mordorbund

My dog IS my MRE.

In the past I would bake a cake with your run-of-the-mill caffeine soda, since all the caffeine cooks out of it. We'll have to see how I like drinking it now that I've gotten the OK.

Those children are obedient because of their "stripes". And if you were a true Christian, you wouldn't miss.

It is completely relevant to counter your statement that the "church is a world bound institution - in heaven there will be no church". In the canonical description of heaven, the inhabitants belong to two different churches. In your dictionary, the 5th definition of a church is "that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc." That part of the whole Christian body belonging to the same celestial kingdom is the Church of the Firstborn. I didn't realize from your earlier post that you only thought a literal marriage was "a crazy idea". In fact, let me repost what you wrote. "first of all christ being married to church is crazy idea, there is no refrence to it anywhere and there is no need for it eather". If you only meant literally, then I wholeheartedly agree and you can treat this post and the one previous as a strawman to be ignored. I thought you meant that even a metaphorical understanding of the Church as the bride of Christ was not referenced anywhere, and that is what I addressed (and will again address in this post). Your profile says you're male, but you can accept being a bride? Either you and I have a very different understanding of role of marriage, or else you are able to understand metaphors (but refuse to accept the metaphor of the Church as a bride). Good, so we both agree the City of New Jerusalem is the bride. In my mind, that's synonymous with the City of Zion as a bride. Is that leap of logic what's so crazy? If I show that connection, will you cede that the idea of the Church as bride is not so crazy and unreferenced? My issues with the word of wisdom are a non-sequiter. Let's keep on point. My quip of the Church of the Former-day Saints was in reference to the City of New Jerusalem mentioned in Revelation. D&C 65 supports the idea that the modern Church should become the bride of Christ. I should have just started here. So Christ's bride is the LDS as a people but not a church? I don't think you understand the definition of church. You should review your link, with a special emphasis on definition 4: "( sometimes initial capital letter ) any division of this body [of Christians] professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; [as in] a Christian denomination: the Methodist Church."

Some of the non-references that don't exist anywhere: Christ is the bridegroom: John 3:27-30 John speaks of himself as the friend of the bridegroom (letting us know he is talking symbolically). So who is the bride?Revelation 19:5-9 Revelation 21:2 Sounds like the bride is the Church of Former-day Saints here.Doctrine and Covenants 65:3,5 Sounds like the Church of Latter-day Saints is playing the role of bride.In heaven, there is a church: Doctrine and Covenants 76:54 Doctrine and Covenants 76:67 Doctrine and Covenants 76:71 Doctrine and Covenants 76:94 Doctrine and Covenants 76:102

Although the OP is citing the "third part" phrase from the D&C, it is a phrase lifted from the Revelation of St John the Divine. Not only does he use it to describe those spirits who followed Lucifer, but the phrase comes up time and time again (or should that be time and times and half a time again?) referring to the destruction of the world. Revelation 8:7-12 Revelation 9:15 Revelation 9:18

This is news to me. Are you stating this as your opinion, or is this an LDS doctrine that I slept through in Sunday School?

And no wonder! This one has 2 punches too many!

And THAT is what I miss most when SlamJet is absent. Your word is sorely needed in many a thread. There is simply no replacement.

There's a small Orthodox church in Seattle you could also consider going to (St Nectarios). I went to their Christmas Mass this year. The service is in English. They don't use any instruments except voices. The "Lord have mercy" portions are sounded off like carillon bell chimes, with congregational choruses of "Most Holy Theotokos" (that may be Christmas specific though). They use the Julian calendar (take THAT Gregory XIII) so even if you think you've already missed a particular holiday mass, you may not have (I'm not familiar enough with any branch of Catholicism to know when anything besides Lent, Easter, and Christmas are going on).

Covered that for you to keep it modest.

So trivia...who can name where this is from? :) That looks like the scouting badge you get for grilling a square meal.

As does using all caps, larger font sizes, and being younger than 25.

And once they go inactive, how exactly does that affect my poster's insurance? Do the rates go down after 300 days also? or is it a longer timeline?

If I recall correctly, in The Robe, a skeptical character figures that the miracle was performed via the generosity of the multitude. The initial fish and loaves acted as a catalyst for others to add their excess to the baskets as they were passed around. I still favor the "miraculous" interpretation. * Edited to add, mass spontaneous consecration would certainly be miraculous.

I think the name George Garratt isn't getting used anymore.

Such clever cards Bini. The reason why the trick works is because the numbers on each card have a bit of a relationship to one another. What that relationship is can be quickly surmised from that particular square you glance at. You are a mind-reading machine :)

Obligatory (xkcd: Tech Support Cheat Sheet):

I blinked at my screen trying to figure out why you gave him the name you did. Thanks for the clarification. I guess you'll have to stick with someone in SCotUS from now on.

One is an engagement, or marriage proposal, while the other is ratifying ordinances that have previously occurred. You are clearly privvy to far more information than what I have. I don't recall Jesus praying for his wife or for exaltation (John 17 has Him praying for His pre-mortal glory, but He was single then so it doesn't support what you're saying). And once again, there's a considerable difference between being assured an ordinance will occur, versus an ordinance is approved. I refer the curious reader to Pam's link with Elder McConkie's quote. I think it's pretty clear that he was speaking of expectations connected to ordinances. Even the non-marriage sealing example he gave was about the Holy Spirit of promise ratifying a baptism. You assume Jesus received the unrecorded ordinance of priesthood ordination, but not marriage? How inconsistent of you. Jesus did not need the "Jewish priesthood" to officiate over His marriage. Elijah gave the promised sealing keys to Peter, James, and John on the mount of transfiguration. Any of those 3 could have officiated at the sealing. The blessings are fulfilled later, but there are types in the ordinances we perform preparatory for such. My baptism is a shadow of being buried in Christ and resurrecting in Christ. The temple ordinances are similar forms of future blessings. Getting back to the OP, it sounds like your primary objection to the idea that Jesus married in mortality is that you have your own pet theory instead.

I'll take credit for it (sorry SS if you posted it before me). Elder Talmage in Jesus the Christ uses the example of the Sadducees challenging the Savior to teach this principle:

I'm more impressed with the guy on the far left and the second one to the right. It looks like they're just hopping along at a good, solid pace. And without prosthetics to boot! (they would have a HUGE disadvantage in the 3-legged race though)

You're understanding of how the Holy Spirit of promise works (in the context of marriage) is different from mine. Based on Doctrine and Covenants 132:18-19 1) The marriage covenant is made 2) The Holy Spirit of promise ratifies the ordinance The Holy Spirit of promise does not promise that you will one day receive a spouse; the Holy Spirit of promise promises that your exaltation is assured. In the context of sealings (as explained in D&C 132), the promise is made after you are already married.

I don't see how the second option fits with what has been revealed. You're proposing that an ordinance is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise before it has even been performed? (applying your "absence of evidence" argument again) Is there any example in the scriptures of an earthly ordinance being sealed before it is performed? The second option that the premises lead to is "Jesus is not and will not be married". To get a different conclusion besides these two, you would need to discredit the premises. You're theory of a future-married Jesus doesn't really fit the traditional marriage arguments.

So the battle lines have been moved from Team Edward/Team Jacob to the new axis/alliance of Team Robert/Team Rupert. And once again, there is neither Team Bella nor Team Kristen.