martybess

This is what made me think about it Hemi. Just when the sacrament prayer for the bread was said a thought popped in my head, "did you even hear a word of that prayer" I was ashamed of myself. Yes I was thinking of my duties in the priesthood at the time but that was not excuse.

Yes true but do we really understand we just said a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ? Should we not give thanks to G-d that we are able to gather and renew our baptismal covenants in both those prayers?

"We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ" (2 Ne. 25:26) But do we enough? Should latter day saints have a greater focus on the Savior then we do? Is our Sunday worship focused on him? Is our lessons focused enough on him? Isn't that why we go to church? Do we not covenant to remember him every Sunday? Options?,

Not so sure about this. Many times he made statements to the effect that he was not welcome among his own and many were looking for him. In fact his own killed him. Are we not his own? There were hypocrites in the church back then and there are still today. (D&C 121:34-40) "34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? 35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson— 36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. 37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. 38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God. 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. 40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen." I'm guilty of many of these things, prisonchaplain you have made a great point!!!

Good Point!

Yes I agree. I'm referring the oath the G-d makes with us in the Oath and covenant of the priesthood. Does not this oath go back to the oath that G-d made with Abraham? That Abraham will gain all that the Father has and if he the Father does not uphold his promise he swears with an oath that he himself will loose all that he has and thus will cease to be G-d? Gospel Doctrine: God Will Provide Himself a Lamb : Lesson 9 "Modern-day revelation declares that “all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:40). The account of Abraham clarifies the terms and conditions of the priesthood oath and covenant; delineates the blessings that flow forth from the covenant; and instructs us on what is required to receive those blessings. A High Priest Having grown up in an idolatrous home and having been the attempted sacrificial offering of heathen priests, Abraham recognized that there was greater peace and happiness to be found. Thus, he sought for “the blessings of the fathers,” which blessings he acquired being a “follower of righteousness.” As Abraham states, “I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers” (Abraham 1:2). The rights and privileges of the High Priest were accessed only through “the fathers.” It is important to note that the scriptural term “the fathers” has a very specific connotation. Abraham is careful to distinguish between his lineage through his fathers and “the” fathers, stating that “my fathers” had turned away from their righteousness. As such, a High Priest according to the order of the fathers has specific reference to “the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me” (Abraham 1:3). In other words, patriarchal authority passes from father Adam to his sons. And as taught by Christ, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son” (John 5:19). Sonship is not therefore based on biological descent but rather behavioral imitation. I am a son of whomever I imitate. Speaking to the Jews of His own day, Christ said, “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:29). [1] Interestingly, this passage intimately links the responsibilities of the father (the priesthood) to the blessings of the firstborn. This will be further demonstrated through the account of Abraham. The Oath and Covenant The book of Genesis further clarifies the nature of the covenant that Abraham entered into in order to become a High Priest. However, before looking at this covenant, we will briefly consider the difference between an oath and a covenant. A covenant is a formal relationship of obligation between two parties sealed by an oath. While a covenant comprises the conditions, obligations, and promises of the agreement, an oath is the guarantee of the fulfillment of these terms [2] . A covenant is almost always centered on a two-party relationship, whereas the oath is the binding declaration of a single party. An oath was often sworn upon an object or individual; failure by the individual to comply with the terms of the covenant resulted in the cursing of the object that was sworn upon, be it the heavens, earth, altar, tree, or individuals own life. The Oath: Genesis chapter 15 contains a reiteration of the covenantal blessings promised to Abraham along with the covenant’s binding oath. A basic understanding of ancient process of oath swearing is necessary to begin to understand this chapter. According to the ancient pattern, the subject bound himself to the master by passing between the separated parts of a dead animal. As he passed between the parts, he swore an oath, while pointing at the dead animal, that he would fulfill the terms of the contract. Failure to do so would invoke the same consequence that befell the animal. This type of simile cursing was common among the Hebrews in both the Old World and the New World. In Genesis 15, Abram is concerned that the Jehovah’s covenantal promises will not be fulfilled. Speaking to Jehovah, Abram said, “Lord, God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Genesis 15:8). Following which, Jehovah directs Abram to “take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat… and a ram… and a turtledove.” Abram then took these animals and “divided them in the midst” (Genesis 15:9-10) [3] . When the sun went down that night, “a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp…passed between those pieces. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram” (Genesis 15:17-18). Jehovah, here symbolized by the burning lamp, passed between the pieces of the carcass of the dead animal. We can only assume that as he did so, he pointed at the pieces of the animal and promised Abram that he would fulfill his part of the covenant or incur the curse of the dead animals. In reference to this event, Paul states to the Hebrews, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself” (Hebrews 6:13). The blessings of the priesthood covenant are sealed by God’s personal guarantee, and all the He is including His Godhood, that he would bring about the promised blessings conditioned on our worthiness. Therefore, as stated in modern-day revelation, “all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:40)" - By David Hadlock

Hemi, Did you mean to say "don't we make those oaths in the temple"? There is a bit of a distinction between the two words. We do not say "blood covenant". I think oaths are actions against ourselves such as a curse or even death.

I just read this on Wiki (see link below) and I think it’s wrong. It says that both the priesthood holder and G_d make an oath. We do not make the unspoken oath as it say, we convenant to magnify the priesthood. Here’s what it says: Priesthood (LDS Church) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “The church teaches that receiving the priesthood is a saving ordinance for males. Like all saving ordinances of the church, it is accompanied by the recipient making a covenant with God. In addition, the reception of the Melchizedek priesthood is said to constitute an "unspoken oath as well as [a] covenant".[2] The recipient of the Melchizedek priesthood promises by unspoken oath that he will "magnify" his assigned calling in the priesthood. In exchange, God promises by oath that the recipients will be "sanctified by the [Holy] Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies"; that they will become the sons of Moses and Aaron and the seed of Abraham; and that they will receive exaltation and ultimately receive all that God has.[3]” I think this is correct. G_d is the one that makes an oath to the recipient of the melchizedek priesthood holder and not the holder as well. I’m sure I could find a better quote by an apostle if I had time. S. Brent Farley - The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood “President Romney defined an oath as "a sworn attestation to the inviolability of the promises in the agreement."21 President Joseph Fielding Smith explained that "to swear with an oath is the most solemn and binding form of speech known to the human tongue."22 In the oath and covenant of the priesthood, it is the Father who makes the oath. Elder McConkie taught that the oath is "that everyone who keeps the covenant made in connection with the Melchizedek Priesthood shall inherit, receive, and possess all things in his everlasting kingdom, and shall be a joint-heir with that Lord who is his Only Begotten. . . . God swore with an oath that Christ would be exalted, and he swears anew, at the time each of us receives the Melchizedek Priesthood, that we will have a like exaltation if we are true and faithful in all things."23 This oath is as eternal as the priesthood, and always accompanies it, signifying its validity in providing for the exaltation of God's faithful children.” What do you folks think?

What sections in the D&C is the priesthood set forth? Oath and Covenant, etc. 20, 84, 121. If you kind folks could tell me what I'm missing, what's talked about it would be greatly appreciated! :)

Teachings of Harold B. Lee If the Lord's work goes on vacation, Satan thrives. Whenever the work of the Lord goes on vacation, that is when the power of Satan's program is put in full play and the substitute organizations for the Lord's work have their great innings to win the Lord's people away from His church. The devil never sleeps; his work never lags; and this organization must not slacken in our effort if we [hope to] do the work that our Heavenly Father has set us up to do. (49-03, p. 255) Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball Satan tempts us at our weak points. The adversary is so smart and subtle that he takes every man in his own game. The man whose weakness is money will be led inch by inch and yard by yard and mile by mile into that area where his wants can be satisfied. If one's ambition is power, the evil one knows exactly how to build him up to that point. If one's weakness is sex, Satan in his erudition and experience and brilliance knows a thousand reasons why sex may be liberated to run rampant and express itself and satisfy itself. Lucifer is real. He is subtle. He is convincing. He is powerful. (2/28/66) Kimball, Spencer W.TP151Having been reared on the farm, I know that when the pigs got out, I looked first for the holes through which they had previously escaped. When the cow was out of the field looking for greener pastures elsewhere, I knew where to look first for the place of her escape. It was most likely to be the place where she had jumped the fence before, or where the fence had been broken. Likewise, the devil knows where to tempt, where to put in his telling blows. He finds the vulnerable spot. Where one was weak before, he will be most easily tempted again. (MF 171) Kimball, Spencer W.TP151The adversary is subtle; he is cunning, he knows that he cannot induce good men and women immediately to do major evils so he moves slyly, whispering half-truths until he has his intended victims following him, and finally he clamps his chains upon them and fetters them tight, and then he laughs at their discomfiture and their misery. (67-09) Kimball, Spencer W.TP151And the Savior said that the very elect would be deceived by Lucifer if it were possible. He will use his logic to confuse and his rationalizations to destroy. He will shade meanings, open doors an inch at a time, and lead from purest white through all the shades of gray to the darkest black. (80-53)

Good question, I've thought about too. I think it's a big part of the test, not really knowing in the young years of life but as time flows hopefully we get better at knowing. Sadly most don't get better. I think some have a gift to know if it was heavenly.

You know that's a whole new thought for me. I've never really thought of it that way.

Nice Job Hemi! It's hard to maintain.... I really have to try hard, I love food. Going to be nice when I don't have to worry about feeding myself anymore.

Kind of a related question. When we are resurrected we will be the prime of our life and health right? It's going to weird seeing everyone skinny. LOL

Well all know condemning another for anything is wrong and this thread wasn't meant for us to judge someone who is not fit. This thread was just a question why the church doesnt help in this area more and Hemi pointed out that they are. I guess I have come to the conclusion that it's not talked about more in the scriptures because it's not important as long as it's not hindering you spiritually and in your service and that there's allot bigger issues to deal with. I thought the body and the natural man tendencies are the main reasons for obesity but as many have pointed out there are many reasons for it.

mikbone I'm glad your a surgeon and not a neurologist. I've spent my life's savings seeing my share of both and neurologist are the most pompous ppl I've known. Yes I'm judging here I know, I know.

I like Hemiites

Is it that we are not to know.... or rather a better word would be experience some evils and never was it intended that we know them. But we could not know the experiences of this life without the fall and thus experience it for ourselves and that there was not other way?

Yes Snow I miss read the question, thanks. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, New and Everlasting Covenant. (Second Paragraph Quoted) All covenants between God and mankind are part of the new and everlasting covenant (D&C 22;132:6-7). Thus, celestial marriage is a new and an everlasting covenant (D&C 132:4) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Some covenants, such as baptism, have force in all dispensations. Other covenants are made for special purposes in particular dispensations; circumcision as a sign of a covenant is of this type (MD, p. 479). The same eternal covenant conditions may be established through other ritual signs at other times. ..

Encyclopedia of Mormonism "The new and everlasting covenant is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The sum of all gospel covenants that God makes with mankind is called "the new and everlasting covenant" and consists of several individual covenants, each of which is called "a new and an everlasting covenant." It is "new" when given to a person or a people for the first time, and "everlasting" because the gospel of Jesus Christ and Plan of Salvation existed before the world was formed and will exist forever (MD, pp. 479-80)." Marty

Here's a good quote by one of the LDS scholars explaining scholarship. Really what qualifies one to be a scholar? Within BYU itself there are a ton of scholars that really know their stuff, Ancient language etc. I do know head quarters consulted Nibley some on ancient type doctrine as well as the temple endowment. I think my favorites are Truman Madsen and Nibley. "The first [conclusion] is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages." Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided into four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories--traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship. The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex." Jeff Lindsay, LDS Scholar. ..

Basically what I was wondering but maybe it would of been to complex and thus general guidelines were given.

Hemi's posts are going to be taken wrong though they are good. I should of done the same thing he did and look directly to what the church is doing and saying.

Yes I agree with the above Hemi.... what I was referring to was the comment that satan made about giving them fruit as done in other worlds. I don't believe a word satan says, he's a liar. Is he trying to talk his way out of something he just done or what? I don't know.

I emailed Pam to delete this thread.....nothing good is going to come from it. I was not attacking anyone I apologize for asking one of the questions that you just don't ask.. :)