LionHeart

The idea that the fullness of the gospel is contained in the Book of Mormon does seem to be a common misconception. Here is the truth as far the book of mormon saying so in the introduction: All Book of Mormons published before 1980 did not say anything about it. Publications in 1980 and after, had an introduction added in which it states the fullness of the gospel is contained therein as well as in the bible. The year 1980 is also when many changes in the text of the Book of Mormon were made. But if you knew the teachings of the early leaders, you would know that the fulness of the gospel is not contained in either book. My understanding of the Book of Mormon is that it is a foundation to build on. Something to get people to begin to understand the LDS theology. Back when it was first translated, the idea that God was once a man was unheard of. There was a first step that was required, which was the Book of Mormon, that people could take to get them headed down the path to an understanding of LDS theology.

It is my belief that it is not the sin that counts. It is our efforts put forth to bettering ourselves that counts. In many cases, someone knows they have a problem, but to change it is more than just an overnight thing. Many times "it requires a constant labor" to overcome it. And I believe that the Lord acknowledges our efforts to do so. So even though we repent, and we fall into the same temptations afterwards, our repentance is still genuine if we continue to put forth the effort to overcome our problem. In the end, it is not what we have done that counts, but who we have become.

The repentance represents our action of turning on the windshield wiper.

Yes, I see where you are coming from. The LDS religion also provides a purpose in life. But if they seek harmony with the world, that purpose in life will eventually be gone. I remember hearing somewhere, I think it was on a news program, that the Islamic faith is now the fastest growing religion in the world. The LDS faith is the fastest growing Christian religion. Also, Mormons are now becoming the minority in Utah.

Here is a little history of the translation of the bible: A man named William Tyndale who lived back in the 1500s made the first english translation of the bible. The only problem was it was not authorized by the Church. This was illegal in England so he went to Germany to do it. He was translating from the original Hebrew text. There were a few words and terms he had to "invent" because there was not an english word for it at the time, such as 'atonement' and 'brother's keeper' and 'salt of the earth' and a few more. Eventually the church caught up with him, arrested him, and burned him at the stake. His last words were "Lord, open the eyes of the king of England" His work however, later became the foundation of many of the modern versions; the king James version being one of them. King James authorized his version as the official version for England at the time, however some say that his scribes added many of their own ideas. This is why the LDS say they believe it is true as far as it is translated correctly, and also why Joseph Smith began his own translation of it. Joseph Smith studied a few different languages in his time, Latin, Hebrew, Greek, and German being among them. He said that the German translation is the closest to the Hebrew version; pointing out that in the English version, the word "create" is actually replace with the word "organize" in the German version. Another thing he pointed out is that when translating the bible, the translator read the Hebrew word "Elohiem" and left it the same in the translations; assuming that was the name of God. However, the way it is actually understood by the Hebrews is "God" in a plural sense, or "the Gods."

I'm with Snow here. I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who read out of the Islamic Quran on his radio show in a passage that said something to the effect that Christians were infidels and that they should kill them. Assuming it actually says that, I would say that they are not very peacful. Like Snow said, they're probably not murdering and burning because they're truly offended, they're probably just claiming to be offended as an excuse to kill christians. You notice, all of their leaders are trying to keep them calm. You would think that the leaders would be more outraged than the mere followers if there was just cause for offense. But when I see pictures that belittle Christ or my Father in Heaven, sure, I'm offended, but I'm not going to hunt someone down and kill their dog and burn their house down and finally kill them over it. I simply choose to ignore it. And I do believe it's wrong for those people to intentionally print those things knowing what effects it will have, but they don't care what I think. There will always be people like that. These people that get so offended (if that's truly the case) just need to learn to control themselves. And if they get upset because people think they are violent, guess what, the proof is in the bag. Who crashed the planes into the twin towers? Who was the beltway sniper? Who is blowing people up by the hundreds by converting women and children into suicide bombers? Very much violent indeed.

I will point out that when I mentioned 'salvation' in my above post, I was referring to 'salvation in the celestial kingdom.' And according to my understanding of Joseph Smith's teachings, if someone is worthy of that kingdom, they will "know" it, and not merely "believe" it. All else are not neccessarily damned, but they may have earned a place in one of the lower kingdoms.

Using the site search engine, type in the words "degrees of glory." It will take you to a thread in which someone was curious about many of the same things; to which I explained in much detail.

Here is a scripture on the subject which, if I'm not mistaken, is overlooked quite often: D&C 131: 5-6 5: The more sure word of prophecy means a man's knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophesy, through the power of the holy priesthood. 6: It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. When he says it's impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance, he's not referring to the idea that the person didn't have any knowledge of Christ, but that the person didn't have the knowledge that he was saved. Some people will say "I've done good works in my life so I know I'm saved." However, according to this passage, that's not good enough. Perhaps they have done good works, but they are basing their knowledge of salvation on their belief that salvation comes from good works. Therfore their salvation is merely a belief and not a knowledge. So how can they "Know" and not merely "Believe"? According to this passage, they must learn through revelation and the spirit of prophesy that they are saved. This is kind of hard to explain, but suffice it to say that if you hear a person say: "Well I think I've done good enough, I've always done what I felt was right, I'm pretty sure I've earned my salvation." you can know by this that that man has not earned his salvation. This is according to Joseph Smith's teachings, however. In the early LDS church, there were a few instances where some men were given the blessing of "The More Sure Word of Prophecy." This was a rare thing, and only the most faithful and prominent members earned this blessing.

Here is a pretty good example about the difference between faith and knowledge: We will take the city of New York for intance. I have never been there, but I've been told it's there. I've read about it and seen it on television, but I have never been there. Until I actually go there, and see it with my own eyes, only then does my faith become actual knowledge, and I no longer need to have faith of it's existence because I have an actual knowledge. But until that time, even though I say I know it's there, I only have great degree of faith that it is actually there. The same is true with our faith in God. Until we actually see Him face to face, we must depend on our faith that He exists, how ever great a degree of faith that may be. And when we choose to obey His commandments, and strive to be like Him, then we have little experiences here and there that build on that faith and for many of us, it gives us determination to strive harder, and the more we perfect ourselves, the stronger and more powerful these faith building experiences will be; until at last, we become worthy to stand in His presence; at which point, our faith is fulfilled and we no longer need it as we now have pure knowledge. In the past, when people have attained to this point, in many cases they were also shown the mysteries of the universe and also the things that are to come to pass concerning this world.

Except the two human beings just so happen to both be dudes.

Here's something I read that I thought was amusing: Larry H. Miller, a wealthy man in Salt Lake City, owns some car dealerships and some movie theatres and probably more. So he finds out that this new movie, 'Brokeback Mountain' (a movie about two gay cowboys) is going to be playing in one of his theatres. He immediately took action and banned it from all of his theatres. There were many gays who were upset. Their argument was "How could someone be so opposed to such a beautiful film?" Beautiful???? Ohhh the mental picture!!! Someone please kill me.

Okay, I have a question. And I mean no offense to Maureen, but Maureen has been right in 87.7% of all her posts compared to what standard? Is she universally right; statistically right; or just 87.7% in agreement with you?

I don't know much about it either. Some of my friends around here just told me that.

Nice to meet you too. I believe the white shirt idea comes from Gordon B. Hinckley suggesting that people come to church with at least a white shirt. I never heard anything about a blue tie though. I think it evolved from here. For example: 'If the general membership is expected to wear a white shirt then certainly it is a must for the people passing out the sacrament.' But that is probably why that counselor couldn't find it in his manual. It's funny how this works, isn't it?

No, Maureen's avatar.

Look at her avatar while reading this. It really gives you the feeling of being in the hot seat.

Yeah, all of the numbers you could possibly be thinking of have the same sign next to them. for example: The number 88, if you add 8 to 8, you get 16. Subtract 16 from 88 you get 72. If you put the number 86, or 85, or 89, or any of the 80s throught the same process you still get 72. The same is true for all the rest of them.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Christ didn't say anything disparaging about the woman let alone say anything disparaging about BECAUSE she was Greek. No one in their right mind would consider the story racist. Though it is besides the point... Most cases of unclean spirits in the Bible are really about epilepsy which superstious folks attributed to unclean spirits. Futhermore, the author of Mark never met Christ personally and so probably had very little idea about exactly what Christ said. Actually, this same story can also be found in the book of Matthew. And if one reads the whole story, it becomes quite obvious that the reason Christ made that statement to the woman was because she was not an Israelite. Many people would scream "Racist". Now, the point I was making is that the bible is full of things that many people would consider racist. For someone to profess a belief that the bible is true, does not make them a racist. If it does, then, by all means, call me a racist; because I believe the bible is true.

It's not fun being on the recieving end of criminal accusations, is it? I want to offer my apologies for saying that you are racist. You are right; it is obvious that you are not. I actually admire your strong stance against it. Let's take a look at this verse from Mark: 7, 25-27 25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: 26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. Now, if Jesus were on Earth today and made this statement, would He get sued for racism? Absolutely. Do I dare say He was wrong for making this statement? Absolutely not. Does it make me racist for saying the He wasn't wrong for making this statement? I think not. I will leave it at that.

Well, I hope, for my sake that American Indians are not among your prejudices; considering the LDS beliefs about their origins and all.

I have tried to reason with you; obviously with no success. Apparently racists are evaded by reason. And for your information, I am 1/16 American Indian. So according to your superficial stance, I must hate myself. But don't be getting any ideas; if I see someone around here with a pointy white hood trying to kill me, I'll know it's you.

Here's my opinion on the subject: I believe everyone has, within their grasp, the ability to accomplish great things. Whether they actually do it, is a different story. I know for myself, I have had many great aspirations but I always found myself too freakin lazy to get off my arse and accomplish them. I think if I would have actually went after my dreams, I would be known worldwide right now. As far as suicide goes, the way I see it is this: This life is the greatest gift our Heavenly Father has ever given us. In spite of our ill informed decisions to end it, He still wants us to get the most out of it. So as a result of this, he will step in whenever he can, and help us. However we still have our free agency, and if we are determined enough to end it all, then the Lord can't do much about it without taking away our free agency. If we are determined enough to end it, we will choose effective methods. And if it doesn't work the first time, we will try again with a more effective method. I think the Lord can see how determined we really are to end it, and then He will step in accordingly. My eldest brother was recently considering suicide. He wrote a letter to our mother saying the only person who could talk him out of it was dead; this person being our father, who passed away last spring. As circumstance would have it, our father visited him in a dream, and explained a few things to him, and convinced him to choose life. And as a result, he is still with us today. I also believe, however, that there are exceptions to this concept. For example, I believe there are some who are pre-ordained to fulfill a certain purpose on this Earth; our Saviour being first and foremost of these. Satan often recognizes these people and makes attempts on their lives. In this case, the person requires extra protection. The Lord will also place these people in an environmet where they can get the proper upbringing, and the teachings they need to fulfill their specific purposes.

I wouldn't say that the war in Iraq was ever intended to get revenge on the ones responsible for 9/11 but that it was more about preventing another one from happening. I would agree that from my perspective, things could have been done better, however, we must understand that hindsight is better foresight. I also acknowledge that I often have an opinion about how something should be done, but when I become personally involved with the situation, and I learn all of the facts about it, I find that my opinion changes. And only then, do I truly understand why things are being done the way they are being done. I also feel like our troops are doing a good job. They have my support.

LionHeart - I believe the assumption that you may sub-consciously have these racist notions is from one of your quotes above. You say this is a biblical account, except you are adding your own prejudice by assuming the mark given Cain is darkness, even though the "biblical account" does not specify what that mark actually is - and you mistakenly think this mark is a punishment, when it has already been pointed out it was for Cain's protection. So, would you say that maybe, just maybe, you've gotten some of the facts wrong? M. You are right Maureen, when you say that the mark given to Cain is unspecified by the bible. I went back and looked, and I can find nowhere where it specifies that the mark was dark skin. However, the assumption that the mark was dark skin, is not a prejudice of mine. That is a definite teaching of the early LDS Church. It is not a conclusion that I came up with. If one reads all of the available accounts of the incident, including the bible, the book of Josephus, the LDS book of Moses, and the book of Jasher, then, that is certainly a very likely conclusion to come to. Although none of them specifically state that the descendants of Cain had dark skin, it is certainly a likely conclusion considering the cultural description given of those people. And one might ask theirself, 'What else would the mark be? Did the Lord paint a sign on his forehead? Or maybe He cut his hands off? Or perhaps He gave him horns?' But let's consider the facts: We have people among us with dark skin. How did this happen? What made them that way? I think the evolution concept is worse than the scriptural one on the grounds that evolutionists say that we evolved from monkeys. This would offer an insult to the darker races by inferring that they are less evolved than the caucasion race; therefore, they are more closely related to the monkeys. I, for one, prefer to believe the scriptural account.