerning his ministry and life we have several interesting and important facts. (Gen. 14:18–20; Heb. 7:1–4; Alma 13:17–18.) All of this provokes some questions and calls for answers. Were there two high priests presiding at the same time? Why is the record silent concerning Shem’s ministry? Why is nothing known concerning Melchizedek’s ancestry? Because of this state of knowledge on our part, many Saints and gospel scholars have wondered if these men were the same person. The truth is, we do not know the answer. But an examination of the scriptures is fascinating, because it seems to indicate that these men may have been one and the same. For example, here is the case for their oneness: 1. The inheritance given to Shem included the land of Salem. Melchizedek appears in scripture as the king of Salem, who reigns over this area. 2. Shem, according to later revelation, reigned in righteousness and the priesthood came through him. Melchizedek appears on the scene with a title that means “king of righteousness.” 3. Shem was the great high priest of his day. Abraham honored the high priest Melchizedek by seeking a blessing at his hands and paying him tithes. 4. Abraham stands next to Shem in the patriarchal order of the priesthood and would surely have received the priesthood from Shem; but D&C 84:5–17 says Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek. 5. Jewish tradition identifies Shem as Melchizedek. 3 6. President Joseph F. Smith’s remarkable vision names Shem among the great patriarchs, but no mention is made of Melchizedek. 7. Times and Seasons (vol. 6, p. 746) speaks of “Shem, who was Melchizedek. …” On the other hand, there is a case for their being two distinct personalities. Many persons believe D&C 84:14 is proof that there are perhaps several generations between Melchizedek and Noah. The scripture says, “Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah.” If it does turn out that Shem and Melchizedek are the same person, this scripture should prove no stumbling block, because it could be interpreted to mean that priesthood authority commenced with Adam and came through the fathers, even till Noah, and then to Shem. 1. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine (Deseret Book Co., 1919) p. 474. 2. D&C 107:2; Heb. 7:4; Alma 13:17; Gen. 14:18–20. 3. When Abraham returned from the war, Shem, or, as he is sometimes called, Melchizedek, the king of righteousness, priest of the Most High God. …” (Ginsberg, Legends of the Jews, p. 233.) “Jewish tradition pronounces Melchizedek to be a survivor of the Deluge, the patriarch Shem.” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 393.) “And Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, the same was Shem. …” (Book of Jasher 16:11.) See LDS.org - Ensign Article - I Have a Question Regards, Vanhin

Happy Birthday friend. Vanhin

I think if you ask a specific question, you will get a specific answer. :) Of course you will not receive the confirming witness without first successfully enduring a trial of your faith. Regards, Vanhin

I think you are wrong as far as evidence is concerned. There is plenty of evidence for God in nature. My witness of God's reality is evidence as well. I may not be able to prove it to you. But I can show you how to gain the proof. I hear you brother. I have been "eating" the pudding of my own free will for 28 years, and I have not come up empty. In fact, I now know, beyond faith, that God exists. Having endured the trial of faith necessary for such a witness, I can tell you that my knowledge cannot be had in any other way at this point in time. However, the time is forthcoming when God will make himself known to all the inhabitants of the earth in a great display of power and glory. For now, He allows us the protection of faith. So, what did the pudding taste like? Regards, Vanhin

That would settle the question. Thanks, I will tell you what you must do to find out for sure the existence of God, though I don't pretend to be able to command God in determining the time frame and nature of the witness. If I could command God to make himself known to you, then I would posses the ability to demonstrate proof of his existence. But I cannot do that, and therefore it is a road that you must choose and travel on your own. But before I do, I would like to know your analysis of the following passages from our scripture. Just click on the link -> Alma 32:17-43. If you would be willing to read that, and let me know what you think about it, it would surely help me explain the instructions to you. Regards, Vanhin

How can you seriously argue that I (or anyone else) must be able to demonstrate the existence of God in order for him to exist? For reasons that may not be apparent to you right now, in most cases, God chooses to reveal himself to only those who exert faith in him. There are cases where God has revealed himself to people outside this criteria, such as Saul in the New Testament, and Alma the younger in the Book of Mormon. In both of those cases God made himself known to individuals who were seeking to destroy the church, and were not seeking to find out for themselves any kind of truth about God. But, for the most part, to have God make himself known to you, you must exercise even the slightest bit of faith in him. Faith, or even a desire to have faith, as uneasy as it may seem to atheists, is the method for receiving a sure witness from God of his existence. It is what He has always required, and for good reason (which I am more than willing to explain should anyone want me to), and unless we show the evidence of our faith to him, we will not receive the proof. As the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding". If you refuse to eat the pudding, you will never know what it tastes like. Spiritual experience is like taste. I can tell you the pudding is good, and even attempt to describe it to you based on other things that you have tasted. But unless you pick up the spoon and put some pudding in your mouth, you will never really know for yourself what it tastes like. Of course, the existence of God is more consequential than the taste of pudding. Regards, Vanhin

Well the point is that we don't claim that it is supernatural, and somehow you have to deal with that when dealing with us. Many individuals within our religious movement have been actual eye-witnesses to God, and have described Him as having a tangible body of flesh and bone. God is an actual being who exists in the real world, and He is capable of feats beyond our comprehension, such as organizing un-organized matter into worlds and populating them with plant and animal life, and placing His own children into bodies of flesh, in order for them to experience mortality. He has revealed the truth that spirit is matter to us, and that is what we believe. So, we are not like other Christians who describe God and spirit as incorporeal. So, humor us at least, by accepting our understanding of God as the basis for your argument against God, when debating us on the matter. 1) God is an exalted immortal Man. 2) God is corporeal. 3) God has all knowledge and mastery of the laws that govern the Universe. 4) Mortal men have spirts and bodies of flesh, that are both corporeal. It is a fact that God exists. I know it as surely as I know that I exist, because He has made himself known to me. If God can make himself known to you, wouldn't you be interested in that? Wouldn't that settle the question for you? Regards, Vanhin

That could be more than a coincidence. There is a belief among some Church members, especially LDS Polynesians, that they are Nephites. 5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward. 6 And behold, there were many of the Nephites who did enter therein and did sail forth with much provisions, and also many women and children; and they took their course northward. And thus ended the thirty and seventh year. 7 And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took much provisions, and set out again to the land northward. (Alma 63:5-7) Vanhin

My father was a Southern Baptist before he converted. Believe it or not, Cleon Skousen's, "The First Two Thousand Years" played a huge role in his conversion. My mother (formerly a Lutheran) was already a member then and my father used to go with her to church activites and such. I guess they used to sell books or something like that in their ward, and my father loves to read and loved the Bible. He picked up The First Two Thousand Years, and agreed with it for the most part and that led to his conversion. A little different as far as conversion stories go. Vanhin

Concerning the existence of eternal law. Latter-day scriptures and other sources state that eternal law exists independently or coeternally with God. For example, from the "other sources" category we find many references in teachings of current prophets and apostles on this, and the Guide to the Scriptures also explains that this light is a "divine energy, power, or influence" that "gives life and light to all things" and "is the law by which all things are governed" (see Guide to the Scriptures: Light, Light of Christ, and see also D&C 88:6-13). Our scriptures teach that the "light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (D&C 93:29) Regards, Vanhin

I would also like to point out that the meaning of "immaterial matter" is quite loose. What we mean in all cases is that we don't believe in things that do not actually exist. So, electromagnetic radiation, energy, and matter are all possible considerations when dealing with the Mormon concept that there is no such thing as "immaterial matter". At least quantum physics recognizes elementary particles (photons) in light. There is within the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation bands that are not visible to our eyes, for example, and yet the radiation exists and is quite real. Regards, Vanhin

Oh yeah... I thought I was on to something.

The Finns exclaim the name of the supreme god of Finnish mythology, Perkele. Though, many don't associate that word with the mythological god any more since Chrisitianity demonized it's meaning to be "devil" or "Satan". That swear word in particular just makes me laugh, but I don't say it publicly. However, there is a swear word in Finnish that is the combination of God (Jumala) and Help (auta), which is rendered "Jumalauta". I can see how that was pretty innocent at first and just over time became profane because of how it is used. Why do I tell you all of this? I really don't know. Vanhin

Those who don't believe in gosh go to heck... Just something to keep in mind. Vanhin

Exactly Cass...

Justice, I don't think the experiment is over for Prisonchaplain by any stretch. The fact that a non-LDS Christian minister has taken the time to investigate the Book of Mormon to the extent that he has, speaks much of his lack of anymosity towards us and his desire to seek truth. Regards, Vanhin

We've already covered that. Regards, Vanhin

And if you haven't yet, check out some of thekabalist's commentary on the Book of Mormon -> A Jewish Perspective on the Book of Mormon - LDS Mormon Forums. It's certainly interesting if nothing else. He recently posted his commentary on 1 Nephi Chapter 17. Regards, Vanhin

As far as the material against infant baptism goes, that stuff was actually authored by Mormon in letters to his son Moroni around 400 AD (See Moroni 8, chapter heading). Regards, Vanhin

I think it is because it is not introducing any new doctrine, but is reaffirming existing doctrines that have been consistent and long standing, and can be found from the scriptures. This includes the doctrine of "heavenly parents" or a mother in heaven. However, official proclamations are part of our canon and can be referenced as binding doctrine. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. (Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom) The main difference between official declarations and proclamations is that one is used to clarify or reaffirm existing doctrine that is found in the Standard Works, and the other (Official Declarations) are used to modify or supersede existing doctrines, practices, or policies. Both OD 1 and OD 2 supersede existing doctrines, practices, and policies; namely, those having to do with plural marriage and blacks and the priesthood. Regards, Vanhin