RipplecutBuddha

Yeah, congratulations (even though I didn't go all glittery like pam did) and welcome to the greatest adventure of your life

Even if they did go with the orange and blue, there's no way they'll ever get enough seating in there.

stupid absent laugh button....

great minds think alike.....I wonder what our excuse is... Perhaps the Spirit is guiding us on this one.

The process of mourning is different for everyone, but they do follow some similar steps: 1. Shock-'I can't believe it' 2. Anger-'This is not fair' 3. Bargaining-'What can I do to undo this loss' 4. Sorrow-'I really miss this person' 5. Acceptance-'It really happened' I think these are the correct major steps each of us go through. We all go through them in different order, and to varying degrees, but they are a normal process. I would advise constant prayer when emotions get the better of you, whatever they are. I would also advise sharing your feelings with your family and friends you feel close enough to in this difficult time. Years ago, my father learned he had lost two of his brothers within hours of each other one day. He was very quiet and somber for several days. One day he was washing some dishes and he stopped. I asked him if he was okay. He turned to me with tears in his eyes and hugged me tight. All he said was "I love you." While it wasn't the first time he'd said that to any of us kids, it was as deeply heartfelt as I can recall my father being. He was never given to strong emotional outbursts beyond laughter. I can't recall him yelling at any of us in anger, much less striking us in anger. In that moment I could feel how hurt my father was, but I could also feel how grateful he was for the covenant blessings he had that promised him he was only briefly separated from them for now. Our prayers are with you. May God show you how much he loves you and all your family, and may you also find peace in your heart through the atoning sacrifice and gospel of Jesus Christ. He felt the pain you feel, and he will bear your burden for you. God be with you always.

As far as finding garments that are comfortable, they are available in a wide variety of fabrics, some heavier than others. There are even a couple specifically made for keeping the wearer cool and keeping moisture away from the skin. If you go to the beehive clothing center, they'll be able to show you samples of what each fabric is like. My suggestion is once you have your recommend current, buy a couple sets of garments in a couple different fabrics and see what works best.

As translated and/or possibly resurrected beings, they would be under the direction of God the Father himself, as well as Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Because they are translated, they would no longer need to renew their baptismal covenants, unless the ordinance of the sacrament is an eternal ordinance that is also practiced in heaven, which I doubt. Also as translated (possibly resurrected) their worthiness has been confirmed, so holding a temple recommend would be redundant....sort of like asking if the heavenly visitors that appeared to Joseph Smith on the 'day of pentecost' in the Kirtland Temple had recommends.

cxvuhsdkjgas......go figure

I just got a reproduction of the 1830 edition, replica binding method and everything. I wonder how many original copies are known to exist worldwide.

Just when you think you have it all under control, God expands your perspective just enough to knock you back on your tail again. "Out of 10,000,000,000,000 bits of information, 9,999,999,999,999 are associated with the event horizons of black holes. It should be evident that our naive ideas about space and time are wholly inadequate to explain most of nature." Dr. Leonard Susskind-Nobel laureate "The Black Hole War"

Interesting that you say you 'go to the Mormon Church' when most members would just say "I'm a member in MN". No criticizm, just interesting to see. I wasn't aware that they needed comfort and assurance...most LDS families are free to teach their children as they choose, from what I've seen. If this isn't the biggest set-up I've ever seen... um...were we supposed to feel bad about this? um...this talk is about our beliefs regarding our understanding of God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate and individual persons. I don't see how this has anything to do with the sacrament at all. Fair enough, but...*sigh* okay, letting you develop your argument... 1. Where does it explicitly state that they should NOT take the sacrament? 2. Confirming a new member during the sacrament meeting following their baptism is also a tradition...is that also forbidden? What about the exact physical method/pattern used by the deacons to pass the sacrament...no revelation on it...is that merely a tradition as well? Okay, I gotta throw a flag at this one. The sacrament is not forcing someone to make a covenant. It is a renewal of a covenant previously made. If they haven't made the covenant (which can only happen through the act of baptism) then taking the sacrament is of no effect good or bad in a spiritual sense. Heck, I'll field these questions right now. I'll even number them for ya. 1. I've known people to practice baptisms in a swimming pool. I've done it myself. It's not a bad idea, so long as the prayer isn't used, it's just placing someone underwater very carefully. 2. I don't see a problem with it, though some members might see it as a little odd. Again, so long as the prayer isn't used, no harm/no foul. 3. Um....we do...there have always been lessons on the sacrament in primary 4. Um...we do...so long as they haven't been baptized, it is of no consequence. 5. See...this is the question you should have asked yourself first off. As long as I can remember the answer has always been: None at all...thus the act has no effect upon them in any way. So far, all you've established is that it is a tradition. Not all traditions are evil just because they aren't mentioned in the scriptures. Secondly, the doctrine has never stated that unbaptized people...children or otherwise...are forbidden from taking the sacrament. I've waited for you to develop your argument, but I just don't see the connections here. Finally, and I apologize for being repetitive here, partaking of the sacrament does not result in making covenants, nor does it bind anyone to baptismal covenants they haven't previously made....through being baptized. If that is your personal belief, that's fine, but I have to inform you that it has no basis in doctrine, whether scriptural, or through modern revelation to God's chosen servants since Joseph Smith. How do I know? Because in all 37 years of my life as a member of the LDS church, I've never heard such a doctrine, nor anything close to it. We don't tell other churches what to preach, practice, or believe. I'm not sure how you get this idea, but like the previous one, it is totally foreign to any teaching I've heard in my life from LDS authority. I also fail to see how this is amusing to you...as a member of the LDS church. something I get the sense you're in the very act of doing right now. once more, and I quote Joseph Smith here..."We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own concience and allow all men the same, let them worship how, where, or what they may." This idea of preaching to other religions flies in the face of reason. We just don't do it, and it's never encouraged by LDS leadership. Wait...weren't you just asking earlier if we should do this? Okay, now it makes a little more sense to me. I assume you are a member of the LDS church, and that you were previously Catholic. There's nothing bad with that in any way, but your reasoning seems to be anchored in nothing besides the fact that the Catholic church won't allow unbaptized persons to participate in communion. First of all, if that's what the Catholic church wants to do, it's their business, and none of ours as members of the LDS church. They don't answer to us, and we don't answer to them. Second, and I said it earlier, but if you truly believe that unbaptized children shouldn't partake of the sacrament, that is entirely your right. I have no issue with you believing that in any way. I do, however, take issue with your attempt to establish it as doctrinal because it is not, nor have you given any direct quote that says it is. Finally, and it's been posted before, but if children before the age of 8 are innocent and sinless, how can partaking of the sacrament cause them to sin? If they are not accountable for their actions prior to the age of 8, then they can theoretically participate in any religious activity in the LDS Church and still remain sinless, sacrament or otherwise.

There's a great deal of interesting information coming out of archaeological digs in central and south america. Since we're not sure which areas could pertain to the Book of Mormon, we're still at a point of looking it all over and seeing if any of it rationally fits within our beliefs. As far as any hard evidence coming out in favor of the BoM from all this field work, there are four main camps of thought, and Vort already mentioned the two bigger groups. 1. Dismiss the BoM out of hand, never read it for one's self, conclude it's all a bunch of hogwash. This group just doesn't care/think about it enough to care, or is just too hardhearted to consider it in any way. 2. Deny the BoM is true, read enough of it to recognize similarities to the Bible/ Isaiah quotes, and similarities to Matthew, conclude that the BoM has some good stuff, but it's still not true scripture. This group at least examines the matter. Some superficially, others through the lens of non-LDS studies that may/may not be anti in nature. The BoM matters to this group, but usually as a percieved threat in some way. 3. Agree the BoM could be true, read it in depth and/or examined it enough to know that the rote explanations from critics can't hold up under scrutiny. They see how much the BoM and the Bible agree doctrinally, but still cannot explain how Joseph Smith did what he did in producing it. This is the smallest group of the four. 4. Accept the BoM as true scripture equal in authority to the Bible, along with all other commonly held LDS beliefs. Now, this is a simplification, but bear with me here. Regarding real archaeological evidence that supports the BoM and Joseph Smith's claims, there are already multiple dozens that have been discovered long after Joseph Smith's death, much less after the BoM was originally published. As such, while these don't constitute proof that Joseph Smith was right (the only thing that can prove him right is a witness from the Holy Ghost), they do offer strong indications in the affirnitive. How each group reacts to this information is usually the following; 1. Doesn't matter, the whole thing's a fraud, no matter what is found. 2. Doesn't matter, with all the outrageous claims, Joseph Smith was bound to get a few right here and there, but it's all still just hogwash. 3. Matters in a fascinating aspect of how Joseph Smith could have known this before it was discovered, since lucky guesses don't typically happen in this kind of research, but still....something about it just doesn't add up. 4. Doesn't matter, but is very interesting to learn of anyway. The reason it doesn't matter is that the truth of the BoM is determined by a method totally foreign to critical thought...exercise of one's faith. Once God tells you it's true, the evidence is just icing on the cake. Again, I know this is simplistic, and that most people will find themselves between these groups, or not in any of them at all, but this is per my experience in studying the material myself. Hopefully we keep gaining new insights into the ancient Americas, because there's a rich history to be discovered whether it pertains to the BoM or not.

Somewhere I remember reading that Alma Sr. recieved the priesthood from King Noah, and that even though King Noah was not a very righteous man (understatement, I know....) The priesthood authority that Alma Sr. held was nontheless just as valid and authoritative as though a prophet had given it to him. Not sure if this applies, but it seems relevant to me.

Call me a horrible person, but I'm glad Bin Laden is dead. After all the thousands that have killed themselves, and the thousands of innocents that have been killed, due to his work I feel no remorse at all in laughing at his expense. And I found the joke funny in its entirety.

yes, it does. The baptismal interview is one example, the temple recommend interview is another. Both contain questions about what you accept doctrinally, as well as things you agree to do as a member of the LDS Church. Wait....you said Church of Christ...not the LDS Church.....ignore me now.

Hey, I got the right thread....that's good enough in my book. Besides, reading to my post keeps it in context, right.... sheesh....a senior member, and I still don't know the basics....whatta noob I are...

I've got pictures of all the people I taught during my mission in their baptismal clothes. It's the easiest way for me to remember them, really.

easy....yes. Exactly precise....not so much, but pretty close.....

My kingdom for a laugh button!!!!

It's an absolute possibility.....er, a definite probability....um....a strong maybe?

Okay, let's see if I did this right... http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/36710-2-hour-meeting.html Yep, that's it...my post is #18

Oh, fine...make me work....here it is... Um....how do I link another thread here.... Wait..the how do I forums...brb

ah, so when a thread gets too base, it's just ignored then? Makes sense....

It's probably due to the ridiculous amount of time your avatar has been fascinated by a camera with a fish-eye lens. I want to nominate my "Wards and rumors of wards...." comment on the possible meeting block change thread

Nor do they understand how busy the prophets are in general. There's more to being a prophet than is generally understood. Even Moses underestimated how much labor it would take to keep things together.