RipplecutBuddha

"My client bought a bag of oregano" "Yeah, well he though it was dope." "My client is an idiot. That's not against the law." A Few Good Men

Lessee....I've seen violins, flutes, harmonicas, acoustic guitars, and a cello used for special musical numbers in a sacrament meeting. Not all at once, mind you (lol at the image that brings up...) But in each case the spirit was present and strengthened by the event. As has been stated before, when the performance is so the performer can 'strut their stuff', whether it is topically appropriate or not, it shouldn't be accepted. Remember that sunday services, and sacrament meeting especially, are for the congregation to remember and renew their covenants with Jesus Christ, and to gain spiritual strength from hearing the message of the Gospel. They are not for the musically gifted of the ward to demonstrate their skills. Along with accepting the discretion of the Bishop, I would also add that having too many special musical numbers can be distracting to the spirit and lead to a one-up type of competition within the ward. "Brother so-and-so was good last week...Sister so-and-so will have to throw down to do better..." Let's keep our eyes on the purpose of gathering in the first place.

Did you hear that the Catholic Church is going to begin doing proxy baptisms? It seems they're putting automatic sprinklers in all their cemeteries....:)

I'm just like the two above me, except I was married to a karaoke hostess for three years, so I did my share of singing as well. It was fun, but I didn't take it too seriously (I was pretty good at a few Eagles tunes...). But yes, when someone is really killing the cat up there, it's hard to keep watching...you're just sooo embarrassed for them...

I don't think my view of anti-intellectualism is the same as others. I have no issue at all with studying out matters of the church with the minds God gave us. However, I do draw the line when the conclusions reached from those studies contradict clear scriptural authority. I'm not yet 40 and already I've seen good faithful friends in the church "think their way" out of membership. At some point in our intellectual pursuits we must check our opinions and ideas with our testimonies, and then those with official doctrines and principles of the gospel. Only then can we safely be learned and maintain the spirit equally and properly. Remember the councel to maintain moderation in all things. At some point, we must step back and absorb what we learn and find out how it fits together. If it doesn't fit then re-thinking is in order. Finally, if we study with prayer as a regular component, the Lord will guide us to what we need to know.

I prefer water most of the time simply because I go through milk like crazy already. However, there are the cold winter nights when only milk will do, and then it's off to the store for whole milk because anything less is pointless in my opinion. If you're gonna go thick and rich, go all the way, baby!! (suddenly craving hot chocolate) bbl!!!

Mine is a reference to David Letterman and his mockery of the odd names we had in the 90's rock groups...Stone Temple Pilots, Smashing Pumpkins, Blind Melon.... Anyhow one show he did he had these two giant cubes with random words written on them. He rolled them and the two words that came up were Ripplecut and Buddha. So...he spent the rest of the night claiming that Ripplecut Buddha was going to play at the end of the show. I loved it and I have used it ever since.

Yep that's the one. Thanks. Now to get the audio on my mp3 player....

If you look at the dictionary definition of a cult, you'll see that most every major (and most minor) religions in the world fit it somehow. The word has been hijacked and restricted to mean religions that are extreme/exclusive/secretive compared to the average society it is surrounded by. For instance, the Branch Davidians, Warren Jeffs and his group....there are others, but those are the groups some try to put the LDS Church alongside. Having said that, seeing this comment as a part of current events (even two years old) is encouraging to see. It means to me that intelligent discussions are taking place. As long as they continue, the knee-jerk diatribe from the anti-LDS will continue to be seen for what it is. That will always be a good thing in my book.

The irony in this comes from the fact that they assume that their perception of cultism and anti-christianity within the LDS Church is as real as the good wholesomeness they cannot deny exists. Put another way, they like the consequenses of what kind of people the LDS Church generally produces, they just don't like what it seems to take in order to get those results. What I've found myself is that when those very people get to know the average member of the LDS Church, they realize that the 'cultish' part isn't what they thought it was.

This talk had the same effect on me as a talk he gave at a young adults fireside back in...92-93 I think, titled Come Unto Christ. When I heard that talk, the spirit was with me more than ever before, and I have tried to not forget it. maybe someone can find the audio for that talk. I'd love to get the MP3 for it.

Good question there. God's justice is the fact that all wrongs must be answered for in the end. For those that have been wronged, this can provide a measure of peace and acceptance of what has happened to them if it seems justice won't be fulfilled as they think it should be. For instance, unsolved murders or kidnappings would easily fit here. Perhaps they will never be solved in this life, but due to God's justice, the guilty will be known and the penalties given to them. For those that commit the wrongs it is a warning that likely goes unheeded. Even if they seem to 'get away with it' now, they won't escape the punishment forever. For the average person, say you or I, I think it can be both. If someone hurts us, whatever the scope of the harm, and their effort was deliberate we can let justice rest in God's hands and focus on getting through the pain and loss with a greater portion of the spirit of Christ. remember that in all of this we are to forgive those who trespass against us as Christ taught. At the same time, when we deliberately hurt others we cannot forget that as we are guilty we must either repent and make whatever amends we can, or stand to accept the consequences of our actions. The justice of God means that all wrongs must, and will be, paid for and all accounts settled between God and man. The blessing of it is the fact that if we are guilty and stand in danger of God's justice, we can seek forgiveness through repentance and the atonement of Jesus Christ. He's already paid for all sin for us. If we turn to him in humility we can remove the danger of God's justice from our lives, but we must be sincere through it all. Thanks for the great question.

I agree with the previous statements; This is a fascinating issue to study Continue in your study and you will benefit greatly (especially if you study what Nibley has written) Don't get frustrated by an inability to prove the BoM true-it cannot be done Don't worry about the BoM being proven false-it also cannot be done My own advice for you, whatever your progress is on this matter, never ever loose sight of the importance of your own personal testimony. Too many times I've known people, and good friends that 'study themselves out of the church'. Whatever you think you know, always trust in what God knows, and know that God is always right. You won't be; none of us are. (currently re-starting my own armchair study of ancient near-eastern languages and writings)

Perhaps this has already been stated, but I'll say it anyway. Why is the Lord so detached from the world? Because the world is not seeking Him. Jesus has no interest in forcing his will upon the world; that is totally against the Gospel that he left with us. If all men turned and sought for Jesus, do you think he would remain distant? When Joseph Smith sought Him, did he remain distant? When we seek him in prayer, does he remain distant? Blaming Jesus for the problems in the world is more than a little off the mark. Jesus suffered and died in order to preserve our agency; to allow us true choice in this life. Even then he knew we would often make the wrong choice, but it was essential that we have the choice to make anyway. The problems of the world that we see are the fault of those who perpetrate them, not Jesus. One day, personal accountability will demand the justice that we see being ignored today. Right now, the fad is to pass the buck to someone else whenever a terrible event happens. Rapes happen because men force themselves upon women; it's a personal decision that a man has made, and he will have to stand for judgement on that choice before God. Having said that, not all men are guilty of rape, thus condemning all men for the existence of rapes is not just. Nor is it right to assume that Jesus 'wants it that way' by allowing it to happen. This life is a test of our obedience to what we know is right, and all of us fail at least once in our lives. Do you want Jesus to be closer to this world? Then seek him out, and encourage all around you to do the same. That is how real change can happen in this world.

Not a problem at all, and not bad questions at all.

What is the purpose of paying a tithe? Why does the Lord ask us to do this in the first place? What is the money used for? As you answer these questions, the definition of a full tithe may be easier to reach. The purpose of paying a tithe is not only to provide financial resources for the Church, but to show humility, gratitude, and a giving spirit for what the Lord has given us throughout our lives. We cannot even claim to own the air we breathe, so what matter is it to give a tenth of our increase back to a generous God? Just as with other commandments, the real purpose is based upon spiritual needs and spiritual growth. The temporal benefits come to us because we live in a temporal world...right now. The spiritual benefits likely won't be fully realized until we move beyond this life and remember all the truths we knew before we came here. Why does the Lord ask this of us, and what would he want to give us in return for our obedience?

It was when Joseph Smith was asked by a newspaper reporter how he governed such a vast group of people with so little effort. His reply was "I don't. I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." When we know the truth, and the spirit is with us, we will already know what the minutae of the church rules are. What I find is people seeking justification for bending the edges of the rules just a little. For example, the issue of prom dresses...I've never had a problem with prom dresses in sacrament meeting...as long as they conform to well-established standards of dress for the youth of the church. The standards are not new, nor have they drastically changed for some time now...people ought to already know whether or not it's a problem. I could go on, but instead let me relay a story I read by Boyd K. Packer. When he was a bishop, there was a couple in his congregation. They were very active, and had very strong testimonies. At one point, however, their activity dropped off, then they stopped going to church altogether. He called them into his office one evening to try to discover the problem. It turned out they were attempting to re-design the front of their house, and they couldn't decide between two ideas. They made it a matter of prayer. After getting no answer for some time, their testimony suffered, and they eventually lost faith. Boyd K. Packer said he struggled for some time to help them with the problem without offending them. Finally he asked them. "Has it occured to either of you that God just doesn't care what your house looks Like?" He then went on to explain how just as Jesus was never concerned with the outward appearance, our homes are a concern to God only in how spiritual and peaceful they are inside. to close with a quote from the D&C "He that must needs be commanded in all things is a slothful, and therfore, not a wise servant, wherefore he looseth his reward." We have brains, and God expects us to use them. All this "clarify this rule, or clarify that rule" are, as I said above, merely attempts at finding exactly how close we can get to the line without crossing over. If we understand the Gospel properly, we should be trying to stay as far away from the line as possible.

I read Jesus The Christ and The Articles of Faith (both by Talmage) at least a dozen times during my mission. I love those books to this very day. Having said that, here's my two cents on updating...The Standard Works are the foundational writings of the Church. Everything else is commentary based upon what is found in them. No matter what volume you should choose to read, chances are you're gonna learn something about the gospel you just hadn't thought of yet. As such I feel that all the LDS writings have essential value to the average member, but there does need to be a progression of delivery. AMWAW is still a very very good book, however there is much in it that is impolitic, as stated earlier, and areas of it can reflect an attitude no longer part of the church culture today. For example, much of Brigham Young's statements were heavily anti-Catholic, as well as several other general authoritites of that day. Does that mean the truths they taught have changed? Not at all, but the tenor of the message reflected a very defensive position that the LDS Church did have at the time, which no longer exists today. As members of the LDS Church are encouraged to do their own thinking, and never become blind sheep when it comes to living the gospel, we should do the same with our reading of church-related material. Keep AMWAW as long as you find it valuable, but don't exclude other, newer volumes for its sake. It's just a book, not scripture.

From the first moment of anti material on my mission to today (almost 12 years later) I have come to the realization that there is not any amount of criticism aimed at the LDS Church that has not already been answered thrououghly by at least one person. Towards the end of my study of anti-LDS material, I happened upon a book with the word "New" in the title. I was excited by the prospect of finally finding some new material to study. I was, unfortunately, destined to be disappointed by the book, as it was the same material, only re-packaged in a carefully couched and non-aggressive tone. Nonetheless, it was still anti-LDS material throughout, so I wrote a review of the volume on my blog and left it at that. My search was based upon my confidence that the truth can withstand any criticism; that if the LDS Church is true, then there shouldn't be any bit of an issue defending it against the onslaught that is launched against it daily. I have found exactly that to be true, and I may soon end my search for new material; I simply don't think there's any out there to be found. Having said all this, my answer to the OP would be to ask the person bringing the question "Do you really want to discuss this, or are you just here to argue with me?" If they say they're open to discussion, begin your explanation. If you aren't allowed to finish without interruption, turn and walk away. If you're challenged, simply state that you won't fight over the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that it's too important to you to treat it that way. I did have the chance to have a sit-down discussion with some born-again Christians, and I can't say it was overly successful, but it was a discussion, and not an argument. The spirit was there, and the host was very kind and gracious, so don't assume; there are good people out there that really do want to just talk it out. Remember that Abinadi had to stand alone on the home turf of a pretty strong anti, and he stood his ground. True he was killed for it, but the message got through to the one person ready to hear it. You never know who your testimony will affect, nor will you always know after the fact. When the spirit moves you to act, do it. You'll never be wrong for it.

Just tossing in my say... The garments have several purposes, and they can represent many things to many people within the LDS Church. However, understanding some things about the garments also helps understanding with regards to the temple, and vice versa. The Temple is the most sacred place on earth in the eyes of the LDS Church. It is the place we can go to approach God as nearly as possible. It is the place we can go to perform ordinances for our relatives that didn't have the opportunity during their lives to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a place of peace and solitude in an often busy and troubling world. It is a place of learning and furthering of our faith and knowledge of God. The garments can be viewed as something of a portable extension of the temple. After all, we must follow certain standards to enter the temple in the first place, and we are expected to maintain them after we go through the ordinances for ourselves. As we do so, we can maintain, within our own lives, the spirit and peace that can be found in the temple. As earlier stated, the garments are also an effective reminder of the covenants we have made to God in the temple (one of which is to forbear discussing the ordinances in detail out of respect for the sacredness of them). The ordinances, and the covenants we make with them are based upon biblical doctrines that Jesus taught during his ministry, as well as doctrines that are found in the Old Testament. The garments also serve as a guideline for our standard of dress/behavior. Often times we are reminded that a valid question we could ask ourselves is "will this clothing expose my garments?" or "Should I be doing this if I am worthy to wear the garments?" These two were taught to me by my parents, and have been very effective. As a result, I have more often remembered what I learned in the temple, and have gained spiritual and moral strength from the experience. Finally, it should be remembered that while the temples, and all that is associated with them, are sacred to LDS members, they are hardly secret. Any new member can be interviewed for a temple recommend after one year of active membership in the church. Indeed, the whole point of the structure of the LDS Church is to get as many worthy people to the temple as often as possible. Rather than treating the temples as 'sacred country clubs' as I've heard them referred to as, the LDS Church regards them as the entire point and purpose of membership in the first place. We want as many people to know of these things for themselves as possible, but it must be done according to Christ's standards, and Christ's rules. After all, it's his church in the first place.

The Gospel is the good news that Jesus suffered for our sins, was crucified, died, and was resurrected. In doing this, He has overcome the two obstacles that would have otherwise forever prevented us from returning to God's presence. Death did not befall us by our choice, so immortality is a gift free to all of God's children. However, our sins do befall us by our choice, so it must by by our choice that we turn away from them and seek to follow Jesus and the principles, doctrines, and ordinances that He has given us in order to recieve forgiveness of our sins and become worthy to return to God's presence at the last day. The good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that all of this is possible in the first place. Without the Gospel of Jesus Christ we are lost to God the Father forever.

Does everything happen for a reason? Yes, because something or someone caused it to happen. Is everything that happens directed by God? No, because evil is clearly prevalant in the world. God gave us the gift of agency, or the freedom to think and act for ourselves. Is everything, therefore, the way it should be? No, not at all. Not even close. However, everything is the way it is because we, not God, have made it that way. Look at the suffering in the world. Consider all the atrocities that we have put upon ourselves throughout history. Can any person think that a loving, caring God wants these miserable conditions and horrible events to be a part of the world he has created for His children? Instead, can we think that a loving, caring God wants such things to be removed from the lives of his children? If so, why does he not remove them himself? The answer can be found in the attempts of the infant in learning to walk. From the first attempt failure is certain, yet the loving, caring parents of the infant allow the failure, and the frustration that comes with failure, to be a part of their infant's life. Why? Because it is through our failures that we learn to succeed. God has given us a powerful gift in being able to think and act for ourselves. He knew then that such a powerful gift would be both a blessing and a curse to us here on the earth. Why did he allow it? Because he knew the blessings of succeeding with the gift far outweighed the consequences of not having the gift in the first place. Without the risk of failure, there is no reward in success.

Please allow me to put in my two cents on the issue of the OP, and not the most recent discussion. (I had no part in it and I wish to let it be what it is.) After having studied Egyptology for a few years, (armchair study, mind you, not in school) and also after having studied what Hugh Nibley has said regarding the profession, let me say this. Whenever mankind uses his own best tools to gain truth about something, there are going to be holes in the information, and wide gaps of disagreements between competent fellow experts. Put another way, Egyptian history is an immensely complex field of study, and even among the best experts, there will be wide differences of opinion. It's been that way since the beginning of written history, and the study of it, and it will continue to be that way so long as mankind remains limited and falliable in his very nature. Now, applying that to this discussion, it should come as no surprise that a non-Mormon archaeologist agrees in a very limited area with what Joseph Smith stated. Does this prove Joseph Smith was a prophet? Not at all, just that someone reached the same conclusion through a different path of study. It was bound to happen eventually. My problem comes with people relying upon such 'proofs' to defend the LDS Church and its doctrines. The LDS Church requires no such proof or evidence to support its doctrines. The proof of the LDS Church can be found in the same place it has always been found, in the performing and accepting of the doctrines. Jesus himself set the standard "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." The gospel of Jesus Christ is built upon the principle of faith, not proof. Only through utilizing our faith can we ever determine for ourselves whether or not the LDS Church is true. It is useful to see how scientific examinations are beginning to verify what the LDS Church has been saying all this time, but we will never reach a point that allows us to simply point to some scientifically accepted fact as proof we are right. Many books have already been written about facts found in the Book of Mormon that weren't known by anybody, much less Joseph Smith, when it was published in 1830. The discussion has not changed because of them. For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who do not believe, no proof is sufficient. We must each find our own way to God. We must each approach God on our own, in prayer to find the truth we are seeking when we ask 'is the LDS Church the true church of Jesus Christ?'. It cannot be deduced by mathematical process, it cannot be revealed by studying the stars, and it cannot be exposed by digging into our own history. It can only be revealed to us by the power of God through the Holy Ghost in answer to prayer. It has always been that way, and it will remain that way to the last days.

Along with these verses, I highlighted all the verses in the NT that indicate Jesus and God the Father are separate people. Guess how many verses I found in total? Over 200.... Nearly every time Jesus speaks he defers to someone he calls Father. Never does he take credit for what he does, something the trinitarian god could do with impunity, since they're all the same person, right? So why does Jesus always give credit to some other person he constantly calls his Father? To me it is as clear as the fingers on my right hand that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate people. It is plainly laid out in the NT for all to see. Add to that the fact that Jesus told the Apostles that he would send the Holy Ghost in his absence, and that after they had recieved this comforter, they could see Jesus again as another comforter... If they're all the same person, then this whole arrangement is totally meaningless and overwrought...why would any god bother with such claptrap?? The most intriguing thing about all of this is that the strongest witness against the trinity is found in the Bible itself, yet far too many choose not to see it...

I like things simple. As for this issue, I can see the relevance and appropriateness of either attitude, but I don't subscribe to either exclusively. Instead, I think about what Jesus told Peter; "When thou art converted, strenghthen thy bretheren." We need to look after our own needs first and foremost, but we cannot neglect others along the way if we are capable of giving aid and comfort. To do less would be to ignore the very spirit of the Gospel itself. Whenever we see someone struggling with something we've conquered in our own lives, we have a duty to help however we can.