erichazelle

Well, yeah, I guess I would date an L.D.S. convert, but my wife would probably shoot me.

As to Ray Hale's comment that there is nothing in the Word of Wisdom about exercise: "Thou shalt run and not be weary, thou shalt walk and not faint." (Vs. 20.) I realize in the context, that could be interpreted as part of the promised blessings from vs. 19, the finding of treasures of knowledge, and it certainly can be interpreted in that manner, but I've heard it interpreted as a commandment to exercise, and I try to apply it thusly. (I walk 2 miles 4-5 days a week; that's about all this old body is good for.) Well that, and my granddaughter runs me around the yard or pool when she visits.

Allrighty, let's see if I can't throw a bit of gasoline on this fire. This is just for fun, folks; but sometimes we need to think of outside-the-box alternatives to come at the truth. (Though I like the Endowment interpretations from Tomk and others; that's got me thinking, too.) Anyway: Hugh Nibley in "Old Testament and Related Studies" writes, "The latter-day Saints are the only Bible-oriented people who have always been taught that things were happening long, long before Adam appeared on the scene." (Page 49.) "Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation . . . God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine . . . " (Page 82.) Adam and Eve were told to . . . "replenish the earth." You don't replenish something unless something was already there, and depleted. (Perhaps an extinction of evolved humanoids? The scriptures also refer to the "Sons of God marrying the daughters of men." (Gen. 6: 2.) Did the sons of Adam intermarry with leftover daughters of the evolved, nearly extinct race? (And thus exacerbate the effects of the fall?) A common mistake we L.D.S. make is to assume that there is only one set of people: Adam and the patriarchs, or Lehi and his family in the Book of Mormon, when oblique evidence in those scriptures gives us much reason to think these people existed in a milieu of many others who, for some reason, aren't directly referred to. Well, that's my third post for this day; I've caused enough trouble, I'm going to bed.

If I have my church and national history correct, Joseph Smith's prophecy of the overthrow of the government referred specifically to Zachary Taylor, (and/ or Martin Van Buren?) to whom he had gone for redress of the Missouri persecutions, and was denied his rights and turned down cold. Taylor was a Whig. See any Whigs in our political mix? In other words, "Whig" government ceased to exist, and was replaced by Republicans and Democrats in the 1860 election.

Another example of how W. of W. fanaticism can mess up the gospel. If we focus on minutiae, we're likely to miss the main message, like the people at the time of Christ who were gung-ho on keeping the Sabbath, but missed the Messiah when He was right there in front of them. The only requirements in the Word of Wisdom are no coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs (as per latter day revelation). All the rest is person obedience, should one so desire; the minimum will get you into the temple, that's the bottom line.

Yes, soggy Western Oregon: I remember it well. I used to drive a log truck in the Siletz area. Like Iggy, I, too, moved to Arizona. I feel blessed to have lived in the two most beautiful states in the Union. What Arizona lacks in trees, green and ocean, it more than makes up for in rock, canyon and incredible desert scenery. Plus, if my pool will just warm up another 5 degrees or so, we can swim for the next six months.

Touche' to digitalshadow's last post. We don't have the full scriptural account; we don't have the full scientific account. The test God hands us in these matters is to keep an open mind, avoid contention, and continue to learn . . . rather than sit back with a lemonade and watch others argue. My library consists of many gospel books, plus 9 books from Stephen Gould, "America's Evolutionist". Both sets have greatly enriched my life. In a nutshell: "Why God created the earth is written in the scriptures. How God created the earth is written in the crust of the earth." It behooves us to learn to read both books. As to "Proof". The virus thing is a new one on me, but sounds intriguing, though complicated to my rather simple mind. Here's another one: Evolution predicted that whales came from terrestrial mammals; creationists laughed them to scorn. Now, at a site in Pakistan, successively deeper digs have found fossils of ambulo-cetis, a walking whale, that started as a land mammal, then a swamp dwelling mammal, then a sea creature. The fossil evidence backs the evolutionary prediction. My bottom line: God is just science we don't yet know, coupled with an overwhelming love for His children.

Ok . . . I probably ought to take the same path as Canuck Mormon, but since others view this forum as well and maybe think, "these are good questions", let's at least answer for them, and for lostnfound as well, if he's willing. First: as to God having other children. There are many references to God being the Father of our Spirits, but Hebrews 12: 9 is as good as any. We are all spirit offspring of God; Christ was, too, but to accomplish His mortal ministry, He had to have a special combination of immortal / mortal body in addition, which he inherited from the union of God with Mary. Only one of that kind was ever needed; hence, He had the only combination of such. As to Christ being "the only begotten in the flesh"; yes, the bible doesn't say that specifically, but if we believe in literal inerrancy in the Bible, then we're going to have a lot of explaining to do. Do you believe in a literal 6/24 hour day creation? Christ, with the exception of a few nut cases, is the only one ever claiming to have divine / mortal parentage. As to L.D.S. teachings about Mary ruling in Heaven with God; I know of no such position. She, like all the rest of humankind, will not be fully enthroned in Heaven until the last judgment. The Book of Mormon was written by a man? All scriptures are. That's why they call them the book of John, the book of Matthew, etc. The point is, whether the man writing them is inspired by the Holy Ghost; that's what makes or breaks scripture. (2 Pet 1: 21, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." These speakings became writings, which became scripture. There is no scripture anywhere that I know of that claims to have been written directly by the Hand of God, so men writing scripture under God's dictation is the best we're going to get. (And, not too shabby, that!) As to God's children becoming like Him: this is basic Genesis 1: 26. We are made in the image and likeness of God, or, in other words, we have a body like He has, arms, legs, head etc., and we are like Him in terms of personality, potential and future . . . if we so choose. It is not our blasphemy or arrogance that says we will become like Him; it is His creation and magnanimous offer right from the get-go, and a continuing invitation throughout the scriptures for us to throw off the evil nature we get sucked into here in mortality, and come up and be one with Him and Jesus. (See Matt 10: 24-25 and John 17: 11.) As to multiple gods and goddesses: I like this metaphor. God has a family business; let's call that business, "Salvation Inc." Sorry for the crass and plebeian references, here, but we're mortals trying to understand immortality; finite beings trying to get a handle on infinity. That business is creating universes, and populating them with His children, who He encourages to grow and develop as best they can. (Matt. 5: 48; Christ commands us to become perfect like our Father in Heaven, for example.) If we achieve the highest levels, we don't replace God: we open up our own branch offices of the family business and contribute to the whole. (I've written a book on this, by the way; if anyone is interested, I'd be glad to e-mail you one for free. I hope I'm not violating any site taboos by mentioning this.) Ok: does that help? Bottom line: read and pray about the Book of Mormon. Once you know the truth of that, all these other things fall into place sooner or later.

Though I agree that public cursing is unbecoming a Saint (and I say this not without this sin on my conscience), I think there's a more serious side to this argument. When we swear, it usually comes from feelings of anger, contempt or other un-Christ-like attitudes in our hearts. I think swearing is just the tip of the iceberg, an indication of darkness in our hearts that we need to examine. Christ used epithets, referring to Herod as a "fox" (though a cool term for females in our time, it wasn't then), and the Pharisees as "whited sepulchers", a strong denunciation of them. Joseph Smith said he'd prefer a man who swore a streak as long as his arm but treated his fellowman justly, than the smooth-faced pious hypocrite who will backstab his fellow-man. (Sorry, paraphrase, don't know where the original quote is.) So, obviously, there is a mix here; when Christ used epithets, it was proper, and when Joseph Smith placed swearing in context with other worse sins, it was enlightening. We shouldn't get too hung up on the minutiae of obedience be it swearing, Word of Wisdom, or most anything.

Again, most of you are missing the point. It's not so much that, for health reasons we can or cannot drink or eat "X", or "Y". It is that, as a minimum or entry level of sacrifice and obedience, God has asked us to keep the Word of Wisdom. (Verse 3.) And, there is some slack allowed: I know some saints won't eat chocolate because of the caffeine. Well, that's ok if that's what they want for themselves. Remember the "Nazarite Vow" in the Old Testament; if you think the Law of Moses was restrictive, the Nazarites took it a whole level further. It's not that they'll be in a higher level of Heaven; it's that they had that means to show an extra measure of devotion to God. There are those who want to go "extra" on the Word of Wisdom: fine, but they shouldn't be passing it off as doctrine. The Word of Wisdom, as currently interpreted means, minimally, no tea, coffee, alcohol, tobacco, or lately, drugs. As a truck driver battling sleepiness, I drink caffeinated sodas. I mentioned it to my Stake President in a temple recommend interview, saying it was probably more healthy for me and others around me if I stay awake while driving, and he said, "No problem." I'd say, keep the minimum so you can be temple worthy: do more if you so desire, but don't pass it off as doctrine. As a Stake Mission President, I once interviewed a missionary in his home. He offered me an apple; I took out my knife and cut out the stem and blossom ends and the seed core, then ate it. He gave me a funny look and asked if I was going to eat those parts. I said, "no", and he proceeded to eat them, claiming the Word of Wisdom requires us to eat all of the fruit. I, of course, popped off and asked him what he did with peaches and avocados. The interview went downhill from there. But, consider: he had teenagers. Supposing one of his kids, wanting to be obedient to parents (that's, fiction, right? Anyway), in school, eats a whole apple, core, stem and blossom end and all in front of friends. When asked why, they claim the Mormon church requires us to eat apple cores. Can you see how silly that would make us look, and the potential harm for missionary work? That rumor would be all over the school before the day was done. To sum up: keep the minimal requirements (how many of us keep the counsel on eating meat? I know I don't), so you'll be temple worthy; do extra if you so desire like the Nazarites of old mentioned above, and let that part of it be between you and the Lord, and let the doctors and scientists debated the pros and cons of the health aspects, as they have been doing for decades with no clear results.

Reply to God and the burrito: Same with rocks. At a certain temperature, the molecules of the burrito de-construct and become plasma. Since God could handle the "Big Bang" which was an extremely high energy state of matter, He could also handle the burrito, which at that point would have no more resemblance to a burrito than a sun would to a rock. The limits are not on God; they are on matter.

I should have said "some", and not implied all atheists. Some have made the argument, in print, that because it rains on the oceans where rain does no good, then that proves God is at least incompetent. Others have argued that because evil exists, then God is not all good, and is, therefore not God. It is such simplistic logical arguments as these to which I was referring. Thanks for your reading and thoughtful consideration, and no offense intended on my part. I'm new at this, and will probably need a few rough edges knocked off like Joseph Smith, a "Rough Stone Rolling."

Most saints, I think, miss the main point of the Word of Wisdom. It is, secondarily, a health code. Primarily, verse 3, it is a bottom line entrance requirement. In the missionary discussions, if the investigator can't commit to the Word of Wisdom, the discussions come to a screeching halt. (Or should.) If we can't commit to the small sacrifices of the Word of Wisdom, such greater sacrifices as time, tithing, service and the like, let alone consecration, will be impossible. Another facet: it's a great missionary tool. When you're dining in public, such as at a business banquet, or whatever, and you take your coffee cup and turn it upside down on its saucer, everyone knows you're L.D.S. Let your light shine. Believers in every dispensation have been asked to do something that will make them stand out: circumcision with Abraham, (I don't even want to think about how that made them stand out), the law of Moses, Sunday instead of Saturday worship with the New Testament church, and now, with us, the Word of Wisdom. Those who get hung up on the health aspects of it, worthy though they may be, are running the risk of straining at gnats and swallowing a camel.

This one's for fun, folks: Ever have some smart-aleck say to you, "If God is all powerful, then can He make a rock so big He can't lift it? ha-ha-ha." Of such elementary school reasoning do atheists refute the existence of God. I have two solutions to this problem: #1. God is also all-wise; therefore, He's too smart to be caught in this stupid trap. Ok, some may consider that a copout. #2: According to the laws of physics, there's an upper limit to the size of rocks. If they reach a certain mass, then they implode in on themselves due to the pressures of gravity, nuclear fusion begins, and they become a star. According to Joshua 10: 12-13, God can move the sun, so He can handle rocks at their maximum size. The limit is with the size of rocks, not with God. One could say that God could change the laws of physics so this wouldn't happen. If He did, then life in the universe as we know it would cease to exist. God isn't going to destroy all life in the universe just so He can win a bench-press contest.

Professor Nibley found it very curious, and wrote a whole book on it, "Lehi in the Desert", coupled, later, with "The World of the Jaredites". This theme also pops up much in his lectures and other writings. I realize we shouldn't base (at least the bigger part of) our testimonies of the Book of Mormon on technical details that Joseph Smith could never, in a thousand years, have gotten from his milieu, but this is a fun read, as is most of Nibley's stuff, and is well worth your time.