Maxel

I think the argument LittleNipper is making is this: If God did not create the physical elements out of nothing, and they existed before Him, then somehow they are above him in power. He is reduced from the rank of Creator and Architect to Manipulator. This comes from the idea that anything that is eternal is given all power, and the only one to whom all power is given in the universe is God. Therefore, God had to have existed apart from space and time to be truly 'above' them. (IF I misunderstand, please correct me) An argument like that makes no sense from an LDS viewpoint because we understand the nature of God differently from our Christian brothers from traditional denominations who accept the ancient creeds equal with scriptural authority. Again, it ALL goes back to the nature of God, which is what this thread was originally meant to address.

Philippians 2:7 reads: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: I don't see the term 'emptied himself' in there, or anywhere else in Philippians chapter 2.

Well, the idea that there is authoritative conflict within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is debatable, at best. Spin-off branches that teach a different branch of Mormonism have no effect on the policies of the LDS Church, and they often evolve to teach different, sometimes radically different, doctrine than the LDS Church. The LDS Church proper is very authoritative and stresses one religion to reflect the one true Gospel of Christ.On another note, I don't remember anyone 'hiding' behind a belief like you mentioned above. Lastly, I can agree that my own faith is not based on a denomination but is given lifeblood through my testimony of Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

Interesting... I'm personally against the idea, but I hope it works out. My intuitions have been proven wrong before. I am hesitant about the 'poster-boy' they're grooming for the position though... from the article: It'll be interesting... I wish the city and the felon all the best.

I read PC's 4th area of discussion not as a suggestion for specific religious programs instituted in society, but to encourage godly behavior. That is to say, programs that encourage service to others, patience and understanding, charity, etc. I can think of plenty that are non-denominational yet still of godly influence and, therefore, worth supporting.

Ah, good ol' Mathias Cowley. Despite losing the apostleship, he stayed a staunch supporter of the Church until he died. His son, Matthew Cowley, also grew up to be an apostle. (I had to throw this out there because, as far as talks go, those given by Matthew Cowley are among my favorite of all time) Hemidakota, if you don't mind me asking, did you find some sort of truce in your mind with President Lincoln because of the article?

LittleNipper- That helps clear up a lot of confusion on my parrt. Thanks!

LittleNipper, I'm reading through your posts and trying to make sense out of what exactly you believe. It sounds Trinitarian to me, but something seems slightly different- that might account for YoungMormonRoyalist's assessment of your views closely resembling modalism. In any event, it's clear your views do not reflect LDS viewpoint, as you state that LDS scripture 'contradict the HOLY scriptures' and you hold belief in a Triune God. May I ask why, then, your religion is listed as 'Mormon / LDS / Christian'? I originally went to your profile to see if knowing more of your background information could help me understand your beliefs; I am surprised to find that you listed yourself as LDS. Now, my curiosity is piqued and I am more confused. As for furthering the conversation, I don't see much more that can be said... You hold to the idea of ex nihilo and we don't; we both cite scriptures from our religion's canon and you reject ours on grounds that it clashes with your own understanding of the Bible, we reject yours on grounds that it clashes with what we believe to be revealed doctrine- what more can we say?

What goes around comes around

Dang it, PC, trying to bring us all together with your newfangled ecumenical talk and hidden agenda of 'unity' and 'togetherness'. *Does his best impression of 'grumpy old man'; waves a cane crankily* Get off my lawn, whippersnapper!Anyway... Having read your 'areas of agreement' list twice, I don't see any areas of discrepancy between what you've stated and (my understanding of) LDS doctrine. I would like to comment on #2 of your "Areas of agreement"- 'premarital petting is an invitation to more'- by saying that the LDS view premarital petting as a sin in and of itself. I believe you feel the same, but the exclusion of the phrase 'is sin' in that point leads me to think others might misunderstand. Or, maybe I have misunderstood and I presume too much. Moving onto your 'areas for discussion' list, I think it would be most helpful to cite authoritative sources for the LDS stance on each subject to act as a springboard for future discussions. The following does not, of course, constitute the entirety of LDS discourse on the subjects, but do constitute authoritative statements derived from canonized scripture, official proclamations, LDS.org, or the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet (hereafter FSY). In light of the previous two comments, it seems safe to say the LDS view dating relationships as having more leeway in terms of if both people are members of the Church- as long as both parties maintain high standards of moral integrity, it seems that casual or semi-serious dating relationships with non-members are not overtly discouraged, although not explicitly encouraged. Again, we find that 2 Cor. 6:14 lends credence to this idea among the LDS circles. Part of the emphasis on this idea stems from the doctrine of eternal marriage, discussed in greater detail below. Once the point of marriage has been reached, it is no longer enough for an ideal couple to merely hold to 'high standards of moral integrity'; covenants need to be made in the temple that seal the marriage as binding for eternity. Those covenants cannot be made by non-members, and therefore an ideal LDS marriage excludes by necessity being married to non-believers.In saying such, I speak strictly from a doctrinal point of view and do not mean to cause anyone to take offense. If anyone has done so, I deeply apologize. I think the underlying reason for the difference in viewpoint between LDS and traditional Christianity on eternal marriage is the same reason for the difference in viewpoint on the Trinity and other essential doctrines- the nature of God. We believe man and God to be of the same divine species, and that "the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Don't Drop the Ball1). Indeed, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:11). Governments are prone to a slow dissolve into chaos, as are all human institutions. Just like our bodies, governments require constant maintenance and a correct exercising of power to stay healthy. If governments are given of God, then their proper maintenance can be found by continuing to adhere to God-given principles, and reforming governments as needed to maintain a truly moral focus and to stave off the slow onslaught of corruption. I find no disagreement with the idea that "[p]olitical efforts to encourage godliness in society, though imperfect, are worth supporting", as the only way to maintain a healthily functioning society is through a healthily functioning government.However, a firm line must be drawn between encouraging godliness in society and the legalized forcing of religious practices. When drawing that line, however, one should be careful not to confuse religious practices with moral and ethical values. Personally, I am hesitant to accept this, as there are some 'Christian' denominations that repulse converts that live according to the Light of Christ- the most prominent example being the Westboro Baptist Church and other hate-centered denominations. In the end, however, it hinges on one's definition of 'Christian' (which I do not want to discuss here, lol).1- It is important to note that President Hinckley's statements are not canonized, nor are the sources he cites. However, at the time Hinckley wrote the article he was acting in the office of the First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church; less than 12 months later he would assume the role of the President of the Church. While I stress it is not canonical, I can find no grounds why the LDS should not include it as official doctrine. However, as I said above, it is not canonical. 2- My explanation and use of canonical LDS scripture is admittedly very personalized in the following section. This question is the most philosophical of the four, and therefore requires more scriptural knowledge to adequately support than I possess. However, my views have been reached through careful study and reflection of LDS materials; I daresay they reflect a good portion of LDS members on the subject, and do a fair job of accurately portraying what might be the official LDS stance on the subject- to my knowledge, there is no official statement regarding this exact question. EDIT: I hope I haven't missed the spirit of the OP in addressing some of the differences as well as the similarities between the LDS stance and traditional Christianity. If so, I apologize.

Granted, but you've turned into a zombie and infect Connie. I wish school were easier. =/

To me, this verse lends credence to the idea that for the Church of Jesus Christ to exist on the Earth, it requires the legal protection of an inspired governmental body- like that of the United States. Otherwise, intense legalized persecution would drive the Saints into hiding and essentially halt the Church's growth and may even destroy it (like the early Roman persecution of Christians). Even under the protection of the law, the Church had a very, very difficult time being established in this dispensation. I am eternally grateful for the men and women who went before me and made it possible.

In the past, personal immorality has barred me from receiving a testimony of things. In fact, it was part of the reason I didn't receive a testimony until 16. If there's something in your life that goes against the teachings of the Church, that may very easily be barring you from receiving a witness- especially if it's something addictive. Whether it's that or not, I promise that continuing in the faith leads to eternal rewards. Don't give up- you can do it!

I was looking for a crying smilie to portray my sadness over this comment, but apparently LDS.net doesn't have one. Or I missed it. So, this guy will have to do: EDIT: I found one.

Loren W. Christensen, police veteran, offered some advice for dealing with someone who was out to do you serious harm. He said that it might be better to kill the other person merely than just incapacitating them- because you never know if they might have a hidden gun to kill you with, or (the main reason) there's plenty of cases where the perpetrator sued the victim because the victim seriously injured the perpetrator- and the case was upheld by the jury. In the end, the victim had to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to their would-be murderer.

lol, the Macarena is often done at church dances- despite its horrible message and lyrics (I don't speak Spanish, so I've only heard the the lyrics are bad from secondhand sources). I am concerned when the fads get worse and worse though... If the next dance tread is more sexually suggestive than the current Freak Dancing, what's next? I can't think of how one could wear less clothing or be more sexually provocative unless someone is actually having sex on the dance floor. By the time my kids are in school, I am forbidding them to go to those social dances, if trends continue the way they are. Hopefully church dances will stay clean.

The difference:Komodo Dragon = Dragon Dinosaurs = Dinosaur Dragons are 100 times more coolerest than dinosaurs, so of course they lived longer- they just hid their true winged, fire-breathing forms from humanity. I hope that very logical and scientific explanation helps! On a side note, than you for explaining bmy, I understand what you're saying now.

I see agency as an inalienable attribute of human intelligence in all its stages- pre-mortality, during mortality, and post-morality. I frankly don't believe Satan could have implemented his plan to the degree that he could effectively deprive us of all our agency. Part of the reason Satan's plan would fail would be that people would still sin in some degree, yet Satan would not provide the infinite atonement that Christ did- effectively cutting all of God's children off from His presence forever. To me, agency is the ability to choose one's thoughts, attitudes, actions, and character for oneself based on actions that originate as thoughts in our spiritual being. References:

No, the kids see it as sexual too- they just think overt sexuality is normal. Trust me on this one- the last high school dance I attended there was plenty of freak dancing. If they don't see it as sexual, then they've lost their ability to differentiate between normal and sexual activities. Despite their immersion in the culture, they still understand (somewhere, deep down) that it is wrong and sexual and not just dancing. This comes from being friends with people who decided to 'freak dance'. I don't say this to argue, but to point out that it might be worse than one thinks, if one thinks it is motivated purely by a desire to 'dance'.

Because his watch is his phone. That, or something to do with alien abduction.

I saw that a lot in high school. Parents don't monitor their kids' behavior and let them watch that kind of dancing on TV- they shouldn't be surprised when their kids start doing it themselves. I truly feel sorry for little Julia Pope, whose apparent exposure to modern immorality has led her to believe that any reasonable restrictions are 'another group pushing their morals onto another'.When I see stuff like this, I'm deeply worried for the kids growing up in Babylon, both in this generation and the next. Today's radical views are tomorrow's liberal views, and the conservative views of the next. Yet another example in my personal evidence chest for not letting my children attend high school dances. Thank goodness for church dances!

Question I've always had- would it be possible for a dinosaur to be supported with bones that were somehow much denser and stronger than ours? For example (and I'm not suggesting this but grasping at straws), if they had skeletons made out of steel? I agree with the first part, but do you really see our souls as parasites of the body? I can't bring myself to accept the negative connotation that gives to the soul. Also, in our current bodies, the soul is what gives the body purpose and drive- a soul without a body can still operate somewhat, but a telestial body without a soul would be utterly wasted with no purpose at all.

Don't forget the ancient Hindu myth. According to legend, Vishnu, the 'preserver of the Universe', manifested himself on the earth through 9 different avatars throughout history to preserve the world. One of those avatars, Matsya, saved the first man, Manu, from 'the [great] flood'. (Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View; page 20)

Does Robbie work the graveyard shift?

On the way to the door, Robbie was abducted by aliens who preformed genetic experiments using his organs and tissue. Then, using a complex procedure known as Sewembackupagain, they put Robbie back together, good as new and even fixed a problem with his right knee cap. When they were done, the deposited Robbie back where he was and erased his memory. The whole ordeal took roughly 10-11 hours, accounting for the apparent lapse in time between noon and night.