Vort

LM's answer is very good. In addition, consider Jacob's definition early in the Book of Mormon, when the terminology just gets started: Jacob 1:14 "...I shall bcall them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call cNephites, or the dpeople of Nephi..." Looks to me like "Lamanites" meant pretty much anyone who was a Nephite enemy. Given the state of New World societies at that time (or at least what we know of them), that probably means that anyone who wasn't a Nephite was a "Lamanite".

He would probably respond by telling you what you needed to do in order to qualify to receive it. Seeking to qualify for and hold the authority of the priesthood is a worthy goal; see Abraham 1:1-4.

I love passing the sacrament, and blessing it, too. Unfortunately, I very seldom get asked to help out on those occasions when we're short of Aaronic Priesthood holders, probably because the deacon's quorum president tends to go for the younger men who don't have a bunch of kids they're taking care of.

In my opinion, Elder Oaks is committing a grave insult to the Church's pioneers with this ridiculously simplistic comment. Perhaps you should strive not to take offense so easily and over such trivial provocation. Elder Oaks, an apostle of Jesus Christ, apparently did not consider this "a very good reason". So his opinion differs from yours. Whose do you suppose I ought to value more? Elder Oaks condemned no one. He merely said, as you yourself quoted, that "people...sometimes get into trouble". Surely even you would agree that the Saints did "get into trouble" over continuing the practice of plural marriage. Whatever his faults, I seriously doubt Elder Oaks is insane. Unless you have accomplished a significant fraction of what Elder Oaks has during his lifetime, you probably ought not to cast aspersions upon him. It just makes you look small and bitter. Please illustrate where Elder Oaks "demeaned" anyone's life. Or will you instead admit that your accusation is (to use your word) "hogwash"? Which was exactly Elder Oaks' point, in case you somehow missed it: "People who do not accept continuing revelation sometimes get into trouble by doing things too soon or too late or too long." Interestingly, I didn't find it offensive to their memory. Guess it's just you. And since you are not even a Saint, your opinion on the matter isn't very important. And yet, he's the apostle, and you're merely another disaffected person badmouthing the work of God and taking absurd offense over trifles.

In 1975, while he was the president of BYU, Dallin Oaks (now Elder Oaks of the Quorum of Twelve) researched much of the same material and published a book, coauthored by Marvin Hill, called Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith . His opinion was that The Fate of the Persecutors of the Prophet Joseph Smith was bunk. (My word, not his, but that was the gist of it.) By the way, his book was fascinating and well worth the read.

Beefche, how did you get an animated GIF for your avatar?

Technically speaking, an "argument" is simply a discussion or a point under discussion. But the way we generally talk about things, an "argument" is always bad, so I take its meaning that way for the purposes of responding to your question. A disagreement has one characteristic: 1. People disagree. There is not really anything wrong with this. In a conversation, this disagreement can become a source of discussion, which can be enjoyable and mutually beneficial. When does this discussion become an argument? I think there are two criteria, either of which might be sufficient to classify it as an argument and both of which almost certainly qualify it as an argument: 1. Bad feelings ensue in one or both (or many, if there are more than two) parties 2. Communication ceases, which is signaled by some or all of the following: a. people quit considering what the "other side" is trying to say or understand understand what the other person really means b. people won't respond rationally, or perhaps not at all c. if they do respond, it is only on a "feeling" basis rather than a rational basis Whenever you hear someone say, "Well, that's just the way I feel!", you may be quite certain that honest discussion has ceased, that they are no longer open to considering ideas other than their own, and that anything else from that party will only be argumentative.

Ask of God in faith, believing that he will tell you. No. Their belief systems are mutually exclusive. Either or neither might be true, but not both.

Huh?? I know the knock-knock jokes were bad, but I didn't think they were THAT bad! Please, don't ever cry or get upset on account of anything I post. I'm just talking to have some fun conversation, even when I might sound "argumentative". I actually hate arguing, but I enjoy a good discussion.

For example, look at the silly joke I posted earlier: The "Yeah, right" is sarcastic, but that's not why it's funny. It's funny because the sarcastic reply proved the statement wrong, but in a totally unexpected way. It's humor of form rather than humor of content.Humor of content: - Knock, knock. - Who's there? - Boo. - Boo who? - Hey, it's only a knock-knock joke, you don't have to cry about it. Humor of form: - Knock, knock. - Who's there? - Impatient cow. - Impatien- - MOO! The first one is funny because it makes a pun; "Boo who?" sounds like "boo hoo", which is how we represent crying. That's typically what a knock-knock joke is; a corny pun. The second one is funny not because it's a pun, but because it violates the way a knock-knock joke is supposed to work; the responder never gets to ask "Impatient cow who?", because the cow is too impatient to wait and so interrupts him. The self-reference of the joke ("Impatient cow" really is impatient) and its violation of the normal structure of that kind of joke is where the humor derives.

It was a joke, Connie. Actually it was more of a metajoke. The humor lies not in the over-the-top sarcasm of the response, but in the fact that it was a sarcastic reply to an argument against sarcasm. It was basically a self-referential response. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously; the response itself was the joke. On the surface, the response was belittling the argument; but in point of fact, the response was confirming the argument and belittling itself. Hence, funny.

How is it an argument? Discussions comprise a back-and-forth. I have presented my evidence and await a rebuttal. (In this case, "rebuttal" consists of more than saying "nuh-uh".) Actually, it was not, as I demonstrated. And I responded.

"In languages like Italian, a double negative means no. In languages like German, a double negative means yes. But there is no language in which a double positive means no." "Yeah, right."

Belle's first child was a baby boy. They named him Mark. Hence, the Mark of the Beast.

Actually, this is incorrect. We have indeed been asked to give all we have and all we are to the building up of the Church. This is not "in theory only", although I admit many who make such covenants do not always live by them, myself included. We have already agreed to it, whether or not it has been legally recognized. You are mistaken. We are indeed required to live the law of consecration. If you think we are not, then you do not understand what the law of consecration is. I suspect you are confusing the law of consecration with the "united order". Then by all means, do not nitpick.

Interesting practice. I must admit that all through school, it never occured to me to pray for divine spiritual verification of the mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, or engineering I was learning. Doing so would have seemed to me, I think, an attempt to misuse a divine gift, like praying over which can of beans to buy.

No, of course not. What gives you that idea? You might do better to study and ponder the scriptures rather than someone's bizarre doctrinal interpretation of them.

It's the homocidal anger that wells up in us when people misspell our religion as "Mormanism".

I'm thinking it's the ritual goat sacrifices and the blood-drinking, but that's only a guess.

"Doctrine" just means "teaching", so of course it's a doctrine (or a set of doctrines). I don't think anyone has suggested that he is proclaiming these as official LDS teachings. True enough, though I don't recall suggesting that his disagreement with Elder Scott therefore implied you didn't find it interesting. All I suggested was that it seemed strong evidence against his "Kolob Theroem" views being compatible with LDS teachings. I don't know that they do. Some people might find the ideas distasteful, and moreso because of the claim that they are somehow compatible with LDS doctrines. Misusing words like "theorem" to describe what is better (and more literally) termed "space doctrine" is also an irritant.

It's phrased in the present tense, FM. I have listened word for word many times.

Do you have any evidence of this, or is it merely your conjecture?

So, we are "only" asked to consecrate: 1. Our time 2. Our talents 3. Our resources What else do you think we have that we could consecrate?

This is incorrect. It is like saying that since we don't currently live polygamy, therefore we are no longer living the law of chastity. The law of chastity is far broader and deeper than just polygamy, although it might be thought (many of our ancestors certainly believed) that polygamy is a "higher expression" of the law of chastity. Similarly, the law of consecration is far broader than merely the United Order, though many might believe that the United Order is a "higher expression" of the law of consecration. Please note: Our temple covenants don't say that we will consecrate what we have and what we are if we're ever asked to do so at some future point. Our temple covenants say that we do offer that consecration right now. Just because we haven't actually been asked to write out the check doesn't change the basic fact that we have already consecrated our stuff and our lives to God. We are under the covenant of the law of consecration right now, whether we choose to live it or not.

For many years, I have thought that the term "Lamanite" very early was generalized to mean "everyone who isn't Nephite". This is overtly specified as early as Jacob, Nephi's younger brother, as he says in Jacob 1:13-14 -- in fact, the very first words he writes after telling of Nephi's death: Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites. But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. It seems obvious to me that, throughout the text of the Book of Mormon after 2 Nephi, the term Lamanite is always synonymous with non-Nephite. This is further bolstered when you recognize that when the (larger) body of the people of Zarahelma joined in with the Nephites, they were considered culturally as Nephites, though not ancestrally. Also, when Ammon's converts wish to join the Nephites, they take a separate name to show that they are affiliated with Nephi, even though they are not ancestrally Nephites.