Vort

Your metaphor is faulty. Life is not a school in the same sense as high school, where you must pass classes X, Y, and Z, and two out of Q, R, S, and T, and either A or both B and C, in order to graduate. Judging from our doctrine, it is obvious that people come in three general types: Those who will commit themselves absolutely to God and his truth, those who will commit themselves to God and his truth insofar as they can understand him and it, and those who don't particularly care to commit themselves to God or his truth at all. (A fourth group consists of those who will actively work against God and his truth when they think it behooves them.) This life is the time to prepare to meet God, to find in ourselves what type of person we are. Now is the time for us to build within ourselves those traits that lead us to committing ourselves absolutely and without reservation to God, willing to do whatsoever thing he might ask of us, without any idea of holding anything back from him. If we fail to become that man or woman to the degree we must, then we are not the type of person who will wish to dwell with others of such a mind. Ten million years will not change our basic nature, which we are deciding today. Good. It should be. I am sure its repulsiveness is why it has been revealed to us as the final state of those who reject God. Read D&C 88:24 "And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory." It's not about "punishment". You're speaking of things far beyond your experience. In point of fact, you have no idea whether you would prefer "destruction and oblivion" to the alternative. Besides, how do you destroy an eternal thing? I suspect that "damnation" is as close to eternal destruction as there can be.

I'm almost exactly like my avatar. Looks like a photograph of me. I'm very, very gangster, indeed.

But this is false. The Lamanites were subject to none of these things.

If you believe so, then please explain to me what is meant by "being victim's [sic] of white prejudice", and how that differs from being victims of black prejudice, or of some other sort of prejudice.

Seriously, what's the deal with shedding tears over a celebrity death? I don't get it. If you knew the person, then sure, but otherwise it's just another person dying, as a quarter of a million other people do every day. The difference is, you happened to know his/her name. As a non-crier for celebrity deaths, I sense that it's somehow inauthentic for someone to truly mourn the passing of a person s/he didn't know and had never met. I don't necessarily disbelieve that some here shed tears over Michael Jackson's death; I just don't know what to make of such a bizarre-seeming thing.

Hugh B. Brown and N. Eldon Tanner come to mind.

Whence do you derive this strange doctrine?

This is incorrect. Tithing is tax deductible, but is not a tax credit. For example, suppose you earn $50,000 this year, pay $5,000 in tithing and $10,000 in taxes (20% tax rate). When you file your taxes next April, if you didn't claim any tax deductions we'll assume you would not get any tax return or owe any taxes. In this situation, if you claim your tithing as a tax deduction, you will not receive a credit of $5,000 on your income taxes paid because of your tithing. Rather, your taxable income will be reduced $5,000, from $50,000 to $45,000. If you are taxed at 20%, that means you will owe $45,000 x 0.20 = $9,000 in taxes. Since you paid $10,000, you will get $1,000 back, not $5,000. Hope that helps.

In 1984, the "Star Trek -- Save the Whales!" movie came out, featuring an obnoxious punk on a SF bus loudly playing a punk rock song called (naughty word advisory). (As you recall, Spock Spocked him into unconsciousness.) The point is, the obnoxious punk rock song was actually quite enjoyable, if silly.Then in 1992, Ugly Kid Joe sang (I Hate) Everything About You. (Unfortunately, this isn't the version with Julia Sweeney whining, "Are you the guys on the beach that hate everything? ehhhhhh...Is this some sort of hip music that I don't understand?") Anyone who heard that song and didn't laugh was (and is) humor-deficient. That same year saw the formation of a Canadian band called Groundswell, which later became Three Days Grace. In about 2003, they put out a weirdly great song called -- you guessed it -- I Hate Everything About You (strangely censored version). So what is it about songs called "I Hate You" or "I Hate Everything About You"? Does the title endow the song with some magical goodness? Or do only people with real talent have the chuzpah to name their song such a thing? If I ever try writing a song for popular consumption, I know what I'm going to call it. Since I don't have any real talent, let's hope it's the former reason.

More correctly, the Church could not contract the marriage in the Manila temple because of local laws. The temple itself does not "recognize" or "refuse to recognize" marriages. By definition, no, that is not possible. Not so. For example, the Manila temple would not contract their marriage, because God's law (generally) will not violate man's law. Would the aforementioned couple be prosecuted under the Philippine's adultery laws if they were to return to the country, but not together as a couple? In other words, would the Philippines prosecute them for adultery because they divorced and remarried in another country, even if they did not live as a married couple in the Philippines or even see each other? If so, then I grant there may be some truth to the distinctions you draw. Otherwise, I maintain that there is no real contradiction here.

I don't know. I believe (but I could be wrong) that the Church would recognize the divorces and subsequent remarriage. If they were sealed to each other with their leaders' full knowledge of their previous marriages, this must be the case. Thus, I assume the Church would recognize their conjugal relations as lawful and appropriate. I don't know; that's a question to ask the Philippine government. Yes, I assume so. Why?

Responding to the OP: Yes, it's clearly adultery. (It is indeed adultery, too, and not "just" fornication, since it involves betrayal of the covenant.) The law of chastity stipulates that a sexually involved couple be "legally and lawfully married". I interpret "legally" as pertaining to the law of the land, and "lawfully" as pertaining to the law of God. Thus, if a couple is not legally married, their intimate relations are fornication and constitute adultery -- even if they happen to be sealed to each other.

Which of our biology classes discussed divine blessings or cursings? I'm pretty sure none of mine did, even those I took at BYU.

I don't know. The racial classification I grew up with -- Caucasian (white), Negro (black), and Oriental/Mongolian (east Asian) -- is clearly deficient in adequately representing genetic reality. But that does not mean, as Traveler claimed, that we need to "just get over this silly notion of multiple human races" or that "the false theory of race adds nothing of benefit to any thinking". I personally use the common American societal classifications of black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian, while recognizing that lots of others (e.g. Maori) exist and the aforementioned classes are actually conglomerations of many racial types. Sounds pretty good to me. I expect you're right. If the Lehites (and for that matter, Jesus) were like typical Middle Easterners, they certainly would not look like Swedes. Nor do I believe the Book of Mormon suggests any such thing. Agreed. But you bring up an interesting point, that a familial curse is not the same thing as a personal curse. What I mean is this: If a couple apostatize from the Church and raise their children as atheists, they have in effect cursed themselves and their children by removing the blessings of the gospel from their lives. But it does not follow that the children have therefore been personally cursed by God. Similarly, even if we believe that some certain dark skin (or some other genetically inherited trait) was given as a "curse" from God, it does not follow that the descendants who inherit that characteristic are personally cursed by God.

Note that this does not include IOU coupons which are NOT lame. Non-lame IOU coupons that are actually redeemable (rather than just "good intentions") are the best gifts!

So does almost everyone else here. That's why we're on an LDS discussion board. There is nothing wrong with being philosophical or theological, per se. But you need to keep one thing in mind: You will never find the truth through theology or philosophy. To restate: You will never find the truth through theology or philosophy. Truth stands revealed or it remains forever unknown. The good news is: God will reveal himself to you if you seek after him sincerely. You need only have faith enough to try, and vision enough to see the answer when it is given to you. Honestly, the complexity of your feelings and confusion can be resolved just that simply.

Not any science I have ever heard. I have never heard any such thing. Reference, please? What is a "short term characteristic"? Do you have an example? In contrast, what might be a "long term characteristic"? In what sense is the concept of race "unsustainable"?What do "spending habits" have to do with anything? What, in your view, does it mean to "create [a] genetic race type", and why would doing so "take longer than human recorded history to track"? How do you define a "true race"? Do you understand the distinction between "race" and "species"?Do you understand the concept of genetic mutation? How is the notion "silly"?How would we "do much better toward our neighbor" by ignoring the notion of race? In what way would we "have greater scientific basis" by doing so? Here are a few examples off the top of my head demonstrating some of the benefits that the notion of race contributes to religious, social, economic, political, or scientific thinking: Tay-Sachs disease and Canavan disease are both demonstrably more common among Ashkenazic Jews.Sickle-cell anemia is almost unknown among Europeans, but highly prevalent (about 4%) among west Africans.Many heart-failure medications are less effective in African Americans than in whites, suggesting that the disease may develop differently in different races.Northern Europeans have much lighter skin and hair, thinner lips, and longer noses than African racial groups.

It looks like you have misread this exchange. Moroni found a Lamanite descendant to send on a mission to deceive Lamanite guards. His general demeanor, including his skin color, allowed him to pull it off.Or do you mean it's unusual that Moroni had to "make a search" to find the guy? Remember that he was in charge of an army of thousands, and doubtless did not know every man individually. When he wanted a Lamanite descendant, he probably said to his chief captains, "Find me a Lamanite descendant", and then they went back to their men and found one. With a careful reading of the Book of Mormon, it is inescapable to conclude that the Lamanites had darker skin than the Nephites, and that the Nephites considered this darker skin to be a "curse", or more precisely (which the Nephites usually weren't), the mark of a curse. Fascinating Book of Mormon change that, imo, gives some insight into the translation process and into the mind of Nephi. To wit: This statement was made by Nephi himself toward the end of his writing. The text of the Book of Mormon makes it very clear that the Nephites considered dark Lamanite skin a curse and viewed it as a bad thing. I assume that Nephi, the primal leader of the Nephites, had this same attitude. When he wrote this statement, I expect he actually wrote "WHITE and delightsome" (or its Hebrew equivalent in "reformed Egyptian"). Joseph Smith dutifully translated this phrase as Nephi wrote it. But later, the Prophet reread the passage and realized that, though Nephi may have written "white", what he intended was something like "clean" or "unspotted" or "pure". (Remember what the Lamanite's dark skin signified in Nephi's mind.) So the Prophet made the change to a wording that more accurately reflected Nephi's mind and attitude rather than his word choice. Another possibility: Reformed Egyptian was clearly an extremely compact shorthand for writing, which is why the Nephites used it. It also was clearly not phonetic (or at least mostly non-phonetic), and almost certainly had a highly restricted vocabulary. It's possible that the reformed Egyptian way of writing "pure" was the same as "white", and Joseph Smith simply used the wrong synonym when translating the first time. We have no way of knowing, of course, but these seem the most obvious and likely reasons to me. If you read the Book of Mormon carefully, I think you'll agree that the whole skin color argument was indeed literal, and that it meant a lot to the ancient Nephites. They appear often not to have completely understood what it all meant, equating God's curse on the Lamanites to their darker skin color rather than to their "lost" state. I understand you're taking this whole thing very personally, so I hope I'm not offending you. In my experience, especially in matters of religion, if I temporarily divorce myself from my personal feelings on a matter and look at the matter objectively, I often gain insight and deeper understanding that then allows me to get past my own feelings. We homeschool, too. Hoemskoolrz Untie!

Why is it error? It is simply definition. Interesting, then, that medical scientists insist on classifying frequency of many genetic diseases by racial background. Where on earth did you get such a bizarre notion? This is plainly and obviously false. For example, the blond, blue-eyed people were completely removed from the Chinese population many thousands of years ago. Today, there is a vastly smaller proportion of blond, blue-eyed Chinese than blond, blue-eyed Scandinavians.

This is a public discussion list. All replies and comments are public. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of the list. It is possible to send people notes, though I believe even those are publicly visible on the person's account page.

Maybe dull razors were part of the curse on the laminates, and other flooring types as well? Extremely unlikely, imo. Suntans were very well-known to the ancients; the darkening of skin from sun exposure could never have been mistaken as a divinely-placed curse on a whole people.

JAG, I agree with your suppositions. An open question for me is whether the dark-skin mark of the curse was a generational inheritance, or whether God actually caused dark pigmentation in the first generation of those who turned from God. I'm a bit more partial to the former, more naturalistic explanation, but the Book of Mormon itself seems to suggest the latter.

Good thought, but I think you're missing the mark (no pun intended :)). 2 Nephi 5:20-21 reads: Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. From these verses, we learn a few things: The Lamanites were cursed because they refused to hearken to God's voice.Their cursing was that they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.The "skin of blackness" was given them to protect the covenant people, "that they might not be enticing" to the Nephites.The last point demonstrates that the "skin of blackness" per se was not the curse, but more properly was a mark of the curse. This is made explicit in Alma 3:7 (see also verse 14 for God's view of the matter). In that sense, it was not unlike the mark given to Cain and his descendants, which has traditionally been associated with dark skin.I would note here that the Nephite prophets apparently didn't make this distinction, at least not explicitly. Jacob talked about "the cursing which hath come upon their skins" (Jacob 3:5), while Alma (or more likely Mormon) called the dark Lamanite skin a curse in Alma 3:6, noting in verse 9 that the Nephite who "did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed", an obvious reference to skin color inheritance. You are drawing a distinction which the Nephite prophets appeared not to have bothered with. For what it's worth, I happen to agree that dark skin is not "cursed", but I think it's important to recognize that the viewpoint we have come to accept is not identical to the viewpoint of the ancients. They apparently considered the dark skin a curse and referred to it as such, even if we recognize otherwise. (Our recognition is confirmed by the previously mentioned wording in Alma 3:14: "Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them...") As Moroni writes later in Mormon 8 and 9: And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these...Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. I personally do not see any need to avoid acknowledging the obvious: The Nephites considered the Lamanites' dark skin to be a part of the curse of God upon them. I also don't see any need to avoid believing what I think is almost as obvious: The Lamanites' skin color itself was not the curse, regardless of how the ancient Nephites may have thought about the matter.

Of course. We live in a causal universe, despite what Star Trek says. Clearly not so, or we would have to suppose that God directs evil actions. I don't understand your use of "therefore". In what sense are you drawing a conclusion from a premise or premises?Ignoring the "therefore", I cannot answer your question until you clarify what you mean by "the way it should be". If you mean that, should I swing an axe down onto your skull, "the way it should be" is that you have an axe buried in your cranium -- then yes, everything is the way it should be. On the other hand, if you mean "morally ideal end conditions", then the answer is obviously "no", trivially so, almost by definition.

Two meals means 24 hours. Consider: Eat dinner at 6:30 pm, then begin fast. Skip breakfast. Skip lunch. Eat dinner at 6:30 pm, breaking fast. Total fast time: 6:30 pm to 6:30 pm = 24 hours, less however long it took to eat dinner. Now, I suppose you might say that you generally eat nine meals per day, so skipping two meals really means going without food or water for six hours. Okay, whatever. You can take the commandments however you think best suits you; the only person missing out on the blessings God seeks to give is you. I would only caution this: Don't allow your justification to leak over to other people and potentially interfere with their relationship with God. While the second-senior member of the Quorum of Twelve, President (then Elder) Hunter taught: "Members of the Church may fast at any time as they have a need, but the fast contemplated on the day referred to as fast day, as defined by President Joseph F. Smith, “is that food and drink are not to be partaken of for twenty-four hours, ‘from even to even.’ ” From even to even has been given the meaning of going without two meals—from the evening meal on the night before to evening meal on fast day." Of course, you are free to ignore this teaching as you see fit, or modify it to your needs if you are too weak or sick or otherwise unable to complete a daylong fast. But I would suggest that you avoid teaching others that a less-than-24-hour fast is generally acceptable for Fast Sunday. It is not.