Tyler90AZ

I'm not going to argue with anyone. Most of us love the gospel and that's all that matters.

What the pioneers went through is even more reason not to pay to see the show.

South Park creators are mocking our beliefs, in other words stomping on them or killing them. Although they won't kill anybody's faith, I hope. they are still stomping all over our beliefs. We are suppose to love God above all others. With that in mind I don't see it that hyperbolic to compare it to the Joseph Smith situation. However, that is subjective.

So if I go out to eat at a bad restaurant a few times; I should just keep going back so I won't be seen as assuming?

"Dumb, dumb, dumb" played through out their whole Mormon South Park episode. They were clearly trying to insult Mormons. If you don't think it's insulting, that's fine it's subjective. However, that was clearly their attempt. Why would you give money to people that attempt to mock you? That's like Joseph Smith giving money to the people who tarred and feathered him, then replying "Thank you, that was funny."

That's not a wrong assumption considering their history. A history filled with irreverence toward the church. Why would any Latter-day Saint want to give these guys a buck? They have clearly mocked us in the past and I am sure they are now. I don't buy that they did it to celebrate Mormonism.

This type of building will save money, instead of building four stake buildings.

When the Book of Mormon was written did Oliver Cowdery verify it with Joseph Smith? If so was it every word, verse or just whenever he thought there was a problem? In addition, can you provide sources for the information.?

Why I won’t be seeing the Book of Mormon musical - On Faith - The Washington Post What does everybody think of the response?

I didn't come up with the theory about Noah, here is what Elder McConkie said: There is no valid reason for confusion as to the identity and mission of Elias. There was a man named Elias who came to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on April 3, 1836, in the Kirtland Temple to restore "the gospel of Abraham." (D&C 110:12.) Whether he was Abraham himself or someone else from his dispensation, we do not know. Elias is one of the names of Gabriel who is Noah, and it was in this capacity that Gabriel visited Zacharias the father of John the Baptist. (D&C 27:6-7.) Elias is the Greek form of the Hebrew Elijah, and in this sense has reference to the prophet from Tishbe. Elias is also the title or name of a forerunner who goes before to prepare the way for someone who is greater; this is the doctrine of Elias, and in this sense John the Baptist was both Elias and an Elias. John came in the way that Gabriel (who is Elias) promised, that is, "in the spirit and power of Elias, . . . to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17.)… But, as we have seen, there is also an Elias of the Restoration, meaning that there is also a doctrine of Elias that pertains not to preparation alone, but to restoration. Christ was Elias in his day because he restored the gospel for those then living. In our revelations the Lord says that Gabriel (Noah) is the "Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days." (D&C 27:6.) The one who holds the keys is the one who directs the work; keys are the right of presidency. Thus Gabriel, who stands next to Michael (Adam) in the heavenly hierarchy, has a great directing and supervising work in connection with the restoration of all things. In addition, this is something somebody said I could see Lemming(random saint): Consider the possibility that none of the three explicitly identified themselves. The third came the closest, by invoking the prophecy of Malachi concerning Elijah. Joseph might have assumed that the two who appeared to Jesus at the transfiguration would be repeating their mission in Kirtland. That means Moses was one of them, and Joseph might have linked him more closely with the gathering of Israel than to the gospel of Abraham. That leaves “Elias.”

That is true, but it is clearly two distinct people being referred to in D&C 110, Elijah and Elias.

11After this avision closed, the heavens were again bopened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the fnorth. 12After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed. 13After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said: 14Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come— 15To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse— 16Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors. I was reading about the Temple and came across Elias. President Packer in so many words stated that it is just some prophet who lived during Abraham's time. That influenced me to try to figure out who Elias is. When Moses and Elijah appear it is the doctrine of Elias(forerunner). Moses is the forerunner to Judaism, thus giving Joseph Smith the keys to Israel. Elijah is the forerunner to work for the dead, thus giving Joseph Smith keys to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers. The natural assumption is the third must follow that pattern. So who is Elias? The obvious answer is who was the forerunner the Gospel of Abraham. Noah died two to 78 years before Abraham. Noah opened up the way or was the forerunner for the Gospel of Abraham. All three opened up the doors originally and once again opened up the doors to Joseph Smith. What is everyone's opinion on who Elias is?

It is very relevant because LDS is a religion.

6 But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also. D&C 86

Did you know part of the reason Mormons were driven out of so many locations is because they were against slavery?

I concede that I was running on misinformation regarding color blindness in mammals. I apologize for the inconvenience. I still assert the original argument; that mans intelligence is superior to all animals. I admit my fault is in posting my theory to hastily. I'm not very Darwin-esque in my approach. I prefer not to wait years to post something. Although I should take that approach.

Man is the only mammal that is not color blind. That makes them stand out from animals in the Great Ape family, along with their intelligence. The gap between human intelligence and animals from the Great Ape family is greater then any of the animals you said. I do believe in evolution for animals, but not for humans.

What about humans eyesight being so much better as far as color is concerned.

It doesn't say that in the creation accounts though. The scripture you gave me is referring to baptism. Animals were created 1000-2000 years before man. The saying after their own kind refers to procreation. In my opinion an intelligent designer could create animals to evolve/adapt to the changing earth. Then I believe man was created. Our intelligence sets us apart from animals in my humble opinion. Now a question that troubles me is why do animals go extinct then??? The only explanation I can come up with is that man and earth didn't need them. They served their purpose. This is just my opinion though and I am nobody.

Why wasn't it said after man then?

21And God created agreat whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and amultiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24¶And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his akind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26¶And God said, Let aus bmake cman in our dimage, after our elikeness: and let them have fdominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own aimage, in the image of God created he him; male and bfemale created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be afruitful, and bmultiply, and creplenish the dearth, and subdue it: and have edominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. After their kind=Evolution for animals Animals be fruitful and multiply= Reproduction is an animal’s main purpose in life Dominion= Humans have more intelligence Humans be fruitful and multiply= Humans have similar biological makeup as animals Humans and animals were made by the same designer, so it makes sense that they are similar. Animals were created prior to humans; that would mean that animals have more time to evolve. In Genesis there is a lot of symbolism namely breathe of life and taking rib from man. However, I do believe creation is similar to how it actually took place. I need opinions and if it goes contrary to church doctrine.

I am beating a dead horse because you still haven't addressed my argument. and em·pir·i·cal    /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/ Show Spelled[em-pir-i-kuhl] Show IPA –adjective 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment. 2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine. 3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

I agree that we are biologically similar to animals. There is one thing that separates us from animals though is our intelligence. Humans intelligence is superior to all animals intelligence. Why wouldn't God want us to have similar characteristics to animals? The main purpose of all animals is to reproduce. That fits into Gods plans because he wants all animals to stay alive, thus keeping the earth "alive." The argument is that humans are far more intelligent then animals. Thus not being part of evolution. Thus being created at different times or different ways. There is much empirical evidence to prove humans are more intelligent then animals.

Could someone explain to me how evolution fits into the gospel? I am very curious.. Thanks everyone who has posted.

It is your burden to disprove my argument..... Then I will promptly form a rebuttal.... My argument is that animals and humans were created at two different times.