RipplecutBuddha

Suppose you're right in your guess...do you know you're right? How would that knowledge affect your behavior? If you knew excatly when Jesus was coming back, would you bother living the Gopsel until the set date approached? All of this is undercutting the point of the Gospel Jesus gave us in the first place. The point is to have us live as righteously as we can. If we aren't under immediate threat of Jesus' return, will we be as valiant in our observance of the Gospel? What if you knew the very date and time of your death? How would that change your behavior? The reason we don't know, and the reason it won't ever be revealed until it actually happens, is because we need to be obedient all the time, every day of our lives, whether the second coming happens during our lifetime or not. guessing and calculating is fine, but remember that that's all it is...guessing. Jesus wouldn't even tell Joseph Smith when he would die. All he said was "Thy days have been numbered and they shall not be counted less". (attempt at quote without looking it up....) What I take from it all is a poster I saw on my mission... "Relax, I have everything under control." Jesus

Excellent questions...I'll try my best. 1. We don't know specifically who these elders are (or will be...whichever is the case), at least I haven't heard any official declaration from the church about it, but we do know they are twelve of the Apostles. Whether they are the twelve apostles Jesus called in his life, or some other group such as the twelve called among the Nephites I can't say for sure. 2. Arc-angels seem to have a position of authority over angels in general. Remember that the word angel denotes a messenger, or someone sent to carry out a task assigned from higher up. Michael, the Arc-angel led the fight against Satan in the initial moments of the war in heaven, so it would be rational to conclude that he led the rest of us in that fight. Knowing that God has told us that heaven is a place of order helps me in this issue. 3. I don't know of any artwork that has attempted to portray this vision, but I think it would be interesting to see. As to Jesus' glorified appearance, I again don't know of any works of art that come to mind, but again I think it would be interesting to see. More to the point, I don't think either of these present a clear enough picture to lend themselves to artwork. For instance, Lehi's dream presented a very clear and concise picture in the mind that most people can easily grasp. The visions you mention, I believe, are filled much more with interprative commentary that makes rendering them visually much more complex.

It's a shame...because I could have listed over 200 Biblical verses that clearly teach there is more than one God, if the OP were around to read them...oh, well. On to greener pastures....

I couldn't make it past the seventh verse....where'd this come from anyway? It's not even a good attempt at ancient writings.....

Tolkien and Lewis never claimed their writings were real history. The Bible has made that claim from the beginning. Therein lies the difference.As to the Rings Trilogy...they are entertaining and morally uplifting pieces of fiction sure enough, but how much more powerful would those stories have been were they actual history? That is the impact the Bible should have upon all of us, for the stories of valor, honor, truth, and loyalty to moral right exceed anything of fictional origin.

However, you run right into the same problem as mentioned at the top of the page; a rational explanation as to why Paul would use a pagan belief to support a Christian doctrine. If that's really your argument, then we could use the very same argument on Manistream Christianity today. "After all, Mormons baptize for the dead...why would they do that if there were no physical resurrection? Why bother with it if the idea of a resurrection is false?" And yes, there are several Manistream Christian groups that deny the physical resurrection today. The point is that the resurrection is literal and real; Jesus proved it undeniably. Paul was using an accepted practice within Christianity to support a doctrine of Chrisitanity that was being called into question. How could a false practice support a true belief? To think this way is to say that Christianity is dependant upon paganism for it's validity.

When you say "The consensus of the scientists agree that the threat is very real..." you should understand that not all scientists involved in climatology agree. In fact, most of them disagree strongly with the idea. The problem is that global warming has become a political issue. As such, scientists can get much more money for their studies on it, whether it's legitimate or not. Having said that, this is my personal opinion on the matter. I have no problem in accepting global warming as a reality. After all, the globe has been warming ever since the last ice age...big deal. I seriously have an issue with the amount of blame that mankind has for it, however. Even the worst actual measurements of man-made greenhouse gasses pales in comparison to one or two volcanic eruptions in quantity. Since volcanoes have been around far longer than mankind has, why isn't the earth far warmer now than it should be, according to the doom-and-gloom scientists? Mount Pinatubo erupted and *might* have hurt the ozone layer by fractions of a single percent in strength. The eruption put out tons and tons more greenhouse gasses than mankind has over the years. I just don't think we can do that much damage to the earth. First of all, nature is far more durable and adaptable than we understand it to be. After all, the insecticide and herbicide industry is constantly having to come up with new chemicals to help us keep our environment the way we want it. Second, I don't think God would have been able to trust us with the earth if he knew we'd grow strong enough to destroy it. Having said that, I do accept the notion that mankind ought to treat the earth respectfully. After all it's a gift to us from God; we have a responsibility to treat it well and value it. While I don't hold with the 'man is evil for having cars and burning coal' group, I think God would be very happy if we were able to minimize our negative impact on the earth. I simply think He doesn't want us to do so with the unwarranted fear of destroying it. I think electric cars would be great, but I don't think it's right to compel people to buy them out of guilt or shame for what they are doing to the earth.

Hah!! I've lived here ten years now...not one Husker game attended..yet...

Ah, the screen name...well it's all due to David Letterman. Years ago he was making fun of the pop groups with strange names like Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots, etc. So, he had these dice with random words on them and he rolled them to invent the next big group. The words that came up were -ripplecut- and -buddha-. So...he spent the rest of the show stating that 'Ripplecut Buddha' would be playing at the end of the show. I thought it would be a good screen name, and has proved to be so for a while now. It's also my MySpace name for those interested.

The problem with your questions rests in an unspoken assumption; that all of reality can be experienced by the five senses God has given us. As a scientific enthusiast I would hope you understand how faulty that assumption is. After all, we cannot 'prove' how gravity works despite the fact that it has worked consistently since the beginning of humanity. The truth is that to assume that mankind has a full grasp of reality based entirley upon what he has 'proved' to be true is to aggrandize mankind to the state of omniciense. Back to the topic at hand, no, there are no 'proofs' that estalbish either the Book of Mormon, or Jesus Christ. There is substantial evidence both in favor, and against either issue. The point is that these issues are matters of faith, not facts established by proof. If it were, then the Book of Mormon and Jesus Christ would be firmly accepted matters of history and/or science, and would have no connection with religion or philosophy at all. We are here to test our faith; to see how obedient we will be to a being we cannot prove exists. If we had that proof, the test would be invalidated. After all, would you willingly disobey a God you unquestioningly knew existed? It would destroy the whole point of the creation of the earth in the first place. In order to answer your question fully, though, you must begin an earnest study of the issue of faith itself; what it is, and what it is used for. After that, you will begin to understand where the proof is in our religion.

I read of a new book addressing research supporting the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. I cannot recall the entire title though. Of Faith and....*something* then "80 new *something or others* as a subtitle. If someone could message me the title, I'd love to get this book. Thanks.

Don't worry, I'm only a fan of Nebraska by necessity; I live in Lincoln. I've been a long-time contributor to the forum on MySpace, but the environment there has deteriorated a great deal since I first started there. I'm here in hopes of continued quality discussions with all about the LDS religion. All comments are welcome, as long as they are genuine in nature. (no flaming, trolls, etc.) and I will make every effort to hold myself to the same standard.