captmoroniRM

Random thought: A famous musician from the Brasilian state of Rio Grande do Sul was once asked why the music from his state was not as popular as the music being put out by other states. His response: "We are the only state that sings with our mouth and not with our booty."

hehe In all seriousness, I don't consider rap as music. As a musician myself, its like nails on a chalkboard. At best, it barely follows music theory. Most of it is just someone talking to a pre-programmed beat track. Most importantly, I have yet to find a rap that edifies, and we are instructed in the scriptures "that which does not edify, is not of me." There is power in real and wholesome music. My dad, years ago, worked in a music store in southern VA where due to the demographics, rap tends to be very popular. All the time, guys would come in and start playing around with the synthesizer keyboards, playing drum tracks, and trying to rap or what not. He said that this always repelled people actually looking to invest in pianos for their kids or themselves. One day, it got so bad that customers kept leaving because of the wanna-be rappers. My dad went into the back, found one of the piano teachers, and asked him to go out in front and play the most complex, fast, and intense classical piece he could. The teacher, who didn't have anything going on at the time did, sat down on a piano in the show room and went to town. The look on the face of the "rappers" was as if they'd been shot. The guys started trickling out. When he was done, the teacher asked my dad what that was about. My dad simply smiled and said "Rap repellent." I'll have to see if I can find the article, but my dad always mentioned that when he was new in the Church, back in the late 70's, one of the brethren counseled the members to avoid music where the beat overwhelms the lyrics and melody. This was pretty much before the advent of rap music.

I've often wondered about animals in regards to spirits, intelligences, etc. All creatures were created to multiply within their own sphere, and find joy therein. That implies some level of intelligence, at least one strong enough to understand joy. The scriptures also teach about different levels of intelligences. And if we want to get on intelligences, Cleon Skousen's talk on the Atonement and intelligences is amazing.

Not sure. I'd ask your Bishop on that. There might be something in the Handbook of Instruction regarding it. That book seriously has everything.

Try spending some time reading through articles on The Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism. There are plenty of articles that are geared towards these questions. It would take a lot of time to give a detailed and adequate response to all the questions and points you raised. Try reading through some of those and see if you can find explanations that may help.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage - The Tech -- here's an interesting look at the issue of gay marriage. It talks about how marriage is about more than just "I love this person."

Children are always watching their parents and pick up on everything good and bad. Elder Walter F. Gonzales, one of the presidents of the 70, spoke to my mission back in 2005. He told the story of one time where he went into his room knelt down and began to pray. He poured out his soul to his Father to bless his family. He prayed for each one of them by name in great length and detail. In the end, he closed "in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen." To his surprise another "Amen," sounded from beneath his bed. He looked under to see his young son, about 8 years old, hiding under the bed. We all laughed at the story, but Elder Gonzalez made a powerful point. He said his son would grow up knowing for fact that his father loves him enough to pray for him, and to do so in great detail. Imagine if his son had heard him swear, or lie, or if he saw Elder Gonzales do something in violation of the commandments. While yes, the child still has his agency, how much easier will it be for him to do the same as his father?

Long distance relationships are rough. Each girl I dated before my wife and I went through a 4-5 month spell of "long distance relationships...each at BYU-ID too. All of these things prepared me for the 4 months I was away from my wife due to Air Force basic training and the first few months of Tech school. That was another way I decided to marry my wife. I told her early on in the discussions about marriage that I couldn't promise her we'd stay in AZ forever. (I'd moved around more times than I had birthdays while she was living in the same house she came home from the hospital to as a baby.) That didn't matter to her. She was willing to leave her parents and her home to be with me. Since we got married my wife has followed me to Mississippi and now Hawaii. Who knows where else the Air Force will take us. Despite all the advice that you can receive on this board, the decision ultimately lies with you. You know how your relationship is progressing. Seriously pray about it. Study it out in your mind. The "burning in the bosom" and the "stupor of thought" described in the Doctrine and Covenants is a real thing.

I had only dated steadily 2 girls other than my wife. My wife and I started talking marriage a few weeks into our dating. 2.5 months into our relationship I proposed. 2.5 months later we were married. How did I know it was her? Everything worked with us. There was never any awkwardness or feeling that I had to really "woo" her. We could talk for hours on end about anything from the frivolous to deeper subjects like the Gospel or politics. Being around each other made us want to be a better person for the other. Our goals and interests matched up perfectly. I knew she would be a wonderful mother to our children. To be honest, I do not believe in the concept of "The One." I strongly believe that you find someone you are compatible with and you make them "The One." If both of you are at the point of your life where marriage is a possibility, bring it up, but only if you are thinking that it really is going that way. If she is feeling the same thing, you can start thinking more seriously. If she reacts negatively or evasively, you might start to get a feel where things will head eventually. Also, each relationship is different. I knew what I wanted in a woman and I didn't need to do a lot of serious dating to find my wife. (It was more finding someone who would be willing to put up with me for an eternity....and trust me...i'm kinda weird.) Some people need to date for a few years to get to that point. Some people need just a week of dating to know. Best thing to do, regardless, is perfect yourself. Strive to become more like Christ...be a better priesthood holder...be an influence for good in the places the Lord puts you. All in all, trust in the spirit. He will guide you. Lastly, a church leader of mine said if you want to find an incredible spouse, do your home teaching.

One of the articles I read dealt with the fact that some of these guys are gonna return to very angry wives. One of the miners apparently had a mistress he promised to marry, who with the hoopla surrounding this incident, came to find out that the dude was already married. He'll probably be the last one out of the mine..... The moral of the story according to my wife. "Don't ever cheat on your wife, and you'll never have to worry about her putting a cap in you."

A friend of mine shared this on facebook. I found it a great response to this whole debate: (Gay) Mormon Guy: President Packer's Talk... From a (Gay) Mormon Perspective

They don't have to be biological parents either. My mom is sealed to her adopted parents, who both passed away without knowing the gospel.

I can see your point. Members need to know how to approach the situation rather than making them feel broken because they are still tempted. One of the most profound scriptures, to me, is Doctrine and Covenants 20:22. It reads: "He [Christ] suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them." I found this scripture on my mission and it opened my mind. Christ, the Savior of the world and the only sinless man suffered temptations. Though I knew he was tempted in the desert, this idea made sense. Christ lived a mortal life. He suffered the same temptations and earthly trials we do. Even Christ had to deal with same temptations we face. He just gave them no heed. I think many members who don't approach subjects like SSA can offend or hurt someone who is doing their best and suffering through there temptations. Another point that many need to remember, on both sides , that whatever the reason one might feel tempations...including some genetic predisposition....the answer is the same. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is the key to strength to overcome all.

Having a gun and using it to defend himself doesn't negate the fact he was a martyr as well. mar·tyr –noun 1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion. 2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice. 3. a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering: a martyr to severe headaches. yeah he used a pistol to try and defend himself, but he knew he was going to die. Days earlier he said "I go as a lamb to a slaughter." In a letter prior to his jailing at Carthage, he wrote to someone "If Hyrum and I are imprisoned again, we will be killed, or I am not a prophet of God." He went willingly to Carthage knowing he wouldn't be returning. He accepted death, knowing that his work was done, and that he had to seal the testimony of the Book of Mormon with his blood. He is a martyr in that sense. He was murdered in cold blood, by the mob as well. Murder and Martyrdom aren't mutually exclusive.

My wife has 3 implants. Two in the front, and one in the back... ...and they make her smile literally worth a thousand dollars. (They are dental implants....)

With the Portuguese translation of the Bible, I can prove that it was a Coconut that Adam and Eve partook of to get kicked out...........

Well, render unto Caesar....

The Church is very clear on its position towards homosexuality. Why? Because the church is against all forms of immorality, including sexual immorality. Church leaders since day 1 have been crystal clear that sexual relations are only to happen within the bonds of marriage. Any sexual act outside of marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual is sin. The Lord has, through the mouth of his apostles and prophets, has removed any interpretation as to the fact that marriage is between man and woman. Anyone who says that the Church's position is unclear about it, really hasn't done their homework. As to whether or not it is genetic or not, it does not matter. Just because one has a genetic predisposition to be an alcoholic, doesn't remove the agency that God has given them. The same goes with people who suffer with things like chemical imbalances that cause depression, or any other ailment that comes from having an imperfect body. The prophet Moroni declared that God gave unto men weakness, that they may be humbled and seek out the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ to help them overcome their weakness. If there were a genetic predisposition, it would be yet another weakness that a person must overcome to obey the commandments of God. The Atonement of Christ will help them resist the temptations to sin, and fill them with joy and happiness unlike anything this world has to offer. The words of the Prophets, Apostles, and the Lord are clear. But its not surprising that some find them confusing. The apostles in Christ's day didn't understand many things he taught. He taught in parables so that those in tune with the Spirit would find the treasures within them, while those who weren't ready to understand them, or those not spiritually tuned would be unable to see past the "story" on the surface. As with anything, however, we can learn for ourselves what is true. If we are confused about the things we see in General Conference, let us study out those principles in our minds and seek the Lord in prayer, for any who lack wisdom should ask of God who giveth to all men liberally.

Yeah, that doesn't jive well with the Church's teachings. No gift to any person has, is, or will be greater than that of Jesus Christ. For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten to descend below all things, suffer for our sins, and die for us, that we might have the the opportunity to return to our Heavenly Father. Christ, and his Atonement trump all. The Book of Mormon, the Golden Plates, the Church, Joseph Smith...all these serve to bring us to a knowledge of Christ and his Atonement, and help us accept Christ as our Savior and follow him.

There are several sections in the Doctrine and Covenants that go in depth as to the Church in relation to Governments and their laws. 134 comes to mind. Paraphrasing some of them, one who obeys the commandments of God should have no need to break the laws of the land. Christ said "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar, and God the things that are God's. Should the government try and restrict our ability to worship via legislation, we are still required to do all we can. Read the story of Alma the elder, when oppressed by the Lamanites (in Mosiah....can't recall the chapter). They were forbidden to pray, but they kept praying in their hearts and their burdens were lifted. Later, the poor were kicked out of the synagogues and Alma told them to worship wherever they could, whenever they could.

Like everyone has said, Amazon site simply uses coding and keywords and what others have bought along with certain books to generate the recommended lists. The site itself is unbiased. Its just that Anti-mormonism and anti-mormon literature vastly outnumbers the pro-mormon books available on Amazon. Using it in a keyword search will "recommend" anti-mormon stuff because it's much more popular.

Interesting comment from Elder Christofferson. Note that he still makes no comment to completely rule out the possiblity of evolution as the means of how our bodies were created for the majority of those who believe in evolution, remove God entirely from the pictures. "Evolutionary chance" as Elder Christofferson; the idea that mankind just happened to evolve enough to be sentient beings. His point here, I feel, was to remind us that God created our bodies, and that they are holy. Remove God completely from the picture, and who are we accountable to regarding what we do with our bodies? We still have to acknowledge the revealed truth that God created mankind in his image. What process he used, whether it be some form of evolution, or another method, we cannot say.

Perhaps this is just another case of the Lord fighting our battles. When it comes to Mormon bashers, I've learned we don't need to fight with them. The Lord will take care of it for us. It might take a while, but "the wicked who fight against Zion, will surely be smitten at last"

I have yet to read all the topic and I may be somewhat redundant, but the Church's official statement towards evolution leave the door open onto whether biological evolution is possible. The first presidency statements in 1909 and 1925 simply say that all we know about the Creation and Origin of man is what the Lord has revealed via scripture and his living prophets, that Adam was the first man, created in God's image. The manner of that creation has not been revealed. I can't find the quote, but one of the brethren reiterated those statements and said the mission of the Church is to call people to Christ and build the kingdom of God, and we should leave science to the scientists, while we focus on the Lord's work. So while I personally don't believe in the theory of evolution, we cannot fully disregard it, because "Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself, or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam's race --God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain." The 9th article of faith is clear. There is much more to be revealed.

It is key to remember that as translator, Joseph's job was to find the best words to correctly transfer the meaning or the idea from one language to the next. When translating, there is never an exact word-for-word translation. Many idioms or phrases may not translate well. When translating, Joseph would have understood Nephi writing about a bible, and would have known it was a bible. The best word to describe it in english, that Joseph would have been familiar with is the Bible. Others already mentioned Jacob's use of a french word. The same happens in Alma where Moroni writes that the followers of Christ were known as Christians. Some might find this as an anachronism, but in translating, he would have understood that the best way to translate the reformed egyptian name used for followers of Christ to be "Christian." To quote the article "The Book of Mormon - Artifact or Artifice" by Orson Scott Card, The appearance of lawyers in the Book of Mormon is assumed by many to be proof that this is an American artifact. After all, Joseph Smith and his family had plenty of reason to have a low opinion of lawyers, and the references to lawyers in the Book of Mormon are hardly flattering. But there is nothing uniquely American about lawyers. The Romans had lawyers, too, and that the Roman pattern of lawyers was a lot more like what the Book of Mormon used than any American lawyers that Joseph Smith was acquainted with. That is, a lawyer like Zeezrom seemed to be effective, not because of more skillful manipulation of law, but because of his persuasiveness and personal influence. He would take someone under his protection and speak as personal advocate. With Zeezrom on your side, you would win, not because he understood the law, but because of his rhetoric and his reputation for power. Furthermore, the prosecution of Alma and Amulek seemed to originate with the lawyers themselves as the complainants, while Alma and Amulek had no defense attorney, but rather spoke for themselves. It doesn't follow the American pattern. Naming. In fact, the only thing that makes Zeezrom and his ilk seem American is the fact that Joseph Smith translated the Nephite word for the role they played in Nephite society as the English word lawyer. And this is exactly right. If Joseph Smith was receiving the pure knowledge of what Mormon meant as they wrote, he would still have to put it down in English. In a few rare cases, the idea he was trying to translate had no English equivalent, and so we find cureloms and cumoms. But most of the time, there was some English word that came to Joseph Smith, a word that was close enough to convey the idea. As with all translation, though, the words are never exact and never can be. It is the most correct translation possible, but a perfect translation is not possible. So for Joseph Smith to apply the word lawyer to an advocate in a legal system that was not very close to the American legal system can be misleading, but it is still the most correct possible translation given the language that the Prophet had available to him at the time. In fact, the very lack of exotic names supports the genuineness of Joseph Smith's translation. Science fiction writers and critics are quite aware of a long tradition of what James Blish called "shmeerps." Blish pointed out how silly it was that most science fiction writers, when trying to show an alien fauna, would produce a creature that looked like a rabbit and acted like a rabbit and was treated like a rabbit, and yet it was called a "shmeerp." This is ludicrous, of course. People migrating to a new land with strange plants and animals will use familiar names for the new creatures. Thus the English immigrants to America called the bison "buffaloes" and referred to maize as "Indian corn" and finally just "corn," even though in England that word had been a generic term for grain. The English felt no need to come up with new names for items that were "close enough." Surely the Nephites followed the same pattern, using old words for new objects. Thus, if in fact there were no horses in America at the time of the Book of Mormon, the Hebrew word for horse could still quite readily be applied to some other animal that functioned like a horse. Furthermore, the language Mormon wrote in may well have been an ideographic language, in which case it would hardly matter what the spoken word for a particular animal was, as long as Nephite writers had agreed to use the old "horse" ideograph to refer to that animal. Thus it is no more surprising that the word "horse" appears in the Book of Mormon than that the word "buffalo" was used in a nation where there were no buffaloes, but only bison.