LionHeart
-
Posts
455 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LionHeart
-
-
I live near Idaho Falls; and I am quite familiar with it. So far as the school is concerned, I am unfamiliar with the locations of all of them, but I don't think it really matters where you live. The school bus will swing around. But if you would like a nice place to live, I would suggest the east end of town.
L.H.
-
Warning label on a fan belt for a car:
WARNING!!! Shut engine off before changing fan belt.
-
I know you won't like this...but I heard JS didn't follow the Word of Wisdom,
Is it a "command" or just "a good idea"?
Josh B)
D&C 89: 2: To be sent greeting; NOT BY COMMANDMENT or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days.
Wine was not forbidden by the WoW, it was classified as a substance for the cleansing of the body. It was also okay to use it for the sacrament; providing it was of your own making. However, it does not say anything about ingredients used in any drinks, it merely says "hot drinks are not for the body or belly." This is where my question comes in. Where did this interpretation come from regarding hot cocoa being okay and not coffee?
And like was mentioned before, Joseph Smith did indulge in a hot cup of coffee or a glass of wine every now and again.
L.H.
-
The word of wisdom talks about strong drinks in the same pragraph as wine, ie "wine and strong drinks." It says these are not to be used regularly but are for the cleansing of the body. I can't imagine coffe would fall into this category, however it also says that hot drinks are not for the belly; which category coffee would fall under as well as hot cocoa. Now when the saints moved out west, among their list of "neccessities" in organizing their wagon trains was coffee. For those who don't know, it was Joseph Smith who recieved the word of wisdom. (D&C section 89) The saints moved west after Smith was killed.
So the question I have is this: Does anyone know where the modern standard comes from? For example: Hot cocoa is okay but coffee is bad, cola flavored soda pop is not good but others are okay, etc.
L.H.
-
"I was provided with addtional input that was radically different from the truth. I assisted in furthering that version."
-Colonel Oliver North, from his Iran-Contra testimony
-
You know, you can make your own articles in wikipedia? I went into the birthdays of famous people and added mine, told a little about myself. Of course the next day it had all been deleted. It appears you have to be able to verify everything.
-
Yep, I knew I smelled something strange around that boy. He gave me the line about the LDS orphan. I suppose it never occured to him that we communicate on this site.
-
Actually, on our search and rescue team, we all carry duct tape in our survival packs.
L.H.
-
So it is changed every "General Conference" (Which is what?) and Then considered "Scripture"...
Do you have to buy a new copy every year?
Do they vote on the changes or does the President decide?
Who can make changes too it?
Can they change what has been put into it before, or only add to it?
Thanks,
Josh B)
The D&C does change, mainly by being added to, for example, it only contained 137 sections for a long time. Then in 1918, President Joseph F. Smith had a revelation concerning the three days between Jesus' crucifixion to the time He was risen which was added to the D&C. Other than that, the only additions were the official declarations 1&2. 1 stating the abandonment of plural marriage and 2 stating the eligibility of blacks to hold the priesthood. To my knowledge, nothing else has been added since the '80s; when official declaration 2 was added. However this does not mean more cannot be added.
L.H.
-
I understand the reasoning behind the theory LH. I just don't buy it. The scriptures--I'm talking canonized revelations, not journal of discourses--identify Adam as Michael the Archangel. I don't think a god would be called any sort of angel, but again this is just my opinion. There are alot of other reasons why I don't believe the Adam-god theory. I've given the most basic already.
Do you also buy that Adam is the Father of our spirits, the God we pray to? Or just that he was a god when he came to Eden.
Here is my standing on the matter: I do believe that Adam was and is someone who earned His salvation on another world before He came to this one. However, I am doubtful that He is the literal Father of our spirits; nevertheless, I am still open minded to the idea.
L.H.
-
In my opinion, the theory that Adam was already a god when he came to Eden does not hold up when compared with the standard works. There are a few contradictions that crop up on closer examination.
First, we are taught that after our resurrection and exaltation, our bodies and spirits will be inseparably connected, or never to be subject to death again (D&C 88:116), which is the separation of our spirit from our physical body. Yet we are to believe that Adam supposedly came to Eden with an exalted, resurrected body, which body eventually became mortal and subject to death after his spirit and body had already been inseparably joined? If Adam was truly resurrected and exalted, he would not have been subject to death again, according to the scriptures. This is of course assuming that resurrection is the same among all of God's worlds and children. I think it reasonable to suppose that it is.
Second, we are taught that those who are exalted will be "made perfect" or conformed to the perfect goodness of God and Christ (Moroni 10:32-33; D&C 76:69). Yet Adam transgressed or disobeyed God by partaking of the forbidden fruit. Is it possible for a god who is made perfect through Christ's grace, to transgress God's law and in so doing forfeit perfect goodness and obedience? If Adam had received salvation on another world, he would've already sinned, repented and been exalted. Yet we are to believe that Adam discarded his salvation by Falling from God's presence, that Adam needed to be saved a second time after already having been judged worthy of celestial glory on another world? I do not think it reasonable to assume that anyone, even an exalted god (if Adam was such in Eden), can undo the salvation wrought by Christ and administered by God...nor would anyone want to.
These are a few thoughts which make this theory of Adam being a god in Eden highly questionable and likely incorrect. I'm open to any responses though, since this is a discussion, not a lecture.
You're right A.K. There are many contradictions with this theory. But just to clear up some understanding about it, Adam and Eve didn't need to re-earn their salvation, they merely made the sacrifice of coming back to another world to make it possible for us to gain our salvation. Assuming this theorey is true, since they already earned their salvation on another world, they did not need earn it again on this one. The purpose of their coming here was simply to set in motion the plan of salvation for this world.
This is why Brigham Young said that Adam is God; because who else would be in a position to take that responsibility for us other than the God over this world? If it is His world, it is His responsibility to get it going. This is where the purpose and the willingness comes in.
L.H.
-
I would just like to say that this is LionHeart's opinion. There is some truth, and some misunderstandings.
And I don't want you to believe what I'm saying about this.
You should all just ask God for yourselves... and look to those who you know God has sent.
On the contrary,Ray, this is not my opinion. As I said, it was Brigham Young who taught this. Did you ever read the discourse on it? If not, then how do you know I misunderstood?
L.H.
-
Just like those Nigerian scams?
-
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
OKay, Adam and Eve earned their salvation on another world. That is where they received their bodies.
LionHeart, are you referring to the Adam-God Theory? If you are, BY did bring it to the attention of the 19th century church, but it never did take root.
M.
Yes. However, I'm not quite sure I believe that Adam is the God of this world. But it does make sense that he did earn his salvation on another world.
L.H.
I think that is totally wack...
Yes, it does sound like a bunch of mumbo jumbo. That's what I thought when I first heard the idea. Then I read Brigham Young's discourse on it, and you know, it actually sounded plausible.
But like was mentioned before, it was never accepted as official doctrine. It does contradict some things in the Book of Genesis, but that book contradicts itself also. So I suppose it's just left up to everyone to make whatever sense of it that they can.
L.H.
-
During the Firestone Tire blowout epidemic, which nearly caused the company to go belly up, there was one dealership having a sale on firestone tires. They had a big sign out front that said "Blowout Sale"
I heard this on Paul Harvey News and Comment.
L.H.
-
<div class='quotemain'>
OKay, Adam and Eve earned their salvation on another world. That is where they received their bodies.
LionHeart, are you referring to the Adam-God Theory? If you are, BY did bring it to the attention of the 19th century church, but it never did take root.
M.
Yes. However, I'm not quite sure I believe that Adam is the God of this world. But it does make sense that he did earn his salvation on another world.
L.H.
-
<div class='quotemain'>
"I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them."
-George Bush
Makes you kinda think....I believe this was George Bush senior that made this astement.
L.H.
-
Hi L.H.,
So if I understand you, wouldn't you hold that they had already been thought this progression (in some sense)? If so, and they knew that getting bodies is a good thing, why would you see them as having to decide (as if it was a hard thing) to get bodies?
Thanks,
Dr. T
They already, had bodies. Their bodies were just becoming mortal again. This is why it would have been a hard decision. One might say they were taking a step backwards in their eternal progression; making that sacrifice for us so we could have a chance at salvation.
L.H.
-
"If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life."
-Brooke Shields
As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error.
- Weisert
"A day without sunshine is like, you know, night."
"Please provide the date of your death."
-from an IRS letter
"I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them."
-George Bush
"The private enterprise system indicates that some people have higher incomes than others."
-Gerry Brown
L.H.
-
A HARDLINE cleric linked to Somalia's powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to "hunt down" and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam.
Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses.
"We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion," he said in Friday evening prayers.
"Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim," Malin, a prominent cleric in the Somali capital, told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/somali...8334739295.html
Just heard some Islamic representatives say that Islam was not in any way spread by violence in the past. Guess all my history books are wrong.
Good thing peace and tolerance is the rule today.
Assuming they actually did carry out this assassination, I wonder how it would affect relations between Christianity and Islam as a whole.
L.H.
-
Hey all, I'm Hunter. I'm a Sophomore in High School...yeah.
My reason for joining...curiosity, a want to meet some new people, and lots of other things lol.
Welcome to the site WhispersOfTheMoon. We have a number interesting people here. I noticed that your religion is Presbyterian. To my knowledge you're the first. I very much look foreward to your perspective of things we discuss here.
L.H.
-
Hi L.H.,
I'm with Moon on this. His question is a good one. L.H., you said,
To me, it doesn't make sense because if they are told to multiply then they are told NOT to eat of the tree that you suggest is the only way to do that, it seems like it is contrary to what you are proposing.So far, it makes sense. Because why would God command them to be fruitful and multiply, and then command them not to eat the fruit that would make that possible for them?
THanks,
Dr. T
That is exactly why I began to wonder if the original bible text was misinterpreted. You can't find anywhere in the bible or the pearl of great price where it says that the tree of knowledge was the thing that transformed them into mortals; this was Brigham Young's teaching. But regardless of whether that's true or not, they still had to eat of the fruit in order to gain the knowledge of how to be fruitful and multiply. So the book of Genesis is contradictory in this instance.
But for all those who don't follow, I will sum it all up. And keep in mind, this is NOT official LDS doctrine, It is an idea that was advanced by Brigham Young which I read about and it made sense to me.
First of all, we need to understand that no man can officiate in administering laws to the children of men whithout first becoming subject to those laws himself.
OKay, Adam and Eve earned their salvation on another world. That is where they received their bodies. They then agreed to come to this world and commence humankind on this world. The condition they were in was that of an exalted man. They had bodies, but because their bodies had been transformed in to celestial bodies, they were made up of a more pure state of matter; unable to be seen by the untrained mortal eye. The tree of knowledge was composed of a more course form of matter. When they ate the fruit, that course matter flowed through their veins and transformed their body into a more course state of matter. Rather than being commanded not to eat the fruit, it may have been more to the effect of "Are you sure you want to do this; even though you will again become subject unto death?" So they agreed to do it. They were not cursed, only transformed into mortal beings. Now also in the garden of eden, there was another tree called 'The Tree of Life' which would transform them back. This tree is accounted for in the Book of Abraham. This is why they were sent out of the garden; to ensure they would not eat of this tree if things started to get rough. Because on their former world, they likely had conveniences that were established by those who went before them. Now they were the ones to begin it all. They had no way to tell just how they would be able to cope with hardships they would encounter. So they were sent out of the garden so they could not decide to end it all early.
Also being the first people on this earth, they had no prophets who went before them, and no scriptures to teach their children from. Adam had to know how to earn his salvation so He could teach His children. He knew how because He had done it before.
To me, it makes more sense when considering it in this light.
L.H.
-
Thanks L.H.,
You would say Adam was a god? His eating of the fruit was not a sin/disobedience? and the Bible is wrong when it says God created him out of the dust?
Thanks,
Dr. T
Yes, I would say that Adam was a God. I would also say that the bible is only as wrong as mother was when she said that little Billy was dropped off by a stork.
In other words, Moses only wrote that because that is what the people were capable of understanding.
I also believe that there may have been an error in translating the bible when it talks about the Lord commanding them not to partake of the "forbidden Fruit" (but I need to think about this more before I decide whether I believe it for sure) I have thought about the possiblity that what was translated as commandment not to eat the fruit, was actually more like: "Look, if you eat it, you will become mortal again and therefore become subject to death again. Are you sure you want to do this?"
Basically more of a warning rather than commandment. So far, it makes sense. Because why would God command them to be fruitful and multiply, and them command them not to eat the fruit that would make that possible for them?
To answer your question Des, they had bodies that were mortal at one time, on another world, which became immortal when they earned their salvation, and then back to mortal when they partook of the forbidden fruit on this world. They had to become mortal in order to produce mortal offspring. Had they remained immortal, they would have produced immortal offspring; Or "spirit children."
-
Okay, here's my pearly addition; if it could be called such:
Last fall I was driving an 18 wheeler for spud harvest. The mud flaps on my truck were mounted to a rod which poked into a hole. The rod had a hole for a pin to keep it from falling out. Mind you, mud flaps are required by law. When I first put the mud faps on, I had such a struggle getting them into the mounting hole that I figured there was absolutely no way they would come back out. So I didn't bother to put a pin in them. A few days later, and much to my disappointment, I noticed one of them had fallen out. I feared that I would go through the port of entry and get stopped by the officers there and get fined a large amount of money. So I said a silent prayer to myself and asked the Lord if He would help me find my mud flap. Just at that moment, a feeling of comfort came over me, and it was like a voice that said "Yes, I will help you find it."
At this point, the thought crossed my mind that perhaps I should get a pin in the other one before I lose it as well. But being the slothful person that I am, I forgot. And the next day, voila; the other one was gone as well. So I sheepishly said another prayer and asked the Lord if He would help me find that one as well. And again, the answer came immediately, however this one was a little more stern. It said: "ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! You knew that it could fall out and yet you did nothing to prevent it. I will still help you find the first one, but you will never see the second one again."
The very next day, I found the first one. But I have never seen the second one since. I just had to build a new one.
Now there were two things that I learned from this. First of all, if you know somethiing could go wrong, and you do nothing to prevent it, you cannot expect the Lord to come bail you out. He expects us to act on our agency and do our parts. He will not do everything for us.
And secondly, and probably most importantly, this experience assured me that despite all of my weaknesses, my Lord has not abandoned me. Nor will He so long as I seek after Him.
L.H.
Makes you kinda think....
Holy Ghost
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I think this doctrine is true, I'm just saying I am keeping an open mind on it.
But again, it is my personal belief that Adam was a ressurected being before He came here. Nobody else needs to believe it; and I'm not trying to convince any one of it either. To me, it just makes sense.
L.H.