Maxel

First, make sure you're the kind of person you want to be when you get married, if you're looking for a bride. Know not just that you're a righteous person, but understand your own strengths and weaknesses.Second, date a lot of women if you haven't already found someone you think you could marry. Try to pinpoint specific character traits that you like, that attract you, and that repel you. Knowing the general characteristics of a good bride (for you) will be important in making the final decision. Third, unless you're told so in your patriarchal blessing, chances are that there's multiple women in the world that you can have a loving, celestial relationship with. Don't fret over finding the 'perfect soul mate' or about losing a current prospect if something seems 'off'- there's plenty of fish in the sea. Also, remember that principle applies to guys as well, so if you do find a woman you might want to marry, go after her with all the zeal you possess. Fourth- good luck!

There might be something physically unhealthy, but I doubt there's anything spiritually unhealthy about eating pork (unless one is doing so in violation of the Lord's decreed law).

A logical argument about the Nature of God, without the Holy Ghost manifesting the truth of it one way or the other, only leads to contention- as is witnessed by the heated debates at the Council of Nicea. I think both sides have shared their views, and there's a thread about this in the 'Christian Beliefs' forum.

Hey, this guy has a point.

With all due respect, JohnBirchSociety, coming in and quoting others' comments, claiming others' views are contrary to scripture, and citing some basic ideas without scriptural citations is not a nice thing to do. In a thread such as this, you cannot simply bypass all previous conversation, cherry-pick previous comments, assert your own position's authority and move on as if you were sweeping a dirty floor clean.

He's saying, that's where the humor stems from. The application of such an 'anti-God' phrase (atheism) to God Himself. Now that I understand what he's saying (despite it taking 3 posts...) I agree there is irony present- but only if one accepts his arguments, which I do not on the grounds that we cannot know how the mind of God works.

To me, this means that a person who does not hold themselves to the moral rigidity required by the celestial law cannot handle the amount of glory and knowledge that comes with inheriting celestial glory. Just as a person who loves the darkness abhors the light and is made uncomfortable by its presence, so too does an unrighteous man abhor true knowledge and is made uncomfortable by its presence. Until someone solves the chicken and the egg dilemma, I see no need for understanding the origin of the natural laws. I see your point. Having read back over your entire post history on this topic, I do see how you said the 'gods' would be atheists. My confusion arose over the manner in which you presented your final case on post #49, in which you separated the final conclusion ("Hence, we must confess ourselves atheists of any divinity that created these Laws that in turn created us. Only Laws exist, then we exist, and only humans are bound to theism.") by two carriage returns; when the preceding usage of even one carriage return signified you moving on to explain the next part of your series of syllogisms. I thought your final statement was to be read as your capstone on the argument, and that we humans should be seen as atheists. The final sentence stating that 'only humans are bound to theism' left my puzzled; I chalked it up to another characteristic of your unconventional writing style. My value-judgment was an attempt to find the implied truth with which you imputed your statements; your logic required the knowledge of the thought processes of God- which I doubt you will admit to knowing. Looking back and knowing you are calling the Gods atheistic, I still find no valid irony in the syllogism- as I stated earlier, its conclusion requires far too much logical stretching.My dissatisfaction arises from the fact you are joking at the expense of something I hold sacred, not so much from the fact you are stretching logic itself, which you have pointed at as grounds for your joke's humor and 'profundity'. I readily admit that if one were to take your arguments at face-value they might see the 'humor' presented, but I again stress this is something very sacred to me and not something I take lightly when I see another making jokes at its expense. I disagree that 'no harm' is done, as you have treated lightly something very sacred to most of the posters on this forum.

Me neither; my citing the Law of the Conservation of Matter is about as in-depth as my knowledge in this area runs. If I remember right; the Law of the Conservation of Matter stated that under normal circumstances matter could not be created nor destroyed, but the existence of matter lends to the theory that, at one time, it had to have been created. Thanks PC- a search on 'Mormon Cosmology' actually yielded quite a few results that I am now going to peruse for my amusement and enlightenment. Also, the ever-faithful wikipedia engine has returned this page about the Law of Conservation of Mass/Matter. I notice a premise of the Law is the requirement of a 'closed system'- which I assume all of Existence/Creation to be, but I'm not going to speak for God here. Interesting concept...Anyway, my apology for hijacking this thread a little bit. I notice the thread entitled 'By HIM all things were made' is currently discussing the Trinity/Godhead, and this thread is now discussing the nature of God's creations.

Welcome! You can find some lively discussions here; I see you've already weighed in on a few. I look forward to getting to know you better!

I was following the thread- you did not implicate their examples as the scripture you were referring to. I do not pretend to mind read; I had no idea you were referring to specific member's specific citations of scripture. I had a hunch that's what you meant, but I did not wish to assume your stance when you have proven yourself more than capable of articulating and defending it yourself. I still don't see how your 'joke' is humorous, as to accept the premise of the joke (that accepting self-extant 'Primordial-to-the-gods Laws' makes one an 'atheist') requires an idiosyncratic understanding of 'atheism' that is misleading and, from human perspective, largely inaccurate. I feel your association of 'humor' with the situation stems from your belief that our faith mirrors your own apparent non-faith through similar reasoning.And, it is not out of line to suggest; nay to assume that God understands the laws of the Universe to the point that He understands the laws' origins. There is no reason to assume God shares our own ignorance, if He exists- which I emphatically declare he does. Your entire premise assumes God knows no more about existence than Man does; and that is entirely false.

Granted, but it will be followed by a severe plunge in health, followed by a trip to a rude, sarcastic, pill-popping doctor who will insult you, make you better, almost kill you, then completely cure you so you can walk home the next day. I wish my emotional problems would go away.

Do you believe the New Testament to be fully complete in its present form? That is to say, do you believe that the current Bible (especially the New Testament) contains all the books that God saw fit to include for the spreading of His Gospel until His second coming? Also, do you believe anyone after the original apostles would have authority to declare correct doctrine or canon? I couldn't agree more.

Ouch... Sorry Stallion. Even your dapper good looks couldn't bring her back from forum-inactivity.

I was perusing a recently posted article when I saw an add for 'recovering Mormons'. It got me thinking- I've seen a lot of online 'recovery' groups from Mormonism, but I've never seen an online community devoted to the 'healthy recovery' from any other philosophy or religion. Having just preformed a perfunctory search for 'ex [enter religion here]', I found nothing that came close to the online communities I can find for 'recovering' Mormons. It got me thinking- why? I have my own ideas, but I want to hear others' too. This is a question I've pondered before (not because I'm doubting the Church, but because I think it serves as a testimonial to the veracity of the Church's claims).

Ugh, I would love to watch this but my computer blocks YouTube... Can anyone find an article, or describe it for me? That, or I can watch it at school on Wednesday...

Breaking the Word of Wisdom is a serious thing, although if you're honestly trying to quit it shouldn't prove too much of a barrier. I would ask your bishop. As far as I know, it's not grounds for disfellowship, but it is room for not taking the sacrament in some cases (this is from my personal experience with friends who smoke). I have a good friend (who I baptized) who doesn't come to church anymore because he 'feels bad' that he hasn't quit smoking. Don't let one thing drive you away- it's not worth it. Good luck!

JHM- Don't beat yourself up. When battling addiction, relapses are extremely common, and not something to get overly excited about. I would pray (I assume you've done that already; do it again!) for wisdom. Every case is different. The most worrisome part about your story (from the view of a fellow recovering addict) is the constant temptation and the worry about bringing the transgression much farther than it has already. If you think there's a serious probability of that, I would advise you finding someone you know and trust (not just over the internet) and talking to them about it. Through prayerful forward motion, you'll find the answer you need. In any case, I would go to your bishop and tell him about it and ask him if he feels any disciplinary action is needed (such as abstaining from the sacrament for a while). Don't worry too much about it unless it happens again. As you said, the door is open for you to fall into more serious transgression. Good luck, and God bless you.

Crap, I might not be Mormon... to date there's 2 portrayals of Christ in my room, and none of the temple.You might be Mormon if you consider spending 2 hours of the Sabbath at church a short day.

I am confused... LittleNipper claimed that the King James Version of the bible included the phrase 'emptied himself' in Philippians chapter 2, verse 7. I quoted the KJV rendering of the verse and did not see the phrase. I would love to learn more about the Bible's original wording, but I can only assume "κενόω kenóō" is a Hebrew phrase extant in Philippians 2:7, but rendered in a form other than 'emptied Himself' in the KJV. Would you explain how the phrase fits into Philippians 2:7?I understand the doctrinal idea; I'm just trying to place the phrase inside the proper place in the scriptures.

Sergg-In the future, would you mind citing scriptural references in a more precise manner than 'in the D&C' or 'the saying of our friend, Elohim, to Abraham'? It would make following your argument easier; and I cannot pinpoint which verse(s) you are referring here (or anywhere in your post, actually) and therefore cannot judge your use of logic against my understanding of the scriptures as well as I might. Also, I am having a difficult time following some of your writing style- especially the use of asterisks ( '*' ) in your writing. If I misread you, I apologize but I find it difficult to follow your writing. Regardless, I'm going to assume your preceding comments as providing valid premises for your following arguments; my assessment will be of the internal logic you provide and not judging it against external criteria (as I know not what to judge it against). Not knowing the premises I can't fault the logical sequence used here, and taking this section at face-value I mostly agree with it. However it should be noted that the existence of the natural laws of the cosmos does not guarantee exaltation of any being to godhood any more than the natural laws of physics guarantee every man can be a professional athlete- those eternal laws merely provide the possibility of Godhood to the human family. The glaring hole in your conclusion is that it presumes to understand far, far more than is actually supported by the premises (which are also lacking in terms of being backed by adequate scriptural authority). It's a nice bit of logical sequencing, but largely unfounded, as we don't know the mind of God, nor do we know what He knows. We know what we need to know to pass this mortal probation, but not much other than that. You may not believe in God, but you cannot claim to know the mind of a supposed omniscient deity, unless you can claim omniscience yourself. A person with no prior knowledge about the 'outside world' who one day catches a glimpse of the 'outside world' through a small hole in a tent, knows more about the 'outside world' than we mortals know of the sum of existence (including Godhood). Personally, I am wholly unconvinced that 'atheist' is a good term to reflect the state of mind you are portraying, although now I understand what you were saying before. The LDS cannot claim to know, on scriptural authority, what you are claiming, and your claims require a fair bit of logic-stretching to reach the appointed conclusion.

I thought the Law of the Conservation of Matter stated that matter cannot be made or destroyed under normal conditions?

Here's my two cents on this topic. Just as the physical matter that constitutes our body has the property of eternal existence, so too does spiritual matter that makes up our spirits. D&C 131:7 states that '[t]here is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes'. Just as the elements constituting my body have not always been organized in their current form, so too has the elements constituting my spirit not always been organized in their current form. The elemental makeup of my spirit has had no beginning nor end, but the organization of them into what constitutes my own spirit began at a certain time, when Heavenly Father organized it- just as my earthly parents caused the formation of my spiritual body.

It is no less illogical to assume one or the other, speaking from a purely logical standpoint- in fact, it seems more logical that a higher power would exist to make use of the extant laws of the universe to shape and create lesser beings that could not fully understand their origins. Something, somewhere, had to have existed by itself before all other entities in the universe.You also answer your own question with the statement that 'mormons [and scientific-minded atheists] agree with gratuitous acceptance of selfsufficient laws'. Most scientific-minded Mormons I have heard speak on the matter, and that includes General Authorities, agree that the laws governing the universe are self-sufficient and have always been extant. My personal understanding is that the higher laws consist of the principles of the Priesthood. Yes; same place you've taken other conversations. Would you mind explaining how, if one is a god, that makes him/her an atheist- which by definition 'denies the existence of a supreme being or beings'? (Dictionary.com) Wouldn't that make such a person in denial of one's own existence?

I'm inclined to believe that if God orders a people exterminated, then He has given that people ample time to repent and turn to Him, yet they have not. In the Book of Mormon, all the peoples brought to inhabit the land by God were expressly told it was a 'covenant land' or a 'promised land', yet the descendants of those original emigrants are unaware of the fact- that doesn't mean that somewhere along the line the people willingly chose to abandon God's will and choose another path. I'm quite sure the people that Joshua killed were aware that they were living in a covenant land and that they had disobeyed God's decrees and that they had been warned of the impending destruction. Unless you have proof of otherwise...