bytebear
-
Posts
3238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by bytebear
-
-
Sunday's session was pretty heavy on the Constitution, and was surprisingly frank. I liked it.
-
McConkie is largely responsible for the chapter summaries in all of the standard works, as well as the Bible Dictionary. His contributions to understanding the gospel are unparalleled.
- JohnsonJones, scottyg, Carborendum and 1 other
-
3
-
1
-
It seem fairly simple to me. God the Father is too glorious for us to behold, so Jesus acts as a filter, but then again, he has a physical body, so cannot be everywhere at once, and appears in specific instances, when necessary, so the Holy Ghost acts as the conduit for us to feel the presence of God. But we communicate to the Father, and the response is from the Father, but manifested through the Holy Ghost.
-
I think you are confusing the brass plates with the golden plates.
-
On an interesting note, there are many symbols of the priesthood as well. The Star of David you are familiar with and represents the Priesthood of Aaron, and the seal of Melchizedek which is similar but uses two interlocking squares instead of triangles. The San Diego Temple was designed around this symbol. Also the early temples were built with assembly halls which had two sets of altars, facing opposite walls and each representing the lesser and greater priesthood. The benches in the Nauvoo temple flipped over so they could face either way, depending on the purpose of the meeting. The photo shows the Salt Lake assembly hall and you can see that it has two sets of altars, and the chairs can be arranged to face either one. The Los Angeles temple was the last to be built with an assembly hall. And the towers of the Salt Lake Temple reflects the two priesthoods as well, a motif used in several temple designs.
-
These platforms are "the public square" regardless of them being on private property. if you allow people to stump on your lawn, you have an obligation to allow free speech. Someone mentioned slander/libel, and that's fine, but there are laws for that, and the people posting the lies can be held accountable. But presenting a belief that is generally considered false is still free speech. And I believe you must allow 1000 lies if it reveals a single truth.
-
Doctrine can pertain to certain people at certain times, and not globally or eternally.
-
I wish they would just be constitutional.
-
On 11/2/2020 at 8:44 AM, dprh said:
My personal belief is that the Holy Ghost is an office that has been held by multiple beings, Michael being the first. When he received his body, it was filled by another pre-mortal spirit, maybe Enoch. So yes, I think each person who has filled that role will be born physically and receive all the ordinances they need.
I have the same view, although I wonder if Michael returned to his role after his mortality. But interesting if each patrioch is prepared in that role before mortality, which makes the JoD statement make sense that Joseph Smith was the most recent office holder we know of.
-
For what it's worth, the media has shifted their narrative from "Fake news" to "Not about Joe". Both of which are lies, but it looks like the story has suffered from the Streisand Effect, where an attempt to bury a story actually amplifies it.
-
I believe the Holy Ghost has already lived a mortal life and was baptized.
-
She is the attack dog, so expect her to play the race card as hard as she can against Trump. But she won't bring out the black vote. She has too much baggage as a prosecutor including questionable acts of evidence suppression.
Oh, and she will not call the shots. The puppet masters will manage Biden behind the scenes. She is only here for the votes, not for anything she could actually contribute to the administration.
-
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. - Jude 1:6
-
Find the nearest church, and go. The rest will come.
-
On 5/13/2020 at 1:40 PM, prisonchaplain said:
I believe that Old Testament baptisms--and even that of John the Baptist--were a means of believers repenting of sins, not as a rite of conversion. So, if there was any kind of proxy baptism, it would have had a different meaning. My understanding is that if a scribe were making a copy of a passage of scripture and made a mistake the page would be destroyed and he would have to undergo a type of baptism before returning to the scribe work.
didn't read through the whole thread so I apologizes if this was mentioned, but baptism has been uses as both remission of sins and a sign of entering Christ's church and not always together.
Before the church was established, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry baptized each other after receiving authority from John the Baptist. They then baptized others. After the church was established in 1830, everyone was rebaptized as a commitment to Christs newly formed church. And new members were baptized as members and for the remission of sin.
And in the early days of the church, members would be rebaptized for the remission of sins. Later Sacrament became the only outward symbol, which is frankly, a lot more convenient.
But I suppose one could request being rebaptized. And of course, those excommunicated are rebaptized when they return to the church. -
I feel like I am reliving Reagan vs Mondale.
-
Sealings of the living children to parents can be done regardless of age. All kids can participate in their own family sealing. Kids born "in the covenant", that is, born to parents who are sealed, are automatically sealed under that covenant of the parents. Adopted kids can also be sealed to their adoptive parents, regardless of age. The marriage sealing is a separate ordinance than parents to child(ren) sealings.
-
If you truly believe #4 "we have the full counsel of God in the bible" then there is no need for a prophet. But I don't believe that. Not for a minute. The Bible itself makes no such claim, and neither does the church claim it has the full counsel of God, at least not yet.
-
21 hours ago, Vort said:
Wait. Wasn't Yoda 1000 years old when he died? Like 950 in the first movie? So what's up with the lack of technological development? In 1000 years of a super-high-tech industrial society, the best they can do as far as technological development goes is...build a deathstar and some gigantic heavy cruisers?
So 1000 years ago, our ancestors had a cavalry that could fight on mounts, had longbowmen, and shield-bearing ground troops. Today, 1000 years later, we have...what? Larger cavalries? Bows that shoot maybe twice as far?
Is this a joke? Or do the writers that Disney hired simply have no basic grasp on things like engineering evolution? Or am I missing the whole point of what's going on? I admit that I have not seen the latest Star Wars movie, and I further admit that there's a good chance I never will.
This is not Yoda. But a baby of the same species.
-
Not sure if this is spoilers or not but I will give my opinion on the film.
It was decent, but it was a remake of Return of the Jedi, which was a remake of Episode IV, which was also remade in Episode I. But it was a decent remake in that they tied some visuals and completion of the circle from episode IV.
I thought the final space battle was weak, and they could have done more there. I think they just ran out of ideas or time but there were some threads that were left unwoven.
I missed the visuals of the other films, meaning the wipes were in a few spots but were not in the style of the original films, which is, IMHO, critical to a canon Star Wars film.
-
Heaven forbid an organization has a rainy day fund, combined with investments in the future. I personally believe there will be a time when certain countries become open to the gospel, and we will have a massive influx of new members, and the infrastructure to maintain such an influx would be colossal. Not really sure who said the money was being saved for the second coming, but they are right, if not totally distorting the reasoning (but what else is new?).
-
I do find this "scandal" a bit over stated. The church takes in 7B, and spends 6B, and has 100B in savings. Now, let's put that into household expenses. Say I make 70K a year and my expenses are 60K, and I have 1 million in a 401K. Sounds about right for a 100+ year old institution. In fact, I would call it slim.
- Backroads, Anddenex, NeuroTypical and 1 other
-
4
-
45 minutes ago, Traveler said:
What we are talking about are tax deductible donations. I do not intend to negotiate English words for meaning. Lets take an example - like the Winter Olympics. It can be quite interesting what is "charity" and what is an investment. So @Mores - is money spent on Olympic venues overhead or investments? (Since you are the expert and absolutely sure that there is not and never can be an intersection between the two sets of overhead and investment)
But lets talk about the church. Are meeting houses "charity" or real estate investments or overhead for church operations? - How about temples, tabernacles and other church buildings? And let us not forget investments or overhead in obtaining farmland, historical sites and other properties - It is not unusual for the church to procure property without designating its purpose. Often temples are built on property already owned by the church. Now for the favorite for many anti-LDS - Downtown SLC redevelopment. Can helping develop business and safe environments for families be "Charity"? Is using church funds to invest in businesses close to the SLC temple grounds for use by the community - never to be considered charity? What a novel idea - letting inner city places rot and become over run with crime to be excluded from charity.
Here is another novel idea - is money spent on equipment for communications, or creating movies - is it overhead or investment? Is the owning of manufacturing facilities to manufacture temple cloths to be sold to members holding temple recommends - are such things tax deductible charities? What if one year because of an accounting type mistake or change in the tax code and the church made a profit on any investment - what then?
Sometimes I am amazed at what lengths some are willing to go to; to contrive a complaint.
The Traveler
I believe the church spends every penny with the goal of bringing people closer to Christ. That includes all of the above. As for the eyes of the law, the church, when it invests in profit making endeavors, like cattle ranches or shopping malls, they do pay taxes on those investments, just as any for-profit company. The difference is, the church, can immediately convert farms to charity endeavors with no effort, and of course they use the profits to funnel back into the process. They learned a lot from programs like the Perpetual Emigrating Fund, and how to use current funds for future endeavors.
The notion that someone in the church is getting rich is the most frustrating accusation. No one is getting rich, even though I hear from message boards that apparently Prez Nelson skims 2% off for his palaces. -
5 hours ago, MarginOfError said:
- The Church takes in $7 billion dollars in donations annually, and spends $40 million dollars annually on humanitarian aid. That comes to 0.5% of its donations revenue is spent on humanitarian aid. That doesn't account for its other sources of revenue. Conversely, about $6 billion of that is spent each year on operating expenses, which increases the percentage to 4% of the remaining billion is spent on humanitarian aid. One of the complaints raised is that 4% seems kind of low.
I want to point out one distinction here that the article and most people don't understand. The church has two distinct streams of donations. Tithes and offerings. Tithes are used for operating expenses. Offerings are spent on welfare and humanitarian aid, which is why you never see a high number in the Tithes column. And likely that 4% you mention is probably due to infrastructure costs, and not straight donations. No, that's where your fast offerings, missionary funds, Deseret Industry, etc all comes from. Most of those funds are handled locally, and never even reach the central church, but are redistributed through the bishop at his discretion. This is not part of the billions in the article. And virtually every penny goes to charity, since we know bishops are unpaid, and many of the labor in making and distributing food is done by volunteers. So, don't make the mistake of thinking the church is stingy on humanitarian efforts. They are simply not reporting that... and I believe are doing so deceptively.
What in Sam Hill is the Point of there Being an LDS Church at All?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I didn't read all the posts, so my apologies if this is already covered, but the church's goal is not to convert the world. Yes, it would be nice. but really, the church's goal is to prepare the Earth for the Second Coming of Christ, so the church needs to be a global entity, with enough reach to bring as many to Christ as it can. I suspect we need to wait until the communist countries open up before the work will be finished.