mordorbund

Stop! You're making me blush! And with great power comes great.... AWESOMENESS!!!

That was so nice, I just had to hear it twice! I won't say your remark is all wise, but I do think it's at least half y's.

Thanks for the well-wishes. My birthday did indeed go well. My family picked me up from the office and took me out to dinner. And this morning I rounded things out with a trip to a new temple (new to me anyway). YUP! Everyone should surround themselves with octegenarians to feel younger on their birthday.

Hello and welcome :) Joseph claims that when he went into the woods he had a conversation with God the Father and Jesus Christ. To verify that claim, I can talk to the parties involved - except Joseph's dead. So that leaves God. God told me it happened, so I'm taking Him at His word. Generally, I don't bother with critics. Now if you're reading the Book of Mormon and say, "huh, that's odd" then we can probably have a dialogue. Discussion can happen when we have a common frame of reference so we're not talking past each other. Until we know each other better, we can at least use the internal consistencies of the book itself as a frame of reference. The critics questions have been answered numerous times (it's the same questions they've been asking since the book was published) they just aren't listening. (for a starter course, see here: http://askgramps.org/13781/archaeological-evidence-support-book-mormon). What specific verse? In a book that moves the narrative along via one prophet after another? A book that states there were prophets who were contemporaries of the apostles? A book that promises there will be two prophets in Jerusalem in the last days? Are we talking about the same book? We use the term "Godhead" when discussing the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It closely corresponds to the term Trinity. We don't have creeds built up around it but simply believe that they are 3 separate Persons united in purpose (as best explained in John 17). What's more (and this is jumping ahead in your questions), they are an example to us of what we may literally become. Just as Jesus came to earth, took a body, laid it aside, and rose again to sit on the right hand of the Father (being like the Father) - so we can follow his example, taking a body, laying it aside, and rising to immortality as a joint-heir with Christ. We believe that God the Father has a physical, glorified body. This is somewhat mind-blowing, and yet Jesus shows us exactly how that can be. Here is a God who has a physical, glorified body for Himself. We believe that we can follow Jesus (indeed, doesn't He command us to do just that?) and continue to assist in His work. Scripturally, we use the term "god" (note the little 'g') to describe someone who attained such an exaltation. Such persons still remain subject to God the Father and glorify Him. What's the definition of God that you're using that's contradictory? If you're going to be a regular, find the missionaries. If you're just going for the experience, enjoy it.

Iay asway aughtay anday earnedlay ethay ewnay Atinlay.

The breadcrumbs are on the very bottom of the page: LDS.net→ LDS.NET Popular Forums→ General Discussion

What's your browser, operating system, and screen resolution?

PrisonChaplain, if I may pry... What then is your family's standard for dating options? And is it the same that you would counsel your congregation? Specifically, would you counsel to only date within AofG? or would you broaden it to anyone that still falls under the broad evangelical umbrella? Or would it need to be your particular subset of evangelicality (that's a word, right?)? For the sake of the discussion, let's assume all suitors, courters, daters, etc, are all devout in their faith.

You wanna try that linky again?

It's funny you mention that prisonchaplain, I was just reading Exodus on this topic (Leviticus is more clear-cut, but Exodus has a certain ring to it). The Lord warns them if "thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, [then they'll] make thy sons go a whoring after their gods." I don't know if you're familiar with mormonads (little motivational-type posters included in our youth magazines reminding them of our standards with associated scriptures and images), but I felt this verse was overlooked. I don't know what image to use for this verse, but maybe the text would be something like: Maybe I should leave this to the professionals.

Isn't all this kind of moot anyway? Aren't we all rearing our children for arranged marriages?

From my understanding of Evangelical theology, I would say don't date LDS!!! (I may need more exclamation marks) We are talking about your salvation, your children's salvation, and your spouse's salvation. When you are married, you are to be one (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/5.28-29,31?lang=eng#27) (even one flesh), to the extent that your joys and your trials are shared. If your spouse becomes a stumbling block for you, the two of you need to work together to move forward. Jesus taught that if your eye offends you, pluck it out (and dealing with one flesh, how difficult is it if that eye has an arm fighting to keep it in). Paul softened this by suggesting that the believing spouse may in time sanctify the unbelieving (but I would point out that the sanctifying happens when the two of you together excise offending eyes). I say exercise discernment and marry a partner who is a true partner! You'll be rearing children together, "Can two walk together, except they be aagreed?" You will both influence your children in the way of salvation. Choose someone who will show them the path. My simple test on this matter: Date persons that you think are saved. For the most part, that excludes LDS, and that's fine by me. If our youth are in error, don't risk yourself and your posterity.

Me. I'm your neighbor. LET THE LOVIN' COMMENCE!!!

Could you be a bit more specific on what makes this a "horrible format"? I keep running my unhorriblify.bat script and it's apparently not doing what you want.

I read "not encouraged" as a more relaxed stance than "discouraged". From the Church Handbook of Instruction vol 2, 21.3.2:

And then when everyone is Super.... no one will be ...

I'm using Safari for this post. That's all I've got to say at this point. ain't. ---------------------------------------------------------- Now I've edited it. Looks good to me. I'm siding with Pam on this one. Must be devices.

Nooooooo!!!! Don't do what Anatess mentioned! On the mouth or on the hand, "kissing a potty-mouth is like drinking from the toilet"!

I think what Traveler is getting at is illustrated by the sorcerer's wish in Disney's Aladdin. He saw the "phenomenal cosmic power" and craved it. He wished it and got that AND "itty-bitty living space". I don't think anyone would say that the whole package was his desire. Or as another example, how many people do you know that want to be millionaires? No, I mean really want to be a millionaire for the rest of their lives? Just to clarify, I'm talking about people who want to buy used cars, learn to fix things themselves, do without the latest gadgets (or even any version of the gadget, as the case may be). If they want a high-paying job to pay for it, do they want the whole package? Do they want their profession to always be "on", so that when they're not "on the clock", they're learning more about their trade and gaining the skills that keep them in the competitive minority? Or how many people want to be as skinny as that actress on tv eating a pizza and downing a soda? Would they still want to be as skinny as that actress if they saw she maintains that weight by really eating lower-calorie meals, exercise, and NOT by eating pizza and soda. So, bringing it back to Traveler's example, how many people really want to be citizens in the Celestial Kingdom if they find out that the glory is really service? Or that the price of admittance is discipline? Or that our final rest is actually really hard work? Or that a lot of our endeavors involve exactly that gospel principle that I find so frustrating!? I think Traveler has a valid point that in order to really desire it, you have to recognize the whole package and desire the whole thing.

Are you the poster-formerly-known-as-LoudmouthMormon? The actors have changed their masks in the middle of the play!

I'm just glad no one else can see all my warning points. It might make others jealous to see my point-o-meter spinning rapidly like Pam in her grave.

But what if I'm using the chat feature and someone makes an awful pun and I just gotta groan? And then after thinking about it I let out a chortle. How do I message in chat that I groaned, then laughed?

Maybe PC can chime in on some of his church governance / demographics experiences here. I mentioned earlier that "religion" is picking up a negative connotation and that (it seems to me) it stems from the old distrust of "organized religion". I was thinking about that the last few days and I can only think of men who have told me they have such a distrust. I have some guesses as to why that may be, but add to that what you just said here: churches are combatting this image by focusing on a "relationship with God" as the real key. I wonder if such approach is missing the point. PC posted an article a few years back about Christianity losing men because of the perception that religion is for women and children. And one of the examples that contributed to this perception is the focus on "relationships" - anciently it was the church as a bride - and other feminine traits and analogies alienating men. James, I gather from your tone that you're relatively young, have you seen a drop-off among your peers as you age? In your work environment or school or what-have-you? What do you think would help with the transition when it's time for you to "be a man" and church just isn't manly enough? PC, how does your church (in a non-churchy area) combat some of the stigma against religion in general, organized religion specifically, and especially one that promotes something as unmanly as speaking in tongues (something you see children do without claiming any sort of spiritual origin)?

My views are not so nuanced, and I'll explain in a future post. Since we are now discussing what drives the faith-works I'd like to ask some followup questions to clarify something for me. What is the role of commandments for the faith-filled Christian? I think it's clear that Paul still expects a certain baseline of Christian behavior, otherwise the Corinthians should "evict the rascals" if you will. Are these commandments intended to increase the faith of the disciple? or are these commandments for those without faith (so the condemnation is just)? In the example you gave of the faith-filled Christian wanting to be baptized "to obey and be obedient", though "already made right in God's sight" - if such a person refused baptism, is he fighting the Christ within him? Is he denying his faith, and falling from grace? By the way, I appreciate you engaging in such a civil manner.

Again, I don't see it as either/or. I don't separate the two. They both must be present as far as I'm concerned. One of Articles of Faith states that "the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are ... faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, .... repentance, ... baptism, ... and [receiving] the gift of the Holy Ghost". There should be faith, otherwise the works are completely worthless. But the works (including ordinances) must be there as well. As this is the Christian Beliefs forum, I'd like to understand better your position. It sounds like for you, the works must grow from the faith. Is that understanding also a part of the faith as well? That is, would you grow concerned for the salvation of a faith-filled person who felt his obedience was required? Perhaps his faith isn't full yet?