YoungMormonRoyalist

Amen.

I never got that saying....how is it possible to not have your pie and eat it? Logic says that one must first attain pie, before they can possibly eat it.... It's like saying, you can't own your car and drive it too.

Actually, that's exactly what it's ment to sound like. It is recieveing his authority, it is recieving rights to a throne 'like' Gods. Not the throne of God. Heavenly Father's plan is to give those who suceed in turning to Christ everything he has, everything he knows, and everything he teaches. Uhh...I don't want to be a figurative god like Satan.

It refers to verse seventeen, where it says that we are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. What did Christ inherit? Everything the Father has. What will we inherit? Everything the Father has. There's that verse that says (and I'm paraphrasing this bad boy): What child shall ask for bread and his father giveth him a stone? If we are truly the children of God, what good father would deny his children everything he has? God created us not only that we might love and serve him, but that he may love us and share with us every good attribute, ultimate love and eternal compassion, and a full understanding and knowledge of our priesthood and potential.

Romans 8: 17

"Nature has never read the Declaration of Independence. It continues to make us unequal." - Will Durant "In my youth I stressed freedom, and in my old age I stress order. I have made the great discovery that liberty is a product of order." "The family is the nucleus of civilization."

I'm done for the night. Too much typing. I can claim little of this as my own. I merely found a good author, who in telling of our earth's grand story, found time to tell us of one of it's greatest religions.

The best evidence for the existence of Christ is the spread of Christianity itself. (Hold on I have to go grab a couple of books, I'm currently taking Western Civilization, Introduction to World Religions, and a couple of other courses and all the text books are new. Plus I always like to look back on my Will Durant 'History of Civilization' series) Okay, found it. The Story of Civilization III. Entitled 'Caeser and Christ' by Will Durant. Chapter XXVI 'Jesus'. Page 553 (I'm not going to print out the whole thing, just give a readers digest of a couple things) Although there have been skeptics from all times and places the movement to prove the historicity of Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph) started in the mid 18th century in French and German philosophical circles. Even then there was much contention as some said that while Jesus existed, his miracles did not. Some said that the miracles and Christ existed, but there were rational explinations. Others said there was never any christ at all and the Jesus was a myth constructed of various Jewish, Greek and Roman theologies. Okay, here are some references to the historicity of Christ. You have Josephus' 'Antiquites of the Jews': At the time lived, Jesus, a holy man, if man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men, and joyfully recieved the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah. There may have once been a genuine core in these lines; but the high praise given to Christ by a Jew uniformly anxious to please either the Romans or the Jew - both in conflict with Christianity at the time - makes the passage suspect. There are references to a 'Yeshu'a of Nazareth' in the Talmud, but they are too late in date to be more than counterechoes of Christian thought. ------------------ I'm going to summarize my point here: As I'm getting tired and this is a lot of reading between different books: Already in 64 AD we read from Tacitus Nero's persecution of the 'Chrestiani' in Rome, and wrote of them as already numbering adherents throughout the Empire; the writing is so Tacitean in style, force, and prejudice (I have to agree, having started the 'Annals of Imperial Rome') that all critics agree on it authenticity. Seutonius (125 AD) mentions the same persecution, and reports Claudius' banishment (ca 52 AD) of 'Jews who, stirred up by Christ, were casuing public disturbances,'. This passage accords well with the Acts of the Apostles, which mentions a decree of Claudius that 'The Jews should leave Rome'. What does this half to do with anything? These references prove the existence of Christians rather than of Christ. However, unless we assume the lattter we are driven to the improbable hypothesis that Jesus was invented in one generation; moreover, we must suppose that the Christian community in Rome had been established some years before 52 AD to merit the attention of an imperial decree. About the middle of the first century, a pagan named Thallus argued that the abnormal darkness alleged to have accompanied the death of Christ was purely natural phenomenon and coincidence; the arguement took the existence of Christ for granted. The denial of his existence seems never to have occured to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity. The Christian evidence for Christ begins with letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating AD 64, are more universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had know Christ in the flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the crucifixion. 'In summary, it is clear that there are many contradictions between one gospel and another, many dubious statements of history, many suspicious resemblances to the legends told of pagan gods, many incidents apparently designed to prove the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, may passages possibly aiming to establish a historical basis for some later doctrine or ritual of the Church. The evangelists shared with Cicero, Sallust, and Tacitus the conception of history as a vehicle for moral ideas. And presumably the conversations and speeches reported in the Gospels were subject to the frailties of illiterate memories, and the errors or emendations of copyists.' 'All this granted, much remains. The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the High Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient wrothies -eg, Hammurabi, David, Socrates- would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one genereation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.'

Because doing what the bishop told you and killing 6 million Jews really amounts to the same thing... Jeesh....reminds me of work. Lady comes in, orders food. I tell her price, she gets mad. I tell her that I don't control the prices, and she says, "Oh I see, you're just like those Germans who went along with Hitler because they were following orders." Me: (Normally I can keep cool with most customers) Yah...because charging 8 dollars for a meal is exactly like....(you get the picture) Honestly, what are people here expecting the church leadership to ask of us? Commands from the bishop: Do your home teaching Love your wife Strenghthen your family relationship Do temple work Be a good neighbour Study the scriptures and live them Honestly...do I really need to question any of these? The cases in which really weird and innappropriate things are asked by church leadership are rarities and only pointed because they are such.

They lust after the flesh. I imagine church policy is the same with regard to them as other unmarried members: As long as they keep their temptations under control (ie, not lusting after the flesh) they can continue to attend the temple, take the sacrament (Would the fact that they are symbolic of flesh and blood have anything to do with it?), and be faithful members. This brings up a point everyone: When the zombie invasion begins what is your survival plan? Mine: Move up farther north, possibly Alaska. Seeing as how zombies have no body temperature they'll freeze like corpse-sicles!

I love Kool-Aid!!!!!!!!!!

I think all faiths need to be prodded and poked every once in a while. And this guy does it respectfully and with a couple of different religions, ours included.

This is cool.

Burn Him!!!!!!!!!! Oops....just read Ben's post....um....

There is only one God, and his prophet is......Mohammed? Wait no......Pope Benedict? Uhh....perhaps Thomas S. Monson? Uh...maybe there is none..... Sorry just poking fun.

The first snow just started a few days ago here in my hometown. I think we all need to take a little break from all the heated political talk and everyone share their plans for the winter. For one thing the mountains look aboslutely amazing. I live near the foot of the Rockies in BC so we have a virtual paradise of river, forest, green and snow covered mountains. Plans for the winter: Go skiing/snowboarding (anyone else do this) Enjoy hot chocolate and my peppermint tea in and out of the snow Get up to my beau's place and take her out for some fun in the snow. Hook of the sleigh and get my horse back out into the fields. Hockey of course. Skating. And then moving my stuff up to Lethbridge where I'll be starting college in January!!!

Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For the sake of trying to keep us (As members of Christ's Church) from tearing at each other's throats, I think we should refrain from drawing comparisons between forum members and Nazis. Debate? Fine. But let's not get to the point where we aren't feeling the spirit. "If ye are not one, ye are not mine." "Contention is of the spirit of the devil" ----------------------------- On a related note, I was wondering something. When are taxes acceptable? Surely there have to be some cases: David's kingdom Solomon's kingdom (for the purpose of building the temple, other than that he drove the country into massive turmoil for his huge taxes) The Nephite's under their kings, and later their republic. Or when Christ said "Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's." I'm not going to say anything either way, I just want people's thoughts on this.

Agreed, and may I further this statement by saying we should also seek to honour him as well as seeking honour from him.

Could one say that those who are truly worthy of a 'death sentence' are those who seek to take away the right of someone to choose to live their life in a particular way? Abortion is wrong because it takes away the choice of a being to life. If you think about all those who were executed in the Book of Mormon were those who saught to take away the agency of others. A few examples include: Laban - "It is better that one man should die than a whole nation shall dwindle in unbelief". What does this have to do with agency? Everything. As we saw in the time of Noah, a perpetually wicked nation will eventually remove any chance for agency. Children who are raised in a wicked society, taught only wicked things, sees only wicked things, and is figuratively drowned in 'wickedness' will eventually have no freedom to choose otherwise as they don't know what is truly good in this world. The Kingsmen - This one is obvious, as the kingsmen wanted to install a leader with aboslute authority to run people's lives. Murderers - These take away the right of someone to choose, by taking away their life.

When I took out my ID 3 weeks ago and voted for the first time at the age of 18.

Don't take life to seriously, you'll never get out alive."

I'll admit that in my head I said "F*** YAH!!!" I need to work on my internal swearing....sorry yall

Or could we say that works may come before grace, but that they have no meaning? It is only with Grace, and through the atonement of the Christ that we gain salvation, and it is only when we gain said Grace that our works become meaninful? May I further point out that I should not be talking about this at almost 1 in the morning...my mind is laughing at my inability to discern some of these posts and how to put my thoughts into writing.

I think step one should be finding out who you are. Come to know that you are a son of God, a joint-heir with Christ, saved by his Grace and Atonement. Come to believe it, come to live it, and come to understand the potential in you. Then pray about the scriptures and their truthfulness. It doesn't matter if the Book of Mormon, or the Bible or any of the standard works are true if you don't give them a reason to matter to you. Believe me, the scriptures ment nothing to me until I decided one day to just pray to understand the atonement, to understand where I came from. It was an amazingly powerful, yet private experience, but when I found out who I was, and why I was here, only then did God's words to man matter to me. I started reading them saying "Okay, if this is true then it means that my Father is speaking to me, these are road directions, telling me how to get home".

Wait there's a divide between evangelicals and Mormons?!?!?!? When did this come about?!?!??!