Gatorman

Tact - The ability to tell someone to go to hades and have them be happy to be on their way. :)

Well, here is my question. The Spirit is able to comfort and teach us. However, I see the Angels, etc, rebuking and warning L&L, not comforting them. Would you prefer to be rebuked, to have that plain speak? :)

Then, the question is what 'intelligence' do we need to gain for our progressing? Do you believe that we need to understand black holes, dark matter, and which came first hominid or dinosaurs? Or, do you think that the intelligence we need to gain to progress on an eternal path is understanding of ourself, understanding of our Savior, knowledge of the scriptures in total, and knowledge of the Spirit? I would take a look at what we are taught are important for salvation and guess that any intelligence that is beneficial to our salvation is intelligence of our Heavenly Father and the plan of salvation.

I don't necessarily reject a literal interpretation. I don't know the answer. However, I do not reject the story as being a way to cover the falicy of the writer or otherwise. I accept that it is possible that Heavenly Father, in his love, could punish his children. Another way to look at it. As a parent, I try to teach my children right from wrong. Sometimes, when they do something wrong, they are warned they will be severely punished. Does this mean I love them less? No. In fact, the serious punishments are to try to keep them on track. And, believe me, when they get punished, they think it is because I am a mean, vengeful father, at least for a bit. But, just as I did not when I was a kid, they do not understand the love it takes to dole out such a severe punishment. You look at a mean/vengeful Heavenly Father and seem to decide it does not fit your vision of him, so it appears you have decided those stories must be false. I see a Heavenly Father who loves us so much that, to teach us, he is willing to do that which seems mean and terrible to us. But, remember, I am not a literalist. I have stated that before. Simply, I do not reject the alegorical stories that seem to conflict with what I would see as an easy 'loving' Heavenly Father. Instead, I recognize that I do not know all, that the story could be true, and that one day I will have the answer. Until then, I have faith in my Heavenly Father's words.

Because, Christ was a man. He had to be able to sin or perfection was not critical. If he had no choice, then, as you said, he was simply what he was created to be. Instead, he was created to be a man, able to sin, able to trip, and in overcoming that weakness, be able to stand up for us and answer for us. I am not a literalist Snow. I just don't toss out scripture or excuse it because God 'must be nice'. Can I answer WHY Heavenly Father might choose to have bears attack children? No. But, can I accept that he has the power and may have had a reason to do it and leave it at that? Absolutely.

Agreed. Christ COULD sin, he could choose evil. He chose not to. And, thus, we see that even in perfection, Christ had a choice.

Where in the bible, old or new testament, does the Elisha story take place?

There are adapters you can purhcase that will allow you to plug any standard plug into your car. You plug the adapter into the lighter and then your standard plugs into the adapter. This way, you can charge any of your devices you need to. There are even ones that can support more than one plug or more than one device. Some will handle a power strip running multiple electronics. We have had 2 laptops, 2 'DS' type games, and 2 cell phones plugged into a power strip, plugged into a good one of these adapters.

Or, the intention is to take the absurdity of the notion presented to its logical conclusion. I believe that Heavenly Father is capable and would commit acts that we may consider barbaric for his own purposes. Consider this, he put his precious children on this world to suffer, that there by, they might gain. How would a just and loving Father allow his children to suffer in the least bit, if he had the power to prevent it? Because, in his love, he must let us go through it. Our notion of right and wrong may turn out to still be limited. Remember, we did not understand it as Adam and Eve. So, my point was simply to point out the absurdity.

*studies teachings of the bible *studies teachings of the BoM *studies teachings of the Latter Day Prophets *studies teachings of the temple Welp...May seem counter intuitive, but, I agree with snoozer. There is no good without evil. There is no progression without choice. The question, to me, when I review it, distills down to lucifer vs Christ's plan. I will continue to choose Christs.

So, then the bible is not inspired. It is merely a collection of writings by people? Heavenly Father would not leave lies in his inspired work, right? Especially lies that attempt to paint him as anything other than he is.

I would not mind seeing this. Allow some discussions to be allowed without the scientific attempts to make us feel foolish for our beliefs. I do not have a problem discussing differences of religious belief and philosophy, but when wordsmithing and science and science are used to twist and turn the topic and undermine what is being discussed, it truly distracts from a faithful discussion.

Snow - Which miracles do you believe actually occurred versus are simple story? How do you tell the difference? Like, did Jesus walk on water? Did Mary have an 'immaculate' conception? Did Moses, or Heavenly Father, part the sea for the Israelites? Did a Donkey talk? Did a burning bush speak to Moses? Which do you believe occurred and which do you believe are hooey?

I didn't say you were Pam. It is the fact that science does not disprove a talking donkey. It does not disprove a great flood. I believe Heavenly Father is perfectly capable of using his power to make a donkey talk.

A difference then. I see Heavenly Father's abilities as natural, not super natural. However, I am well aware of your knowledge of our language and your use of it to state exactly what you want.

I am aware of the rules Pam. The enforcement of the rules have been made clear. Thank you for the reminder though.

Thank you Pam, that has been my point. Snow started out his last post to me okay. He can't prove it either. Then, he returns to the insults and abbrasiveness that he gets away with. He states he believe in what is 'normal' and I believe in 'magic'. How about if, instead Snow, you state that I believe that Heavenly Father is powerful enough to overcome the limitations of our nature and can make a Donkey talk, if he wants. There is nothing magical I am suggesting. I am suggesting that our Heavenly Father with his infinite power can make a donkey talk, if he wants. Same with the flood. It could be a limitation of the 'view' of the writer versus a true world wide flood. I have acknowlegded that I don't have the answers. I have acknowledged that my faith is based on these things and not what science teaches us. In return, Snow is allowed to insult and belittle me and others as believers in dogma and that it is foolish and wasteful to believe in dogma that way. That there is no value in how we believe. So, no, I do not respect this part of Snow's opinions. He is intelligent, perhaps. But, the way he posts wastes it for many.

So, in the end, because I choose to favor the bible to the science, I am wrong. You are right, there is no proof that a donkey did or did not talk in that specific occasion. And, there is the crux. I believe it is possible, because Heavenly Father can achieve whatever he wishes. I don't see evidence by science that it didn't happen. I see scientific evidence that suggests it can not happen without outside influence. So, I do not dismiss and call it impossible. I recognize that it is impossible without Heavenly Father.

You just made my point exactly. When science begins to be used, either without the counsels of God or with the intent to shred the faith of others in the bible, it becomes exactly that, the Philosophies of Men. That is my issue. Using science to suggest that a donkey could not have possibly talked suggests that Heavenly Father is not all powerful. Using science to suggest that there is no possible way Adam and Eve where the first man and woman does the same thing. Using science to have a discussion where both sides are equally listened to and one side is not told they are foolish, ignorant, or lying, is perfectly acceptable. Science does not: 1 - Prove a donkey never talked. 2 - Conclusively prove that Adam and Eve came from homonids. 3 - Prove that a great flood did not happen. Agreed. I have never suggested they were. Again, my objection is not to science. My objection is when science is used to tear the Bible apart. I have an issue when science is elevated above the scriptures. I have an issue when it is suggested that if there is no economic or some other calculable benefit, then belief in the bible is foolish. What is the 'value' in believing that a donkey talked? It excercises our faith. It can help make our testimony stronger. It shows to our Heavenly Father that we trust his word and his teachings. Is it measurable? Not always in ways we understand. But, it does have a positive affect in our life. Now, where I have seen suggestions of negativity directly at me is when I suggest that if science and the bible disagree, I will favor the bible or other scriptures. I have faith in what it teaches, I do not put faith in science. I trust Heavenly Father far more t han I trust man.

Because, we are not perfect and we can not perfectly following him. :) We are all STRIVING to follow him.

Well, I believe you have your answer from most of us then. The term Christian refers to those who strive to be followers of Christ. We may not agree on the exact best way to do it, the specifics of what has to be done to accomplish the task, but, we all strive to follow him in our own way. Hence, we are Followers of Christ. You can inject all the contradictions, objections, theories, conspiracies, or any other specifics you wish to use. But, I have stated why we believe we are all Christians. The answer is, frankly, that simple.

Wow. You must be about ready to retire the walker for a scooter chair. :) Anyway, I asked for this reason. It will help you understand my statement, which applies to how I feel. I do not apply this to others, per se. I see science as a Philosphy of Men. I use the term specifically. Now, as is the intent wrapped around that statement, it is meant to take parcels and shreds of truth and make them seem like more importnant than the flaws. So, when one takes science to disprove the bible, I see a promise from the other side being followed up on. Does the fact that we have found no scientific evidence of a grand flood of the scale that seems to be indicated in the bible mean that the story is not valid? No. It could mean that we just haven't found proof. It could mean that it did not happen. Or, it could mean that from the perspective or view of the person writing it, the whole of the earth they knew was covered. There is a belief that one of the floods around the Black Sea, I think, could have occurred in such a way as to be construed as a 'Great Flood'. Regardless, when others push that it is foolish for us to believe that a flood occurred because science does not back it up, I see the Philosophy of Men coming forth. On the other hand, if they want to discuss that maybe there are other plausible answers, other ways that a type of great flood could have occurred, or, perhaps even better, what the purpose of the story truly is, then I would find worth in their conversation. Another example, Revelations. Look at the descriptions of the various things fighting. How could such fantastical creatures exist, right? No way science could back up such fantastical creatures. Unless, one stops for a minute and asks, what would the weapons of our day, our tanks, helicopters, etc, appear to be to John the Revelator? And, even if John understood what they truly were, how would the people of that time make sense of the story if he wrote about the iron tanks and the helicopters? But, does it make the story any less important? Or, does it make it any less likely he saw what he claims he saw? No. So, there is great value to me in believing what the bible teaches. And, since I have faith in what the bible teaches and I do not have faith in the science of men, I choose to believe the bible more closely. This does not make me any less of a person, any more crazy than someone who believes in science.

And your question was answered, but not to your satisfaction. But, let me dissect for you. Do I believe that someone must be baptized by immersion by someone who holds the Preisthood before they can be called a Christian? No. Do I believe that that person needs to do it to achieve the highest degree of glory? Yes, among other things. IE: Christian does not mean you will receive the highest degree of glory, in our faith. There are specific works that are required to acheive that highest glory. You are speaking of works. And, generally, the works are not required to be a Christian.

Well, since Christ taught that he was the Son of God and that he would rise from the dead, infact proving it to his followers, then you have the first part of the equation wrong. So, a good person can follow Christ's general teachings and not be Christian. Why? Because they don't believe in Christ and his teachings. I believe the answer to your question is that no one else that I have seen post agrees with your analysis. You can be a Christian and not believe in all the same criteria for being saved.

Rider - Simple, because, you are looking at the details, instead of the basics. For example, I am an American. I believe in the Constitution as the Supreme law of our Government. Now, others may be Americans and believe it is okay to do things that I disagree with. For example, I believe that welfare is unconsitutional. Others do not. Does us having different understandings of this specific issue make either of us any less American? Christian's follow Christ's teachings as best they can, as best they understand them.