LionHeart

It depends on what one considers to be perfect. For example, one person's perfect might be another persons nothingness. It's like the old fable: if you try to please everyone, you will end up pleasing no one. Or take for another example, someone who is a perfect baseball player might be nothing to someone who is a perfect mountain climber. And although Jesus was not known for His perfection at playing baseball, He was known for His perfection at living His life according to the will of His Father, and for His perfect love. And although He may not have been the best baseball player in the world had He tried it, it still does not detract from His perfection.

Perhaps I will tell you how Brigham Young understood this idea. First of all the book of Genesis is also referred to as the first book of Moses. Brigham young asked "What came first, the apple or the tree? The tree produces the apple while the apple produces the tree." He then said, "I tell you that never was there a time, nor will there be a time when you have one without the other. The Lord's kingdom is one eternal round." He went on to explain that when the Lord created this world, he did not "create" it out of nothingness. He merely organized matter that already existed into the form of this world. He then took seeds and animals from other worlds that were already created (in the heavens there are worlds many) and put them on this world. And finally He brought Adam and Eve over. Then Brigham Young asked his audience if they thought he was calling Moses a liar because Moses wrote in the book of genesis that God created Adam out of the dust of the Earth. His response to this was that Moses was no more of a liar than our parents were when they told us that little billy came from a hollow toadstool. Moses merely told the people what they were capable of understanding. Man is essentially sustained from the dust of the Earth. The food we eat comes from the dust of the Earth; whether its meat or produce. There is more to this idea, however, it is very controversial so I won't go into it, unless I'm specifically asked about it.

Phepfffh. (that's me vibrating my lips). Whoever can believe that thought seriously needs some professional help. Doc, Faith is simply another word for assurance. Are you now telling me you can't have some reasoning while also feeling sure that your reasoning is true? Or that you can't have some reasoning while having God assure you it's true? Think, Man!!! It ain't that hard to figure out. But I guess we can believe whatever we want. I think you missed the point of this question Ray. I believe what DR-t was trying to point out is that sometimes when we see something that we don't at first understand that might be considered the power of God, if we try to reason and eventually come to a scientific understanding of the event that took place, then we might decide that it was not the power of God after all, thus degenerating our faith in God.

Quite true. If that were to happen, that might be a step backward in our eternal progression. Now, on a more serious note, I believe that the purpose in life is to get to the point where we are willing to serve God in whatever capacity He requires of us, regardless of what sacrifices might be required at our hands. For a man to be willing to sacrifice anything for his Heavenly Father requires more than just a belief that he is living his life according to the Lord's plan but an actual knowledge of it. This means that the warm fuzzy feeling you get in your bosom is not enough. It requires an actual one on one relationship with our Heavenly Father. Without it, there will always be that "what if?" in the back of our minds so that if and when the time comes to make the sacrifice, we will not have that assurance that we will have place waiting for us at the side of God and we will not be able to make that sacrifice. Developing that relationship with our Heavenly Father is the key to eternal life.

Yes, very confusing. However, I believe that the point it is putting across is not that the Lord Himself decieved the prophet but allowed him to be subjected to deception; in which case, if the prophet allowed himself to be decieved, he would be worthy of destruction. This is the only context in which I can make sense of it. I do know that the translations vary with the different languages they are in. For example, this same passage may be an entirely different expression in the German version of the KJV bible. But that's just me.

How many mormons does it take to screw in a light bulb? I suppose just two. But I must ask, how on earth did they get inside the light bulb? And why is the question restricted to just mormons? Wouldn't it apply to anyone? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Q: Who is written the book of Life? A: Everyone's name is written there until they do something to have it removed. Actually, you can find the answer to this question in section 85 of the D&C. This is also confirmed in The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. At least the original mormon answer to it anyway. For anyone who wants to look it up.

333 I'm only half evil.

I would say I'm in same boat as Jason on this one. As for the Melchizedek priesthood having more authority to teach than the Aaronic priesthood, they both have the same authority to teach, however it is the higher priesthood that does the most of it. Before a man goes on a mission, he is ordained an elder, which is an office in the Melchizedek priesthood. The difference between a priesthood holder and a non priesthood holder teaching is this: The priesthood holder has the authority to represent Christ. Therefore, his works are acknowledged and accepted by Him. The non-priesthood holder is still allowed to teach, but he/she does not have the sanctions of God in their works. This is why they refer people to elders.

P.C. I have a question. According to LDS belief, if we do not live our lives worthy of a celestial glory, we enter into a lesser kingdom; one of which is the terrestrial kingdom. If we receive that glory we become angels. The questions I have is this: According to your beliefs, where do angels come from? And if we do not become angels or gods when we leave this life, what do we become. Do you have any biblical references I can look up?

One thing that I think about when I think about the afterlife is the fact that we will have an eternity in front of us. What in the world will we do with our time? It seems like we would eventually run out of things to do. The only thing I can imagine is that we will be in an eternal pursuit of knowledge and perfection. I believe that Jesus is perfect so far as this world is concerned however he still has an eternity of progression ahead of him. Some may scream "Blasphemy, who are you to say that He has more progress to make?" But I say who are we to say that he hasn't? "The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." (Joseph Smith Jun.) Whenever one of us succeeds in this life, it adds to the glory of God in Heaven. I believe that when we leave this life, if we have made the grade, we will assist in the "winding up scene" of this world and then we will go on to govern our own world; with the guidance of our Heavenly Father of course.

Oh Ray, You know full well that the mind set of some of those fundamentalist is that THEY are of the true Mormon Church and we are all apostates. Actually, Joseph Smith never said that mormon fundamentalists should practice polygamy because there were no mormon fundamentalists. The polygamy issue was the cause of all of the mormon fundamentalists. They felt the church was wrong in discontinuing the practice so they broke off and started their own groups. Except for the ones that broke off when Joseph Smith died. But you can't really call them mormon fundamentalists because they organized their churches a bit differently because they felt that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were doing it wrong. The mormon fundamentalists have tried to organize their groups according to their belief of how the LDS church was originally set up. So the fact that they broke off and continued to live plural marriage is the reason they believe that they are the true mormons.

This is a question that I have thought of alot: does the priesthood govern the Church or does the Church govern the priesthood? The answer must be that the priesthood governs the Church. Here is a quote by Brigham Young on the matter; this statement was made at the time there was the debate about whether Brigham Young or Sydney Rigdon should lead the Church: I do not care who leads the Church, even though it were Ann Lee; but one thing I must know, and that is what God says about it. I have the keys and the means of obtaining the mind of God on the subject…… Does this Church want it as God organized it? Or do you want to clip the power of the priesthood, and let those who have the keys of the priesthood go and build up the Kingdom in all the world, wherever the people will hear them? Although people think that Brigham Young became the president because he was the president of the twelve, this is the real reason he was chosen. The practice of making the president of the twelve the president of the Church wasn't adopted as the official method till later on. I'm not sure how late, but I know that Joseph F. Smith was the second counselor, and unofficially the first counselor to Lorenzo Snow when he was chosen to be the president. Here is another later statement by Brigham Young on the same subject: A man may be a prophet, seer, and revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being President of the Church. Suffice it to say, that Joseph was the President of the Church as long as he lived: The people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station, by the voice of the people. Can you find any revelation appointing him the President of the Church? The keys of the priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth……But when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people; though he held the keys of the priesthood, independent of their voice.

Here we go, check out this eye candy:

Actually, as soon as he started to make a career of it, he decided that perhaps he should play by the rules so he started to learn how to read notes, but he said it just started to foul him up so he quit.

Another excellent LDS pianist is Paul Cardall. He lives in West Jordan SLC. But he doesn't know how to read notes. He plays everything by ear. I went to a concert of his in Idaho Falls. I was truly amazed when I found out he couldn't read notes. While I was there, I bought his latest album and got it autographed. Here is a link to his site: www.paulcardall.com The website has his songs playing while you browse the site. Check it out. You will be amazed.

It is my understanding that it is not wise to allow just anyone to take references from un-canonized material because of the wide variety of interpretations out there. The canonized material is taught in sunday school along with the LDS interpretations thereof. The un-canonized material is not; therefore leaving the interpretation up to the many wild imaginations. Think of it this way: you wouldn't let someone fly a plane if they knew absolutely nothing about planes. This is the same situation. If everyone was allowed to quote doctrine from wherever they wished, the doctrines would be completely different wherever you went. And about the right handed sacrament thing, I believe it's all about oneness. I was always taught that that was one of the purposes of singing the hymns; to get everyone in harmony before recieving the Lord's message. I was also taught that we should observe how the person praying is folding their hands and fold our hands the same way. It is not a requirement, but if we do not do it that way, then we are putting ourselves out of harmony with everyone else. I would assume that taking the sacrament with the right hand would be the same situation. It's not a matter of requirement, just a matter of whether we choose to be in harmony with the rest of the body. However, nobody should criticize anyone for doing it otherwise.

It would appear that I am Christian. Christianity 83% Judaism 63% Buddhism 58% Islam 42% agnosticism 38% Paganism 25% Hinduism 17% Satanism 13% What the devil? atheism 4% It probably says I'm 13% satanism because I agreed that there is a such thing as evil and not just an imbalance. I, however, know this to be true because I have been tormented by evil spirits.

Why is 1600's Elizabethan English any greater sign of respect than say 20th Century New Englandish? I can't answer that. All I know about it is just what I read in that book. Perhaps it has something to do with how the languages evolve. For example, the word 'gay' used to mean happy. What it means now really bothers my grandmother. I think she had some friends named Gay. Perhaps the Lord sees it as being more respectful to speak to him in a more original form of our languages.

If you will notice, when people pray, they try to speak the same english as the bible uses. I read in a book called "True To The Faith" that the reason people do so, is out of respect for the Lord. Perhaps the scriptures are a similar situation. As far as the french word in the B.o.M., here is my opinion on it: It says in the B.o.M. that because of a lack of writing space on the plates, they had to write in a more efficient language. Therefore, rather than translating letter for letter, one character on the plates might have only translated an expression, which might have taken a thousand english words to explain. The plates gave the expression and left it up to Joseph Smith to express it in words. Now the word "Adieu" translates from french to english as saying "Goodbye" in a permanent sense. So there is not an english word for "Adieu". It takes a few words to express it in the english language. So having that word in the B.O.M. would not neccesarily be a mistake, just a simpler way of expressing "Goodbye forever". And if you think about it, if he would have used "Goodbye forever" wouldn't that have been lame?

Here is my opinion on science vs. religion: When you break down science to it's most basic form, you realize that science is an attempt to measure or weigh everything. If it cannot be measured or weighed, it therefore does not exist. Hence we have many scientists who do not believe in God or spirits. This is a purely scientific approach, with no religion involved. Now, one must ultimately come to terms with the fact that there are some common phenomenon out there that cannot be scientifically explained; like magnetism for example. Magnetism is a very common phenomonon, however, no one has ever been able to determine how it works. Many people have their theories, but what exactly is happening there? There is certainly some unseen force there, but what is it that makes the magnetic field rotate? What is the magnetic field composed of? Why does it only attract iron and not everything? But the point is, there are some absolute unseen forces that connot be scientifically explained. Now I know there is a God. I also believe there is a science behind His power; in other words, it's not just some ablotutely unexplainable force that God stumbled onto one day. I believe He understands how it works. Now when an engineer designs and builds a sophistocated machine, (and I'm speaking from experience here) he will spend days and weeks if not years of trial and error until that machine finally does what he wants it to do. By the time he is finished with it, he knows everything there is to know about that machine. And if he wants it to do something else, he knows what will be neccesary to make it do that. So assuming that God created the Earth, would it not be reasonable to assume that he could make it do what he wanted it to do? So if he decided to flood the Earth, he would be able to do it. Even though His method of doing so might fly in the face of modern science. With the power at his disposal, he is able to do it. Does it have to be explainable by mere mortal science? No, but that does not mean that the power is not there. When Jesus performed His miracles, especially when he resurrected Lazerus, something like that would fly in the face of modern science; yet I'll bet there was a science behind it. We can't explain it today, but I know that God could if He so chose to do. There were also reports of miracles happening in the early days of the LDS Church. I honestly believe that the reason we don't see miracles happening today is the fact that everyone demands a scientific explanation for everything. Everone is skeptical anymore; nobody has any faith. As for myself, I choose to believe that God has power that we can't explain. I choose to have faith in Him; even if I am ridiculed by extreme scientists. Because in the end, it's not going to matter how well we understood everything around us; the thing that is going to matter is how well we exercised our faith in Him.

I talked to my co-worker the other day. He says he believes he read the 'mist canopy' theory in a book by Cleon Skousen called The First 2,000 Years. He said the argument he read was quite persuasive. I don't happen to have a copy or I could verify it, if anyone here has one, I would be interested in hearing more info on it. Yeah, I have a copy of that book. I will look it up for you. A couple of LDS missionaries once told me that Gordon B. Hinckley is a mason. I don't know how true that is though.

You are what you eat......So how does stupid taste? I got pulled over by a cop the other night; which I think is kind of ridiculous because they were pulling over everyone who was driving down that particular sidewalk. And that's profiling; and profiling's wrong. The other morning I saw someone kicking a can down the street. When I asked him what he was doing, he replied: "Moving."

If you want a good laugh, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvmiMn9Nh5s While I'm at it, I'll also leave you with a good joke: Okay, this wealthy couple decided to go out to a party one night so they turned to their butler Geeves and said "Geeves, were going out to a party tonight and so you can have the night off. You can do whatever you like to do; just have fun." So they went to their party but about half way through, the wife started to feel a little sick so she left the party early. When she got home, she found Geeves just sitting there on the couch so she said "Geeves, follow me into my bedroom." So he followed her in there. She then said "Geeves, take off my shoes and socks." So he took them off. She then said "Geeves, take off my dress." So he took it off. She then said "Geeves, take off my underwear." So he took it off. Then she said "Now, if I ever catch you wearing my clothes again, you're fired!!!"

Hmmm, I stand corrected. My 1971 BoM does not have an introduction, but my wife's 1989 does. However, my 2001 does not, nor does my 1920 nor my 1889 (but it's in Maori so I can't be sure). I see this post now, and I'm happy you've finally found it. And btw, while I don't know why it's not in your 2001 edition, I do know our leaders have written it, and knowing they wrote it I know there is a reason they wrote it, and the reasoning I gave you explains it. Okay, I'm just going to say the thing that we've all been avoiding and get it over with. I don't think any of us are that blind. After 1980, the Book of Mormon said that fullness of the gospel was contained in both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. However, we all know that it is not contained in either of them. If it was contained in the Bible, we would not need the Book of Mormon; if it was contained in the both of them together, we would not need the doctrine and Covenants or any of the other later teachings, so why did they say that it was contained in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Actually I think I know the answer to this but I would like to hear other's opinion on it.