ozzy

That does make sense. However there are still favorite passages that are emphasized more than others. Faded gave a good example with his scripture. I could supply another example that is for the Jehovahs Witnesses in that they concentrate much of their efforts on Revelations 7:4 and do not acknowledge Rev 7:9. Further example that the pet scriptures exist is in the presence of so many denominations. Yes they all follow Christ and can thus be called Christian, however it is very apparent that they disagree on a number of issues. These disagreements generally arise from a focus on some verses over others, and differing focuses between the denominations. One reason I think we choose not to contend in the way many take the word 'contention' is because the gospel is not a debate. Debates exist to support mans view. Man's view is generally incorrect with regard to the gospel. God doesn't debate. He says. Its as simple as that. We say too. The only difference between us and Him is that we have no right or power to condemn or afflict for false belief. Perhaps they are all Christian. But that doesn't make them all correct. Out of curiosity, are you LDS? If not, I find it surprising that you want us to contend against you. Wouldn't that be sort of counterproductive?

We seem to be operating under the idea that the dictionary is a good source to turn to for biblical definitions. Today the word contend is as the dictionary defines it. But it has been over 1500 years since Jude. Words change. It only took a few decades for gay to stop meaning 'happy' and to start meaning 'homosexual.' If this the dictionary definition were correct even then, Christ himself could be accused of ignoring the words of Jude as the only time he got contentious beyond simply stating a position was when the temple was being defiled. In the LDS church, we do not spend our time contending against those who are not of our faith because we do not consider them to be the source of difference. The source of false doctrine is the devil. As such, the only way to really contend is to testify. There is no spiritual testimony in argument, only the words of men striving to one up each other.

Thanks PC. I believe I understand better now.

Wow. I didn't realize I would spark such a discussable subject. Awesome. Anyway, hey PC. You mentioned in post 17 that there is a possibility that people hear about our belief that Christ came to America. Out of curiosity, and for clarification, is that an issue for non-LDS? I mean, is the conclusion they draw that we believe that there was no Christ in Jerusalem and/or that we believe the 2 events to involve separate individuals? Thanks everyone for your awesomeness.

Awesome. :)

True that. And something tells me that he is capable of utilizing energy that even we can't.

I suppose that it does make sense that this would be viewed as a significant difference. I guess I always considered the assertion with respect to Christ as he lived, his example and teachings and such and it always confused me. Thanks pc.

I have heard of individuals taking 20 years before. That said, I have also heard of individuals who found the missionaries on Monday, had all the lessons during the week, and were baptized pretty much that weekend. I don't think there is much of a time constraint, though the mission president can introduce conditions to prevent missionaries from trying to start 'baseball baptisms'

I think a good example of baptisms not being a youth only thing is present in the single wards. We are hardly youth (though some might say otherwise :) ), and yet we do baptisms. And we don't call them youth trips. I wouldn't argue with the bishop though, thats likely to end more badly than any misconceptions resulting from his council.

There is something that has always bugged me. Often times, there have been individuals who have informed me that I followed a 'different' Christ from the one in the Bible, and from the one they follow. And of course this has been more a reference to mormonism than to me personally. My purposes here aren't to start an argument or anything, I was just wondering and hoping that someone could explain the thought chain that leads to this conclusion. Is it as simple as the Book of Mormon and other doctrines which vary from the norm, or is there more to it? Much obliged.

I got hungry.

Personally I rather enjoy all of the books of scripture. I would start with the Book of Mormon because it is simplest and most straight forward to me. Omaha is right in that in order to understand the scriptures with respect to Judaism, it is best to get the background of the OT. But if you are looking for self applicable life lessons, the BoM is a good starting place.

Hmmm, I haven't studied all of these in depth, but from those parts that I understand, they don't disagree in the least. One may expound on another in various ways, but they all agree. And Genesis hasn't anything to say about it, so I don't see any problem here. That said I wonder if we have a mistaken interpretation of intention. Are you actually looking for a problem? Or simply expressing observation?

I suppose the peer reviewed idea came from the following ideas: I was under the impression it was written either for or by Randall Younker at Andrews University. This was supported by the address being given for Maryland, not the DR. The other noteworthy aspect is that the author cites 2 dozen plus references, even if he does use a questionable one, I am called to wonder if they are all questionable. I recently took a writing class here at BYU-I and this article would have been granted peer-reviewed status in appearance, content, and it is likely to be found using a search engine that only locates peer reviewed articles. Mostly out of curiosity, I would like to know what your thoughts are concerning my other post (#42). I am also curious to know this. Based on the idea that the subject of the thread is whether or not you would do animal sacrifice if God commanded it, please consider this question from the aspect of faith rather than scholarly finding. IF God commanded YOU to do animal sacrifice in a way that is at least similar to the way that the Bible records, would you do it?

Wow. I was cookin up some awesome answers. Then I scrolled down and they were all taken. :)

In honesty, I probably wouldn't go to dances if it was a general requirement that I had to wear a tie. I mean sure a formal dance would be fine, but all the dances? I'd have my own back yard dance on 5 acres and just have everyone over there instead. :) Not that I mind wearing ties, I just happen to prefer casual dances... heavily. :)

First, the only time I like to hear the word 'green' anymore is when it is a reference to a certain type of paper I put in my wallet. Since the newer meaning of the word 'green' doesn't do that, I don't like it. Second, here is my perspective. I am in Idaho which is freaking cold. I am from Oklahoma which hasn't ever been too bad in my experience, but I talked to my Mom a while back and they still had snow that they had a month previous. This doesn't happen in Oklahoma. And then there is Funkytown over in England saying that it is the coldest in 30 years. So I look at it and say 'Wow. 3 totally different locations separated by thousands of miles sitting in the nations lauded as having the biggest CO2 footprint... and its freezing. Hmmmm...'

Whats the world coming to when our elderly generation has more guts than my generation?

My step dad has a few guns if you want to pick one. Seriously though, that does seem a sticky situation. You might consider asking your bishop for advice. Even if he can't really give any, you still have the upper hand. What I mean is that if the bishop knows the story before hand, then if you do confront the guy and he doesn't like it then he can't try to defame you. It might sound crazy that he could do that, but I get the vibe that he might if it came down to it. Its obvious he has his mind set on a physical relationship since he can't take his time and wait for it to not be adulterous. Maybe I am paranoid (okay I am. I get it from my Mom. :) ), but above all else, I'd be careful.

Daffy Duck. Though I do wonder why the ducks are always picked on. boxed mac or velveeta mac?

Gotcha. Sorry about the misunderstanding. To me it almost sounds like they left it open for change. They didn't really command it, they more sort of suggested it. I believe that someone mentioned a compromise between the Jews and Gentiles. This could have a relationship to that. All of those sound like heathenistic practices. They probably were to refrain from them so that they wouldn't fall into the same trap the Israelites always fell into. The reasons we don't worry about it today is because such things aren't tied to heathen worship (though we still abstain from fornication and I think blood), and no one strangles animals as a method of killing anymore.

Now that you mention it, I hadn't thought about the fp. I suppose that would count.

I was once told in a zone conference by Dallin H Oaks that the Korean language has no word for 'brother'. It must be either older or younger brother. As such, we can determine whether the brother of jared was older or younger than jared. Just a fun thought.

agreed

So here is a source that moves to say that archeology supports the Bible. I believe it is peer reviewed thus making it as scholarly as need be. Let me know what you think. The Bible and Archaeology