bytebear

One thing to be clear about though, is that in LDS view, Jesus is the only begotten. We are not unique in the way Jesus is unique. We are spirit children, not the begotten children of God. And Jesus' atonement and his role (per-mortally, mortally and post-mortally) are not replaceable by any one else.

Go to church a few times. I encourage you to attend the other classes as well. They should have a Sunday school for new members and investigators. I think once you get to know a few familiar faces, things will be much easier. It's like any social situation. You just need to make new friends, and then things will be easier. And other poster are right, you can't "sneak" into a Mormon service, since they are designed to be small and cooperative, everyone will know you are a new face. But after a while, you won't be new anymore too.

I have them all on Netflix, so I just pick and choose the ones I like.

I think I've said this before. God is a term that is singular, but describes a collection. Closest thing is Family. There is only one Family but the family contains a father, mother, children. Similarly there is only one God, but there is a Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and potentially countless other members that we have no direct association with. And we, one day, if found worthy will become one with God, and be God. But there is still only one God. So, I go with monotheism, but am not offended by other interpretations. In fact, I see the Trinity being far more similar than different in concept. Adding to this notion, we often say "one in purpose" but it is deeper than that. A family may also be "one in purpose" the relationship of a family is deeper than just a business arrangement, and so is the relationship of the Godhead. It's more than just agreement, but a true oneness that cannot be expressed in human terms.

The plot is interesting, but it's also very confusing. Once you "get" what's going on, you feel like you need to start the movie over to understand what you figured out. (which is why Vort wants to rewatch it).

Here are two graphics to explain the time travel of Primer. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Time_Travel_Method-2.svg

Two independent thoughts. One thing I liked was that time travel had logical limits. The machine had to exist in order for you to use it, even in the past, so you had to turn it on, wait, and then use it to get back to the time you turned it on. So no going back to the days of the Dinosaur. I also liked the idea that you could sort of get around this limitation by taking a second time machine in the past with you, so even if you had a fixed time in the past, you could create multiple time machine launch points from one time machine. But, ultimately, my biggest issue with time travel in all it's forms is that it denies the conservation of matter. If you go back in time, there are now two of you, but that would mean the matter that makes up your person had to be created from something. And what happened to the matter that occupied the space that you now occupy? That's almost why I like the Star Trek version of multiple universes, so at least the possibility of "swapping" matter from one universe to another conserves the law (albeit not in most stories).

I have found that on just about every policy there is a caveat that you can take it to the First Presidency for review. I interpret that as being, the local leaders do not have authority to circumvent current policy and must comply, but that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions to the policy.

I have found that on just about every policy there is a caveat that you can take it to the First Presidency for review. I interpret that as being, the local leaders do not have authority to circumvent current policy and must comply, but that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions to the policy.

That is the most complicated time travel movie ever. After you watch it, you need to get the timeline chart, which has at least six parallel times going on at once, and try to figure out which person is in which timeline with who.

I would say if you have a rehersal dinner or other "pre" event, to have your father accompany/escort you. Then you can have the setting of him transition from being the man in your life, to having the reception be where your husband be the man in your life. Not ideal, but might be a decent compromise.

I got the impression that Ren was sliding by, a poor student with limited skills, and so I had no problem with him being a poor fighter against Rey who had a lot of real world experience fighting with her staff. Neither were using their light sabers in formal fighting standards for sword play (as the Director of the film revealed was specific and purposeful).

To answer the question, Anakin Skywalker apppeared with Yoda and Obi-wan in their "glorified" state. Vader was dead, and Skywalker was restored (i.e. saved). And I don't think it's morally bankrupt at all. Repentance and forgiveness are not prohibited by time or past acts (save denying the Holy Ghost. Mark 3:28-29). I believe there is a lot of discussion on whether Hitler could be saved. I do find it interesting that his temple work was done, and never revoked. I believe this follows this commandment: Doctrine and Covenants 64:1010 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. So, it is required that we forgive all men, and provide all opportunity for their forgiveness and salvation from the Lord.

Well, the argument was whether Vader was worthy of being equal to Yoda. I think clearly the parable of Star Wars, says yes. And barring covenants (which can be made postumously via proxy), there is nothing that says otherwise doctrinally (IMHO)

I don't know that it matters. If it is a parable of God's inheritance, He gives everything to all his children. Our salvation is not dependent on another's salvation, and we don't lose when they win.

I was lucky enough to have my cousin's son over for Christmas dinner as a missionary. Most of my family out here is not LDS and know him by his first name. I called him Elder X, and everyone else switched between calling him by Elder or by his first name, although they called his companion Elder Y since we never knew his first name.

v 31: And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. This tells me that the Father is giving his Son all that he has, similar to how we will inherit all that God has. So, I don't see his inheritance as less than it would have been.

Also, Vader was driven by his anger of losing his wife. Rey (the girl) was driven to use the force based on her anger of having her friend attacked (and possibly killed) by Keelo Ren. Ren was just a bratty kid who was rebelling against his parents. No real deep anger or betrayal for him, which is why he was portrayed as having a strong natural affinity toward the Force, but not a real control or power.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/15.29-32?lang=eng We don't know the spiritual reward of Alderaan's residents any more than the people who the prodigal son wronged, but if you consider the faithful brother to Yoda or Obi-Wan, then their rewards were equal. The parallels are staggering.

And Episode VII was a retelling of Episode IV but with a twist in the nature of the antagonist. Darth Vader and the Empire were competent and ruthless. The First Order and Keelo Ren were inept, amateurish and immature. That was obviously by design, and will likely be explored in future movies. But the message of the Dark vs Light side is really the message of love vs hate, and that hate is very powerful and easy to use, (and it was interesting that the female protagonist won the battle on the emotion of hate), so it will be interesting to see how they explore these themes. And, by the way, Lucas' first Star Wars (Episode IV) was a rehash of this movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Fortress and all the space battles were lifted directly from WWII dogfight footage, frame by frame. And Lucas consulted "Power of Myth" author Joseph Campbell on how to weave his story with mythical cues.

You sound like the brother of the prodigal son, jealous that the son was redeemed with forgiveness that you didn't think he deserved. Sounds to me, the lessons of Star Wars are deeper than you think.

We're having the missionaries over on Christmas day. It's actually an interesting situation. One of the elders is my cousins son, and we are very close, as his mom is like a sister to me. In fact, they lived in this area, moved away about 2 years ago, and when he got his mission call, we all thought he was joking, although some of us predicted it. Well, since I have a lot of non-Mormon family (not related to him, but who know him), the mission president gave me special permission to host him for Christmas. I am so totally excited, and since this is one day, he can talk to mom, we are hoping to have a Skype session with both families. Great missionary opportunity, which really I think Heavenly Father was planning.

I loved them both. And the Smiths (but not Morrisey solo)

One thing I like about the LDS clergy, is they do have experience just being a regular parishoner, and will be one again after their calling is complete. And although, you occasionally have "questionable doctrine" taught from the pulpit (since talks are given by anyone, including youth), we are taught life is a learning experience, and so it's taken in stride, and we really are mostly on the same page doctrinally, even with the "deep" stuff, and we fully acknolwedge that we don't have everything figured out yet (Articles of Faith #9)

FYI, lds.org has pretty much everything online for you. All the church manuals are there from children's classes to college level education manuals. All the general sermons for the past 50 years. Even the hymn book is online, so you have more than enough to browse. The online scriptures have great secondary resources too. I love the Bible Dictionary and the Topical Guide. Here are some quick links: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/study-helps?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/music/library?lang=eng