Maxel

Is LDS.net the 'LDS-related [web]site' that Derick Fitch found?

I think it has to do with the power of the Priesthood. For example, I can trace my Aaronic Priesthood 'lineage' back to Jesus Christ (however, I think it's Melchezidek Priesthood 'lineage' that will matter more). I think the sealing power of the Priesthood creates a 'family within a family'- worthy fathers sealing sons to themselves (and being sealed to them), and father and son bringing their wives.

Oftentimes when faced with a question like this (by whose power did Christ perform [X, Y, Z]?) I think of it this way: The Father lent His power to Christ so that Christ could do it Himself. However, Christ couldn't perform the action unless He had perfect faith in the Father (Christ's faith acting as a 'power conduit' between Him and the Father). Therefore: Both did it- Christ raised Himself through faith in His Father's power.

How long did it take for Christianity to become established after Christ's death? I'm sure we can both agree that Christ's Christianity had all the essential ingredients to it- yet it suffered greatly before gaining popularity (and then [according to our beliefs] it had to be a tainted, government-backed religion with no more apostles or prophets to guide it).

This is the reason I dropped the earlier line of questioning- this has very little to do with the topic at hand.Let me fine tune my earlier question: -What do you believe happens when the gift of tongues is manifested as it was on the day of Pentecost, where men of God preached in languages that they couldn't speak. What exactly happened so that both the speaker and the hearer understood what was being said, despite the language barrier?

I don't know if he's actually considering suicide or not- but he's having a hard time doing anything, including keeping the job he's got. He says he just wishes he would be out of the funk he's in and be at a place where he had somewhere to go and be safe... It does sound like he wants to be taken care of, but he knows it's not healthy and he wants to be a strong provider eventually with a healthy, celestial marriage. Obviously, we talk a lot, lol.

Do you believe in the gift of tongues, Snow and Moksha? A "Yes" or "No" will suffice, along with a brief description of what you believe does(n't) happen when the gift of tongues is manifested. (I'm dropping my earlier line of questioning... It will lead nowhere if I pursue it.)

Jim's never going to agree, guys. It's a distinct theological difference. Arguing the point is useless and detracts from the topic at hand (not to mention this exact same thing has been discussed countless times with Jim).

If you believe in the possibility of a situation, what's wrong with accepting the reality of it? Part of the reason this is so important is that, if we can disbelieve anything we want to because there's no evidence to support it, the entire Book of Mormon and modern revelation goes out the window.Your explanation- that you believe it's a "prophetic experience [in a] dream"- jars against your earlier defense for not believing it- that there's no real way the writer could have known of the story. Unless you want to credit the author with prophetic powers and it's the author receiving the vision, not Balaam. Then again, you have no evidence for that. I am "putzing" with all this for a reason. I want to know- in plain words- exactly how the "whooshing" comment related to me misunderstanding bmy's statement. Tell me what exactly you meant by it- and no nice 'you misunderstood what he meant'; how does the term "whooshing" play into things?

Well, it doesn't matter anyway. My friend is kind of giving up... Not really interested in holding onto life anymore. He has bigger problems than being marriage material now.

... Really? So why have you referenced the story of Balaam as a way to discredit the Old Testament?If you truly believed it's possible, then why use it as a reference to a story so absurd that it helps discredit the validity of the Old Testament- presumably because it could never happen?

Okay. Now I understand. Please explain how the "wooshing" comment relates to that situation (I have an idea, but I'd really like to hear it in your own words).

I remember you posting about it once. I frankly don't care what you think about it, Snow- the Doctrine and Covenants specifically say Moses parted the Red Sea. The question isn't whether the story is true or not- the question is whether it's possible or not. I accept it as true. You don't have to- but I want to hear your reasoning as to why.By the way, I can think of 3 or 4 different ways in which the story of Balaam could have been preserved- orally, through writing, through later revelation about the situation...

In a theology that includes Moses parting the Red Sea, humans rising to become gods, humans standing in the midst of infernos and not being burned, people raising others from the dead, and more- how is the idea of a talking donkey really all that far-fetched?I'm seeing if you have any argument about how it's different other than "it's a talking donkey! That's crazy!" What do you mean by this?

I can't believe the rudeness and disrespect I've seen in the past few pages. Can we drop the "what do you have to do to be saved" arguing? It's so contentious and has very little to do with the OP. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Entertaining sinful thoughts is a sin- though not as grievous a sin as committing the sin (in most cases). To be tempted is not to sin- Christ was tempted in all things, yet he never sinned. However, a single impure thought is enough to bar us from heaven, for "no unclean thing" can enter into the Father's presence. All our sinful thoughts will need to be repented of. Lusting after a women is still categorically adultery, but of a different caliber than committing adultery in real life. This is, I believe, what Christ was teaching. Thoughts --> Behaviors --> Habits --> Character --> Destiny. Ultimately, we only have control over what thoughts we let into our hearts and which thoughts we entertain in our minds.

Shhhhh... No more political discussion. It's been banned. It's ruining the intended purpose of the site.

Moses didn't have the right "hardware" to part the Red Sea- yet he did (if we're to believe canonical scripture). Why is it more acceptable to believe that deity came down and gave Balaam an aural hallucination than to believe that God simply gave the donkey the ability to talk?For the record, I agree that this might be what actually happened. However, I'm not closed to the idea of the donkey actually forming the words itself- and I'm wondering why others who refuse that possibility do so.

Nice dodge. Why couldn't God 'make' it happen?My question is what makes this story so implausible that it's impossible?

The entire thread disappeared. It's definitely a possibility.

The Old Testament records the story of Balaam's talking donkey (Numbers 22).

Why is the idea of a talking donkey such a crazy idea? I've seen the story of a talking donkey in the Old Testament ridiculed recently. I was wondering if anyone had a cogent argument against it.

No. Merely that the Gospel isn't about bringing families together regardless of their personal choices and situations. If they refuse the Gospel, they ultimately have no place in the kingdom of Heaven. This is the ultimate act of division; where the righteous will dwell, the wicked will not be able to go. It's not surprising that in the Lord's church we'll see other examples of strain placed on families for the sake of following the commandments of the Lord. It's the Lord's policy. The strife caused isn't really that big.

Depends on the qualities of what a true 'patriot' is. Blindly believing whitewashed fairy tales because one can't stand to accept the faults and mistakes of past leaders isn't true patriotism, it's blind acceptance.I think a historic account can be both factually true and patriotic. I think the best way to overcome bias is to admit it outright and acknowledge contested facts/opinions. I think that children not only need to be taught facts, but also need to be taught what said facts mean. If we don't teach our children the real meaning of the past, they'll be far more likely to believe whoever twists facts to their own agenda. Ultimately, it's an imperfect system- but the best one in a fallen world.

Maybe you didn't get this memo?

I'm sorry... I didn't mean to be overbearing. Hope I didn't come across that way.