RMGuy

I have heard the same theory at various times and usually as it relates to specific countries that required a transcript of training (seminary works for this). We know that in some instances law has shaped policy. For example as we have talked about in the past with marriages. In some nations it is required that a bride and groom be married before going to the temple to be sealed. In the UK for instance it is required that the marriage be open for anyone to attend. We believe in being subject to law and so that is the process in those nations, even though here in the US if you have a civil ceremony first then you must wait a year....it is not the same in those nations. While I have nothing that says the OP is correct or not, it would not surprise me to find that if a nation has a requirement for allowing individuals into their country on a missionary visa, tha twe would strive to follow the law. If seminary is the only thing that works for that, then I would see us complying by only sending missionaries that have completed seminary. I don't find that in contradiction to the gospel at all. -RM

Not to be a nit-picker, but here I go picking nits. I think a lot of this would depend on how you choose to define potential and how you choose to define sin. For example from the church perspective and as other have illustrated above then clearly our ultimate potential is to become as God is. Anything that keeps us from that (which sin does by definition) of course minimizes our potential. While nit-picky I think it is important that we acknowledge that how we frame those definitions may influence the answer to the question. For example, there have been many individuals that have "sinned" in the LDS definition of that word. Remember for us a WoW violation is a sin, but is not the case for most of the rest of the world including quite a few religious individuals. In that context it might be difficult to generate support for your thesis that Mother Teresa didn't accomplish her potential here on earth because she occasionally enjoyed a glass of wine. Note, she never repented of it, because in her world view/knowledge, it wasn't a sin to begin with. Most Catholics would probably find the theory that she won't reach her potential in heaven because of it bordering on blasphemous. That is perhaps an extreme example, but I think we need to be careful of what we mean by sin and potential. The nine year old that breaks her sisters doll, then lies to her parents about doing it may very well forget all about that event by the time she reaches adulthood, so too may her sisters and parents. Yet it is a double sin. She maliciously destroyed another’s property, she lied about it, and she never repented of it. Do you think it is going to stop her from becoming a world renowned violist? Will it stop her from being a good wife and mother? Will it keep her from exhalation? I guess the absolutists may say yes, but if that is the case then I would posit that heaven might be a very lonely place. Clearly, I think even an agnostic or atheist would agree that a murder limits his/her progression both on this mortal realm, and in any post mortal life should it exist. The same could be said of many “sins”….clearly no one trusts a chronic liar for example. So I think that the answer depends in part on how you define your question, and if you are looking for absolute truth, I would guess that the reality lies somewhere between the extremes. -RM

MM, I see a bishop in a counseling capacity, the same way I see him as a doctor. I agree with Vort that he whom the Lord calls he qualifies. With that being said, perhaps my faith is simply not on the same level as many on this board. I trust the bishop completely with regards to spiritual matters. I will listen to his advice and counsel in other matters, and after getting my own confirmation would perhaps follow it. I believe in his ability to provide priesthood blessings the same way as my home teacher, but I think when it comes to physical illness I'll go to the MD/DO. -RM

I've got a pair of vice-grips. You don't need any pain killer. Brother Joseph did just fine without it. :-) -RM

A portion of the plates were supposedly "sealed" and this portion of the plates were not translated. As for why the seer stone was used as opposed to the Urim and Thummim the only explaination I have seen in official church sources is that which I included in the quote above....for convenience. We do know from some contemporary accounts that during some portions of the translation that the plates were not even in the room. My understanding is that the Urim and Thummim were not taken, as it is their use which constitutes a seer. -RM

Shelly, the reason that Doctrine and Covenants is probably not given out is because the church considered the Book of Mormon the keystone to the religion. I am sure that if an interested individual contacted the missionaries and asked for a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants then the missionaries would get that for them. If one doesn't believe the Book of Mormon however, then the Doctrine and Covenants is of little worth. -RM

I tend to agree with you Scholastic, though this is what Elder Packer had to say about evolution, "Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles." -RM

Shelly, The plates were retrieved by Moroni after Joseph was finished with them. One explanation is that in this way we are required to rely upon faith. As far as how the plate were translated this is from an Ensign article on the topic in September of '77, "On the means of translation Stevenson reported, “He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.” After Martin Harris lost the part of the translation done in 1828, Oliver Cowdery became chief scribe for the entire Book of Mormon as it is now printed. Toward the end of this new work of 1829, David Whitmer on occasion watched and afterwards spoke of the seer stone. Yet as an intimate assistant, Oliver Cowdery stressed the Urim and Thummim in his statements. " -RM

I didn't personally find MoF too disturbing, but I had a mission companion that it caused a great deal of distress for, actually it was worse than distress, and because I was privy to what happened there, I don't think I would ever recommend it to anyone, and I would council my children etc., against reading it. -RM

Good point Dravin, I wasn't even thinking of the confusion when I typed it....lol, after all...I knew what I meant...lol. And for the record they are yummy! -RM

Ummm.....a VERY embarrassed RM.... This kind: Pasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In the UK the plural is pasties. Although....... -RM

Suggestion? How much are a pair of noise cancelling headphones? -RM

I've always been curious. How do you think Noah got the animals to the Ark...do you think he actually went North and came back with a couple of polar bears on a leash, hand selected each of the 116,000 known species of snails, then headed south to pick up a couple of tapirs, and an anaconda or two? Alternately, I guess all the animals could have decided to take a road trip to Noah's house, but you would think that the neighbors might have gotten curious when the hippos and elephants showed up with their tickets waiting to board. I mean, I don't know about you, but about that time I might have begun to think there was something to what this Noah guy was saying. -RM All in good fun folks, all in good fun.

-RM

WOWZA, Some of this stuff you guys eat, oughta be against the WoW! How you can choke down taco bell, american chocolate, or chef boyardee is beyond me.....but then this is from the guy that likes pasties so maybe I shouldn't speak to loudly...lol! -RM

Hala, Maybe it is still in Beta. -RM

@ Dravin Ewwwwwww -RM

It's ok Bini, there are no cows in Taco Bell's "beef" tacos, not sure there are any chicke in their chicken ones come to that....lol -RM

I refuse to live in fear. -RM

Shelly, Yes, that would be the general LDS belief. That the two groups of known scripture (Book of Mormon, and Bible) are records of the people in the America's and the Holy Land respectively. Most LDS members would agree with your assessment that there are other records not yet revealed from other groups of saints. -RM

4 digits in most of Europe is the standard. -RM

I would suggest, "Your food, may or may not contain meat" -RM

Interesting thought FunkyTown, never quite thought of it like that...but if you assumed a rate of decay in the speed of light such as would explain away the OP's question over 6000 years, then it would be a perceptable enough drop that we would be able to detect a continual degredation of that speed. -RM

We had an interesting conversation about just this in our stake recently. Most of us have jobs. Most also have hobbies and interests that we enjoy. If someone offends you at work, do you stop going? If someone upsets you in your hobby, do you stop participating in it? Probably not. Yet this is one of the primary reasons that we "think" individuals stop attending church. One of the other big reasons that we think people stop attending church is because they are sinning. Yet the reality is that every single person that you see at church on a Sunday or any other day for that matter is also sinning. I'm doing it, my Bishop is doing it, the deacon passing the sacrament is doing it, and the couple sitting just in front of you are doing it. So too is the person sitting next to you in the temple for that matter. We are all sinning, to some greater or lesser degree. Some are struggling with major sins, but that doesn't stop them from coming either. So what does. We came to the conclusion that usually it is because we are not meeting their needs. I go to work, because it meets my needs. I might not like it, it might not be how I would do things, but it meets my needs. I participate in my hobbies and interests because it meets my needs. And with respect to Eowyn's post above.....which I think was spot on....we do have a responsibility to make sure our own needs are met, yet we also have responsibility as Brothers and sisters, leaders and teachers, to make sure that the needs of others are met as well. In the context of the YM/YW program for example...are we following the manual and the program because that is what is there, or are we seeking inspiration and revelation (which is after all one of the things that we claim sets us apart from other denominations---many of which do a much better job of retaining their youth incidentally) in order to meet the individual needs of the youth within our unit. Are we pushing scouting because it it the "program of the church" for the young men in our unit even if the ym in our unit and their parents have no interest in scouting? Do we care about merit badges and knot tying, or do we care about progressing the individual. Helping them get what they need in terms of nuture, care, knowledge, and spiritual progression? What about Home Teaching...should I visit the family that has asked for no visits? Is it about the number or is it about showing respect for their wishes while letting them know that I care and am there if they need me? Yes, it is our responsibility to make sure that we are spiritually fed personally. At the same time, if we really are what we claim to be....a church of continuous revelation, inspiration, and one where the Spirit can act on the individual member...then how can we as individuals use that to meet the needs of others. Are we willing to listen to what they have to say (to really hear them), or are we so adament that THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, that we drive them away? -RM

Eowyn, Excellent post. I couldn't agree more. My experience is that for me personally there are times I have learned, felt more Spiritually in tune, connected to God, call it what you will on the top of a mountain than I have in a meeting, being talked at. I recognize that this isn't the case for everyone. Being pulled away from family (that is supposed to be our number one priority) to attend another meeting were we revisit the same material we talked about last month, without getting any closer to a resolution can sometimes frustrate me. Sitting in ward council talking about families in the ward that have needs, only to see those needs never met lead me to believe we would be better off NOT in ward council but actually out serving than sitting around talking about serving. I understand your point, and I agree. It is up to us, our personal responsibility to make sure that we are engaged in building the kingdom. It is our responsibility to make sure that we are spiritually fed, it is incumbent upon each of us to make sure that we are connected to Father. And for me, that means sometimes it is better that I am not in the meeting, but rather doing. -RM