mordorbund

I'd just like to pause the discussion for a moment to point out what good Christians we Mormons are (and Prison Chaplain as well). Just look at the great lengths we go to in defending the Bible against those verses in Galatians that would make the holy book accursed!

I am embarrassed (but only slightly) to admit that I don't know how I would tell if someone unfriended me.

But, since it's not the same as the other post, how can it be a duplicate?

Speaking for myself, I don't think that everyone "should" homeschool their children. (In an ideal world, with an ideal society, perhaps, but not in our society.) What I do think is that everyone should take responsibililty for their children's education. I have no problem in principle with leaving publicly funded schools in place, but they should be understood as an adjunct to the parental duty to educate the child. No one should ever say that the schools have the primary duty to educate the children. They do not. The parents do.
 
I understand that some parents are completely inept at parenting, and that they would be (and are) massive failures at teaching their children what the children need to know. But they still have the duty, even if they fail at it. When society as a whole recognizes that they do have that duty to educate their children and that they are failing at it, and start putting the primary blame where it belongs -- on the parents, not on the schools -- then perhaps we can have meaningful reform in education.

My best friend is beginning her own business. She travels the neighborhoods on trash day and finds good furniture and refinishes them to sell.  We've joked a lot about her dumpster diving or trash taking.  
 
My cell phone ringtone for her is Party in the USA.  Inexplicably, my cell phone changed her ringtone from Party in the USA to the theme from Sanford and Son. We had a good laugh over that.

My father served his mission in Brazil and decided I was the little Brazilian baby he always wanted (I'm so white I get sunburned sitting in front of the computer too long). My name is a common one, but uses the Portuguese spelling (I still pronounce it that Anglicized way). I joke that it gets me past the HR screens.
 
Given the mismatch of my appearance and my name (and especially since I don't pronounce it like it's spelled) I'm asked why my name is different. And I tell them plainly that my dad served a mission in Brazil. The most enthusiasm I've gotten was in grade school.
 
"Why's your name spelled like that?"
"My dad served a mission in Brazil."
[big eyes] "No way!"
[a little confused at the enthusiasm] "Yeah."
"Was it an American mission or for some other government?"
"It was a Brazilian mission. It wasn't for any government.""Did he kill anyone?"
"What?! No!"
...
"He did get hit by a bus though."

Do you know people with awesome names that make you smile?
 
My youngest child is Hosanna.  One time our local Christian music station had a contest, asking for unusual names and the stories behind them.  We submitted her name, saying, "Every time someone calls her they have no choice but to praise the LORD."  Yeah...we won! 

Vort, I did not need to know about this side of you.

Here is another thought for regulation of large companies (over 50 employees).  That 25% of the company has to be held by the employees and cannot be sold as long as the company is viable.  This also holds for mergers and buyouts - the resulting structure must provide for a minimum of 25% employee ownership.  And in this 25% block no employee can hold more shares than any other employee.  This prevents management from dominating this block.  Also the block ownership is not just in stock but is 25% of gross assets of the company.
 
One thing I have learned in life - owners view the world differently than those hired to do a job.  Even Jesus taught this principle.  I believe it to be the very principle that G-d employs - to make those that believe in him vested partners in eternal benefits (all that he has).

As one who is not invested in the principle of "by faith alone", I often think this part of the discussion is similar to the "correlation vs. causation" discussion that shows up in so many other areas. I can see where, to a "faith alone" Christian, it might be doctrinally important to view "faith" as the "cause" of "good works". For me, it is enough to see that they are necessarily correlated, but I don't need to designate one as the "cause" and the other as the "effect". In fact, I tend to think of them working together in a "feedback loop" where having faith causes an increase in good works and good works cause an increase in faith, and it is not important to decide which one was the "first cause" of the loop.
 
That said though, it also seems like straining at gnats, too. Some have said that Mormonism is more concerned with "orthopraxy" (correct practice) than "orthodoxy" (correct belief). I would suspect that, in the day to day practices of a believer, it is likely not really important which is the "cause" and which is the "effect". The day to day practices are the same whether faith causes good works or good works are correlated with faith.
 
 
 
From what I have seen from within Mormonism looking out, I think this kind of "half-hearted confession of faith" is the side of this that Mormonism is most uncomfortable with -- the anti-nomian side of the faith alone doctrine. When this is not clear, then misunderstandings can happen.
 
Along the same lines, I would draw the "opposite" parallel (if that even makes sense) that I don't believe that God will be gamed or fooled by "fake works" (or what Paul called "dead works"). In the same way that "faith without works is dead", works without faith is also dead. Those who are trying to game the system by "checking off all of the checkboxes on the list(s)" and not truly developing and growing a relationship with God and Christ, is not living up to his/her full potential, either. Perhaps that is just another way of saying that the two need to go together.

I keep thinking of a former poster... but I dare not evoke the name.

Millions of what exactly?! I'm going to assume kids. He made his millions of kids as a traveling salesman for a MLM.
 
 
Well that makes all kinds of sense now, doesn't it.
 
 
 
Oh I did.

or the use of a hat... or the absence of a hat...

Vort...and all...the question of what people thought at the time is one of those impossibilities.  My only purpose in this string has been to show the reasonableness of the traditional view.  That most translators, most traditional commentators, the current Orthodox of the religion in which the Bible originated, all concur that creation was God making stuff seems to me sufficient to show the plausibility  of creation-out-of-nothing.  I recognize also that some scientists argue for the eternal existence of matter, that the original interpretations of Bible passages cannot be known with absolute certainty, and that LDS prophets have revealed that there was an existence before the creation of the world, and each of us had a conscience part in it.  I guess my bottom line is that none of us is being ridiculous or outrageous. 

Ok, just a little note as a moderator:
 
This particular sub-forum is for Christian Beliefs.  While it is perfectly ok to ask questions and even to disagree, please be careful to not impose LDS beliefs on others who do not believe as we do.  This is not the place to "prove" another wrong or to "prove" that LDS are right. It is to come to an understanding.
 
Carry on.....

If I were LDS I would want to be well-versed on these particular prophesies.  It is faith-building and encouraging to have a clearer picture of where we're headed. 
 
On the other hand, for us that are not LDS, the fact that we don't answer that question well is to our credit.  The Bible does not give many details about the millennial reign, or what comes after.  So, it's to our credit that we do not pretend to know what has not been revealed.  It's tempting to speculate, and then try to sound certain and expert.  Give us props for walking in honesty and humility about that which has not been made known to us. 

All people will be resurrected. But the saved and the righteous from the OT, and those who are saved during the tribulation will be resurrected to eternal life in the presence of God.  They have their names written in the book of life. Unbelievers will be resurrected and as their names are not found in the book of life, they will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity.
 
That is why we don't believe in universal salvation. We believe that resurrection and eternal life are different things.

I enjoy reading your posts. :)
 
I'll just add, that we are called always be prepared. For whether the parousia occurs in our lifetime or not, we all must die, and will meet our judgement. 
 
Also, from a Catholic perspective, every Mass we experience is a parousia, when Jesus is made present, Body and Blood, so of course we should be prepared to receive Him.

With regards to the title:
 
I was visiting a lady in California who asked me where I was from. I told her I was from the South. "Oh," she said, "then you'll know what this is." She showed me one of her paintings of a tree-lined street. Something like this:
 

 
"Yes," I replied, "That's spanish moss." I found myself getting homesick when she interrupted my thoughts. "You know it kills the trees."
 
I was a little embarrassed (and still am) that I was feeling nostalgic for a parasite*. Moralize how you will.
 
 
* I know that it's really not a parasite, and doesn't directly kill the tree. But it greatly weakens it and prevents it from getting full sunlight, so the point stands.

With regards to the title:
 
I was visiting a lady in California who asked me where I was from. I told her I was from the South. "Oh," she said, "then you'll know what this is." She showed me one of her paintings of a tree-lined street. Something like this:
 

 
"Yes," I replied, "That's spanish moss." I found myself getting homesick when she interrupted my thoughts. "You know it kills the trees."
 
I was a little embarrassed (and still am) that I was feeling nostalgic for a parasite*. Moralize how you will.
 
 
* I know that it's really not a parasite, and doesn't directly kill the tree. But it greatly weakens it and prevents it from getting full sunlight, so the point stands.

An excellent post over at the Junior Ganymede blog.
 
And in a semi-related vein, a quotation from C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce (via Millennial Star):
 
Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of misery are no longer able to infect it: or else for ever and ever the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject for themselves. I know it has a grand sound to say ye’ll accept no salvation which leaves even one creature in the dark outside. But watch that sophistry or ye’ll make a Dog in a Manger the tyrant of the universe.
 
How do we handle those who threaten suicide (or just threaten perpetual misery for themselves) if we don't give way to their demands?  Cater to them?  Ignore them? 
 
Or?

Its a world were people are turning there backs on God to follow the lusts of their hearts... And then turn around and blame God when that does not work out for them.

Is venting/catharsis still considered healthy? I thought Bushman, et al. showed it wasn't as of 15 years ago.
 
http://blog.uwgb.edu/alltherage/four-questions-on-the-catharsis-myth-with-dr-brad-bushman/

In my experience, obeying the spirit of the law is almost always much more difficult than obeying merely the letter.