ozzy

It actually is about the law of Moses. The end of 3 Nephi 9 is the word of Christ concerning the fulfillment of the law of moses. verses 17-20 specifically. 3 Nephi 15 discusses the purpose and fulfillment of the Law of Moses. As we understand its purpose, we can understand why it no longer applies. Mosiah 13 discusses why we can't just live by the law of moses anyway Thats what I gather anyway

That is indeed interesting. I don't really know how to explain it. I know how I used to explain it, but I don't know if it is true. I have heard and used to say that at one point someone began poisoning the wine. And so we switched to water. But I am not really sure if that is true. Personally I leave it at this is what we do. But I do understand the curiosity surrounding it.

That is a very good example of the prophet commanding the people of the nation, and I agree. But I think that Snows context is specific to a prophet walking up to the leaders of the nation and telling them God wanted them to change.

A nation as a government? Probably not since Bible or Book of Mormon times. A nation as in the people? Happens every time the prophet talks about doctrine. The problem is that no one listens.

I wouldn't say he hates sheep and loves koala bears. I would say that he has a tendancy towards asking for those sorts of sacrifices. Maybe thats cause the isrealites didn't have koala bears. I dunno. But that doesn't change that it is historically abnormal. That is wonderful guidance. I agree with every part of it. However convictions of those things do not come rationally. According to rational, it is better to not forgive others but to sue them for every penny you can and thus grow economically. The concept of forgiveness is obviously lacking in the world. No wonder God doesn't feel we are ready for new stuff. Nor is it something I require verification of. I'm not a Levite. Even if I were, I don't think I would need verification to kill a cow either. I eat them on an almost daily basis. Our ideas of evil are somewhat obviously influenced by society. I don't recall God ever saying that society was always right. I googled it as you suggested. Micheal has some well written stuff. Which he should since that is his degree. I have a few issues though. First, doesn't it make sense that Egypts account is obscure and fuzzy? They lost. If you look at Englands coverage of the American Revolution, it is obscure and fuzzy too. They cover in maybe 2 days of school what it takes Americans months to cover. My second issue is that it refers solely to rabbis. Of course they think it didn't happen literally. If they did, they would have to acknowledge that Jews were responsible for the death of the savior. My third issue is the inflated view that archeologists have found this that or the other. However there is no proof or reference to specifics aside from the Egypt reference which I have covered. My fourth issue is that Nephi directly references the account in the Book of Mormon. Is that false too? He does say that God lead his forefathers out of Egypt. Sounds to me like they couldn't have done it themselves. In other words, they were escaping bondage. Lastly, the prophets have had nothing to say on the issue. As they communicate with God directly, I expect that they would know quite a bit more than a journalist, and archeologists. You assume that the society of today is enlightened. I find this an interesting concept, and more absurd than the idea of sacrifice. If 10 trillion dollars of national debt, courts favoring criminals, governmentally debated religious practices, the idea that monetary wealth is more important than ethics or morals, and finally the very idea that God doesn't exist are all the aspects of an enlightened society, I want no part of it. And we can apply similar principles to almost any society presently in existence. The more we set aside (as a society, or individuals) the very principles of salvation (including your list), the less enlightened we will become. Our society is as enlightened now with respect to religious things as Europe was a few hundred years ago with respect to physical things. They believed that the earth was flat and the center of the universe as an example. With respect to things of the spirit, science can't possibly determine truth because it doesn't rely on the spirit, and doesn't have the instruments necessary for such an exercise. With respect to history, science has a highly biased view towards whatever end they wish people to believe. I know you would argue that the Bible is the same, and perhaps it is. But the Bible is older and actually supports the principles that would enlighten a society whereas modern ideals do not.

We could always completely abolish the idea of credit and any debt owed by credit. That would be the one thing I can think of to add to the OP. Otherwise I think that is a rather feasible idea. Oh, and as for the credit card thing, that is more cause I think it might be fun to see how those who are irresponsible debt builders would react to actually having to live in a budget.

Welcome extraterrestrial one. As a sign of peace, we release a dove. (dove released.) Hope you have fun.

Ooo ooo ooo, another one is when people make demands of others, and the blatantly disregard the demand themselves. If they care so much they should follow their own advice/admonishment.

The gospel is new and unknown to all who haven't heard it. Parts and sayings are new and unknown to those who haven't heard them. Wellll, that probably wouldn't go over very well for the public. Thankfully I highly doubt that would happen anyway. IF God told Pres. Eyring to get an animal, it would probably not be a seal pup or koala bear. More likely it would be a cow or sheep. And, if by some chance that did happen, who cares how it goes over? I prefer to fear God to fearing man. Man can imprison, torture, kill, etc. God can condemn. I think I might prefer mans somewhat temporal ideals. I admit that we don't hear much NEW stuff. But in reference to 'God's silence', this isn't true. In fact, to say he is silent in such an all encompassing way is to say that he is not omnibenevolent. I'd be careful saying that. Yes, with respect to this threads topic, he hasn't said anything lately that we are aware of. But, He guides us most especially in ways that we need to be guided in. Generally it is in ways that we have forgotten or become lacking in. At present, this doesn't include animal sacrifice. But lets suppose that someone (prophet) did tell you to do this. Would you turn away immediately or ask the Lord for verification? If he gave verification, would you follow through? About the kittens and then the sons. You seem to place us on par with the prophet. And that we would be tested in the same way. We are all tested in different ways. I doubt anyone here would be tested in such a way. I think most of us would fail that test. I probably would fail if I had a son to be tested with. Just to cover my bases, I can feel a comment coming on that goes something like 'it didn't really happen how the Bible says it did.' The reason I feel this coming is because of the sarcasm towards the historical account. That view runs completely contrary to the expressed view of a different thread. As such, I will have to ask for a reliable (preferably prophetic, but if scholarly is the best you can do) source supporting the implied position that the old testament is unreliable with regard to the wars, reasons for the wars, sacrifice, and... well... that pretty much covers most of it or is related to most of it. At this point I think it is important to point out to all that none of us will be directly commanded by God to perform any such sacrifice or activity. In this respect, Snows sarcasm is well founded. None of us will have to make such a decision directly. To do so would run contrary to the very organization of the church. God will only establish such a mandate through his prophet. It will probably only be up to a select few (tribe of Levi) to decide to follow the commandment. As with the old testament, I highly doubt that God would command the majority to perform the actual sacrifice. Most likely all most of us would have to do is deliver the sacrifice itself.

Gotcha. Sorry about misunderstanding

I'm not really sure when that all happened. I imagine that the discontinuation of using wine for sacrament occurred when the Word of Wisdom became a commandment rather than simply really good advice. I agree with Hordak on the point that it would be somewhat hypocritical to do otherwise.

Have you been watching 'Saint'? :)

I would gladly participate in animal sacrifices, but only if I could do it over a George Foreman grill. :) Anyway, while these statements may very well be doctrinal, I think there is a reason they are so little known. They are the bulk of gospel meat that many may not be ready to digest, just as many aren't ready to digest polygamy. With relation to this particularly, I don't even know if I am ready to digest it right now, but no matter. As with the polygamy thread I see no issue. If the Lord commands it, it must be done, or I must be condemned. The extent of my hesitation would be as much time as necessary on my knees gaining a conviction that this was the will of God. Which, if it was his will for me, I don't think I would spend much time on my knees.

Hmmmm, I'd be careful calling modern revelations false doctrine myself. Thats pretty dangerous ground. Besides that, I don't think it has been reinstated for 2 reasons. 1, doing so would make us liars about obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. 2, with the ability of people to make things like that public nowadays, it just wouldn't work.

Hi. Bet I'm younger.n 22 presently

I hate it when people leave the kitchen cupboard doors open. Especially when it is my cupboard door. I mean really, if yer gonna steal my food, at least try to hide the fact. :) I also hate it when people stop at intersections with no stop sign. Sigh... Idaho.

Shoot, I still gotta nail down the first one. :) Seriously though, the way I see it is this. If the church sanctioned it, it would be highly circumstantial just like it was back in the day. The one and only circumstance ever allowed was that God commanded certain individuals to do it. I suppose you could say He never really allowed it at all, He just commanded it. So in answer, if He commanded me to do it, then it wouldn't really matter if I was comfortable with it or not, I better get comfortable with it pretty quick. :) I figure that if he commanded me to do it, he would help that comfort level, as well as that of my wife/wives.

I totally didn't notice that. SWWWEEEET :)

Purple onions. House or Criminal Minds?

I dunno. Actually if it were about those accusations against the church, it would probably appeal to both parties.

As far as those definitions of polygamy go, Elphaba is correct. Though I can't offer a definitive answer on the church's decisions concerning the divorced individuals. For the purposes of living, practiced polygamy, doctrinally nothing has changed. Men were sometimes called to engage in polygamy. This is still a valid concept in that they still could be. However because it is against the law (aka worldy leaders preventing the potential will of God) it is not commanded to anyone. The practice has changed, but not the doctrine.

Indeed, as we see in 60 Minutes, President Hinckley stated that we as members of the church do not drink any caffeinated beverages. I think that a case study will prove that we do. In other words, such interviews are purely opinion. Anyway, I am sure that the reason he didn't expound more on his polygamy statement is because I am sure that neither Larry King nor the audience are at a spiritual readiness to hear that yes, polygamy was once a commandment and therefore is doctrinal under that circumstance.

ya know sumthin funny? I live in Rexburg. All of the hometeachers are no more than 50 yards from their hometeachees. Our ward has 60% home teaching. Is that sad or what?

I agree with KayCee largely. In addition, I would recommend actually doing both notes in and out of your scriptures. Highlight scriptures, do chains in them, and reference notes. I personally enjoy keeping a study journal. With it, I pick a topic, study what the scriptures have to say, study what the prophets/apostles/other have to say, and keep tabs on my personal thoughts and impressions concerning what is said. Sadly there isn't enough room in the margins them selves for it all so I do keep a separate one. So yeah, topical study is good. Another thing is you could simply read a chapter and then write your impressions about what you read in the chapter. I find that doing this can help stir interest even more. And when all else fails, check out the war chapters. :)

Oww. I was standing. Anyway, yeah have fun. Remember who you are and what you stand for and all that. :)