Maxel

I'm not an expert on law, but this still makes me very sad. I don't know who screwed up where... but someone did, and now I'm sad because of it. I have to agree with Book_of_Mormon_Warrior in the fact that I am saddened for our country. EDIT:I would also like to point out that I apparently used the word 'sad' in a 1:1 word-to-sentence ratio; that makes me sad as well.

Hello.

Rameumpton- Well said. I applaud you, sir. LittleNipper- Here's a cat for you.

Man... This is another thread giving me a headache... Would someone close this? The OP has been answered; now he's just looking for a theological fight. Personally, I'm tired of fighting with him. ErikJohnson- We've plainly told you what our theology holds to be true. Any further problems you have show that you are only here to cause problems and dispute with us. You don't have to agree with our theology on a personal level to understand what we believe- we've told you plain and simple. Here, your opening post was merely a dishonestly marked door that opened not to a search for answers, but to a round of religion-bashing that you apparently crave. If you think we're wrong, then fine- we may be wrong, but you're not convincing any of us otherwise. You told me via PM that 'this isn't a game'. You're right- it's not a game, and I'm not amused by your behavior. Please... just go, or start interacting with this community in an honest and upright manner. Unless you change your tactics, I personally promise you any future 'inquisitional' posts will be met with pictures of funny cats. My apologies to anyone else who might still harbor hopes of honest interaction with the OP, but when a situation calls for cats... the cats must come.

My head is much more clear than it has been for a while. Looking back over our conversation, ruthiechan, I'm not quite sure how I ended up defending a position that I don't truly espouse- that is, that certain genres (here I use 'genre' in its most broad definition) of music are inherently evil. I guess it was in response to my statement 'certain styles of music invite diabolical influences to the mind despite its lyrics. Heavy rock/metal is one of them'- a statement which I stand by, but needs more explanation for it to accurately reflect what I meant to say at the time. Seeing where this thread has gone, however, I'd much rather just let it die. My apologies to anyone I may have offended.

And it's caused by the same thing that has thrown me off-kilter in my recent postings (for about a week and a half). Looking back, I've said a lot of things that I wouldn't have normally, or said them in a manner that fails to meet my own self-imposed goal of Christian communication. For that, and to anyone I have offended, I deeply apologize. Long story short, I'm in a very bad place right now and every day I'm stuck at school for hours on end with... nothing... to do. So, I think my over-saturation of forum activity, compounded by the initial problem, is wreaking havoc with my normal behavior and, as a result, hurting those I deem my friends. My deepest apologies. I may or may not be posting for a couple days, depending on how soon I think I can return with a healthy Christian demeanor.

Good, my point was made . This isn't a black-and-white issue, and the question 'would you sell liquor or tobacco?' opens the door for a lot of misinformed miscommunication... Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Agreed. Sure, why not? Lead the charge. My only hope was conveying the multi layered nature of this question and discussion so feelings wouldn't get hurt, I probably could have worded it a lot better. I have a major headache right now...

Nah... I want at least a good 8-10 (Earth) days to hang out with George Washington and Adams and the other founding fathers and hear their first-hand accounts of how 'it' all went down. They could call it 'Maxel week'. Yeah, I like that. I could explain how a proscenium arch works, and they could explain the political sentiments of the times.The rest of eternity I hope to spend with my lovely wife, children, and other family. On that note, I really want to start RIGHT NOW. *Goes looking for a wife*

I always like Ron Paul. Thanks for the link. I didn't know any of that information (except for the U.S. supporting Saddam). That's... not good. I see America as a sick child lashing out... The fever will break- soon. When it does... Um... I agree? Your grasp on politics and history far exceeds my own, so I really don't understand where you're going with this. Speaking from my largely unlearned perspective, I think it's a good idea not to start wars. Yeah, I'll go with that.

Formulas of action for the converted Mormon with the Gift of the Holy Ghost: Listening to the Holy Ghost + Always listening to prophets = Success! Listening to the Holy Ghost + Sometimes listening to prophets = Partial success. Not listening to the Holy Ghost + Listening to prophets = Partial success. Not listening to the Holy Ghost + Sometimes listening to prophets = Failure... Never listening to prophets = Failure... Never listening to anything = Double failure... If you'll notice, the only real formula for success (for Mormons with the Holy Ghost) includes listening to the Holy Ghost and the prophets at the same time. The prophets present the messages we need to hear; through the synchronization of the Spirit, we process and learn what we, in our personal lives, need to know to attain celestial glory. This has been 'Math time with Maxel'.

You make some good points, a-train. He would also occasionally ride through Nauvoo smoking a cigar to 'test the Saints'. I don't claim to know all of the reasoning that went into Joseph Smith's actions- I can safely say that he was inspired of God in what he did right, and justified by God in what he did wrong. However, I do know that the Word of Wisdom is nowadays upheld as a strict commandment of God- it is no longer required that a prophet test the saints in such a matter. I think a more concise restatement of the OP's question would be:Would you own, operate, and be responsible for a company that distributes and sells liquor and/or tobacco, when there was no other option for making a viable living? (My apologies to you, Lost_Sheep, if I've misunderstood your original question) The basic question becomes, would you allow and work for the distribution of chemicals to be used in ways prohibited by God to support your own family? Depending on the type and quantity of faith of the specific Saint, I can see the answer being 'yes' or 'no' without violating the most fundamental laws of the Gospel- no matter how close said Saint may or may not be to crossing the line of righteousness. Furthermore, the question could be changed and nuanced differently. For example, if there was an alternate solution to selling tobacco/liquor for making a decent living, the question changes. The principles at hand become 'distributing substances forbidden by God, when other options are available VS. supporting one's family'- or, if the question was merely 'would you work at an establishment (as waiter, clerk, etc.) that sold liquor/tobacco?' the relevant principles again change ('working for another who distributes substances forbidden by God VS. supporting one's family). Even a person's personal situation changes the question- what if the person in question is single and only needs to take care of him/herself? What if the person in question is a single parent and only has training to be a bartender, and has no other viable options to make a living? What is the person's familiarity with Church doctrine and the Gospel, and how long has said person been a member of the Church? Which principles of the Gospel has the person in question internalized vs. which principles is the person struggling to understand and learn? In my opinion, this is a question faaar from black and white- and again, an answer of 'yes' or 'no' is no accurate reflection on a person's righteousness. (I make this disclaimer because I fear I'm losing my powers of tact and charity in these forums... I don't want to seem to be calling anyone unrighteous or a hypocrite.) Side note- I've heard that when the decision was passed to make pornographic movies accessible to the public, President Marriot no longer was on the Board of Directors (or whoever made the final decision) and therefore had no real say in the matter. I don't know if that's true or not (and have no idea where to verify the information), and I don't know about the sale of alcohol and tobacco- but this is an interesting case point. I agree with the idea presented, but I disagree with the underlying sentiment of the idea as applied to this situation. The question is not 'should others do so?' but 'should I do so?'- we are not minding others' business, we are minding our own. We can no longer afford others benefits of the doubt, nor can we assume there are situations we are not aware of. We become the judges of our own souls, and are knowledgeable of all vital information pertaining to the matter. If the question shifts and becomes 'should others do so?' then we run into the idea of minding our own business- but not until then.Furthermore, there must be deeper spiritual meanings behind the 'MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS' policy of the 1900's- if not, then the practice has changed, as the LDS Church is beginning to mind the business of the non-LDS public with its public support of Proposition 8 (please, please, let this thread not devolve into a discussion about that...). The 11th article of Faith specifically talks about religious freedom, not any other type of freedom or practice. (I think you're talking about the 11th AoF when you reference 'Joseph's Smith Sr.'s 11th commandment'... I have no idea though. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

And I am happy to agree with anyone who feels this way. The central message of Christ's teachings are to partake and eat- not partake and understand the metaphysical truths behind My existence or you're going to burn.I was unaware of the interesting parallels between the Jewish/Christian relationship and the Christian/LDS relationship until you posted this. I appreciate your posting this.

One thing to note about the Great Apostasy, as the LDS view it, is that we don't believe God ceased to strive with man. IIRC, many GA's have flat-out stated (in General Conference!) that we as a people owe much to the Reformers and other men throughout the history of Christianity who, despite not having the correct authority or Holy Ghost, still strove and moved towards true Godliness. If it were not for the existence of the Catholic church, we would not have had a base set of beliefs from which the Reformation sprung. Without the Reformation, there could not have been a politically and theologically free society in which the true Gospel could be restored. Indeed, the Reformation was directly and indirectly responsible for many, many good changes withing the whole of Christianity. While we do not believe that authoritative power or doctrinal correctness was to be found on earth during the Great Apostasy, we still owe much to the men and women who fought and died for the cause of Christ- the true cause, led by the true spirit of God. Say what you will about the people who initially wrought the Apostasy; the brave Christians who came afterwards helped form the framework from which the Restoration could emerge.

I can't quote any succinct scriptures, but I think a character study of Christ reveals the attributes of a perfect man- the attributes that must be present in a noble husband and father.

Since... 5 minutes ago. You and Jamie122 both bring up interesting points, though, that I hadn't known before. Perhaps it's one of the instances where tradition isn't bad and is preserved for traditions' sake (for instance, ties being worn by men during church services). However, I still believe it is done, at least in part, to preserve the formal air with which we should approach God. Frankly, I cannot address God the Father in the same way I address my earthly father- there are many relevant differences between the two. Perhaps the language is meant to reflect that. Whatever the original use of the phrasing, it is undeniable that nowadays the usage of 'thou' and 'thine' and similar phraseology represents and retains an air of traditional formality. Contrast that truth with the remarkably intimate wording that Christ used when praying to the Father- calling him 'abba' (a word akin to 'daddy') in the Garden of Gethsemane- and you'll find the real answer somewhere in the middle.

LilylovesJesus- Be cautious. As has been mentioned above, anti-Mormon sites are exactly that- anti-Mormon. They're not pro-Christ or pro-Truth or pro-Anything- their (usually) stated and (always) sole purpose is to tear down the faith of the Mormon church. As for your specific questions- be cautious about them too. The answer to many of those questions cannot be healthily understood except by one who has partaken sufficiently of the milk of the Gospel and is ready for a little bit of meat. Pray to God about whether it is right to begin asking questions- when it is right, He will let you know. When you are ready, go to a faithful Mormon source FIRST. I cannot, as someone who went the route of visiting the anti-Mormon sites to try to find truth, stress that point enough. Your testimony is a living thing; Christ's Truth is the water of life, and deceit is the poison of death. The more outrageous the lie, the greater harm it gives to your testimony. There is no shame in that; in fact that truth gives credence to LDS theology and claims- despite what detractors might say. If you have specific questions, and you feel that you are spiritually prepared to seek their answers, then I suggest trying to find as non-biased a source of historical information as possible, and then finding a faithful Mormon source to help you reach your own interpretations of the facts. The prophets may have been wrong in the past- but no official declaration or practice of the Church has ever been in error before God. As a faithful Mormon, I can still testify that after looking into the most controversial issues of our collective past, including the black priesthood ban, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, polygamy, etc. One important fact to note is that the Church itself is not yet perfect- it is the bride preparing for the bridegroom (Christ), but she is not yet prepared. Root your testimony in the basics- Christ, prophets, and scripture- and you will not be led astray.

It depends on the 'why' of your attraction. There may be a legitimately evil influence that causes you to find one kind of girl more attractive. Then again, there may not be. If, after much soul-searching and prayerful reflection, you have no answer, then most probably it's fine. You may actually be foreordained to marry a woman of Asian decent, and your peculiar attraction to Asian women may be a blessing in that regard. Also, there is a legitimate argument for one being attracted to certain cultural or physical characteristics that predominantly exist within certain races of people. In such a case, I don't think you can be faulted for finding girls of Asian decent more attractive than others. In the end, test the fruits of your attraction: does it lead you to over-sexualize Asian women, or to look down on non-Asian women? Is it an attraction of an unhealthy caliber or quality? Or, is it an attraction that somehow helps you to feel more charitable to your fellow (wo)men? Only you can answer those questions, and the answer to these questions will most accurately give you insight to your original question. By any entity's fruits, ye shall know the goodness of that entity/phenomenon. One last pithy question: does this attraction cause you to value a women's racial heritage above her spiritual person?

Good question. I would say 'no', I would not. As for your junkie vs. drug dealer question, it reminds me of the sage question of Obi-wan Kenobi: Who is more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him? It's a difficult question, though, and I think faithful Mormons could, in some good conscience, sell some alcohol or tobacco if they were running a generalized restaurant or store. However, a Mormon owning an establishment selling exclusively or primarily one of the aforementioned products is, frankly, a hypocrite- they are profiting off of the destruction of the bodies of their fellow man. There's little wiggle-room in this question, but the wiggle-room exists.

What keeps me coming back is my testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel. Over the years I've dealt with bouts of inactivity due to life situations (closely related to personal sin and mental illness), but I have never doubted the veracity of the Church's claims since my initial conversion at age 16. Never. I've seen bad people in the church; I've seen hypocrites with actions that make me sick. I've seen liars and adulterers take honors on themselves that they shouldn't. I've seen the leaders of cliques who are more concerned with social stature than spiritual welfare. I attend a young single adults ward; I've seen it all, it seems. (I recognize the laughter that statement might evoke among the more 'seasoned' (read 'old') members out there.) However, the Church and the teachings of Christ have never- never!- lead me in the wrong direction. That is why I continue to go attend: the church is the one organization in the world that teaches the Gospel of Christ as I have come to recognize it- and I recognize it as true and eternal. In the past months, I baptized two friends who both went inactive. For one, it was due to issues with the Word of Wisdom (he couldn't stop smoking), and he felt guilty about attending Church. For the other friend... I don't know. What I do know is that a real testimony that a person tries to live by will always lead a person home to Christ, no matter what sidetracks their lives may take.

What if the makers of this video didn't add heavy music in the background and obfuscate the central message of the video? That being said, I think the video was good. I'm not a politically minded person, but I do agree with George Washington's original stance of political isolationism (maybe that's not the best term; but I think it's what he used) and disagree with America's actions of being the 'big brother' to the world. I disagree with the idea that all hatred against the U.S. is based on our own provocation of their anger- but I don't disagree with the idea that some (or even much) of said hatred is because of initial provocation. There are people in power in this world that are seeking to overthrow righteousness. Despite its compromised condition, America still stands as a bastion of true liberty in the world today- both in ideology and in practice. Interesting video.. Question: who is that speaking? I can't find the answer anywhere... Probably a result of my techno-illiteracy.

Me too... Everyone seems to have great stories about theirs.

I don't see a problem with this idea. In fact, I emphatically agree with it. The real question is, does one believe Joseph was telling the truth and was a prophet of God? If the answer is 'yes', then one believes Joseph's work was righteous (not merely 'good' in an ecumenical sense, but truly righteous). If the answer is 'no', then one believes Joseph's work was not righteous (and may or may not have been 'good'). I've never had a problem of understanding the situation in those terms, and I agree to disagree with anyone who, through Christian charity and practice, have come to believe the opposite of what I do. In my sometimes-not-so-humble opinion, anyone on either side of the question who can understand the situation as stated above and still call those on both sides of the 'traditionalism' line Christian truly understands the meaning and message of Christ.BTW, PC, which article of Blomberg's were you studying that prompted this observation? After reading How Wide the Divide?, Blomberg won my favor as my favorite Evangelical scholar of all time. I like his work.

Ironically, at this time the deceased people I would most like to meet are people I have never met before. In my family, the only immediate member I am actually looking forward to meeting is my great-grandfather George, who I have always felt an unusual connection with (he died two days before I was born, yet my mom speaks so fondly of him it seems I have met him before. I personally think he's my guardian angel :) ). Others are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, the previous prophets... but no closely related family members. As of yet, no one close to me has died (except for a few pet dogs, which I also am eager to be reunited with).

I think David Guzik is silly! His intepretation seems to be one of those '30+' attempts he admits have been undertaken before him to interpret the scripture. Also, his entire premise rests on the almost baseless idea that Paul's use of 'they' somehow proves Paul was referring to another people. I'm no expert on grammar or Paul, but it seems to me that hinging an entire chunk of scriptural exegisis on one small word and the circular belief that it was only pagans who baptized for the dead is, in a euphamistic word, silly. His argument rests most strongly on his own interpretation of the scripture, instead of drawing on actual examples or valid historical arguments. Guzik may have more of a point than he is presenting- for example, drawing from Paul's original Hebrew wording, writings of early church leaders, etc.- but the exegises he presents, in the form he presents it, is silly. I offer, as counterpoint, two of John A. Tvedtnes' papers, Baptism for the Dead: The Coptic Rationale (the first paper, presented 'at an international scholarly conference in 1983, where it was warmly received') and Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity (the second paper, which expands in detail on the first)- which reference and draw on actual historic material (including the wrtings of Epiphanius and Tertullian, two early church fathers) and not just his own opinion- although admittedly it is his own opinion that prompted him to take the direction he did with the paper.

Quite frankly, said addict willingly gave up their 'agency' to choose. However, the agency is not gone as any addict can recover. Ask any recovered addict. I'm one; you can ask me- it's possible. Though our agency is suppressed and minimized, it is never fully taken away. In my opinion, having one's agency "acted upon" (that is, minimized or enlarged but not taken away) is different than having one's agency entirely taken away. It is my admittedly harsh opinion that an addict's agency is not taken away- only influenced to the degree that any option other than 'indulge in the addiction' is not realistically possible. I know this seems to disagree with what many GA's have said about addiction removing one's agency, but I don't think it does on the following grounds:One's agency is a principle of action, like faith. A person's agency, or ability to choose, can be diminished or enlarged by a person's actions. Though a person can diminish his/her own agency to the point that, for all intents and purposes it does not exist, it never actually does not exist; it is never fully taken away. Therefore, to say an addiction 'removes' one's agency does not necessarily mean that one's agency is removed 100% by addiction- only that it is diminished to the point that it seems not to exist. As someone coping with serious mental illnesses, I can safely say the option has always been between not-doing-something and doing-something. I have never been taken control of by an outside force that eliminated all possible routes of action but one- even in my worse Jekyll-and-Hyde moments. There was always the choice to do what was right- however, that choice was made hazy by physical influences. As far as how I react to external stimuli (and here I group influences due to mental illness as an 'external stimuli'; as such is not part of my core spiritual nature), my choice between right and wrong has never been removed from me. On the contrary, I have only ever recovered by latching onto that small part of me that knows what is right and following those acitons. Some of the most agonizingly intense prayers I have ever prayed have been in the throes of a depression and hatred so severe that it rocked me to my core.Part of what makes mental illness so hard, for me, is the realization that my agency has never been taken away, but I have allowed (overwhelming) influences to cloud my better judgment and change how I behave. However, the fact that my 'better judgment' still exists is a testimony, to me, that my agency has never been removed. On a sidenote, I believe that possession by demons is entirely possible- yet in that case, it seems a person has willingly given up their own right to choose and, for a time, their agency is suppressed and overwhelmed by the intruding spirit. Agency is never, however, fully taken away, though it might seem such is the case. The failure to exercise a principle does not mean the principle does not exist. Also, one's willing submission to outside forces so strong that the person seems to have 'no other option' (such as in addiction) does not actually mean the person has lost all option to choose not to submit to said forces. Though the choice may very well be 'indulge or die', the choice still remains- though at that point, it's not much of a choice. Another sidenote- I approach the situation with what I believe to be special insight due to my own mental illnesses. However, there are others who suffer from sicknesses far worse than I, and which seem to override agency much more than my own sickness (multiple personality disorder comes to mind). Frankly, I have no answer for those cases, yet I still feel the aforementioned idea that agency can never be taken away still holds, in some way. Final sidenote- I suffer from clinical depression (it's genetic and goes back generations in my family) and cyclothymia (similar to bipolar disorder). Also, my preceding opinions are just that: my own opinions and, as such, I agree to disagree with anyone who feels otherwise. In my view, this is not a question with an answer that is 'so obvious' that any solution lends itself to obvious correctness. I am curious- can you point to other examples? I am honestly curious and not trying to 'bait' you. I am curious to learn more about this.EDIT: As I have been writing this, sundry questions have popped into my head related to the topic. Questions such as 'what effect does the Holy Ghost play in the retention of my agency despite depression and addiction'; 'what effect does Christ's atonement play in my retention of agency'; and 'what effect does faith play in my retention of agency?' These are causing me to reflect and may, in part, affect my opinion. If anyone has any insights, I'd be more than happy to learn from them. Especially relevant to this discussion is the second question. If Christ's atonement is responsible for the retention of agency despite addiction, mental illness, etc., then I admit Satans plan may have been theoretically possible. Right now, I'm somewhat confused and bewildered by this (to me) new idea.