HEthePrimate

No, no, Dove, you don't understand. As long as you're doing it "for the Lord" (i.e., if you're on the "right side") it's okay to be nasty. You can lie for the Lord, kill for the Lord, and treat people like crap for the Lord. All's fair in love and war! Just kidding, Dove! You're absolutely right that we can use more civility. Civility is, after all, Virtue #4 in President Hinckley's book Standing for Something. Peace, HEP

What a nice way to put it. Thanks! :)

Maygraceabound, I am not trying to convince you to believe what Mormons believe, just to explain what Mormons believe. The O.T. can be confusing in its use of terminology, and the LDS accept continuing revelation and multiple other books of scripture, so you may want to turn to them for a better understanding of what Mormons believe, rather than relying solely on the Bible. Again, not saying you have to believe them, but just in order to understand where Mormons are coming from. Peace, HEP

I don't know Hebrew, but I am given to understand that the ehyeh in "ehyeh asher ehyeh" (from Ex. 3:14) is derived from the same Hebrew word (for "to be") as Yahweh. Apparently Elohim and Yahweh are often used interchangeably in the O.T. The Mormon understanding of the Godhead is not derived only from the Bible, however, but also from modern revelation.If the Father and the Son are acting in concert, however, maybe it doesn't matter so much who is called what in the Old Testament? Peace, HEP

That is correct. LDS folks call God the Father "Elohim." They call Jesus Christ/God the Son "Jehovah," and we don't have a name for the Holy Ghost. They are viewed as three separate and distinct beings, but are united by one purpose. The three together, what mainstream Christians call the Trinity, Mormons refer to as the Godhead.Much of what you read in The Book of Mormon actually sounds pretty Trinitarian, but Mormons base their belief that the members of the Godhead are three individuals at least partly on one of the accounts Joseph Smith gave of the First Vision, wherein he saw two separate personages standing side-by-side. One of them indicated the other and called him his "beloved Son," and told Joseph to listen to what he had to say, whereupon the Son delivered the rest of the message. And of course you have the instance in the N.T. when Jesus was baptized, and the voice of the Father was heard coming from heaven, and the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. Also, the New Testament shows Jesus praying to the Father, and it would seem a bit silly for him to be talking to himself that way, and so we interpret that to mean that the Father is actually a different person than Jesus. We can say that God is one because even though there are three individuals in the Godhead, they are united in purpose and would never speak or act in contradiction to each other. Jesus states that he only did what the Father would do, and so they act in perfect harmony. He also prays to his Father that we humans will all become one even as they are one, which doesn't mean we'll somehow transmogrify into a single individual, but rather that we will become united in purpose, too. That is the concept of Zion (they shall be of one heart and one mind), and of Atonement, or at-one-ment. The relationship between Jesus and the Father pretty much sums up what the entire Gospel is about, and so it's fitting that it should be in the first article of faith. Peace, HEP

I've never smoked, but my sister did for a long time. She was never able to quit for her own benefit, but when she got pregnant, she thought of the baby developing inside her, and out of love for the baby, she quit smoking. My stepmother quit smoking when she converted to the Church. She is convinced that God helped her, that she would not have been able to without his help. She still has a pretty deep voice for a woman, and sometimes sings the tenor part! Even though I've never smoked, I have had other bad habits to overcome, and yeah, stress is a big contributor to the problem. That, and boredom. So finding harmless ways to deal with stress can help. Good luck! :)

You assume that civil marriage ends at death, and temple sealings don't. I'm not so sure. Yes, I am perfectly aware of what the Church teaches, but I think plenty of temple marriages end at death, too, and I can't see a loving God keeping apart couples who were "only" married civilly.

Water is essential to plant and human life, too, but too much water = flooding = death and destruction. Giving humans free agency puts the plan of salvation at risk. But the risk was deemed acceptable given the potential rewards.One could argue that God is not actually in control of the earth at this time, that he has "handed the keys" over to his children for the time being in order to let them demonstrate that they are responsible enough to be in charge long-term. How we treat the earth now affects whether or not God will entrust us with worlds in the future. Of course we shouldn't be ashamed of using the earth's resources, as long as we do it responsibly. There are a number of alternative energy sources already being used, and more under development. Let's keep developing them because petroleum and coal are finite resources.Nobody is arguing that natural processes don't contribute to greenhouse gases. What they are arguing is that human activities do, too, and have upset the balance and are helping to push the warming trend. "Professional skeptic" Michael Schermer used to be, well, skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. However, as he studied the question more, and as scientists gathered more data, he changed his mind and now says that denying AGW is no longer tenable in light of the evidence. See this, in Scientific American. (It's not an analysis of the data, just an article announcing his change of position, but it does reference books he read that helped change his mind.)

Water is essential to plant and human life, too, but too much water = flooding = death and destruction. Giving humans free agency puts the plan of salvation at risk. But the risk was deemed acceptable given the potential rewards.One could argue that God is not actually in control of the earth at this time, that he has "handed the keys" over to his children for the time being in order to let them demonstrate that they are responsible enough to be in charge long-term. How we treat the earth now affects whether or not God will entrust us with worlds in the future. Of course we shouldn't be ashamed of using the earth's resources, as long as we do it responsibly. There are a number of alternative energy sources already being used, and more under development. Let's keep developing them because petroleum and coal are finite resources.Nobody is arguing that natural processes don't contribute to greenhouse gases. What they are arguing is that human activities do, too, and have upset the balance and are helping to push the warming trend. "Professional skeptic" Michael Schermer used to be, well, skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. However, as he studied the question more, and as scientists gathered more data, he changed his mind and now says that denying AGW is no longer tenable in light of the evidence. See this, in Scientific American. (It's not an analysis of the data, just an article announcing his change of position, but it does reference books he read that helped change his mind.) Anyway, I'm not proposing that we panic. There may even be positive changes with global warming (such as my home state potentially becoming a tropical paradise and vacation spot ). However, a number of changes (ex: melting of the polar ice caps, flooding, crop failures, and desertification) would be negative, potentially catastrophic for different regions and different species, and it may have strong effects on global trade and economy, so we would do well to prepare, and to mitigate. And again, even if there was no global warming at all, poisoning the air, water, and land it just not healthy (obviously!), so IMHO we need to stop these nuts who would remove all environmental regulations, or make them impossible to enforce.

Three personages = polytheism? (Technically henotheism, since the Father is in charge.) Not that there's anything wrong with that! Just clarifying.

Nice idea! You could train them to be guard mini-mammoths, and when an intruder comes in, they would trumpet and wake you up! Shear them every once in a while and knit sweaters from the wool!

but... Butterfinger Nest Eggs (chocolate eggs with pieces of Butterfinger candy inside)! Yummmm!!!

Actually, it's easier to stop the big ones, both because they need more territory, which we destroy, and because they're easier to kill. Look all the species of large animals we've already brought to the brink of extinction.

If there were lots of them, yes, but in smaller numbers I don't think they would be disastrous. A good case for occasionally killing a few and turning them into burgers! Mmm, mmm! (Where I live, we have an overabundance of deer, having eliminated their natural predators, and so hunting is encouraged.)

My father's a scientist. And a temple worker.

Ah, didn't see before that the text of the quiz was linked to from the article. Oy, oy, oy! Don't know what that teacher was thinking. Big mistake! I don't know why the article singled out the words "penetrates" and "discharge," which are perfectly appropriate words for discussing the subject matter. But the quiz itself was obviously FAR from appropriate.

Implying that he would support the use of crack cocaine is a straw man argument. And is it really so terrible to question or criticize LDS doctrine and practices?Anyway, as I recall, the original question was "Is the restriction on coffee and tea actual doctrine?" That is a question, not a criticism. I'll grant you there may be implied criticism there, but really, so what? I'm an active LDS and follow the Word of Wisdom, but I, too, wonder if the coffee/tea restriction is actual doctrine, or if it was just a policy decision not based on doctrine. It is unquestionably the current policy not to issue temple recommends to people who drink coffee and tea, but I suspect that in the grand scheme of things, God doesn't really care if we drink coffee or tea, as long as we do things in moderation and with due consideration for our health.

It is a political football only because of the deniers. Nonsense. It's not as though the scientists are pulling their opinions out of thin air. They observe. They record the data. They look for patterns. They use logical reasoning to try to figure out what the data mean. The data consistently point to a certain conclusion, and so the vast majority of climatologists agree about it. This may be a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" situation. I suspect that the reason a majority of scientists are "leftist" is because the Right has been very unfriendly to science, not because the scientists have some sort of agenda. You have Right Wingers insisting that school teachers should teach religion in the classroom and call it science. You have Right Wingers cutting funds for education and for scientific research. You had the Bush Jr. Administration that told scientists to rewrite their findings on climate research in order to support the Administration's agenda. Of course scientists don't like being treated that way, and will tend to support those who do value science.You use the word "probably" as though it means scientists are really quite unsure of their conclusions, and so they can be easily dismissed. I say "probably" actually means "probably," as the data strongly suggest the conclusions that the earth is actually getting warmer, and that human activity contributes to the warming trend. I'd rather base my actions on what is "probably" true, based on the evidence, rather than on what is "probably not" true, or "less likely." Anthropogenic global warming has serious enough consequences that it seems wisest to act now to reverse the trend as much as possible, and to make preparations for the changes that will come despite our best efforts. Even without global warming, who wants polluted air?

Matthew 15:11 fits very nicely with Peter's vision in Acts chapter 10, too. Keeping the Word of Wisdom is, in my opinion, not about moral cleanliness, but about living a wise, healthy lifestyle, and avoiding the problems that come with, for example, alcoholism.

Oh lighten up, Vort! What Maygraceabound said is hardly scathing criticism of LDS doctrines, practices, leaders, or members. It was just his interpretion of the scripture, and IMO, a pretty valid one. He is not necessarily saying that it's a good idea to drink too much alcohol, or take crack, or whatever, just that what a person eats or drinks is not a primary criterion by which God judges us, or by which we should judge each other. A person can drink wine (or even distilled spirits) and still be a good, moral person.Can we say "Straw man?"

"Oh, him? He's harmless. Back in the sixties, he was part of the free speech movement at Berkeley. I think he did a little too much LDS." -- Captain James Tiberius Kirk

I thought the WoW was originally just that, wise advice, and not a standard of worthiness. That obviously changed over time, and that raises curiosity as to how changes like that occur, and why.

I'll have to watch the video when I get a chance. The written text doesn't say much.

Woohoo! Congratulations, Honor!

A few things: -- Prayer. If you want to know someone, talk with them. Of course, prayer often feels like you're talking to the ceiling, and that doesn't help you to know God or Jesus. But it does indicate a willingness on your part to talk, and sometime God may decide to respond, which leads to the next point. -- Personal revelation. God may choose to reveal himself to you, which is really a great way to get to know him. Pay attention to what he says or does, and write it down for pondering later. -- Listen to other peoples' testimonies. Other people get communications from God, too, and share them in fast and testimony meetings. -- Follow Jesus' example. By imitating him and doing what he did, that can help you know him better in a big way. -- Read Moroni chapter 7. Whatever persuades you to do good is from God, and that is a clue as to how you can follow Jesus and get to know him better. Peace, and good luck with your quest to know Jesus better! :) HEP