captmoroniRM

The Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism: What is the Stick of Joseph?

I think it was John Taylor who said a man shows true intelligence when he takes something grandiose and complicated, and can break it down so simply that even a child can understand it. That's the wonderful thing about the gospel. It can be taught so simply that kids in nursery can begin to understand it. There are also more profound and complex the more you dig into them. I honestly think too many members try and focus on the "deep" doctrines and not enough on the basics. That's why I think the move to have RS and Priesthood go to the Gospel Principles book. We often overlook how simple the gospel is to understand. As for your teacher, talk to your SS President or bishop. Sometimes, they will find a new teacher. This happened on my mission. The Gospel Principles instructor was teaching some crazy stuff and the Spirit was not there, and this guy was teaching our investigators and new members. We talked to the bishop, and the bishop looked into it. A few weeks later, a new teacher was called. Another option is try and learn from the Spirit and not from the instructor. I think it was Richard G. Scott a few conferences talked about his attending one sunday school class where the instructor was skilled at teaching and Elder Scott learned a lot, as the spirit taught him. The next week he attended a class where the instructor was less prepared, and less skilled at teaching. He learned equally because he sought the Spirit.

-- my opinion of "good" weather.

I personally think rain and thunderstorms are good weather. Then again, I am a weather forecaster and we have a twisted definition of "Good Weather." Just be sure to cash in that rain check. It should be easy, seeing as how you already asked him once. Hopefully you'll have a ridge of high pressure over you, making it work out next time.

kinda reminiscent of this image: just play with the sizing, layering, etc...horizontally mirror it.....

Intriguing. I still need to get a copy of his bio on the Grande Profeta

As was said above, it is actually in effect. We don't live in the United Order, which is the understanding of the Law of Consecration most people have (having all things in common, elimination of poverty, etc). . The Word of Wisdom wasn`t commandment until shortly after the establishment of the 1st High Council in Feb. 1834. At one of the first meetings, they debated "Whether disobedience to the word of wisdom was a transgression sufficient to deprive an official member from holding an office in the church." After a long debate Joseph Smith gave the following counsel which unanimously accepted it, judging "No official member in this Church is worthy to hold an office after having the word of wisdom properly taught him; and he, the official member, neglecting to comply with and obey it." As for when it was added to the temple recommend interview, I can't say for certain.

I see Darth Vader.

I can only speak for the Air Force, but they do allow emergency leave for cases such as a death in the immediate family. They usually help with the plane ticket and such. I don't know how it works in a deployed environment, but I imagine it could be the same.

can't be worse than a deep-fried twinkie.

I agree. A friend of mine had a mission companion who was brand new in the field and when asked a question, thought to be profound by starting out "well, when I become a God..." and then something about a Heavenly Mother. The investigator questioned that and so my friend explained the doctrine of exaltation and the basics about our Heavenly Mother. He was well studied in the doctrines and held to what has been revealed, avoiding deep speculative arguments. The investigator accepted their explanations and was later baptized. Doctrine and Covenants 29:7 says And ye are called to bring to pass the gathering of mine elect; for mine elect hear my voice and harden not their hearts. There are moments where we have to explain the doctrines and revealed truths clearly. The elect of God will hear His voice and accept even the deep doctrines early on. We have to put our personal fears aside at those times and declare the truth boldly and trust that the Spirit will testify of the truths we declare. We must do our part and treasure up the true doctrines, so we can teach them, and stay away from speculation or theory. But we must also not be afraid to declare "I don't know. That has yet to be revealed," which is something that I oft feel too few members of the Church can do. They feel they have to come up with a reasonable explanation, even if it starts becoming their own theories.

Mosiah 5:7, if you read it in context doesn't specifically regard baptism. The covenants they made paralell the baptismal covenants, but it is the covenant the Mulekites and Nephites made after hearing King Benjamin's discourse, and being moved by the spirit to repent of their sins. The atonement of Christ changed their hearts giving them no more disposition to do evil. King Benjamin took their names and appointed priests to teach the people the commandments of God and remind them of the covenants they made, but there is no record of baptism taking place at that time. When Alma and his people escaped from the Lamanites and found the the Mulekites, King Mosiah gave Alma permission to actually organize the Church of God, and baptize them. That took place about 4 years later. In addition, Mosiah 5:7 refers specifically to becoming children of Christ, through repentance and obedience, and how we become spiritually begotten, or born again. The spiritual "begottening" of baptism deals more with the symbolism associated with baptism (death, burial, resurrection/rebirth) and becoming spiritually adpoted children of Christ. Whether or not a person is baptized or not, they are still the spirit children of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. See the Proclamation on the Family for that one, as mikbone posted above. You said: Its not to often that people refer to the miracle of giving birth as a "cursed" way of doing it. Eve herself said "Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed." Sounds like it was a curse she was willing to bear. And as for how perfect beings have children, that falls under the "not yet revealed, but not important to our salvation" category. Lastly, To quote James E. Talmage, regarding the geneologies: Two genealogical records purporting to give the pedigree of Jesus are found in the New Testament, one in the first chapter of Matthew, the other in the third chapter of Luke. These records present several apparent discrepancies, but such have been satisfactorily reconciled by the research of specialists in Jewish genealogy. No detailed analysis of the matter will be attempted here; but it should be borne in mind that the consensus of judgment on the part of investigators is that Matthew's account is that of the royal lineage, establishing the order of sequence among the legal successors to the throne of David, while the account given by Luke is a personal pedigree, demonstrating descent from David without adherence to the line of legal succession to the throne through primogeniture or nearness of kin." Luke's record is regarded by many, however, as the pedigree of Mary, while Matthew's is accepted as that of Joseph. The all important fact to be remembered is that the Child promised by Gabriel to Mary, the virginal bride of Joseph, would be born in the royal line. A personal genealogy of Joseph was essentially that of Mary also, for they were cousins./ Joseph is named as son of Jacob by Matthew, and as son of Heli by Luke; but Jacob and Heli were brothers, and it appears that one of the two was the father of Joseph and the other the father of Mary and therefore father-in-law to Joseph^ That Mary was of Davidic descent is plainly set forth in many scriptures; for since Jesus was to be born of Mary, yet was not begotten by Joseph, who was the reputed, and, according to the law of the Jews, the legal, father, the blood of David's posterity was given to the body of Jesus through Mary alone. Our Lord, though repeatedly addressed as Son of David, never repudiated the title but accepted it as rightly applied to Himself.6 Apostolic testimony stands in positive assertion of the royal heirship of Christ through earthly lineage, as witness the affirmation of Paul, the scholarly Pharisee: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" and again: "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead." The geneologies quoted are the same, except for the last few where it diverges. Mary and Joseph were cousins, and both descendants of David, which as Talmage said, fulfilled prophecy. It also shows that Christ really had claim to be King of the Jews, if it weren't for Roman opression.

You might find some good ideas from this essay: The Book of Mormon - Artifact or Artifice? - Orson Scott Card

I'm sorry you find explanation number 1 unsatisfying, but it really is the best one. It's not so much that it doesn't matter, its more that a full comprehension of what President Snow's couplet meant isn't a requirement for salvation. People have a hard enough time with the concepts of faith and repentance and the whole enduring to the end thing, that unless you've got those down, trying to understand President Snow is of much lower priority. Also, very little has been revealed on the subject. In time, all things will be revealed, as God has many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God waiting for us to be revealed. But the revelation of those things is based on the faith of His people. For example, the writings of the Brother of Jared, which won't be revealed until we have faith equal to that of the Brother of Jared.

I never had issues with it, personally. Then again, I had a lot of good professors who helped me really understand the "why" we were asked to live by so many unexplained and apparently harmless rules like shorts or flip-flops.

For religion, try and get Brother John C. Thomas. Amazing teacher. I had him for BoM 1 Nephi-Alma 30. Here's a devotional he gave one day: Don't Be in a Hurry For History, brother Lenhart will be a great professor. He goes off on a lot of tangents, but you learn a ton of interesting things from that wonderful half-german half-austrian man. And if you get an english class with professor Josh Allen, give him heck for me. He was my YM president when we lived in VA. Never took his class, but he is a great guy.

One of the good things that came out of the opposition to the Phoenix AZ temple was the Church did a redesign. It was going to look almost exactly like several other temples announced in roughly the same time frame. The redesign made it better looking (in my opinion.) It also made the temple larger, while staying within the 30ft zoning restriction.

I hate packing with a passion. That's why I let government funded movers pack up all my stuff now.

hehe John 17 with a focus on who is speaking to whom and bring it back to the Trinity. That'll spark a debate.....

Looks like they are going to release the architectural rendering of the temple today too.

Not to sound rude, but that is a lot of speculation and doesn't have much revealed doctrinal backing. There is no scriptural backing or modern revelation to support the idea of the Holy Ghost as a mediator between us and our Heavenly Mother. The revealed roles of the Holy Ghost are to testify of Christ, and of truth, as well as to guide us throughout our life. Second, every prophet and apostle to my knowledge as taught that it is the voice of our Heavenly Father that bore witness of Christ at the baptism. It parallels other moments where the Father introduced the Son, like in the First Vision. Third, the scriptures are clear that Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, and set the example for us, and nothing to do with our relationship, even in a symbolic way, with our Heavenly Mother. We are her children already, just as we are the children of our Heavenly Father. All in all, very little has been revealed about our Heavenly Mother and, though members of the church allowed to have their own personal "doctrines" (I know I have my fair share of 'West Doctrines') we need to be careful to ensure that they jive with the revealed word of God. Also, if you are going to expound upon them in a public forum, make sure you make it absolutely clear that they are your own ideas, as sites like these may be frequented by those who are still in need of gospel Milk.

Think Agency. Ponder hymns like "Know this that every soul is free." Also, consider the phrasing from America, the Beautiful that reads "Confirm thy soul with self control, thy liberty in law." Reflect on those songs in regards to agency and your assigned topic. They will teach you a lot about personal freedom.

Take a look at the Bible dictionary and the Guide to the Scriptures, available on LDS.org. They explain that the Sign of the Dove is a pre-arranged sign as a means to testify of truth in a form that Satan cannot duplicate. It is a physical manifestation of the presence of the Holy Ghost (as he is a spirit). Those present at the baptism of Christ saw the savior in the water, heard the voice of God, and the sign of the Dove was given to signify that the Holy Ghost himself was present. He, however, did not change form, as the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. Similar signs were also given to Abraham, and its very likely that other prophets were given this time since Adam. Search around LDS.org. Quite a few good links available.

I'm a huge Sanderson fan. The only books of his I haven't read are the 3rd Alcatraz book and his last Wheel of Time book (because I haven't read books 2-11 of wheel of time first). I actually scored a copy of The Way of Kings before it was officially released due to an error at my local bookstore. Finished it last week. The book is indeed brilliant. It is definitely a beginning and leaves a LOT unanswered. I recommend it to all who like fantasy. This could easily become the next great epic like The Wheel of Time. My only complaint is that I now have to wait until fall 2012 at the earliest for book 2.

Surprisingly, if you take away all the electronic additives and the goofy get-ups, Lady Gaga actually has a really good voice. Sad how people with her talent would rather sell themselves out then try and make it on their own talent. Here's a video of her "pre-gaga" days