Maxel

SolaFide-Muslims and Jews don't believe Christians are monotheistic, because of the Trinity. Sorry, but this issue is largely one of interpretation, philosophy, and definition. You won't convince a Rabbi that Trinitarians are monotheists. You won't convince a devout Muslim, either.

I've always thought that, when he was called as the President, he received much more public attention, and his role as an Apostle changed somewhat (he was now the head Apostle, the living face of the Church that the world would see). In order to distance himself from anything too controversial (like his political and legal opinions) he changed his focus with his calling (as he was supposed to).I actually think President Benson's calling to the role of President is what firmly solidified his political beliefs in the LDS culture and thinking. If he hadn't been called as a President, his would probably be as relatively unknown as Cleon Skousen or J. Ruben Clark, Jr. among the Mormons. In any case, I thought you brought up a good point, LM.

Okay, I see your point- and I think it's a valid one. I know there are some posters who use the phrase proficiently- in my experience, however, it's reserved for one special recipient... I refer you to bytor for the explanation.

I'm not going to wade too far into the debate, but I have spent a long time thinking about this, and the classical definition of "henotheist" doesn't seem to fit the LDS religion to me- neither does "polytheism". Such classifications are often used in conjuncture with pagan religions embracing a pantheon of gods, often relatively equal in power and sometimes in opposition of one another. These descriptions don't fit the LDS viewpoint at all, as (according to official, canonized doctrine) we do not even recognize any gods other than the Father and, by extension of His mercy and grace, Christ and the Holy Ghost. Speculations about the existence of other gods (though well-founded they may be) similar in nature to our Father are just that: speculations. Regarding the OP: To the fallen logic and viewpoint of the world, we are another Christian denomination ('sect'). I'm comfortable describing the Mormon religion as one. When asking about how things 'really are', however, Mormonism is the most true Christianity, being the restored religion that Christ's apostles established.

I'm always amazed at how politicians can make the most double-minded plan seem resolute and like a good idea. 30,000 troops? As opposed to the 40,000 suggested by General McCrystal? Are we in this war to win it or not? If a real timeline is set for winning the war, and we don't sacrifice enough resources to win in that time, what's going to happen? If I were a Taliban 'mastermind', I'd retreat, maybe make it look like the Americans are winning while secretly maintaining a strong presence so that, once the opposing armies are gone, I could once again regain control. In that case, the thousands of lives that have been marred by this war will have been marred in vain. It's frustrating and infuriating.

I'm all for gun ownership. Modern conveniences and complacency have dulled many to the need to physically protect one's self, I think. The creation of the gun brought about a revolution in warfare and combat. A gun is superior to other weapons in virtually every way imagineable (IMHO), and extremely effective. To that end, I support minor regulation of gun ownership- such as the requirement to obtain a permit to carry them in public- but I think the rule of thumb should be to allow people the freedom to carry effective means of protection on their persons. I think this goes back to the idea of defending one's self from physical abuse- not to mention that a nation without guns is much more susceptible to a despotic takeover, as anatess has attested.

While insensitive, the phrase says so much. When someone hits their 1,000th attempt to defend [enter issue here] because "[enter sophistic reason here]", there's no case to be made that said person actually does any research or real thinking on the subject, instead being lead by another's actions. This is analagous to the ignorant lifestyle lead by Jim Jones' followers, who were so blinded by his sophistry that it lead to their willing death. To that end, I would like to point out that if someone is in danger of 'drinking the kool-aid', the acceptance of the lethal drug comes only after a long time of delusion and blindness. No one- no matter how strong intellectually or spiritually- is above the effects and ramifications of purposely listening to lies (self-delusion). Along the way, they convince themselves that the lies are actually the truth. Therefore, if a person is human, one must admit that if (s)he listens to the wrong people, and gives up the God-given mandate to heed all the words of Christ, then said person is in very well danger of ingesting spiritual kool-aid laced with spiritual poisons. The phrase reflects the gravity of the situation, methinks, and isn't funny at all- even if some of us use it in a joking manner.

I don't get into sports, so I wouldn't know. I'll take your word on that.

I've been wondering about this for a while. My family is woefully ignorant about the mainstream political views of the day (they're conservative except for my older sister, who's moderate/liberal). What I've noticed is that they don't take the time to educate themselves. They also can't stand hearing the facts stated by me (maybe I get overbearing and condescending (such is their claim), but it happens too often when I'm carefully monitoring my own bearing for it to be wholly my fault). I think this is a simple ignorance problem among many Americans regardless of ideology. Many allow themselves to go with the flow of one of numerous ideological groupings (all falling between liberalism and conservatism) and refuse to pursue facts because it's hard and/or inconvenient. For instance, mother's dealing with a plethora of emotional and physical issues while dealing with a deadbeet ex-husband and raising her daughter- my mother doesn't have the time nor the energy to educate herself on these matters. My little sister, on the other hand, is largely uninterested and content to back Obama because she "likes his eyes" (she saw him on television a couple of times), and because my mom backs him.

I thought a little about this earlier. We know that the language was confounded after the Tower of Babel (I assume it was still the Adamic language being spoken), but there's no record of the Adamic language not being restored. Perhaps it or a similar language was retaught to Abraham or one of his ancestors, and over time became the Hebrew language we know today. If that is the case, we can assume that the Jaredites spoke the Adamic language (even if it was altered a little by time). If the Adamic language does resemble the Hebrew language, then, we can assume that we'd find connections between ancient (and modern) Hebrew and the Jaredite language. This is, of course, founded on speculation that requires more than one giant leap of faith. But, it is fun to speculate sometimes. btw thekabalist, do you know the origin of which Hebrew tradition states that Hebrew was the language of creation? Well... What I mean is, do you know the oldest record that verifies this tradition, or is it wholly oral? I think it's an interesting concept.

Thanks for your reply. I get the feeling I need to learn more about the distinction between civil rights and natural rights. Law is such a confusing field... I don't know how you lawyer-types do it, JAG. I admire the ability of a moral lawyer to navigate the legal minefield and reach a just destination safely.

Do you know how old this girl is? If she's near your age, you should just ask her out for dinner one night. If it makes you feel better, you can roleplay with a friend (or an inanimate object, if you feel embarassed roleplaying with another person). If you don't do anything, in time she'll move on. Carpe Diem! If she's as nice as you say she is, she won't laugh at you or do anything cruel. Asking her to dinner once is totally acceptable- you won't be crossing any social lines. If she says no... she says no, and you won't be agonizing over it anymore. Good luck!

Perhaps my response was overly reactionary.After writing a fuller response, I've found that I'm too impassioned on this subject at the moment to write a post that won't offend the parties in question. Therefore, I will return to this thread at a later time.

A post in another thread brought a question to my mind. I'm not knowledgeable in either business or the legal system, so I'm going on what I think to be accurate. Businesses that receive monetary support- even in the form of tax breaks- are subject to the rules and regulations of discrimination that the government sets out. However, what about institutions that receive no government aid? They're not bound by the same regulations, right? So if the government makes it harder to keep a business economically viable (increasing taxes, nationalizing a service, etc.), that means that more and more businesses would legally be 'under the thumb' of the government, right? Slowly, a business owner's ability to refuse patrons would be erased- correct? Did I get that right, or have I missed something (or many things)?

Thank you for your words, sdorociak. To me, they ring of truth and understanding. I just wanted to add that there is a vast conspiracy to overthrow the Judeo-Christian ethic and the political doctrine of natural rights that dominated American culture and philosophy for so long. Its author is Satan, that old serpent, and he is responsible for the decay in morality we see.

thekabalist, Your second dream reminds me of the doctrine of sealing families for eternity. Malachi 4:5-6 states 5 ¶ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. These words were important enough that Christ caused the Nephite prophets should write them (3 Nephi 24:1), and he even quotes Malachi 4:5-6 in 3 Nephi 25:5-6. Elijah did come to the prophet Joseph Smith, as recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 110:13-16 to return the sealing keys to the earth. The nature of eternal families has always been one of the most powerful restored doctrines of the LDS Church. It's interesting, to me, that you were told the golden book (in your dream) was true in this setting, among family.

Okay, since people are bashing the Church, let me paraphrase something Blake Ostler said at a symposium. "I found out about the controversial issues of the Church when I was 11. Members who don't know about these things don't know about them because they've never cared to look." If you belong to a religion and aren't interested in its history, then you don't care too much about it. I'm sorry, but that's the hard truth. I found out about the major controversial events in the Church's history when I was 13-14, from anti-Mormon websites. The information is there, available to anyone who will look for it- the anti-Mormons have seen to that, as have the real historians (both Mormon and non-Mormon). As for asking why the Church doesn't talk about it- there have been official statements from the leaders, either repudiating past doctrine (like BY's Adam-God doctrine) or clarifying past events, and even apologizing for the Mormons' role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Sunday School is for learning about the good things of the Kingdom of God, not about the moments of weakness of His servants as they sought to bring about the Lord's kingdom. On a side note, in my opinion most of the controversial stories from the Church's past don't hold water- that is, there's little if anything particularly damning about the Church or its leaders in those stories.

FunkyTown, you put it so eloquently. Thank you. For me, the biggest stumbling blocks in my faith is the personal application, particularly in the areas of laziness and overcoming lust. Doctrinally, I have rarely been presented with something that proved as a major stumbling block.

Hmmm... This is an interesting assessment. The curelom is mentioned in Ether 9:19 as a Jaredite animal. I don't know if the word "curelom" is supposed to be a Jaredite word or a Nephite word. Judging by Moroni's assertion that the curelom was "useful unto man", I'm guessing "curelom" was the Nephite translation of the Jaredite word to describe an animal that both cultures utilized. I don't think it would be a bee of any sort, since Ether 2:3 mentions a "honey bee" and calls it "deseret". However, I was thinking that perhaps- if your guess that curelom means "poisons in the front" is accurate- a curelom is a paper wasp, used for writing material. If this is the case, however, I don't know why "curelom" wouldn't be rendered "wasp" when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. Cureloms and cumoms have always piqued my interest. Thanks for the assessment!

The personage I call God cannot make a mistake, no matter what.

Wait... You say he suffered there- we say he suffered there. Yet we're wrong and you're right, because you're able to carefully parse out the difference between Christ's anticipation of agony (in which he bled from every pore; bled severely without external provocation) and the agony itself (where he was crucified; bled severly with external provocation). You do this through explaining to us what the ancient prophets and apostles really meant, but say that modern prophets and apostles can't do the same thing.Am I the only one who doesn't follow your logic?

Wait... So now you're an expert on the meaning and interpretation of the entire LDS canon? All this time I thought you were needing to be taught?I admire your ability to learn and master the entire LDS canon in a day!

sdorociak, you bring up a good point. I think the best approach, from a legal standpoint, is to secure the basic rights enumerated by the Constitution for each individual, to study and understand those rights. For instance, I could see a landlord legitimately kicking a gay man out for obscene public displays of any kind. However, I would hope that the landlord would kick a straight man out for the same thing. I think the difficulty arises when we're willing to let immoral actions go unnoticed if committed by people we associate or agree with, and punish the same actions for being committed by people we don't associate with. This brings up another interesting question, somewhat related to the Temple Square kissing incident. If a gay couple living in an apartment consistently show minor public displays of affection- kissing, hand holding, cuddling in public, etc.- while inside the halls and lobby of the apartment building (which is private property), would that be a legitimate cause for the landlord to evict the gay tenants, even if straight couples are allowed to do those things?

Not in the traditional fire-and-brimstone 'hell' of mainstream Christianity, no. However, any kingdom of glory except for the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom does qualify as eternal damnation (literally, an eternal 'lack of progression').This probably belongs in the "Gospel Discussion" forum.

I have to disagree, LM. Look who the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was- a man who's brought global dialogue to a whole new level (literally, with bows)! Who could be more deserving than that?*Takes tongue back out of cheek.* [/triple post]