Vort

I didn't say it was you each time, Mike. No need to be defensive. It just seems I have seen people say this same type of thing three or four times just in the last week or so. I'm not quite grasping why people seem to feel the need to reaffirm that this is indeed a discussion board, and that they are indeed free to express their opinion.

Why do people keep saying this? Isn't it obvious? Or is there someone that keeps claiming this isn't a discussion board?

Are you saying you believe these men were justified by the mores of their own time?

Inapropriate in your view not mine HiJolly.So you think it's appropriate to judge the actions of historical figures by modern mores rather than by contemporary ideas?

Let me point out that we are under the law of consecration right now. At least, those of us who have received our temple endowment are. The fact that we haven't currently been instructed to hand everything over to the bishop is irrelevant. We are bound under the law of consecration even if we are not currently living its highest expression, just as surely as we are bound under the law of chastity even if we aren't currently living polygamy.

If I understand the D&C correctly -- big "if", I realize -- the bishop is the man assigned by God to oversee such things in the ward. I consider him an authorized servant of God, every bit as much as President Monson. If that is indeed his purview, as I believe it is, then his word would be sufficient for me.

I would also note that The Kolob Theorem, in suggesting that God somehow resides within the Milky Way galaxy and that other galaxies are not God's creation, directly contradicts LDS theology, including Elder Scott's recent (and excellent) General Conference talk of last November, wherein he said: "If we were capable of moving outward into space, we would first see our earth as did the astronauts. Farther out, we would have a grandstand view of the sun and its orbiting planets. They would appear as a small circle of objects within an enormous panorama of glittering stars. Were we to continue the outward journey, we would have a celestial view of our Milky Way spiral, with over 100 billion stars rotating in a circular path, their orbits controlled by gravity around a concentrated central region. Beyond that, we could look toward a group of galaxies called the Virgo Cluster, which some feel includes our Milky Way, estimated to be about 50 million light years away. Beyond that, we’d encounter galaxies 10 billion light years away that the Hubble telescope has photographed. The dizzying enormity of that distance is suggested by noting that light travels 700 million miles an hour. Even from this extraordinary perspective there would not be the slightest evidence of approaching any limit to God the Father’s creations." Clearly, Elder Scott is of the opinion that all these are indeed creations of our Father. I'll stick with Elder Scott on this one.

I downloaded and read this. Ugh. I mean, we all like to speculate, but this sort of stuff is disturbing. It reminds me very greatly of certain "doctrines" a few missionaries in my mission were teaching to members. These "doctrines" involved Uranus and Neptune being the telestial kingdom, Saturn and Jupiter being the terrestrial kingdom, and the sun being the "crystallized celestial sphere" wherein God dwells. Needless to say, the elders were stopped from teaching such nonsense, even to members. It was whispered that they were sent home early for this, though I do not know that to be true. Ever since then, I've called such nonsense "space doctrine". The Kolob Theorem is pure space doctrine.

Rachelle, I'm sorry to hear things are tough. I have observed that life is like sailing on the ocean: sometimes you're on a swell and sometimes you're in a trough. Sounds like you're in a trough at the moment. If you grit your teeth and try to smile, soon enough you'll be back up. I'm very sorry to hear about your husband's issues. You're right, it is not fair. Don't know what to tell you, except try to be patient with him and try not to take his problems personally (though obviously that's going to be hard not to do). One if his present issues is dealing with your past issues. This can be very difficult for some people. It's not fair, but part of being married is learning to live with unfairness. Just look at it as an opportunity to be Christ-like. :)

I don't know if this is true or not, but I do know that it's irrelevant to me. (Not intending any offense, falisrm, just using your post as a discussion springboard.) I and millions like me have already promised everything we have and everything we are to the kingdom of God (i.e. the Church). If our bishop demanded of us the deed to our house, the title to our car, and the contents of our bank account, our only question would be "When do you want it?" As far as we are concerned, that stuff already belongs to God's Church; we are merely stewards. At the moment, we give 10% of our stewardship to the Church and live on the remainder. Whom God calls to collect that 10% and how God instructs them to deal with it are not areas of concern for us.

They were removed from the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants with the explanation that they "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons." It is my understanding that the term "Doctrine and Covenants" itself derives from their original inclusion in the work; they comprised the "doctrine", while the revelations comprised the "covenants".

While the doctrinal teachings in the Lectures on Faith appear to be those of Joseph, I'm pretty sure most scholars agree that the book was actually written by Sydney Rigdon. Compared with other sermons written or spoken by Joseph, Lectures lacks the brevity and incisiveness common in Joseph's words. It also followed a question/answer pattern popular in didactic works of the time but somewhat disjointed and cumbersome for the modern reader (or at least for me).

Mercy cannot rob justice, as the scriptures make clear. Rather, the merciful person withholds his just demands, and when a price must be paid for justice's sake, the merciful might pay that price.

Racism as well as sexism!!!

How so?

Maybe not so far off

Short answer: You can't trust the European royal genealogies. In fact, I seem to remember that the Church doesn't allow work to be done for people born before the early Renaissance or late middle ages. Can't back this up, but it seems I came across this when I was doing genealogy for my wife fifteen years ago. Can anyone else confirm or correct this?

No, seriously, "Liahona" really is an anagram for those things. I'm not making this up!

I understand the next novel is about the beginning of the "brewing storm" in the lives of the protagonists. It's going to be called Breaking Wind. Supposedly, a large and spicy Mexican dinner figures into the plot.

d00d!!!11!! u rokk!!1!!!!!1

A little-considered fact is that "Liahona" is an anagram of "Hanoi-LA". Clearly, the Liahona was a device designed to guide Lehi's party from southeast Asia to the west coast of the Americas. Also, "A HAL ion", demonstrating its hi-tech nature as well as a prophetic reference to heuristic algorithms, electronic computing, and AI. Don't forget "Noah Ali", showing both the Lehites' naval adventure and the Nephites' later fight for survival against the Sonny Liston - Joe Frazier - George Foreman "secret" combination of the Lamanites.

You don't say? (I find self-reference abnormally humorous.)

That there is no salvation in believing a false doctrine.

Hmm. I don't think that's what we are discussing at all. Rather, I think the discussion was about those who take offense at what they are instructed to do. I can provide supporting quotes, if you like. Instead, let me take the route of reasoning. You are supposing that the discussion is about "the merit of the conditions". But how could such a thing be discussed in general? The aforementioned conditions would be applied to an individual case of transgression and repentence. Since we do not have an individual case under discussion for which we know the specifics, we could not possibly discuss whether the transgression merits the conditions. Thus, we are left with discussing the general idea of transgression, repentence, and conditions of repentence. QED. For any given serious transgression requiring Priesthood leadership intervention, we have requirements or conditions for repentence that range from no ecclesiastical punishment up to excommunication. These conditions are specified by a Priesthood leader, who by definition is authorized to determine those conditions. Therefore, if the transgressor is repentant, s/he will accept and abide by those conditions. If s/he does not, it can be concluded with reasonable confidence that s/he his not repentant enough to abide the conditions of repentance.

Upon what do you base this judgment?Understanding of covenants.So you believe your understanding of covenants to be greater than Joseph Smith's? Interesting. I disagree.