MaidservantX

Try www.ldsdiscourse.com also.

I don't have any advice, but just to share that I feel similarly with my bishop. He scares me, on a personal basis. But I can report that I do believe the mantle is doing the trick -- that he has been helpful to me in my widowhood, and I have been blessed to continue my belief to honor priesthood leadership. But it does feel odd a lot. I take it as a learning opportunity. I think through his calling he has had the opportunity also to change his opinion of me, for whatever that is worth to he and I. God bless, Belmar.

Watch the movie Nicholas Nickleby for righteous anger.

You will never hear the phrase "burn in hell" in a Sacrament Meeting talk either; I think that a person who tried to say that would be booted out (haha) -- wha? There are children listening in Sacrament Meeting (ok, ok, so the little kids are NOT listening, lol). Mormons do not burn people in hell, ha ha. That is not how it works. "Master" is, of course, one of the many names of Jesus Christ as found in the scriptures -- Wonderful, Counselor, Almighty God! on and on.

Although I'm not exactly a stranger to so-called "anti-mormon" information and argument, nevertheless if there was ever a lack in my life of it, no more!! There is plenty of information and alternatives available here on the never dull lds talk forums!! :) (I mean it, I love it!) Other than that, sorry if I don't have time to between my visiting teaching, two jobs, six kids, choir practice, house cleaning, gardening, praying on my face to God to sustain me, on and on, to do tons of formal research. And believe me if I did, church history and current administrative details are not my interests -- I like ancient world history much better, and if I had time for any kind of formal research I would spend it on the subject of the origin of man. I'm pretty sure one thing that hasn't changed in the Book of Mormon -- that has been in all the editions -- is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, Savior and Son of God and that he gave his atonement and that I need to accept his atonement. All of the 'light' shed on the church, its doctrines and practices by those who think the church is wrong -- is, to me, predictable and boring. That is my main experience of it, sorry no sugar coating. I mean, the information was interesting perhaps the first time, but not the 40th. My experience (I'm not going to call it testimony, knowledge or belief) -- but my EXPERIENCE with my Heavenly Father, my Savior, the Church, the Church members and all kinds of people I have met and situations I have lived through, both ordinary and mystical, restful or grueling -- my experience is woven through who I am. I would have to point to my entire life as my witness that I am in the right place at the right time and generally doing the right thing (specifically doing the right thing? another topic!) and that what is being taught to me from my Heavenly Father is the greatest light I can enjoy on this earth -- I do not find light (speaking for myself) in anything thing that I have heard offered in alternative-to-the-Church/ freedom from the Church information. I can easily grant another their experience of life that has brought them to the point where they are at, and I accept that it is a good journey for them and that Heavenly Father is also teaching them.

An online missionary??

The Book of Mormon, or selected portions thereof, has been translated into 100 languages. That was the number as of 2000. Perhaps there have more translations since then. I think an update "every few years" would be a very difficult thing -- I'd need to keep buying new ones (I have a quad -- Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants together in one tome; sucker costs 60.00). What is there to up date, anyway? It is a record of a people that are now gone. On the other hand, I really don't know what or if any type of review is involved in the Book of Mormon; I would suspect none, but I defer to those who actually know.

I think God is pro protecting one's family and one's nation (and one's property also). If you can do it with your ninja powers, well then.

Vinny -- what does yedi being older than you have to do with whether or not you marry her?

It's odd (?:)) that you would say that, because in my (Mormon, ha ha) opinion, a Far Eastern origin fits quite well in with my reading of the Book of Mormon. I think I've said before that it is my personal opinion that the northern Native Americans are actually remnants of Jaredites (from the tower of Babel). So, Far eastern, judaic, pre-adamic --- doesn't matter to me, it's all waaaay too fun!

I consider myself an Israelite. I would even go so far as to consider myself a Jew, inaccurate technically, but substantially it would apply, in my feeling. I consider myself an heir to all of the covenants, and the promises thereof, as recorded in the Old Testament (both before and after Jacob/ Israel). The law of Moses was actually a small (okay, medium sized) chapter in the story of God's covenant people (a chapter that is over, even for Jews, since the central obedience and godly power generating act were the sacrifices and they are no longer done -- as is appropriate, but still -- why do the rest with out this? I know, I know, rembrance and heritage.)

The thing about bringing up the (shall we term it?) the "DNA" argument in interfaith dialogue (benefit of the doubt as to what this discussion is) -- is that those who bring up this point are actually talking to thin air: no one is there. The room is empty. There is nothing about the faith in the heart of the Mormon believer that corresponds that title: "DNA evidence or lack thereof of the Book of Mormon". The faith that is in the heart of the Mormon believer is in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer and Savior of mankind -- that he is resurrected and living and still directing His work; and that Jesus Christ's atonement (sacrifice) made it possible for each individual to repent, be completely forgiven and cleansed, to have protection and peace in this earth life, and to return to live with our Heavenly Father. Are there those who wish to argue us out of this faith? Some in doing so would be arguing themselves out of their faith as well. No sermon in the family service (Sacrament Meeting), no Sunday school class, in none of the other meetings (Priesthood Quorums and Relief Society) are you going to hear a teaching regarding DNA and the Book of Mormon. Perhaps, in a lively Sunday School discussion, it might come up, as it is certainly an interesting thing -- but no pronouncement will be handed down on it. Last week in Sunday School we learned the signs of the times; Relief Society and Sacrament Meeting were both about self-reliance and preparedness (a little theme going on, I guess). I went to a fireside that night and learned about the founding of the United States. Lately in the Book of Mormon, I have been reading the story of Ammon finding the people of Limhi, and how excited and relieved Limhi was and looking forward to rejoining loved ones and also God's redemption. In the Bible, I have been studying bits of Genesis and Isaiah. Now, Mormons like to learn things. They like to delve. They have huge imaginations. There may be a great many Mormons with a variety of views of DNA matters as they may or may not relate to the Book of Mormon. There are Mormon scholars who are studying it in depth -- not for the church, but out of their own interest; in fact, they have no vested interest in coming up with Judaic DNA here in America. You don't know Mormons very well if you don't know that Mormons would be equally excited (and would not stop believing in Jesus Christ) by evidence that showed -- anything at all! about DNA. :) Going on, there may have been pronouncements by past church leaders and thinkers. I am not up on all the academic area and I don't have my handy-dandy obscure last century church leader quotes for all argumentative occasions concordance at my finger tips, so I can't speak to either of those kinds of things. But I can tell you that there are some heritages and lineages spoken of in the Book of Mormon. I am aware of at least three. Lehi and his family were descended from Joseph/ Manasseh (so not Jews). There was a group of people who left the tower of Babel, so whatever that makes them. There was a group who were descended from the king Zedekiah (Jerusalem), and I am thinking that is descent from Judah. There is nothing within the Book of Mormon itself that states that these three groups are the only possible heritages of the indigineous peoples of these continents. The constantly changing picture of DNA and other things regarding anthropology and archaeology in regards to the Book of Mormon has about as much impact as does the same scientific disciplines as applied to the Bible. Just as an example: what if I were to tell you that the place where Jesus was born was NOT a stable nor was the place where he was laid an animal feeding trough? Did you know that translation and a newer understanding of how inns in those days work paints a very different picture? Does it make our God of the Bible worthless because he let us figure that out for ourselves instead of stopping the molds of all the BEAUTIFUL nativity sets? (God has his own purposes for things.) So, to repeat, the constantly changing picture of academic disciplines as they apply to ancient texts and historical claims has NO impact on the MESSAGE of REDEMPTION and the plan of salvation as is being spread throughout the world by the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon and as it resides in the heart of the believer. "Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins." Doctrine and Covenants, section 29, verse 1. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3 "Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world. And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world" 3 Nephi 11:10-11 "Hear, O Israel: THe Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Deuteronomy 6:5 This is the faith in my heart: my Savior and my Father in heaven. Between this joyful knowledge -- intertwined with my sorrows, weaknesses and trials -- I don't have a lot of room left over for DNA evidence. (Except when I do just for fun!! ha ha)

www.mormon.org Perhaps you've already been to that site. And, hey, it looked a little different to me today, like they'd updated it. They are leading off with "God is your loving Heavenly Father". Which is what I always say is the most important thing! :) http://www.mormon.org/worshipwithus This is also the page where you can figure out where to go to church on Sunday. Of course, you can just attend a Sunday service, you don't have to have a special invitation. Hopefully, there will be a set of missionaries also at the service that you could introduce yourself to; or the bishop or anyone -- ask! :) Also -- does the temple near you have a Visitor's Center? Some temples have visitor's centers where, again, anyone can go and meet the workers or missionaries there and ask questions and find out what to do. Happy seeking!

Okay. I will come back to "In the beginning" some more, but I want to go on a little also. In the beginning God/ The story begins and we meet the first character (other than the reader, other than the self that is capable of comprehending a story). Who or what is God? Without appealing to more ancient words used in this statement, I will rely, once again, on simply the KJ English (for the moment). We are introduced to someone or something that is ALREADY THERE. We can look back as far as we can see and someone will be standing there -- God. As you read the story that commences with "In the beginning God/" -- if you are looking at God -- the God of the story -- is he/? looking back at you? What is the connection between that character and the reader? What is the distance between the two? And even more delicious and suspenseful -- if there is the BEGINNNING and there is GOD -- THEN WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT? :) (Curtain rises . . .)

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Let's just for fun learn as much as possible from this statement. We can start by breaking it down. "In the beginning". What does that tell us? What questions does it provoke? What images does it bring? What shape of a universe would warrant this description of time? In the LDS Edition of the KJV -- the very first footnote, lol: "a" -- attached to this phrase, suggests to us that we might want to peruse in the Topical Guide under the heading "Time". (More about that perhaps in a subsequent post.) Perhaps this phrase, instead of so much speaking to the beginning of the universe, speaks instead, to the beginning of the STORY. (Images come to my mind of Native American Elders passing along their stories to the next generation, surrounded by the very creation (earth and sky)). After all, it does say "in" the beginning -- not "at" the beginning. I've been pondering the "beginning" on and off for a very long time. The Story of what? The story of me? The story of if I'm asking myself what I'm doing alive and what I'm doing on this spot of space, in this spec of time? Maybe. "In the beginning" actually holds a lot of information -- it holds all the information there IS -- BEFORE the moment in time when the STORY ignites. Okay, now it's your turn. When you read or hear this music: "In the beginning . . ." or "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- what have you learned that you could share here? [sorry, title should say KJV, NOT Kvj -- that's going to bug me, lol]

Many of the things that have been said actually respond and agree that God would not command genocide. That is at least one point trying to be made that God or godliness had no hand in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Agreement not opposition to your question (or more agreement than opposition).

Speaking in generalities only: The LDS church believes in the teachings and gospel of the Old and New Testament -- there is no innaccuracy of the gospel. The LDS church believes in the historicity of the events in the Bible. There may be some thought and discourse of an academic sort, say just for an example, of the nature of Noah's flood and such things. On the other hand, the LDS church and most LDS take stories such as Shadrach, Mescach and Abednego being saved within the furnace at face value -- it happened that way (supernaturally). The only point upon which the LDS church mourns is that the TRUTH of the Bible has been obscured by translation problems!! It is BECAUSE the Bible is VERY TRUE and we are loyal to it, that we are concerned about the translation problems. (By the way, nobody ever gives a sermon about the innaccuracy of the Bible. Sermons are about prayer, repentance, loving your family, etc.) The LDS church (so we say) is the church that does follow the teachings and models in the Bible. We have prophets and apostles, to give one example -- as the Bible teaches. We believe in miracles. We believe that the Savior really was resurrected and that he still lives and speaks and works. So on and so forth. Perhaps I shall be too plain and hurt some feelings, but it is many of the official creeds of other sects of Christianity that do not follow the Bible and its gospel.

Zealously sermonized = how many talks given on blood atonement versus any other possible subject at the total times and places sermons were given? (I know, I know . . . do my own research :) ) Without blood atonement, the massacre would not have occurred. There are many things that have been taught in the Church over the years that the members have wrested. I can think of at least one other and that would be the husband/ father being the leader in his home -- taught with light from God, but understood with severe limitations by practitioners (i.e. Mormons). I trust your research as I have done zero research on Mountain Meadows and I will trust thus far that you have come to that conclusion and no other. On the other hand, I do think that perspective and argument can still be admitted to the interpretation of history (history is always interpreted, in my opinion) in general, and Mountain Meadows history specifically. To me it is like saying, "Without the teaching that fathers are to preside in the home, my father wouldn't have treated my mother so crappily." Granted, that conclusion is true in a certain perspective; on the other hand, is a godly principle responsible for a cretin's (crappy father or John D. Lee) understanding of the principle? Maybe, maybe not. Just thinking out loud. Also, perhaps we need another thread for these Old Testament references, but I had something to add to that. The persons who lived in Canaan and surrounding lands where God (so we say) was intending to move the Israelites and the Abrahamites into were not unbelievers, at least not in heritage. The greatest judgments have never been for innocents and persons living with their version of the light of Christ; rather for persons violating and forsaking their covenants. (The Israelites have great judgments pronounced upon them for forsaking their God and so do members of the Church who do so.) The Midianites, at the very least, had the priesthood and the gospel among them -- that's pretty much where Moses got his gospel (from Jethro). So assuming that God did command their destruction (which I"m not saying he did or would), it is my observation that it was not against a peaceful group of people; but rather families from Noah and so forth who were violating covenants on a heinous and constant basis. God's main fight with people in any age and his desire to wipe them off the face of the earth -- if he has that desire at all -- is based on child sacrifice and molestation -- NOT just someone who likes to go boating on a Sunday afternoon or even people who divorce or even people who steal -- he lets all those people live. It's when people start doing acts that would make drowning with a millstone around the neck preferable, that gets God in a destroying mood. Just my opinion.

Not silly, yedi! I love this stuff -- especially Old Testament. It gives me a chance to go over it all again, my favorite stuff. By the way, you know a lot more than many lds about your scriptures, yedi (you know more than me!) -- enough to ask super questions!

Transfigured and translated are not really the same -- unless it is a matter of degree? As you know, we have the traditional term, Mount of Transfiguration, where Peter (+) witnessed some glory of the Savior and other beings. But it does seem obvious that if the body is being changed into a condition that is capable of withstanding glory or the witnessing of glory, then, yes, some sort of return to original condition would then take place when the experience was over. Although -- would there be lingering effects? :) As for Joseph Smith changing the verses -- well, yedi, what does the Hebrew say for that verse? Also in Exodus you will know that Jehovah planned on "coming down" and appearing to or visiting with the seventy elders (or perhaps the whole camp?) and when Moses mentioned as much, the people said "Noo way. We don't want to see God!" (It freaked them out.) So when Moses relayed that back to God, God said, "Fine. I won't come." Also, even in King James Version, I just opened it -- it says right in 33:11 (starting in verse 9) that the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. Even in King James English it is unutterably clear. I was skimming through Exodus, so I could point out the story of the seventy elders, and I found it in chapter 24. It seems that they did see God. So I don't know where I"m getting the story of persons saying 'no' to the privilege. I don't have time to look further right now.

Although a-train already spoke as he did and I feel I could just line up behind him, let me say that before I read a-train, I must admit, Jason, that I found it odd that you 'translated' the term and concept of "transgressors" as quoted from JofD into "anyone not following Mormon doctrine" (and later "dissidents" or something). I don't see how that follows. Transgressors are transgressors, no matter what other traditions they are or are not following -- transgressing doesn't particularly mean sleeping in and missing church or perhaps lighting up cigarettes. I think the speaker was deeply concerned with much deeper evils that mankind (particular those who have covenanted, but yes all) practice and hide. Also, I would like to hear other people's ideas on this -- perhaps another topic heading needed? But I have always considered what I hear at General Conference to be doctrine at least for the next six months. I try to order my life around what I have heard. Maybe this is a difference of semantics. But I thought that the words out of living prophets mouth were more doctrine that anything else including ancient scriptures. I have known for some time that Christ's atonement cannot cover everything per say in the sense that there are things that one can lose that cannot be returned, at least not to their original condition. This reality of the universe has been a factor in my depthless sorrows. I do believe that long term effects of acts can almost always be redeemed, a lot more often than a return to original condition per say. Although . . . maybe I just don't know enough. Once in a while I get a glimpse of redemption's power and that I have no idea what wonders, comforts, gifts, peace and restorations are in store. . . .

Yeah, I'm pretty sure plains of Shinar was near mesopotamia. Lots and lots of people -- metropolitan as already said. Also, Eskimos and probably all northern Native Americans, and farther south ancient Olmecs, are Jaredites in my opinion. Definitely not white. I am pondering what has been said regarding what evidence that God wanted to withhold the priesthood from blacks. The basic answer is of course, he didn't and he doesn't. The implication intended (I think) is that the Church and its prophets (and the people agreeing) got it seriously wrong -- no one actually listening to God. As I said, still thinking about this question. I mean I could point out lots of stuff that surrounds that question, but nothing that would get right at it. And again -- I simply do not think he had or has that desire, to withhold. I can only speak for myself, but I don't think I'm the only one -- it is NOT okay with me that blacks once did not have the priesthood -- the best thing that can be said about it, is that it is a lesser law -- much lesser. This opinion exists within me and does not in anyway violate my testimony of my Father, Jesus Christ and of the Restored Gospel and Church. In fact, I am soo glad that God led us to shed those shackles: because there is nothing in the Celestial Kingdom that is going to reflect that mortal fact (no priesthood for blacks) that existed for a brief period (kolob time, ha ha). By the way, part of this story is that President Kimball (and co) petitioned the Lord for this to be so for some time -- for the priesthood to be able to be given to blacks. He/ they wanted it very badly. Another part of the story is that I do not find in the main sources we have for the narrative regarding Cain (Genesis and Book of Moses) that God cursed Cain's posterity from the priesthood. I think to the degree that that is true, it arose in the lifetimes and due to the situation with Ham and his son Pharoah. I think a lot about black heritage and I think a lot about the wonder of all the beauty, gifts and purpose of all the children of God currently on the earth today. I am actually in awe of God's work in history, the present and going forward from here. I am humbled to realize I don't comprehend the fullness of it; I believe we have many, many more paradigm shifts in front of us: some I can predict and some I can't. And by the way, Tower of Babel is being reversed. Isn't it fun??

I have (at least) two thoughts. They go together and actually if looked at closely say the same thing. The first thought is sin is anything that causes harm to a child of God. We do say that sin is anything that separates us from God, but then the question is, why do some acts separate us from God? It's just another level to delve into. My second thought is that the universe is created a certain way and with certain properties (of matter). It is necessary to remain in the straight and narrow way. Any deviation from the straight and narrow way results ultimately (if not corrected) in the destruction of the being and of the universe. A being (a child of God) has the need to expand endlessly and to appropriate fuel to do so. Well if a being were allowed to do that willy nilly, you could see the trouble that would cause. On the other hand if you cause that that being can make no expansion and cannot receive input of energy, then you also have the death of the being. So, we all have to be together in the body of Christ where we all can expand according to our desires yet without violating the being and expansion of the other beings. It takes a little practice to do this, hence a mortal probation, where mistakes made are redeemable. But sin would be any thing that would take us outside of the bounds of the straight and narrow way, the body of Christ, and that would violate or cause the death of the child of God and his or her joy of being (eternal life).

In the April 2007 World General Conference, Elder Richard G. Scott gave an address on the subject of prayer. It is good to be reminded and also to realize what the concept of prayer and and answers to prayer -- what the concept is, as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I haven't even read through the whole talk yet, but here are some of my favorite insights I have culled from the beginning of the talk. "Prayer is the source of comfort, relief, and protection, willingly granted by our loving, compassionate Heavenly Father . . . desperately we need His guidance . . . He has created numberless cosmos and populated them with worlds, yet you and I can talk with Him personally, and He will ever answer." "Prayer is most effective when we strive to be clean and obedient, with worthy motives, and are willing to do what He asks. Humble, trusting prayer brings direction and peace. Don't worry about your clumsily expressed feelings. Just talk to your compassionate, understanding Father. You are his precious child whom He loves perfectly and wants to help. As you pray, recognize that Father in Heaven is near and He is listening. A key to improved prayer is to learn to ask the right questions. Consider changing from asking for the things you want to honestly seeking what He wants for you. Then as you learn His will, pray that you will be led to have the strength to fulfill it." "Often when we pray for help with a significant matter, Heavenly Father will give us gentle promptings that require us to think, exercise faith, work, at times struggle, then act. It is a step-by-step process that enables us to discern inspired answers."

And, of course, no one knows what the appearance of the other half of the stock is (at this point).