cwald

Exactly. That was my point.

I like that. My first thought to this thread, which I guess I should have just said so I didn't get labeled a troll, was to say that what I think the most valuable thing LDS prophets have shown me, is that we are all prophets and have access to the gods. And that we can all go to the gods for answers and knowledge. And that we should seek truth and wisdom where ever we can find it. I think Joseph Smith was a great prophet and example of this kind of a belief system. I guess I misunderstood the purpose the thread. I thought we were talking about "modern day" prophets, as in prophets in our lifetime.

Very interesting. I've only heard of Ephraim, Mannassah and Dan. I think you folks have answered my question about the tribes and the church members belief. Thank you.

Well, what uniquely mormon revelations have we gotten from the prophets since 1978? It seems to me, most of the revelations and GC talks are pretty well just revitalizing the current doctrine?

This is what I was getting at. Thanks I have no problem that our LDS prophets are preaching the same message as other prophets from different faiths. That is a good thing. I just can't think of anything that is uniquely mormon that I've heard come from SLC since the 70's, that I don't hear other prophets talking about as well. I mean, take the proclamation to the family. Great advice! But that is certainly not uniquely mormon. There are billions of folks who believe that and I would say that the majority of the population support strong families. So Windseeker, does that make me a troll?

I honestly can't think of anything that is uniquely mormon that I've learned from prophets since 1978, when they changed the policy of blacks and priesthood I think this post here, is, well, kind of insulting. I mean, the mormons don't have a monopoly on morality, ethics and family. I think the world is more moral than you want to give them credit for. I have found this kind of attitude quite prevalent in the morcor, more so than the LDS people I know outside of Utah and S. Idaho --- and I think it gives fuel to the folks who claim that Mormons are "arrogant."

Pam - thank you again. This is why I decided to visit this site. I really hope this is what my religion is all about. RESPECT. Thank you. The last few weeks on this board have been a good thing for me, because I want to believe my religion is tolerant and respectful of the 99.7% of those who are not mormon, and I kind of see that here somewhat. Thank you all.

Yes. Thank you. Let all men and women believe and worship what they may - to the dictate of their own conscience.

Maybe I'm confusing the gathering of the ten tribes in Missouri with the building of the New Jerusalem in Missouri?

I thought that Smith's taught that the 10 tribes would be gathered in Missouri? Hmmm? Interesting about the PB thing. I did not know that there are already people from all the 10 lost tribes in the LDS church. Do you know this for a fact, like do you know people with PB who are from a tribe other than Judah, Joseph or Dan, or is this just a Mormon myth?

I've been thinking about this lately, and I know that it is part of the LDS church's creed that they believe in the literal gathering of the lost 10 tribes to Missouri - or at least it use to be part of their creed in Smith's time. 1. Does the church really believe in a literally gathering of the lost tribes? Or is that a doctrine that "I don't know if we teach it, I don't know that we emphasize." What does the church believe? 2. If they do believe in the lost 10 tribes, where are they now? And if they were here on this planet, wouldn't we know it by now? I mean the LDS church has converts in what, 100 different countries, so you would have expected to see some of these tribes declared in patriarchal blessings no? Any thoughts?

I just got done reading the Gospels of Thomas I and II as well as the Gospel of Mary which deal with Jesus early years. These books were quoted regularly unto about 320 AD. It's quite clear to me that the NT apostles did not believe Jesus was perfect. In fact, I can see why the modern church labeled them Apocrypha. They are quite disturbing really - show a whole new side of Jesus.

I like that, but I think flawless might be a stretch. When I teach this concept, I say that we should strive to be perfect like god, which means we need to be COMPLETE and WHOLE. We can become complete and whole. I doubt any of us will ever be flawless.

Really? Right out of the Mormon playbook. And what about all the people from other faiths who "know beyond a shadow of doubt..." that their belief and their church is true? So you know that God and Jesus are separate beings. Good for you. Obviously there are many who have posted here who "know beyond a shadow of doubt" that God and Jesus are the same being. So are they just flat out wrong and you are right? Like I said earlier, this entire conversation is irrational dialogue. "I will see your Hebrews and raise you a 1 John." You can't "prove" anything from the scriptures, and I say that to both sides - the Mormons and the Christians. Your Bibles are the same and obviously have contradiction statements about the nature of god. And so what, it's called faith for a reason. If you could prove your points on who god was, than it would be science.

That's funny. What is "rational" about this entire thread?

Well, those people need to wake up to the fact that we have 7 billion people on the planet who need to eat. Wildlife will not sustain that kind of population. In fact, that is quite absurd to even take such a concept seriously.

Sure, maybe it's all semantics. And I don't argue with what you're saying. Morally, is there any difference between killing a deer and steer? I don't know. But my point is that folks who hunt, are not doing it for the food. They do it because they enjoy it. They enjoy walking the hills and they enjoy killing the five-point. It's a rush, a natural high. That is what I don't get. I'm not saying they are necessarily immoral for doing so - that is something they will have to work out with god. But, I don't get how one could feel good doing it. Most people would just assume go to the supermarket and buy a steak. Yes, that food comes from an animal. But that animal was specifically raised for food and I don't have to kill it. I've killed livestock before. I didn't feel good about doing that either, but at least I knew it was raised for that purpose, and that folks wouldn't miss the great "spiritual" experience of watching that steer in the corral, like some folks would miss watching that buck on the mountain side. So I'm not sure that it is fair to equate steers with deer and elk and moose and such. Wildlife is in a different category than livestock raised for consumption. I've killed many many deer in my life. I just one day, out on the mountain, realized how sick it made me feel to kill when I didn't need to. Sure, I always ate the deer. I still love venison. I just don't feel right shooting the buck from 300 yards away with a high power rifle. I mean, if hunting is a sport - there not much "sport" in that kind of hunting.

Actually, I'm saying I don't get it. I don't get how one could feel "good" about going out and killing a part of nature. I mean, I enjoy seeing a five-point buck out in the wild. I do. I just can't see the joy that comes from seeing it, admiring it, respecting it, and than killing it with a high powered rifle. So yeah, I just don't understand the whole concept. And I think there have been prophets who would understand my confusion.

Really. I guess I interpet it differently because I thought it was stated very clearly? “We should by every means in our power impress upon the rising generation the value of life and how dreadful a sin it is to take life. The lives of animals even should be held far more sacred than they are. Young people should be taught to be very merciful to the brute creation and not to take life wantonly or for sport. The practice of hunting and killing game merely for sport should be frowned upon and not encouraged among us. God has created the fowls and the beasts for man’s convenience and comfort and for his consumption at proper times and under proper circumstances; but he does not justify men in wantonly killing those creatures which He has made and with which He has supplied the earth” (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of “I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men-and they still exist among us-who enjoy what is, to them, the “sport” of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport, boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter, and day after day, during the season when it is lawful for men to hunt and kill (the birds having had a season of protection and not apprehending danger) go out by scores or hundreds, and you may hear their guns early in the morning on the day of the opening, as if great armies had met in battle; and the terrible work of slaughtering the innocent birds goes on” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol 4, p.45). Yeah, I guess I just read it differently. It sounded pretty cut and dry that sport hunting should be discouraged. And I would argue that 99% of all hunting today is done more for sport than necessity to feed the family. That's just my opinion. However - you make a good point about PETA. I suppose if they had their way, we would all be vegetarians. That's not good. Eating meat sparely is probably just pretty good words of wisdom I suppose.

Well, I'm not promoting PETA or anything, and I'm not anit-hunting really. I just found it interesting that some folks were bashing on PETA, and teasing others about belonging to the group and such. And then other folks talked about how they were "avid hunters" almost like they were mocking and boasting about their right to kill animals. I have no problem with the explanations given, though I think it is a stretch to say that most people are going out hunting for food and to feed their families. Most people are going hunting for sport, because of the thrill of the hunt. And I really don't get the concept that a person can go out and shoot a five-point buck or an elk with a high powered rifle, and then claim they are getting in touch with nature and that they have respect for nature. I don't get that. They just killed a part of nature - took it's life, a part of the earth. To each there own I guess - but I just don't get that. I don't see how that could make someone feel good. My understanding is that our prophets have discouraged us from this kind of activity. But that is just my interpretation of what Pres. Kimball was saying. But yeah, if we are going to hunt and kill game, I'm glad that it at least gets used properly. I do respect that kind of attitude. Now as far as PETA is concerned, PETA has some problems no doubt, and sometimes their methods are extreme, but it seems their agenda is pretty in line with what our prophets have left on record - I mean they are promoting folks have more respect and reverence for animal life. That's good, right?

I was kind of hoping some the guys who commented earlier on this thread about how cool hunting was, and how crappy PETA was, would respond - give me an idea of how to reconcile this seemingly contradiction. But I guess not?

So how do faithful members of the church justify sport hunting, when our prophets have clearly said we should not participate in this activity. I'm asking a sincere question. “Now, I also would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life. I think that every soul should be impressed by the sentiments that have been expressed here by the prophets. And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals” (President Spencer W. Kimball, Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live, Ensign (CR), November 1978, p.43). “We should by every means in our power impress upon the rising generation the value of life and how dreadful a sin it is to take life. The lives of animals even should be held far more sacred than they are. Young people should be taught to be very merciful to the brute creation and not to take life wantonly or for sport. The practice of hunting and killing game merely for sport should be frowned upon and not encouraged among us. God has created the fowls and the beasts for man’s convenience and comfort and for his consumption at proper times and under proper circumstances; but he does not justify men in wantonly killing those creatures which He has made and with which He has supplied the earth” (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of “I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men-and they still exist among us-who enjoy what is, to them, the “sport” of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport, boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter, and day after day, during the season when it is lawful for men to hunt and kill (the birds having had a season of protection and not apprehending danger) go out by scores or hundreds, and you may hear their guns early in the morning on the day of the opening, as if great armies had met in battle; and the terrible work of slaughtering the innocent birds goes on” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol 4, p.45).

It makes perfect sense to talk about environmentalism and taking care of the earth in the same lessons we talk about morality. We generally only focus on sex --- but morality entails much much more than that - like racism, sexism and, yes, environmentalism. A person can absolutely be chaste - but if they are not doing their part to protect the planet - I would dare guess they are not being "moral."

I know many people who have become less active in the day to day affairs of the church because they have "lost" their testimony. Of course, these folks will say they didn't lose their testimony at all, but instead their testimony ""changed and evolved" on a personal level as they gained understanding and perspective. To say that a person's testimony is "lost" because a sin is involved is terribly naive and judgmental, IMO. PS - I like your response Beast.