Gatorman

I believe that to be following him perfectly, one of the things we need to do is to be baptized, according to the example he set. In other words, by immersion and by someone with the proper authority, which John had. But, do I believe to be a follower you MUST be baptized? No. You can be Christian, even if you haven't been baptized yet.

I guess my take is not what Snow thinks it is at all. When there is 'grey' area, I favor what my faith tells me versus the philosophies of men. Especially when it comes to mingling with scriptures. So, my faith teaches me that Adam and Eve are the first people on earth and that they are the point to which we all trace our lineage. No amount of hominids, apes, chimps, or grits will change that. Now, am I claiming that all the evidence is wrong? No. I am simply stating that there is either another answer that we have not found, it is confounding teaching, or we are mistaken. I have made a point before that the bible does not eliminate evolution and evolution does not disprove the bible. Perhaps, one possibility is, evolution was the process Heavenly Father used. We don't know. So, what is important. The important part for our salvation is that Adam and Eve were the first humans and are the 'parents' of us all. I have yet to see anything in the plan of Salvation that says we have to accept that hominids are our ancestors. I prefer to keep my trust in my faith and my eye on the ball of what is needed for salvation. The other knowledge is gravy and may bring about great things, but, if it ultimately does not increase my understanding of the plan of salvation and how to return to my heavenly father, it is unimportant.

So, you can only be a Christian if you follow all of his teachings perfectly? Wouldn't that remove the fact that we are imperfect and have need to both improve and ask for forgiveness? Christian = Follower of Christ, one who works to achieve the teachings of Christ. That path is based on their own understanding, but, they are still following Christ.

Toss out my .02... Your son needs to understand it is his choice and you won't be upset. However, the grandparents need to understand that you are allowing it to be his choice. They need to allow him to make the choice.

My opinion and understanding of Brother Wirthlin's talk. Christians are those who follow the teachings of Christ and believe that he died on the cross for them. As a Latter Day Saint, my faith teaches me that to obtain the highest degree of glory, that means I must follow the physical exaples and teachings of Christ, which include the 4 things Brother Wirthlin mentioned. Someone who doesn't follow or believe those things is no less Christian. However, they will not be able to achieve what we believe to be the highest glory or reward. The difference you will often see is that people take exception that we don't believe in the TRinity or other simple differences and use that to say we are not Christian. In other words, unless we believe as you do, we can not be Christians. Our position is that you are Christian, if you believe in Christ, but that you may not have the fullness of the Gospel to be able to reach your fullest potential. But, you are still Christian.

Snow, in an effort to understand your position better, I have a question. Have you ever been through a full session in the temple?

Post removed by poster.

So says the science of men. And, you were the first to suggest denegration of 'science deniers'. I used the term bible deniers as a simile. You prefer to give the teachings and understanding of men greater precedence than faith, it appears. I prefer to give my faith precedence over the teachings and science of men. That is the true difference. And, it is your choice, as it is mine. But, my first reaction is not to put you down because of how you believe. My first reaction is to simply state I disagree. I believe, as the bible teaches, that Adam and Eve are the first children of our heavenly father. If that contradicts the science of men, then, I believe what my faith says and acknowledge that men may be flawed. It has happened before, it will happen again. But, no matter what, our faith teaches us that Heavenly Father's first children on earth were Adam and Eve. Either you believe that or you don't.

Well, it depends on your point of view. Bible deniers suggest that such theories as you are suggetsing prove they are right. I believe you stated that the other group, science deniers, would believe that man, in our frail and able to make mistakes state, may not have the math right. The bible, in either regard, is not specific. I trust the bible that Heavenly Father created Adam and Even as the first man and woman. My understanding is that whether due to knowledge, innocence, or physical ability, they could not or would not follow the first commandment until they ate of the tree and fell. Which is truly the important issue. Hominds, apes, chimpanzies, or grits <hominy :) >, aren't germaine to the story. I am frustrated by those who claim to believe the bible but spend so much time trying to deny it or disprove it. What is the lesson taught by the story, who cares about the science. Science will not get us back in the presence of our Heavenly Father.

It is possible. I always took it as they were 2 commandments when they were placed in the Garden. But, it is possible I am wrong.

Or, if you believe that Eve's body was incapable of reproduction until after the fall perhaps.

So, Adam and Eve were given contradictory commandments. They 'had' to sin for us to be, so a way was created where by, with agency, they would sin. God's plan would come to pass, one way or the other. Adam and Eve would choose the path.

Am I remembering correctly that Adam and Eve were actually given 2 commandments? 1 - Do not eat of the tree. 2 - Be fruitful and multiply Yet, it appears that until they broke #1, they could not complete #2. Or, am I remembering wrong?

And, what more obvious place can we see Satan mingling the Truth of Heavenly Father with the Philosophies of men, than science. What better way to disprove God, than to take his ways and twist them just enough.

Well, for myself, I am not anti intellectual. However, intellectual is not capable of disproving my faith. So, if and when they try, it is automatic fail. Why? Because intellectualism relies on the strength of men. Faith relies on the strength of the Spirit. Hence, why I can sit there and say that 'evolution' may have a good theory and may have the 'process' right. They just don't have the trigger or control right in most cases. So, evolution becomes unimportant to me. Perhaps evolution IS the method that Heavenly Father set in place. Point is, it doesn't matter. Same with the Big Bang or any other 'great' discovery. They have their place.

Monotheistic, henotheistic, aetheistic. I could really care less what words of man are put to my faith. It does not change it. I believe in my Heavenly Father, his Son, my savior, and the Holy Ghost. I have been taught and believed even before being taught it, that they are three distinct beings who serve one purpose. Similar to how 3 men make up the Presidency of the Church. So, 'God', is a Presidency, made up of Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Or, any other way you want to define it. It doesn't change the truth of what I know and it doesn't change what I know.

Well, that is one of the reasons I say kill the current bills and start over. Look at the basics first, instead of the freebies to buy votes. There aer SOOOO many things that need to be done before we try to throw more money at the problem. And, things that even a lot of the republicans could get behind. Then, if those things are done, the system is running better, and we STILL need to look at pay options...Well...Then we cross that bridge.

True FT. One of my issues is...This bill does not address the simple things first. I liken it to the 'medication' mentality we have any more. Child goes in to see a doctor and is happy, healthy, and active. However, someone sees it as hyper. So, off they go to get medicated, instead of doing behavioral changes first. Medicate first, ignore the issue. Same thing here. Perhaps, if we addressed some of the issues without creating a new public plan or similar, we would see the costs come down, it become more affordable and more available. Massive overhaul when we can't focus on specific things...IE the shotgun approach...Is not controlled damage. It is uncontrolled chaos. Focus on a few things. Do those. Then, if it still isn't working, go the next step. It means they actually have to do things though, rather than playing politics and what is it going to do for me.

Elphaba - I have to disagree with one of your points. The question IS answerable. However, it is written to make it difficult to get anything but one answer. Standard polling technique. Since it uses ANDs instead of ORs, it is answerable. Look at it like a flow chart. Cover 47 Million - If No - End. If Yes - Continue Cheaper - If No - End. If Yes - Continue Better - If No - End. If Yes - End So, a no on ANY one point results in a no. It is asking if the government is capable of doing all three, which, is a no.

Polygamy - Generic - More than one spounse Polygyny - Husband with more than 1 wife Polyandry - Wife with more than 1 husband

Agreed. And, in many cases, all of those answers are correct. In the case of something like tithing, we are given a principle and asked to live it. It is up to each of us to come to our own understanding with Heavenly Father of what that principle means. If the church came out with a pamphlet telling us exactly how to calculate tithing, then, we would have to excercise our own faith and discernment less.

Especially since some of those posts going against her would be in violation of rules 3 and 4. We don't want the moderators having to stop these types of posts.

I think I can agree with the idea that every citizen should have the ability to purchase insurance if they choose. Beyond that, not so much.

Does that mean, because people go out and have pre-marital sex, it is no longer a sin? Or, is it that it is still a sin and just has become acceptable to society? Similarily, it is still unConstitutional, but people have decided they like what was done. Now, to follow up on your points: 1 - Yes, the Southern States had the authority and a right to secede. I see Lincoln as one of the first Presidents to seriously damage the Constitution and the limitation of the power of the Federal Government. Do I think slavery should have continued? No. But, neither did the government have the power or authority to force the states to remain. 2 - Interstate highways - Truly a conundrum. But, I believe the interstate commerce rules would cover this, barely. Again, I would have to study this one more deeply to understand it better. 3 - Post Office - Not one I had considered in detail. Would require study. 4 - Health Care - If it appears to be against the Constitution, then, I can not support it. I can not support the further decline from what is right. If we could return to what I believe is the proper understanding of the document, I am not one who says we have to immediately eliminate everything. Instead, we need to stop the slide in one direction, make serious plans to head the other way, and look to those who are absolutely dependant on the broken laws we allowed to exist. To me, that is our responsiblity as a people for continuing to allow those violations. So, welfare, medicare, social security, etc, would be slated to go away. But, they would remain funded for the 'short' term. The education department would go away. How do you fund schools then? You continue to collect the taxes, but, then direct apportion them to the states with no strings attached. In fact, that would be a constitutional method of taxation. So, you have a couple of CPAs, instead of a massive government entity. Apply similar principles where they fit. Apply the 'social security' principle where it fits.

FT - Fair enough. My take on the Constitution is that specific, well defined powers were created specifically and that those are the ONLY powers the Federal Government has, until we create more. The document was inspired, including the rules regarding how to amend the document. So, the amendments are still within the original inspired intent. Anything not specifically laid out by the Constitution is a power that resides with the States. Hence, the 10th amendment. Otherwise, the General Welfare clause, under your interpretation, makes the 10th a moot point. It would mean that Congress can create any law they want and fund it, without restriction. Our founders had just over thrown such a government and their intent was to make sure our government could not be like that. So, which way to interpret is simple. Look at the powers specifically enumerated. Those are the only ones that need to be interpreted. The only thing that can grant them new powers is if we pass a new amendment. It is meant to be difficult, to ensure we don't pass things willy nilly.