deseretgov
-
Posts
649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by deseretgov
-
-
Soon they will be selling LED and fiber optic "fireworks." Reusable and eco friendly! No fire hazard.
-
I think you need to tak Obi-wan Kenobi's advice in Star Wars:
"Let go, Luke."
I'm not talking about letting go of your beliefs, but let go of your concern. Let go of your worries.
What I'm getting from your posts is that you don't really have a problem with the church's doctrine, rather your confirmation of the truth.
About enduring. I remember my mission president saying that we really need to replace the word enduring. We shouldn't have to "endure" to the end. Enduring sounds like we're constantly in pain and struggling. Actually having the gospel is a blessing not something that needs to be endured.
-
But this is false. The Lamanites were subject to none of these things.
I thought the Lamanites were the ones doing the murdering and raping.
-
So I'm guessing that the consensus is that if a couple were married in one country. However that marriage is not legally recognized in the current nation of residence they would still be considered married and not be in violation of the LoC. Now I'm not talking temple sealing just civil marriage.
-
If this were true than wouldn't that make the Founding Fathers all sinners for not obeying the law?
And this is where we encounter problems with obedience to man's law.
So the question is where do we draw the line.
I think it's actually in the Covenants, the verse I was thinking of.
-
Vort, in the constitution there is a supremacy clause in fed vs state. I assume that God's Law is always supreme over man's law. You can't honestly believe that if the feds passed a law that required all men to hunt down and kill people with green hair that God would go along with it.
I believe there is an answer to this in the scriptures, or maybe a lesson manual. God would expect us to follow mans laws, but the leaders who made those laws would be held accountable for the sins committed because of that law.
-
I interpret "legally" as pertaining to the law of the land, and "lawfully" as pertaining to the law of God.
That makes sense. I always wondered about that. It sort of seemed like that same thing to me until now.
-
Is it possible to read the Book of Mormon in one day?
If so has anyone here done it?
What was the verse(chapter) per minute(hour) rate needed to complete it?
-
1) If the atonement infinite, then why is murder not forgivable? Example: A person murders someone, serves time in jail and is released after years and years, the missionaries come to his house, he is baptized, and then he finds out that murder is unforgivable. So he can't get into the Celestial Kingdom no matter what? Then why bother trying?
I believe murder is forgivable. But for a murderer to be bapitized they must get permissionfrom the First Presidency I believe. Only sinning against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable, and that is pretty hard to do.
2) The atonement to me doesn't quite seem to balance the scales of justice. Because everyone seems wins in the end.
What do you mean everyone wins in the end?
For this to work, wouldn't Jesus have to literally take our sins upon him, causing him to no longer be perfect? Can someone explain this to me?
No. Christ had to be punished for our sins but must also have been perfect. If Christ was not perfect then He would have no authority. He had to be a sinless sacrifice. Because He was punished for nothing(nothing that He did). He can say who will be able to return to Heavenly Father.
He paid for our debt and so now we owe Him. If we follow Him he will forgive our debt.
Why was Jesus resurrected?
To make it possible so the rest of us could be resurrected.
I know that last question sounds a bit harsh, and I don't mean to challenge or offend anyone.
-
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".
Yes I don't thinkn we should dismiss the genetic factors. As you said there are certain health risks(or benefits) associated with certain genetic types. This obviously should not be dismissed.
What I disapprove of is the classification of people into groups based on skin color, or other external characteristics, or national origin(African Americans, Hispanic Americans). If we are talking politically then they are all Americans regardless of their skin color or where they come from, except in cases of dual citizenship.
But classification based of genetics for the sake of health isn't really a problem for me. I may have an allergy to certain anasthetics. If I do it would have come from my mother. This information is important to know.
People with certain genetic characteristics will have different responses to medicines. But there's no reason to say,"Your skin is darker so you must respond better to XYZ." Only analysis of the persons individual characteristics can determine that, not observations based on skin color.
Anyway i just keep typing and I don't think it makes any sense so I'll stop.
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.
Hmm. That is interesting.
-
I just had a thought on this topic this morning.
Say a couple was married and sealed in the temple here in the United States. So they wree married legally here. Now say this couple traveled to a nation for a vacation. But the other nation does not racognize and marriages other than those performed in their own country. So according to the laws of the nation where they vacationed they are not married.
Since, as we say, we believe in following the laws of the land. Would that mean that the couple couldn't do any husband and wife things? They wouldn't be married according to the laws of the land they are in. Or does it mean you just have to have your marriage legal in some nation?
-
I believe strongly that "things are not as they may seem" and that when the "the day" comes, many are in for a RUDE awakening.
Yes I agree.
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.
So how do you determine what "race" a person belongs too? Where do you draw the line? If a person of african descent has a child with a person of european descent what race is that child? Or is it it's own race? If that is the case there would have to be a racial term for every possible variation.
So is race determined by national origin? That can't be it because in the United states there are so many genetic variations. Is it from ancient national origin? But then that can't be it either because of mixing, what race would the child be?
How do you personally classify races?
It reminds me of the race my friend and I made up one day:
The Algerswiamjachiblaxicans.
----------------------------
I think that the description in the Book of Mormon is has both spiritual and physical implications. Yes their skin was made dark but that doesn't mean the Nephites where whities. They were brown too. The Lamanites were just made darker. It also doesn't mean that all dark skin is the sign of a curse. It just means that the specific group called the Lamanites had their skin made darker as a way to seperate them from the Nephites.
It doesn't mean that my wife(a Filipina with brown skin) was cursed at some point.
-
Hmm I always heard blondes were going to become extinct.
But I agree that Race is a cultural creation and not determined by genetics. Yes people have genetic differences, but our classifications of "blacks," "whites," "latinos" is a social construct.
But to correct bytebear. Actually when people mate the dominant genetic characteristics tent to be the ones to be based on to offspring. Brown eyes usually win out over blue eyes. Black or brown hair tends to win out over blonde. The eye color of parents don't mix and form a brownish blue.
-
As other's have said. In second Nephi it describes the cursing. The curse was not the dark skin. The dark skin was a sign of the curse. Loathesomenes was also a sign of that curse. The Lamanites were cursed. Then they became darker skinned so that the Nephites would be able to recognize them. They also became loathesome so that the Nephites could recognize them.
However that doesn't mean that dark skin is loathsome. It means that the Lamaites specifically were made to have darker skin. Then they were made to be loathsome to the Nephites.
If you want a verse by verse analysis I can provide it.
We know from our biology classes that skin color is not the result of a curse or a blessing.
Yes. However a Being that can manipulate every particle and energy field in the universe can change the color of someone's skin.
Here's some scriptures that may provide some insight:
Moses 7:8
8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
Here is speaks of a blackness that came upon the children of Canaan. Earlier in the verse we read that the land was cursed with much heat and barrenness. It is reasonable to conclude that the blackness(a sign of the curse) was a result of the increased sunlight that was te cause of the curse.
Here's another scripture that describes this:
The Song of Solomon 1:5-6
5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.
Here blackness was a result of the sunlight. But in both of these scriptures the blackness was not a curse but came from the sunlight. I kind of think it was the same with the Lamanites. The curse could possibly be related to increased sunlight. The sunlight would then cause the skin to become darker. Also the loathsomeness described was pretty much laziness. If you've ever been in a place that is hot and humid laziness comes pretty easy too.
-
Hahaha. That's just what I thought when I was reading and it said the Liahona pointed where Nephi wanted it to.
-
I was thinking today, an amazing event I know. And there are multiple accounts of the Urim and Thummim in a variety of scriptures. I was wondering if there are any other acounts of the Liahona or a Liahona-like device, in the Bible, Dead Sea Scrollw, Nag Hammadi Library, etc.
-
Does everything happen for a reason?
Yes.
Is everything that happens directed by God?
I believe God is in control of everything. BUt I blieve that God allows somethings to happen that He did not command to happen.
Is everything, therefore, the way it should be?
I think everything is the way it needs to be.
-
Here's my post from the other thread:
I think we kind of are saying the same thing. The way I usually express it is that I believe everyone will have the chance to accept or reject the gospel at a time that is best for them. That is what I consider "the chance." If someone who have made all the temple covenants and falls away but still hasn't had "their chance," I believe they will get that chance even though they had already had the gospel in their lives earlier.
If someone accepts or rejects the gospel when they get their chance it is up to them. What is important is that everyone has that "perfect opportunity."
-
EDIT: Moved post to Second chance repentance thread.
I'm not sure what that has to do with adultery though.
-
That would be for those that haven't or weren't able to receive those ordinances while on earth. But for those that did..those that were baptized and took covenants, I don't think we get a time for repentence in the afterlife. I could be wrong but that would appear to go against everything I've been taught. We are here on earth to progress..to do everything we can to live a life worthy of the celestial kingdom. Not live the way we want because we have a second chance of repentence after death.
My great grandfather was a member fo the church but fell away. He was never sealed to my great grand mother until after his death. If he didn't have a chance to return to the right path why would the work be done?
But again I think it goes back to the intent of our hearts. I'm sure someone who "does whatever they want because they will have a second chance" would recieve different opporunities than someone who lives the best they can even if that means falling away from the church.
-
The answer is Yes - both in regards to the laws of the land and in the eyes of G-d. The covenant was broken. Many years ago when I was at BYU some rather interesting types thought that it might be okay to go to Las Vegas and get married, have a fun ultimate weekend date acting like a married couple and then get an annulment a week later.
There is a right way to live up to our covenants and those that do not live up their covenants cannot receive the blessings.
The Traveler
I believe there is a scripture concerning that in the New Testament.
But according to the letter fo the law if you are married civilly then you are permitted to have sexual relations.
But their reward would be based upon the intents of their hearts. I don't want to judge unrighteously but it would seem that the intents of their hearts were focused on sensual pleasures.
-
Not saying I agree with foreverafter but, why do we have baptisms for the dead and other "for the dead" ordinances if people can't change themselves in the Spirit World?
-
No man can KNOW the day or hour but a man can GUESS. Somebody will probably have guessed that day right. They might not know 100% that it is the day but they would have guessed the right day.
My guess is on April 6, 2030.
Two hundred years from the founding of the church.
Two thousand years from the begining of Christ's ministry.
-
What if the formed their own nation of two people, declared independence. Then they legally married each other under the laws of their own nation.
Random Thought-Sealings
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Even if the former flame had died before they could be married?!