Aesa

The silly thing is that a lot of the protesters see this as an "Obama Administration fault." That's absolutely ridiculous because essentially John McCain would've done (one way or another) the exact same thing.

What a bailout does is that is keeps the debt and inflation going. In other words, it keeps the creation of money going. The reason why this is happening is because the money can only expand a certain amount. This is basic fractional reserve policy. Once the expansion of money stops, then the exact opposite has to happen which is a contraction. A contraction spells out depression, and in this case mega-depression. Because we don't have the gold standard which means we can print money like crazy, and thus devalue our currency like crazy. At least they had their gold in the last depression and not huge outstanding loans that couldn't be payed off because the money is worth nothing. But the important thing to understand is this is no accident. It's completely designed into the system and the bankers have always known this would/will happen.

Well, it's slowly being destroyed. At least, the elites are trying. But it's anyone's guess - anyone could predict men trying to take people's liberties away.

I cannot be bothered reading through to see if this has already been stated.Remember the first interview Pres. Hinckley did, too. In it the interviewer (Mike Wallace?) went through "No alcohol, no tobacco, no tea, no coffee ... not even caffienated soft drinks?" To which Hinckley answered "Right! It's wonderful."

However, if you look into other dying-and-rising god-men stories it fits perfectly. Born in a cave.

Wrong. It can be completely interpreted allegorically.

I think it's an astrotheological work. The ancients personified nature, the cosmos and so forth with elaborate myths. Thus it is with the scriptures.

But the point here is, whether that's something literal or something that happens to our consciousness on earth. And what on earth is wierd about that?I thought this was a place of tolerance and respect. You call it wierd, but have you ever even caressed any of the Sagas or Eddas from the Scandinavians? Well you're ofcourse entitled to disagree with me.But on strong analysis it does look that way. The writings of Paul are all we have between the death and ressurection of Jesus, and then the syoptic gospels. There are different dates as to the space between Jesus' death and the writing of the gospels. Some say 30 years, some say 100 years - it depends on whether you use an honest source. For the sake of discussion let us go midway and say they were written around 50 years after the ressurection of Christ in or around 80-87AD. All else we have are the writings of Paul that, even though they seem to condemn gnosticism (that's a whole other discussion), actually affirm gnosticism perfectly. Paul doesn't know any of the details about Jesus being a physical person on earth, he doesn't know about the literal apostles, he doesn't know about Pontius Pilate, etc, etc,. All he talks about are what would call the "Mysteries". The crucifixion, the death, the ressurection. Then, after this, we have the synoptic gospels which wrote Jesus Christ into history. Other than those there's nothing that could pass as a primary source, because in academic circles (and I think we're talking in that tone?) scripture is considered not a primary source but a faith document.

I'm reading through all the responses, but this one particularly caught my attention: The thing is, they haven't. History would actually truly say that Gnostics were the first Christians, but that's not relative to this discussion really. Gnosticism is back, big time. Anyway, I'm reading through the rest of the responses now.

As far as I'm aware it isn't. "Joseph Smith indicated that the Song of Solomon was not inspired." Source: LDS.org - Ensign Article - Adam to Malachi—Where Do the Books Fit In?

Well, obviously for starters this is only relative for people who aren't going to say something like "this only leads to damnation." Those notions are ofcourse welcome, I can't control what you post. Anyway, I have been wondering if there's anything wrong with being a gnostic Mormon? I've always said that Mormonism is Gnosticism gone literal (some might use that to verify Mormonism?). For example, in a lot of gnostic groups all members had to write their own gospel to be fully initiated and this I think goes well with the notion in LDS circles of the importance of record keeping. Also, Gnostics believe they can become Gods - but in this life, by reaching a certain "realisation" ... a level of "gnosis" or knowledge. This could, if you want it to - go in with the importance of ordinances [replace with knowledge] in regard to salvation. However I'm a bit hard on this one because I understand knowledge as being a realisation, truth does not come from word of mouth ... it is not told. Anyway, what I'm wondering in full is - what's wrong with a Mormon who doesn't take the "literal details" literally? Or, is this acceptable in the Church?

But how can you meet someone who hasn't been sealed in the temple when the only way to attain exaltation and to enter into God's presence is through temple ordinances?

And being that you're Canadian. Urban legend has it that you don't lock your cars or doors over there - like in old days. Is that true?

Well yes. But that's a clear doctrinal difference between Biblical Christianity and open-canon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.Where, in fact, in Biblical Christianity each person IS the church. This is why it's once in a while emphasised by preachers that you don't need to go to a church building to be part of Christ's church. The spirit of God is within, and we can worship Him day and night - whenever we want, and still be part of His church. This goes with being joint heirs of Christ, but (as you've sort of touched on it: "In 3 Nephi he openly declares it is his Church, not the people's, not Moses', but his. It is perfect as he is.") governed by Him. Oligith, no problems - I'm not bothered.

Well the actual scripture says so it itself. I wish I'd highlighted the verses as I read them. By faults I wasn't reffering to the "faults of man" notion at the start, or faults through Joseph's translation of the book - but faults of the original writers.

Ah, see, this is why it's hard to post a topic like this on a board when users who I don't know will take it as an opportunity for an attack.The users here that perhaps know me a little better should know very well that I'm not attacking. I am curious, but at the same time I feel the right to be sceptical and why shouldn't I be. That's human. This thread is ripe for locking, because none of us are getting anywhere. That's perhaps true, but even the book itself does not claim to be free of error.

Just because I am curious does not mean I will not be critical.There is a difference between being critical and arguing. This is a discussion of curiosity. We're on a discussion forum, so we can discuss each others points.If not, then we might as well just state each others opinion and say "okay, you believe this, nice." and "okay, i believe that." *hug* Why are most LDS incredibly touchy as soon as someone wants to discuss their faith without just swallowing what is fed?

Shakespeare's opinion is irrelevant, if we look at Satan tempting Jesus in the desert we clearly see that satan can cite scripture for his own purpose. While this is a very good response, and yes Bible-believing Christians believe they'll be joint heirs governed by God (for the servant is not greater than the Master) ... my point of issue (and I'm never very clear, as I'm sure people might be getting used to) is this ... I've never heard someone describe the words of the prophet as anything but "It is as if God Himself is speaking..." so what makes all the things Brigham and others that are questionable in many ways any different?Isn't that God speaking also?

Well, you see, it wasn't that they discovered their nakedness and their genitalia.What it was is that they were given over to reprobate minds and saw it as filthy, thus guilt came upon them and they saw need to cover it up. I agree with you, thank-you for reminding me of this.

No, my understanding is that Adam and Eve chose to forsake God and rebel against what He had commanded them not to do (partake of the fruit). Well, there is one verse that says in the latter days we will be "fooled by the sciences," I've read it once before and cannot find it again though. Perhaps, yes, but they all come from the Church? How can a church which has a mantra "perfect church, imperfect people" (which is kinda impossible, to my understanding - the church is the people) get so much wrong?

All the things I have quoted come directly from LDS publications. I understand that all of what I've posted is not "scripture," but my question is do you believe these things? They're from LDS publications, and that's enough.

Some people will instantly take this as an attacking post, however, for those of you who truly have spoken to me over the past few days know that my curiosity is nothing more than just curiosity. So, my thought is, how do you believe this? Abortion Ensign, November 1998, pg. 71; “Abortion is an ugly thing, a debasing thing, a thing which inevitably brings remorse and sorrow and regret…While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” Genesis 9:6; “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Adam & Eve Praises God for Their Sin Moses 5:11; “And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” Genesis 3:9-16; “And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Adam-God? D&C 27:11; “And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days.” D&C 78:16; “Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life.” Exodus 20:3-5; “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” Adam is Archangel Michael D&C 27:11; “And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days.” Revelations 12:7; “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels.” Angel of Light Intro D&C (1976); Moroni is an “angel of light”. 2 Cor. 11:14; “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” Bible not for Modern Times JD 2:75-76; “The words contained in this Bible are merely a history of what is gone by; it was never given to guide the servant of God in the course he should pursue, any more than the words and commandments of God, given to a generation under one set of circumstances, would serve for another generation under another set of circumstances…The Bible is not a sufficient guide; it is only the history of the people who lived 1800 years ago. The history of our Church in this day, presents the scenes and transactions of this people—the revelations and words of God to them…” 1 Peter 1:25; “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

Click on the "Resources" link below "Personal Beliefs."

This is gnosticism.

It's just that I haven't attended an LDS church yet, so there is a distinction between you and me there.