Vort

My 13-year-old quoted one scripture along with Elder Scott. Said he learned it from his Sunday School teacher. Thank heavens for good Sunday School teachers!

For the record, that's 10:00 am, 2:00 pm, and 6:00 pm Mountain Daylight Saving Time (i.e. Utah time). That corresponds to 9 am, 1 pm, and 5 pm Pacific; 11 am, 3 pm, and 7 pm Central; and 12 pm, 4 pm, and 8 pm Eastern. If you're on Atlantic or Alaska or Hawaii time, or somewhere else in the world, I guess you can figure out for yourself what time it comes on. :) If you get BYUtv on your cable, you can watch the proceedings live. Otherwise, you can watch them on lds.org or whatever KSL television is (probably ksltv.com or something similar). If you have a slow internet connection and don't have the bandwidth to watch conference, you can listen to it on lds.org or ksl1160.com. Or, if you prefer, you can just go to your local stake center meetinghouse and watch it there.

The "Trinity" doctrine is itself a violation of monotheism. Ask any Jew or Muslim. I'm not too concerned about whether someone perceives Mormonism as monotheistic or not. We are monotheistic. Period. As you quote: God created the universe. But God did not create space, or matter, or intelligence. These things are eternal and self-existent, as is God himself.

skippy, my heart breaks for you. Best of luck, and I hope things go better for you.

The supposed "cross" is seen in the negative space of the temple doors design. It's a non-issue.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes and yes*. Yes. * I realize this whole "made" business is a huge deal for traditional Christians, though I don't really understand why. I believe it has to do with the false "ex nihilo" idea of creation, wherein God created everything "from nothing" -- a patently non-Biblical doctrine, I might add. This idea, based on neoplatonistic philosophy, suggests that God alone is "self-existent", and that everything else was "created" (read "poofed into existence") by him. The irony here is that the same neoplatonism holds that matter is corrupt by its nature, meaning that God's poofed-into-existence creation is corrupt -- an impossibility, according to this same philosophy. In any case, the hang-up appears to center in the idea that, if Christ had been poofed into existence like everything else, then logically he couldn't be God, who is the only self-existent being. This breathtakingly incoherent view can be savaged six ways from Tuesday, though I am not particularly interested in deconstructing anyone else's views of God. Suffice it to say that if God is "all-powerful" in the way that most Christians suppose, then God can indeed create a being equal to himself. If he can't, then he's not "all-powerful", is he? So the whole house of cards immediately collapses. For myself, I believe Christ is eternally self-existent. But then, I believe I am, too. I also believe that God is all-powerful, but not in the "I Dream of Jeannie" sense that many other denominational Christians seem to think. I believe God is all-powerful in the sense that God can do anything that is doable. But there are plenty of word combinations that describe impossible things, and no, God CANNOT do them. Because they are nonsense. For example, can God: make a thing exist at a location and simultaneously not exist at that location?make a rock so big he can't lift it?save a man in his sins?The answer in each case is: Of course not. The "thing" described is self-contradictory, impossible by definition. This does not limit God's power in any sense; rather, it acknowledges that our language is sufficiently flexible that it can be misused to describe impossible, self-contradictory things. See Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid for more amusing meditations on the idea of self-negating systems.

If homosexual "marriage" is a mockery and a desecration of real marriage -- and it is -- then the two-year marriages are doubly so. I have little doubt that churches opposing homosexual "marriage" will vociferously oppose this abomination, as well.

A patriarchal blessing is a blessing you receive under the hands of a patriarch. In general, it means a blessing you receive from your father, grandfather, or other patriarch, including Priesthood leaders, given for comfort or guidance (that is, not a blessing received in conjunction with an ordination or setting apart, or an anointing of the sick, for example). It also specifically refers to a blessing received under the hands of a stake patriarch. A stake patriarch is a man, usually older and well-seasoned in Church service, who is called by the stake president to receive the Priesthood office of patriarch, one of five Melchizedek Priesthood offices given us (the other four are elder, high priest, seventy, and apostle). The duty of a stake patriarch is to give patriarchal blessings to stake members, wherein the recipient's Israelite lineage is pronounced -- that is, you are told to which Israelite tribe you belong -- and other blessings specific to the individual are given. When people use the term "patriarchal blessing", they are almost always referring to the second definition above. This patriarchal blessing can be given by a worthy father, but I think the Church encourages such blessings to be given by ordained stake patriarchs instead. The patriarchal blessings given by stake patriarchs are recorded and archived by the Church, but not those given by non-ordained patriarchs. Most people receive this blessing, but it is not required to get it. Missionaries who have not received their patriarchal blessings before their service are, I believe, given them while in the missionary training center.

Your understanding is incorrect. None of the witnesses ever recanted his testimony. Your "in other words" is incorrect. Seeing something "through the eye of faith" does not mean "in a vision" or "in a dream" or "I didn't really see it, but I thought I did." Extremely valid. This is possible. It is also possible that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham by revelation through the means of the papyri. It is also possible that the glyphs can be read in different ways, encoding more than one meaning simultaneously. It is also possible that we do not have the correct papyri in every case. It is also possible that we do not understand either the revelatory mechanism or the connection between the papyri and the translation provided by the prophet. We do not. So what you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that you are willing to believe Mormonism as long as you can find an ancient American city in ruins with a sign that says "Welcome to Zarahemla." My understanding is a bit different. I believe that God wants you to seek for him, and as you approach him he will give you revelation and increase your understanding. But he rarely (perhaps never) provides "proof" that satisfies the carnal mind. This is as true with the Bible as with latter-day scripture, by the way.

In my opinion, this is not correct. I believe that no one could come up with the idea of the "Trinity" based solely on Biblical teachings. It is one possible interpretation of Biblical doctrine -- not a very convincing one, in my opinion -- but in any case, it is not an obvious interpretation, and I doubt anyone could come up with the Trinity doctrine based solely on the Bible. It is a traditional idea passed on for many hundreds of years, and its modern origin is in tradition, not the Bible. (Its ultimate origin appears to be in neoPlatonist ideals, but that is another topic.)

Wikipedia, font of all truth, claims: Gethsemane appears in the Greek of the Gospel of Matthew[1] and the Gospel of Mark[2] as Γεθσημανἱ (Gethsēmani). The name is derived from the Assyrian ܓܕܣܡܢ (Gaṯ-Šmānê), meaning "oil press" What do you understand the etymology to be?

I may not love meetings per se, but I do love meeting with my fellow Saints. Enjoying the fellowship and working along side such good people is a breath of fresh air into my life.

I do not know what the "great and abominable church" refers to. The angel told Nephi there were "save two churches only", and specified them as the church of the Lamb of God and the great and abominable church. What does "church" mean here? This is long before Greek was the common language of Palestine and southern Europe, and hundreds of years before Koine Greek was even spoken at all. Since our word "church" comes from a Greek term (though apparently not directly from "ἐκκλησία" ekklasía, the Greek word normally translated as "church"), we must assume the word stands for some Hebrew term. The corresponding Hebrew term, כָּחָל KaHaL, actually means much the same thing as ἐκκλησία -- a meeting or assembly of people. (I do not speak or read either Greek or Hebrew. This is my non-expert understanding. Take it for what it's worth.) So the angel appeared to be saying, perhaps, that there are two groups to which people join themselves, the white hats and the black hats. It is possible (though by no means obvious) that "the church of the Lamb" did not refer specifically to the kingdom of God on earth, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or whatever incarnation was available at the time, but rather to the larger community of all those who sought after God. I don't know this to be the case, but it does seem unlikely that the angel was using "church" in a modern sense. Now, what is an "abomination"? You can go to Blue Letter Bible and investigate the different Hebrew and Greek words so translated in the KJV, if you like. It boils down to this: An abomination is something loathsome, and seems to be associated with idolatry and perversion of the worship of God. So what do we see in Joseph Smith's time? Religion used as a means of harrowing people up and dividing communities. God used as a blunt instrument to bludgeon those whose beliefs are different from one's own. Preachers sharing their understanding of the gospel as a way to gain converts, status, power, and wealth. Creeds defined not as a way to bring people to the living God, but as a constraint on their beliefs so they don't get too far from the expected. It is no wonder that the Lord said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight and that all those professors (which I take to mean the learned conveyors of religious dogmas and not merely those who professed this or that) were corrupt.

I think the antecedent to "That" was the opposite idea from hypergamy.

It's too bad those who belong to a political party are forced to walk lock-step with their side, unable to think on their own. I guess part of that lock-step mind control is their inability to be a registered Independent. Or maybe they just want to vote in the primaries.

So merely by registering as an Independent, you avoid being wrongly influenced by any party's logical errors and false claims? That's awesome. I had no idea registering as an Independent was so powerful. If the parties find out about this, they'll be furious.

I think the ultimate answer is that we cannot say. What is sure is that if you reject exaltation, then of course you will not receive exaltation. And what constitutes rejecting exaltation? That is not given us to know on an individual basis. Surely there are some who fail to live up fully to their covenants in mortality for reasons beyond their control, and who, despite their failure, will prepare themselves sufficiently for exaltation. Surely there are some others who simply choose of their own free will not to cling to their covenants and who therefore will not receive their exaltation, as with King David. We are not in a position to know who is in which camp. Our best possibility, then, lies in making covenants with God and then striving with all our hearts to live those covenants. We can leave to God to judge whether we, or anyone else, have sufficiently lived up to those covenants and privileges.

"Puberty" is composed of three words: "Pew", which represents how certain body parts start to smell"Bert", the lower-voiced of the two muppets, indicating a change of vocal pitch"Tea", representing how you start hoping the girl next door invites you to her tea parties

Beefche, my five-year-old just came in, saw your avatar, and said, "I like that cow licking the grass." So know that you are appreciated by those with finer taste.

Talk to your bishop.

Those who rebelled against the Father were not concerned with eternal life. They were concerned with power. They rebelled, as their father rebelled, to procure honor to themselves through the enslavement of the rest. I see no reason to believe this. Satan's "plan" was to enslave us and procure God's "honor". He had no other plan, just lies and prevarications. Those who followed him were those who lusted for power as he did. For a good example in mortality, see Amlici.

Because your temple covenant is between you and God. You made covenants with God, not with your husband. You are protected by those covenants for as long as you live up to them. Dissolving the sealing releases you from the covenant. If you are concerned about living eternally with a man who defiled your marriage, don't. There is no sealing where there is no integrity to the covenant.

I intend to put on pants before the first session.

Então, precisamos traduzir tudo o que dizemos a partir de agora? (So do we need to translate everything we say from now on?) j/k Welcome, aalbino!

I'm pretty sure that was his point, including #1. You have to turn religious doctrine and observable reality on its head to buy into the idea that Satan and his minions were just tryin' to do somethin' good, after all, and they rilly, rilly b'lieved they could make a diffrunce, poor ol' guys. Satan is a liar and deceiver from the beginning. He seeks the destruction of all men and women. He would have usurped the Father's honor to himself if he could have. The God and creator of all things saw fit to cast Satan and his followers out of his divine presence for all eternity, and even refers to Satan as "Lost" ("Perdition") and his followers as Perdition's sons. It is hubris of the most ridiculous sort for anyone to second-guess God and say that Satan and his minions were just sincere but misguided. I suspect this absurd belief stems, at least in part, from the mistaken idea that Jesus and Satan presented and stumped for competing plans that we voted on. There was ONE plan: The Father's plan. We did not vote on it. Divine rule is not by democracy. The First agreed to serve as the Mediator required at the crux of the Father's plan. Satan demanded that he be the Mediator, but of course changed the position from one of service and self-sacrifice to one of glorification and self-aggrandizement. Many individuals, doubtless those likewise drunk with the lust for power and honor, willingly followed him in rebellion against the Father. Seriously, people, it's time to stop this nonsense about how Satan "really believed he could save everyone". The scriptures are quite clear about the character of Satan and his goals, then and now. P.S. What is "a son of the morning"? Where do the scriptures teach that it's some great, exalted position? Heck, maybe *I* was a "son of the morning". Maybe you were. It was a position of some sort and apparently worthy of mention, but this whole Mormon mythology that says the erstwhile Lucifer was "second behind Christ" is nondoctrinal tripe. We would do better to stick with scriptural teachings rather than invent a bunch of speculation.