anim82r

Pending Revision.

I don't know much about what Bible Scholars say but the prophets and some prominent Old Testament Bible characters drank wine and were drunk at times. Now, wine is forbidden in the Church.I think that's a major change. I was told that in the New Testament the wine Jesus, the apostles, and disciples used wasn't the alcoholic wine, instead they used the juice fresh from the winepress and they called this the good wine as in John 2:10. I suppose Paul was referring to this "good wine" as juices from fruits especially grapes, when he said, "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." -1 Timothy 5:23. Else what does he mean with, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak" or "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit" and other similar passages he wrote? If Paul really meant removing from wine, then that's a change from what the Old Testament folks were doing. So yes, Whatever the prophet puts forth is relevant to the times. So if the prophet today says drink coffee, wine, tea, cola drinks, energy drinks, then drink will I! If the prophet today says milk is forbidden then will I not drink it. In my view, God gives commandments for two reasons. One is to keep us safe, and the other reason is to test our obedience no matter how rediculous the commandment may seem. The problem with obeying new commandments is that we view it with our carnal mind not knowing the purposes of God. We judge it according to what we're accustomed with. My philosophy, if God said so, it is Divine and it is good. I'd say Nephi was probably in danger when he became hesitant to the command of the Spirit to kill Laban. My mom would often ask as to why Jehovah commanded Joshua and he, "Destroyed all,both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." when in the 10 Commandments He included "Thou shalt not kill." Nephi may have the same question in mind. Again, my philosophy is, if it's decreed by God it is Divine and it is good. :)

Sister, look it up in ENSIGN December 2008 issue. I was more than exceedingly happy upon seeing the article in my copy. A lot of members including some full time missionaries have expressed disgust whenever I advise them against consuming popular cola drinks (the topic in the ENSIGN is about energy drink but colas and other common beverages were included),now I have something solid to show them. You can also look for it in the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual (for Institute Class) 89:9--"Are Other Drinks Forbidden by the Word of Wisdom?" Actually, I was just reminded by my friend here, while we are reading your post, that I do have a copy of the December 2008 issue of the ENSIGN. Good thing I found it! Oh and by the way, yes, there is a sealed portion in the gold plates and they will be opened at a latter time. When? We don't know.

You rock brother!

On one occasion one of the Brethren was invited to speak to the faculty and staff of the Navy Chaplains Training School in Newport, Rhode Island. The audience included a number of high-ranking naval chaplains from Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish faiths. In the question-and-answer period one of the chaplains asked, "Can you tell us something about the special underwear that some Mormon servicemen wear?" The implication was, "Why do you do that? Isn't it strange? Doesn't that present a problem?" To the chaplain who made the inquiry he responded with a question: "Which church do you present?" In response he named one of the Protestant churches. He said, "In civilian life and also when conducting the meetings in the military service you wear clerical clothing, do you not?" The chaplain said that he did. He continued: "I would suppose that that has some importance to you, that in a sense it sets you apart from the rest of your congregation. It is your uniform, as it were, of the ministry. Also, I suppose it may have much more important place. It reminds you of who you are and what your obligations and covenants are. It is a continual reminder that you are a member of the clergy, that you regard yourself as a servant of the Lord, and that you are responsible to live in such a way as to be worthy of your ordination." He then told them: "You should be able to understand at least one of our reasons why Latter-Day Saints have a deep spiritual commitment concerning the garment. A major difference between your churches and ours is that we do not have a professional clergy, as you do. The congregations are all presided over by local leaders. They are men called from all walks of life. Yet they are ordained to the priesthood. They hold offices in the priesthood. They are set apart to presiding positions as presidents, counselors, and leaders in various categories. The women, too, share in that responsibility and in those obligations. The man who heads our congregation on Sunday as the bishop may go to work on Monday as a postal clerk, as an office worker, a farmer, a doctor; or he may be an air force pilot or a naval officer. By our standard he is as much an ordained minister as you are by your standard. He is recognized as such by most governments. We draw something of the same benefits from this special clothing as you would draw from your clerical vestments. The difference is that we wear ours under our clothing instead of outside, for we are employed in various occupations in addition to our service in the Church. These sacred things we do not wish to parade before the world." There are some deeper spiritual meanings as well, we connect the practice of wearing our garments with covenants that we make in our Temples.We wouldn't find it necessary to discuss these--not that they are secret, but because they are sacred. The garment, covering the body, is a visual and tactile reminder of these covenants. For many Church members the garment has formed a barrier of protection when the wearer has been faced with temptation. Among other things it symbolizes our deep respect for the laws of God--among them the moral standard.

I think Isaiah was referring to Jesus' social status--not being rich and beautiful or comely as to the things of the world. As far as I'm concerned the Jews in His time, particularly the pharisees, Saducees, scribes, rulers, etc., looked down on anyone lower than them in terms of wealth and social status, thus calling Peter and his associates unlearned and whatever else they may have called them. They were more concerned at how a person dressed and how much money he had. I would assume that Jesus, being a carpenter, was a strong, robust, and well framed man, probably bearing a commanding and dignified presence, not to mension probably being a handsome man (One must remember how Nephi described Jesus' mother, Mary, plus being a descendant of David). But since he is just a humble carpenter with no official or political position in the government or the church he wasn't esteemd as someone important. At least not to those who are not in tune to the spirit when He speaks. But I bet that those who liked Him admired Him and were probably awed by His speach and the many wonders He did. I think Isaiah was just referring to those who were not at all and in anyway attracted to Him and infact despised Him because of the popularity He was gaining. Those who really despised Him had only in them nothing but political issues and concerns. They were losing their grounds and His doctrine is accepted by many. And because he is not important in terms of political and financial aspects the high societies would not want to associate themselves with him for they feel it may lower their status in the society. Although a few did invite Him in their dinner but with caution and reluctance.They did so not to please Him but the people who believes Him. Isaiah spoke as a Jew and knows exactly the ways of the Jews. He know what they liked and disliked. Even Peter had a little problem with seeing everyone as equal. He gave special treatment to the members who are Jews and not so good a treatment when dealing with the Gentile members as Paul noticed. So yes, in the eyes of the wealthy and ruling Jews, Jesus has no form nor comeliness; and when they saw him, there was no beauty that they should desire Him. That's why they despised Him because they were so jealous at how popular He was becoming, even overshadowing their popularity and standing in the society. So they esteemed Him not. :)

I agree:animatedthumbsup:

Correct me if I'm wrong but was it Brigham Young who said, "He who is offended when it is not intended is a fool. He that is offended when it is intended is more foolish."? I don't think I hit that as verbatimly as I should but I think it kind of sounded like that. My guess is if Brigham Young possessed that kind of philosophy when in fact he himself admitted, "If there is anyone in this room who has the shortest temper that would be me." I don't think Jesus Christ would be in any way offended. Then again maybe there is something else you have in mind about Jesus being offended. You may be right.

Several months after my baptism 12 years ago I met a Filipina Full time missionary who happened to have been married in the Temple. Her husband died when she was pregnant. After 5 years she left her child with her parents and went on mission. I can't recall all the things she did to be sent on a full time mission, I think her leaders wrote to the area seventy. And maybe they forwarded the message to the prophet. Whatever the process maybe she was able to go on a mission leaving her 4-year-old child with her parents.:)

HURRAH!

Even Children are encouraged to tithe from the money given to them by their parents, usually after the parents have already tithed their gross income.:)

Well said GAD! Well Said! I'm completeley blown away! It's so sad that people limit the things God can do by their own interpretation of the scripture particularly the Bible. Sigh!

I don't think we have that in the Book of Mormon.Do we? If they are referring to the husband calling the wife through the veil as Hemi asked, I'd say that's too sacred to discuss here. NOT SECRET, Sacred.:) And if they can't give a little respect when saying the name of our Book, THE BOOK OF MORMON, I don't think they deserve any answer at all. You don't have to be well versed in the scripture to answer that. If you've already been in the Temple and have received your own endowment and when the person asking the question is ready then you can answer that without mentioning any scriptural passage whatsoever.:) It's all spiritual I guarantee you.

Our house doesn't feel complete without one or two of Del Parson's Christ. Even my Cubicle in the studio where I work feels a little empty without the notebook size version of the picture. It kind of helps as a reminder that I'm in a covenant with Him and it does stir up a reinforcement in my conscience telling me to minimize mistakes that may offend Him and the people I mingle with.:)

When I was serving a mission here in the Philippines 10 years ago I met a few pastors and ministers. Some of them we were able to teach. One of them confessed that he is convinced the Church is true but that he cannot join the Church for financial reason. He said, "Elders, I know I genuinely feel in my heart that what you told me are all true, but I cannot join your Church. THis is the only income I know--being a pastor. If i leave this religion and join yours my family will go hungry." I was so devastated by that statement and I was about to share Matthew 6:25-33 but for some reason I was not able to do that. Maybe because it really wasn't yet his time to be a member. That sharing the Matthew 6 passage would only make him feel more guilty. Some members of other religion admitted to us that their ministers (some) were not as faithful as the members but that the only reason they stay in their religion is because of the Salary they get. Two weeks ago I spoke to a former pastor who breathed out to me that the reason he left the congregation is that their number is diminishing making his "allowance" thinnner, and mentioned that his fellow pastor in Manila who's congregation includes some big time celebrities receives as much as 100,000 pesos a month! Wow! I'm an animator and I don't get that much salary a month. Our leaders in the Church are not paid. Their just ordinary people with extra-ordinary callings. Everyday they go to their respective work to make ends meet and to help in building up the Kingdom of God here on earth. They are just volunteers so we don't demand too much from them. After all I think I can say that despite not being paid for their service in the Church, the LDS Church is by far the most organized Christian religion. See for yourself.:)

Good thing I read the answers first before repeating here these passages you just placed.

And to support that: GS Gift of the Holy GhostIt is the right of every worthy baptized member of the Church to have the constant influence of the Holy Ghost. Following a person’s baptism into the true Church of Jesus Christ, he receives the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands from one who has the proper authority (Acts 8: 12-25; Moro. 2: 1-3; D&C 39: 23). Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is often spoken of as a baptism by fire (Matt. 3: 11; D&C 19: 31). Men are commanded to repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, Acts 2: 38. Peter and John conferred the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, Acts 8: 14-22. The Holy Ghost is given by the laying on of hands, Acts 19: 2-6. The remission of sins comes by fire and by the Holy Ghost, 2 Ne. 31: 17. We believe in the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, A of F 1: 4. BD Holy GhostThe third member of the Godhead and, as the name implies, a personage of Spirit, not possessing a body of flesh and bones (D&C 130: 21-22). The Holy Ghost is manifested in every dispensation of the gospel since the beginning, being first made known to Adam (1 Ne. 10: 17-22; Moses 6: 51-68). The Holy Ghost is manifested to men on the earth both as the power of the Holy Ghost and as the gift of the Holy Ghost. The power can come upon one before baptism, and is the convincing witness that the gospel is true. It gives one a testimony of Jesus Christ and of his work and the work of his servants upon the earth. The gift can come only after proper and authorized baptism, and is conferred by the laying on of hands, as in Acts 8: 12-25 and Moroni 2: 1-3. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have, whenever one is worthy, the companionship of the Holy Ghost. More powerful than that which is available before baptism, it acts as a cleansing agent to purify a person and sanctify him from all sin. Thus it is often spoken of as “fire” (Matt. 3: 11; 2 Ne. 31: 17; D&C 19: 31). The manifestation on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) was the gift of the Holy Ghost that came upon the Twelve, without which they were not ready for their ministries to the world. For some reason not fully explained in the scriptures, the Holy Ghost did not operate in the fulness among the Jews during the years of Jesus’ mortal sojourn (John 7: 39; John 16: 7). Statements to the effect that the Holy Ghost did not come until after Jesus was resurrected must of necessity refer to that particular dispensation only, for it is abundantly clear that the Holy Ghost was operative in earlier dispensations. Furthermore, it has reference only to the gift of the Holy Ghost not being present, since the power of the Holy Ghost was operative during the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus; otherwise no one would have received a testimony of the truths that these men taught (cf. Matt. 16: 16-17; 1 Cor. 12: 3). When a person speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost that same power carries a conviction of the truth into the heart of the hearer (2 Ne. 33: 1). The Holy Ghost knows all things (D&C 35: 19) and can lead one to know of future events (2 Pet. 1: 21). 1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, acarried away unto these dumb bidols, even as ye were led. 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can asay that Jesus is the bLord, but by the cHoly Ghost. 4 Now there are diversities of agifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the aSpirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is agiven by the bSpirit the cword of dwisdom; to another the word of eknowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another afaith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of bhealing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of amiracles; to another bprophecy; to another cdiscerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of dtongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one abody, whether we be Jews or bGentiles, whether we be cbond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the ahead to the feet, I have no need of you. 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be amore feeble, are necessary: I hope these references helps^_^

And May I add, just because canons were closed for a very long time, it doesn't mean that God won't speak to man again as He did in the ancient days, we are reminded in the scripture that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He never change, else what does Amos mean when he recorded that God doeth nothing but He revealeth His secrets unto His servants the prophets? If prophets don't exist today then God is doing nothing, if so then we should not glorify Him nor give all the credits to Him for what man has achieved today. It means that man is capable of advancing himself without the aid of Heaven nor of a prophet. I can't imagine the earth being what it is today without the "light of inspiration showering down from heaven through the restoration of the Gospel and the opening of Heaven" Even if it takes millions of years from the last open canon, the Lord still and will always have the right, the power and the authority to call prophets and speak to them and give them instructions as He so did in the past. I just can't grasp the thought as to why people can't accept this simple but exceedingly enlightening fact that now in our day God had once again spoken to man as He did long long time ago? Why do they have to limit by their own understanding of the scripture, particularly the BIble, the things God can and will do?

Hem, this is an amazing answer, Why do you always get to say it first before I do? Correct me if I'm wrong but was it Elder M. Russel Ballard who said that being a Christian is not about belonging to a certain Christian sect but rather anyone who possess Christ-like attributes? And I think it was explained further that being Christian is following the light of Christ within one's self. That Latter-Day Saints define this light for others as Conscience? So far I did not find any definition of the word conscience associated with evil doings. That since we Latter-Day Saints believe that everyone born into this world have with them the light of Christ (Conscience), anyone who acts according to its dictates is a Christian, whether he be a Buddhist, a Shaman, Methodist, Lutheran, or Latter-Day Saint. Someone I talked to once expressed, "These people (reffering to passers-by) consider themselves Christians. They go to Church Every Sunday or whichever day they considered Sabbath. They give a few offering or contributions to their respective Christian religion. But out here their unmindful, selfish, uncaring, and uncharitable. They argue, they fight they take advantage of other people's weaknesses, they take things that don't belong to them, etc. Pastors fights pastors, ministers fight ministers. Preachers preach against other preachers. If Christians have grown into such as these people are then God is not a Christian. Because I don't think God possess such attributes. I Believe He is a God of Love, full of charity, slow to anger and quick to help. He is patient, kind and understanding. He possesses all the virtues found in the discourse of Paul about Charity, and perhaps even more." So I think the question really is not whether we're conservative or liberal. In fact I've never encountered that issue in any of our Sunday school lessons or Priesthood and Relief Society lessons. I am only aware that in each and every lesson we had in the Church during Sundays, Family Home Evenings, Home Teachings and Visiting Teachings, we've only focused on developing Christ-like attributes and applying them in our lives and sharing them to others. That, I strongly believe, is being Christian. Prison Chaplain, there are no labels. I don't think we can and should label Heavenly Father and His teachings. His is Sacred and Divine. Labeling it is putting Him and His teachings down to earthly state. I said that because we LDS believe that the doctrine and teachings we have came directly from Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ via revelation. Having said that, should it not be given a thought that since Latter-Day Saint Prophets receive instructions from God on a regular basis the more we ought to be called Christians so long as we perform from the heart what we are instructed with?:)

I'll just give what I know from memory and may not hit a few important things about this subject. The word Bible is from greek biblia meaning collection or library of small books, namely the Book of Moses Isaiah, Daniel, Malachi, the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. Those verses you mentioned are not intended to mean the whole Bible as a book but referring to each individual books within the Bible. The verses are saying that, "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from" the Book or epistle of Moses, Isaiah, Deuteronomy, Corinthians, Revelations, the Gospels, etc, not the Bible. If I'm not mistaken we learned in Institute class that John wrote Revelation first before he wrote his own version of the Gospel. That the reason why the Book of Revelation was placed last in the Bible is that it is the most unique of all books in the Bible. You have to put into consideration that the whole Bible took more than 2000 years in the making, which made it prone to additions, omissions, and probably some editings either divinely authorized or not. Prophets can edit or even reproduce any already written document previously written by any earlier prophets as they are directed by God. In the New Testament days, they only had one version of the gospel for many years, which they've read from before the three other versions were written. What do you think did the Saints in those days feel of the addition of three more versions of the gospel if they've interpreted Deut. 4:2 as do modern Christians who are against LDS scriptures now interpret it? I just can't remember which of the four was the first one. But if I'm correct, I think it was Mark who wasn't even an apostle. The New testament was originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived in Greek, meaning a lot has already been lost. Isn't that taking away if we are to follow Rev 22 and Deut. 4? As a LDS I hope that our detractors would first fix their own stand on the Bible as many protestant and catholics scholars also dispute and disagree with each other regarding which books in the bible is/are divinely authorized and which ones are not. Protestants, for intance number the books in the OT as 39 while the Jews numbers it at 24! Early church fathers accepted the apocrypha as canon while others disputed their status and did not accept them as divinely inspired. Anyway, while they waste away their time distputing about the Bible, and nosing in on our scriptures lets just enjoy the fact that ours is an open canon and is still currently recording new revelations given to our modern Prophets.:)

I think the missionaries were always more nervous than the people they meet. I know. I was once a missionary. And as a missionary, one of the things that makes us sad is when the person we're teaching haven't confided with their parents about their meetings with us. Honesty is always the best policy, unless the Lord directed you to just keep it to yourself for a while until the time is right. And I would like to thank you for wanting to meet with the missionaries. Now regarding your other concerns Here's a strong idea from the Lord Himself: 34 Think not that I am come to send apeace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s afoes shall be they of his own bhousehold. 37 He that aloveth father or mother bmore than me is not worthy of me: and he that cloveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his across, and followeth after me, is not bworthy of me. 39 aHe that findeth his life shall blose it: and he that closeth his dlife for my sake shall find it. 40 ¶ He that areceiveth you breceiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. Matthew 10:34-40 29 And every one that hath aforsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my bname’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit ceverlasting life. Matthew 19:29 I strongly believe that this scripture passages are for people who have concerns regarding what to do or what to prioritize. Also the Lord is telling us here what will happen with our relationship with our parents and family members once we accept the Gospel. You have to be very brave and strong and face this challenges with conviction and in time you will found out it was all worth it. And I promise you the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto your view.:)

Just 3 months minimum Brother. Usually when a District or Stake conference is coming in 3 months after you were ordained a Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood. In the conference you will be sustained by the members as one receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood. I hope you get to be ordained an Elder real soon!:)

Good Touch Pam! I feel sorry that some who claim to be LDS mock the things of God.

Maybe because the apostles will receive a confirmation from the Holy Ghost after the prophet presented it to them, which gives them assurance that what the prophet has presented is indeed a revelation from God and they all ought to know it either by revelation too, or by the confirming of the Holy Ghost. Remember the Holy Ghost stands as a witness of the Father and the Son.:)

Actually I was going to add that. But I was just afraid it will be too deep for Curtis. I was thinking of sharing the experience of the Brother of Jared where Moroni recorded, "and he had faith no more for he knew". Because he had seen the Lord even before He was born. I totally agree with you Hem. The Lord himself declared, "blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God". Bruce R. McConckie supported that by saying that that promise can and will actually happen in this mortal realm if one is ready. That the Saints have the right to behold the Glory of God if they are worthy while in the mortal flesh, again emphasizing the experience of the Brother of Jared. Joseph Smith said that, "all Latter-Day Saints may know what Joseph (naming himself) have known if they are prepared". I may not have hit that as verbatimly as I should but it did sound like that. Reading your other post or reply to Curtis I'm convinced you have the same thing as what I have in mind. I just did not think it was time to share it. But I'm not saying what you did was wrong. I'm saying you probably have more gutts than I do:D