Onhech

I'm excited for you! The longer it is, the better it gets! Keep learning and having fun.

So as many of you may know Mormon.org - Home is changing things. Last night I went on there and I made a profile using my The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints account. The really interesting part is that they ask you to answer some common questions about the church in your profile. To me it looks like they are going to make a more communal experience. There is moderation in the profiles and answers but it defiantly looks like it is going to be a good member-missionary opportunity. I would encourage y'all to make a profile and answer a couple question. New Mormon.org

Welcome Cioraj, I know some good Pentecostals. If you have any questions this is a good place for it.

I think it has a lot to do with motivations. Obedience is good, but why we do it really determines what it means. Looking at a motivation spectrum MOTIVATIONS: Fear Reward Duty Love Fear is the weakest motivation. It is conformity like a sponge, it will change but as soon as the pressure is released the sponge pops back into the natural shape with no apparent change. Love is why we should be doing things, that is what Christ came a taught. It provides that lasting change, this motivates what we do when we think no one else is watching. If we do perfectly love, we will obey all the commandments!

Kill - Jimmy eat world

The replica of the 1830 BoM is good for that, it makes it a lot more coherent read, less mechanical. I like it.

Agreed Farms. more a of a crutch than an aid. When they are young it is the best time for them to learn

Good for kids. But at the same time I think it is beneficial for them to wade through the Old English in preference to this or at least in addition to this. This book lacks information, just reading 1 Nephi 1, it removes necessary information and imposes the translators opinions. As such this edition would not be appropriate for gospel study. If a child were to read this instead of the canonized scripture he would have a much harder time changing over and understanding the Old English. The concept in general i believe is discouraged by the church as far as a serious gospel standard is concerned. I would have to agree as it can only lose or misinterpret information. It's not like the bible where we can authoritatively retranslated it by looking at the sources. All we can do is look to get what Joseph Smith said when he read from the plates. Changes can and defiantly have been made for clarification and grimmer, but I think a major revision in the language of the text would do more harm then good.

Your correct, I had heard that it was shrinking, but I shouldn't have said that as I didn't know for myself. in 2007 the Church grew 1.5% whereas the world population grew 1.2%. It grew .3% worldwide, the highest % growth being almost .5% in Africa. And it's not the catholic church that is saying those things so there is no need for you to apologize for them. The catholics and Mormons have a lot of common ground.

The three top words that are associated with Mormons 1- Family 2- Polygamy 3- Cult I have found that most apologists are not so concerned about defending their religion as tearing down others. I am interested in learning about other religions and I do not trust most of the Apologetic sites out there because they are so biased and derogatory. There is truth in them for sure, but sifting truth from legend, myth and half truths is an arduous and impossible task without seeking out opposing view points. Especially for growing "alternative" religions there is a lot of opposing literature (Mormons, Jehovah Witness etc.) because Christianity, Catholicism in particular, is shrinking in numbers in part because of these growing religions. Their attempts at "apologetics" are often to bring back wandering eyes, encouraging propaganda within their church. The LDS church is not exempt from this, it is there. It is on this forum, it's everywhere. What do we say about others and their beliefs? Are we scared to see what it is like on the other side? Why? Because we are afraid what you might find? We need not be scared or insecure. ------- Check out my blog at Know♣Justice The Sign of Jonas

Thats too cute for me! Good for you

Honestly haven't read all the answers, but my view on it is that Joseph smith has the bulk of the revelations because he needed to restore the church's doctrine. I kind of look at it as Moses and Leviticus and Deuteronomy, Moses restored Israel and as such received a ton of 'law' information. His Priesthood handbook, while in contrast the subsequent prophets did not receive such things, but the old testament is mainly history and not law. The same happened with Jesus when he came and restored/reformed the church. He taught the New law, but the rest of the NT is mainly letters clarifying policy and church business. Like so JS restored the Church from apostasy, received the necessary law and revelation, but since then there has been little need to receive revelation of law in the same quantity, but only occasional clarification and rare additional revelation. All in all I see the church leaders receiving revelation but not "lay down law" type that Joseph smith needed because we have the law, rather it would be more like the Pauline epistles.

I don't think you can truly be offended by someone you perfectly love, because you understand who they are and why they do it. Jesus was not offended by Judas or the Thieves, I doubt he would be offended by anything we did. He may be sad. Every church/ward has those who do come to feast on the words of Christ, but every church also has those that do. I think Christ would be pleased that both kinds were in the church. I love the question its a good one to think while taking communion.

When we say the only true church we have to remember that it isn't the only church with truth, nor we don't all the truth. The phrase is more qualitative then quantitative. I think we can all get into the rut of the Jews of Christs time or the Christians of Joseph Smiths time and start closing down our minds saying that we HAVE the truth and no longer need to look for it; God has already spoken, why would he need to speak again. I think that much of what we accept as true as a community is not even true, there are a lot of assumptions and misconceptions (not official doctrine) widely believed which are not true. When one says that this is the "Only True Church" I tend to interpretor it as "the canonized doctrines are pure" not that we have all truth, or that others don't have truth.

Someone is from the south

hmm, thanks that answers it then.

But people do actually get re-baptized when are ex-ed. So it seems like it is necessary. What I am getting from what people are saying is that rebaptism for the dead happens for those who have died after been ex-ed. Does anyone KNOW that this happens? I'm still not convinced. Somewhat confused still

So then do all excommunicated members get rebaptized by proxy?

Do deceased excommunicated get rebaptized? I know there have been people that have been restored their blessing after they have died, but does anyone know if those who have been exed get rebaptized after they die? There are a few reasons why this would be done, maybe the person was not guilty of the conduct he was accused of. Maybe he can and did repent in the spirit world. I would find it hard to believe that no one has been exed for illegitimate reasons, but even that hasn't happened what if theoretically it did? He would need to be re-baptized. Thoughts?

Mormonmusic, on the philosophy of "the greatest good for the greatest number" here is a situation. A man has 30 people held hostage in building, there is no way to get into him, no alternate possibilities, he is completely in control. All he demands is that you bring a man to him so he can kill him, then he will let the 30 go. Assuming he is truthful what would you do if you were in charge of choice? This also hits close to the church as you look at missionary hostage situations and people trying to get money from the church.

KFS wasn't even widely talked about till later in the church. It took a while for the saints to grasp and accept it. My question is, because we have never >>experienced<< what Christ or presumably God has, so how can we ever be in the situation of God, who has a Son who can say "I do nothing but what i see the father do". If I never experience that will my son be able to say that? I could learn everything through revelation, but I will never know it through experience. Thoughts?

This is very interesting philosophical question. It reminds me of Kant's maxims: undeniable "no if's" moral ethical laws. Lying is not evil, killing people is not evil, it is not the actions of a man which determine morality. Nephi killed, it was not evil for him. This is why we can't judge but must leave it to Jesus, because he is the only one that really know WHY the person did what he did. As for the topic of lying, it is heavily ingrained in the church history particularly embedded in polygamy. The problem with Kants moral maxims (absolute ethical values such as "Never tell a lie") is that there can be conflicting maxims. EXAMPLE So you are a German harboring Jews in Nazi Germany. The Geheime Staatspolizei come knocking on your door and ask you if you are harboring Jews. You have three(or four) basic options. 1) Lie and tell them that you are not (Violating the Maxim "Never Tell A Lie") 2) Tell them the truth and have the Jew exposed and encamped or killed (Violating the Maxim of "preservation of innocent life" (as you presumably believe)) 3) Do not respond, thus not lying or surrendering them explicitly. (This would ultimately lead to the Gestapo to strip your house and find the Jews, thus it is tantamount to affirmation and in violation of the maxim of "preservation of innocent life".) 4) Do not tell an explicit lie but mislead the Gestapo into belief that you are not harboring Jews (This is the same as option 1, just because you don't "say" it doesn't mean that you communicate it. This is contrary to the "never tell a lie" maxim) The problem with Kant philosophy is that there is no acceptable action is such a situation, there is hierarchy of maxims and thus there is no correct answer to this question. As we look back in history we can see that Joseph smith lied about his polygamous wives, that during the political persecution of polygamy in the church essentially every polygamous was misleading the authorizes in regards to their marital status. It could be a maxim to obey the (or that) law and turn yourself it, but it is also a maxim to support your families who would be economically devastated and uncared for if the. Another violated maxim would be to your religious beliefs, for them to practice polygamy is a God given commandment and thus a Maxim which would be violated if the first maxim were observed. According to absolutes or maxims there is no correct action for this situation. We have to pick one of the absolutes, it is a moral dilemma. The responsibility of this lies in the individual in the dilemma, not in the society that it is harbored it. In the end the question rests on you, what you is your ultimate maxim? Is it more important not to lie, or not to kill, or something else?

So I took early morning, and I loved it. The went to Institute for a few classes. Went on a mission, came back, now I attend BYUI and take religious classes in school for credit. I much prefer the institute classes that are extracurricular. I am not sure why, but I seem to learn more. Maybe its too much mingling of academic and spiritual. Meaning that now instead of reading cause I love it, I'm reading because i want to get a good grade. I would prefer to have more pure motivations. Maybe the problem is just my mindset though. I feel like i'm almost being compelled to be obedient

Guitar = Good

Ok so I don't adhere to JD, but I don't really object too much to him either. I think he is honest and sincere, whether it helps people retain their testimonies or helps them lose it is more then I can say, though I can venture to say he has probably done both. back in 2007 I was listening to his podcast and he was telling about when he came to the realization that the church wasn't true and threw away his garments. I don't believe he has a temple recommend... Furthermore I don't see how he could answer the temple recommend questions. Maybe he has since, do you have a source?