Maxel

It was an electric clock.

Granted, but now (s)he's 'trained' to rip all shoes to shreds. I wish I had my innocent naivety back.

I have always loved the prophecy about Christopher Columbus. I heard it argued in my youth that Columbus was not inspired of God, nor did he believe he was doing God's will when he discovered America. However, with the English publication of Columbus' Libro de las profecías ('Book of Prophecies') it is now common knowledge that Columbus was a very God-centered man, and believed he was inspired of the Holy Ghost in his voyages, and especially in the discovery of America. If I may, I'd like to post some information from a FARMS article. Christ-Bearer; paragraph 10I am amazed at the symbolic meaning of names of people who have furthered the Lord's causes. The Lord often gave new names to His servants to designate new roles (Abram -> Abraham; Jacob -> Israel), or babies were blessed with names that bespoke their unique mission in life (the most prominent being 'Jesus Christ', with Jesus (or 'Joshua') meaning 'the Lord is salvation' and Christ meaning 'anointed one'). I am amazed and gratified that even from one little verse, we can see the patterns of God manifest even today- as Jacob Wassermann quoted, 'who can doubt the Holy Ghost inspired [him]?'

Granted! But, Connie never got her hot date with her hubby... I wish I could find what I'm looking for.

LittleNipper- Are you LDS? If so, you seem to believe in the ancient Creeds' philosophy and reject Mormon scripture. If not, why does it say you are on your profile? As for answering your question, FunkyTown hinted at the real answer:

Interalia- It's wonderful to hear from you again! I was beginning to worry that you had fallen off the face of the earth. Yes- it has been hectic enough around here that a four-day silence constitutes as 'falling off the face of the earth' . Your confident and inspired words reminded me of the Savior's invitation to us all: I am so happy for you, and I know you're doing the right thing.

Glad we could help. Good luck finding your answer!

Do those answers satisfy your question, Mavro6000? They're all we've got.

Granted, but now you have twice as much to grade. I wish people would leave us be.

I think you need to go to God and find out if He will tell you the answer. The only one i can offer is that when the Church was young, all the doctrines were still getting laid out and being understood. I wouldn't be surprised that it was assumed- even by the Prophet- that a family had to be somehow connected to a prophet to inherit celestial glory. That's just my own opinion, and what I think of the matter.

ceeboo, I think you are too guileless to be purposefully deceitful or mean in any way, shape or form. Don't worry about it. But, thank you for posting this.

Granted. Just granted. I want that too. I also wish for less contention in the forums.

Granted, but a your boss gave you a huge promotion and pay raise which requires you to work more regular hours. (My new game is reverse corruption ) I wish my keyboard were more hi-tech.

Granted- but now you are. I wish for all the knowledge in the world.

I was unaware of the implications of that scripture on this issue- I appreciate you citing that! To me, that scripture would point to the fact that the theory of evolution- as we understand the possible applications of it to explain for the evolution from apes to humans, etc.- is false in regards to the Creation account.

Not granted. Sleep is incorruptible. I wish my recent copy of the Ensign hadn't been misprinted.

One unique thing about Mormonism is that the Church has no official stance on the details of the creation of the Earth. As you've stated, we do not accept or deny any scientific theories about Earth's creation (except such philosophical concepts as ex nihilo). I've always prided myself in how scientific Mormonism actually is, both in its approach to spiritual matters and the scientific world around us. Personally, I believe that in regard to the time it took to create the Earth, there are two distinct possibilities. 1.) The 'days' referred to in the creation account is 'after the manner of the Lord'- meaning that one day is equal to 10,000 years. (Abraham 3:4) 2.) The 'days' referred to in the creation account refers to a specific 'period of time' and not just our current 24-hour day. If this is the case, I believe that each 'day' was separated by the type of work that God did on those days- separating light from darkness, creating the heavens and the earth, etc. In such an understanding, it leaves room for each 'day' to actually have different lengths of time. As for Adam and Eve being the first humans, I know it's not blasphemy to believe that their physical bodies were created through evolution, but the spirit of humans did not enter until the bodies were ready for habitation. It's not the common belief, but it's not heresy in our church. I've run across a couple different explanations regarding Adam and Eve that I think sound plausible. 1.) Just as there are natural laws of physics, there exist natural laws of biology. That means that when God introduces life onto a planet (in terms of single-celled organisms) it will always evolve in a certain way, which includes human bodies being created, ready for spiritual habitation. This fits well with the theory of evolution. 2.) Adam and Eve were the prototype of 'first men', and also the most authoritative among them. Adam stood at the head because of his righteousness before God. 3.) Adam and Eve were truly made out of the elements of the Earth, directly influenced by God's power. This explanation favors intelligent design and is more in line with literal renditions of the creation account. Hope that helps!

Islander, I quite agree with you. May I suggest the rest of this topic be devoted to finding out the differences and similarities between the LDS faith and general Trinitarianism? I think we can delve further than just the Godhead/Trinity difference, but if we are bogged down by debate on who's right we'll never get anywhere in terms of understanding one another. Personally, I am quite enjoying learning about the faith of Trinitarians. We have plenty of places to argue about who's right; I think everyone here can add a lot to the discussion if we just change our focus a tad. I think Faded and prisonchaplain are doing really well, with Faded's neat PowerPoint slide. I really want to learn more.

That's the doctrine of ex nihilo, is it not? The belief that God created matter that did not exist before it was created?Another example of difference in belief- the LDS reject the doctrine of ex nihilo and attaches to physical matter the property of eternal existence.

You didn't let her down. People will ultimately do what they want to do. You've already given examples of how you were a good friend to her, and show that you still care by worrying about her. There comes a time when we must wash our hands of an acquaintance with the knowledge we've done all we can, and that their destiny is solely up to them.I'm truly sorry about your friend. Hopefully, you will realize that nothing in her life is your fault, and that you're not a negative influence because of how one friend has behaved.

I recant, in part, what I said about this being on the wrong forum. Although this topic may very well go in the 'Advice' forum, it is not out of place in this one, with the stated purpose of discussing the 'preservation of marriage between a man and a woman'- which I assume would also include individual cases relating to marriage.

The answer hinges on your definition of "bad". Everyone has the potential to do good- that's a basic tenet of the LDS faith; free agency. However, there are people who consistently do the wrong things and commit serious offenses against other human beings. There are people who have rejected the Light of Christ, in otherwise goodness and truth, so much that they have corrupted themselves. They let their own spirits twist until they more closely represent the Devil than anything else. At this point, a person can very easily become 'bad'. However, these bad people may occasionally do good things, or have 'good' intentions.Today's great challenge is the acceptance and recognition that bad acts must be accounted for by the perpetrator. Everywhere we see people attempting to escape the consequences of their bad actions, or force their perverted lifestyle on somebody else. Oftentimes advocates of these causes and actions point to some supposed good embodied by their philosophy and claim that their philosophy is actually good. If accepted, those people will go a step further and point out something bad in their opponent's philosophy and claim their opponent's cause or stance is 'bad'. Thus we see that the unrighteous call evil good, and good evil. I believe the proper method of looking at people in general, when asking the OP's question, is not 'are people good or bad' but 'is a person more inclined to goodness or badness? In addition, which direction are they working towards in their life- do they follow wise counsel, or foolish counsel?' If to be bad requires a person to be perfectly evil, you will not find a single bad person on the face of the earth. Conversely, if you look for a good person on similar grounds, you will find no good people. The conclusion of this reasoning is that there are no good people; and no bad people. That conclusion is entirely false if we take the human condition into the equation- that is, a person may be 'good' but have some failings, and a person may be 'bad' yet have some positive qualities. It reminds me of Alexander Pope's words in his Essay on Man: "Virtuous and vicious ev'ry man must be, Few in the extreme, but all in the degree: The rogue and fool by fits is fair and wise, And ev'n the best by fits what they despise." So yes, a person may be a bad person, but we must adopt a more mature understanding of what it means to be a 'bad' person. The key is the level of spiritual maturity we attach to our assessment of the situation. A child sees the world in black and white; a teenager begins to see shades of gray; a true adult understands the shades of gray yet still sees the world as black and white in regards to sin and righteousness. It is in the middle ground that we find the Gospel truth. NOTE: It should be noted that I am in no way referring to the OP or anyone else in my statement of how I see this issue, but I am stating how I have always felt.

I think their sealing to each other is most definitely broken, if she committed adultery numerous times. I would listen to Just_A_Guy's words on the matter- they hit the nail on the head, IMHO.

I guess the general rule is staying away from everything that starts to turn the sexual experience from the sacred, special act God intended it to be into something overly carnal. I can think of things- too many things- that a married couple could do sexually that would bring them away from God.