JoshuaFKon

Well, it is in a way...with Yahoo you're "renting" the music, with ITunes you buy it. Now if you have $2500 dollars to spend on music, then go with Apple, otherwise...Yahoo is the better choice. Josh B) Sounds like I-tunes is better. Well, you're not counting all the extra features you get with Yahoo, Plus you need a large amount of money. Josh B)

Yes. That is true. Brigham was wrong. However, that was not the point I'm trying to make. Outshined said "He didn't say that God told him this[the Adam-God concept]" I was pointing out that he was wrong, Brigham did say "God revealed" it to him. Josh B)

Well, it is in a way...with Yahoo you're "renting" the music, with ITunes you buy it. Now if you have $2500 dollars to spend on music, then go with Apple, otherwise...Yahoo is the better choice. Josh B)

Of course.... Well...I might have used a poor choice of words? (don't see how) But Brigham's was published in the (offical?) mormon newspaper, it could have been edited... Josh B)

It's not $80. It's $80 per year. I inherited some of my mom's music collection and started collecting my own decades ago. Music has a potentially unlimited shelf life and I expect to own all my collection till I die and then give it to my kids who love it as much as I do. Since you have to pay month after month, year after year to rent/borrow your music collection, it won't take all that many years for you to exceed the $2500 you mentioned, and then double it and triple it. Besides, the cost of the CD I just bought or the music I get from ITunes will never go up - ever. I bought it once and that's it. I never pay more. The cost of your music subscription will increase in the future. Yahoo is already losing a lot of money on the venture. If Yahoo still has it in 5 years (which they probably won't has Apple is burying every competitor it faces), it won't be 5 dollars a month. It will be $17 a month (which is closer to how much it costs Yahoo to provide it) and then $25 and then more... in the future, a lot more. I guess it depends on your situation, if you already have an IPod, use ITunes. Or, if you have a large music collection already, ITunes would be good. If like me you don't have a large music collection or $2500 to spend on music. Then Yahoo Music is a good way to get $2500 worth of songs for $5 a month. You also get nice features like Yahoo radio. Josh B)

Mine, or Young? Josh B)

Do I ever get a different answer....lol Josh B)

Ok, I'm not disagreeing with you. The Adam-God Theory is not an LDS doctrine. Prehaps, it never was. But That's not what we were talking about. You said: Prehaps it was not considered "doctrine" but he did say God told him the Adam-God Concept. "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our Father and God…(Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 18, 1873) (emphasis added) Josh B)

What do you mean by that? What does it mean that God is not "psychic"? He doesn't know the future? Josh B) This is NOT DOCTRINE! I believe that he knows US soo well, that it is like knowing the future. I know it is nothing more than your opinion, I just don't quite understand what you're saying... God dosn't know the future? Josh B)

Desire, you don't believe the BofM is scripture - really? M. I *think* she means it wasn't part of the "on-going teachings of its living prophets " Of course she did say the BoM wasn't scripture Josh B)

What do you mean by that? What does it mean that God is not "psychic"? He doesn't know the future? Josh B)

Hmmm...I dont' think so...depends on what "patriartical bessings" are :) Josh B)

Oh, LOL Josh

I haven't been struck by lighting yet.... Josh B) P.S. didn't you just read my last post?! I ment a non-scriptural book. Smart mouth! he he he Josh

What? Huh? Who? Josh B)

I think in the long run you save mony by using Yahoo and buying a dell DJ rather than a IPod I mean I have 2500+ songs from yahoo on my MP3 player, if I had to buy them from ITunes it would cost me $2500+ as opposed to $80 Josh B)

I haven't been struck by lighting yet.... Josh B) P.S. didn't you just read my last post?!

lol....little long for me too.... Josh B)

Yahoo Music it's like 80$ a year for legal unlimited downloads other than that I like walmart music downloads.. Josh B)

My opinion is it was more of a prophecy. Like Changing Abram to Abraham (Which means the father of many nations) Or prehaps, like Saul becoming Paul, it signifiys that they are a "new creature" just my thoughts... Josh B)

No, I'm interpreting this verse to say that "Adam=Michael" am I mistaken? please show me... Josh B)

Yes, He did. You may not consider it "doctrine" but Brigham Young claimed the Adam/God concept was given to him from God. "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our Father and God…(Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 18, 1873) (emphasis added) Josh B)

"sonny-boy"? God didn't lie, sent a lying spirit God didn't lie, sent a lying spirit This verse is a mistranslation -- the Hebrew word behind "deceive" can also mean "seduce" or "persuade." In the context of Jeremiah, who had to be persuaded by God to take his prophetic calling (Jer. 1:6-7), this is the correct understanding. The translation is uncertain due to difficulty both in determining the meaning of the verb’s stem and its conjugation in this context. In the Qal stem the basic meaning of the verbal root פָּתַה (patah) is “to be gullible, foolish.” The doubling stems (the Pual and Piel used in this verse) typically give such stative verbs a factitive sense, hence either “make gullible” (i.e., “entice”) or “make into a fool” (i.e., “to show to be a fool”). The latter represents the probable meaning of the term in Jer 20:7, 10 and is followed here (see L. C. Allen, Ezekiel [WBC], 1:193; R. Mosis “Ez 14, 1-11 - ein Ruf zur Umkehr,” BZ 19 [1975]: 166-69 and ThWAT 4:829-31). In this view, if a prophet speaks when not prompted by God, he will be shown to be a fool, but this does not reflect negatively on the Lord because it is God who shows him to be a fool. Secondly, the verb is in the perfect conjugation and may be translated “I have made a fool of him” or “I have enticed him,” or to show determination (see IBHS 439-41 §27.2f and g), or in certain syntactical constructions as future. Any of these may be plausible if the doubling stems used are understood in the sense of “making a fool of.” But if understood as “to make gullible,” more factors come into play. As the Hebrew verbal form is a perfect, it is often translated as present perfect: “I have enticed.” In this case the Lord states that he himself enticed the prophet to cooperate with the idolaters. Such enticement to sin would seem to be a violation of God’s moral character, but sometimes he does use such deception and enticement to sin as a form of punishment against those who have blatantly violated his moral will (see, e.g., 2 Sam 24). If one follows this line of interpretation in Ezek 14:9, one would have to assume that the prophet had already turned from God in his heart. However, the context gives no indication of this. Therefore, it is better to take the perfect as indicating certitude and to translate it with the future tense: “I will entice.” In this case the Lord announces that he will judge the prophet appropriately. If a prophet allows himself to be influenced by idolaters, then the Lord will use deception as a form of punishment against that deceived prophet. A comparison with the preceding oracles also favors this view. In 14:4 the perfect of certitude is used for emphasis (see “I will answer”), though in v. 7 a participle is employed. For a fuller discussion of this text, see R. B. Chisholm, Jr., “Does God Deceive?” BSac 155 (1998): 23-25. he expression "strong delusion" speaks more to God giving sinners up to their utter depravity (similar to Romans 1), so that they will be certain to be condemned, as 2:12 affirms. Basically, God, by giving them strong delusion, is fixing them in their condemnation by removing His grace and leaving them to their sin. In like fashion, God sent a wicked spirit to torment Saul in 1 Samuel. The torment of the wicked spirit only served to stir up Saul's wicked heart so that his internal sin would be manifested outwardly Hebrews 6:18: “t is impossible for God to lie.” Josh B)

11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days; D&C 27:11 I assume the D&C is "doctrine"? Josh B)

Can God lie? Josh B) Perhaps you misunderstood, or misinterpreted me. You're quoting my comment for some reason. Claim #3 asked: and I said: False (There are some things even God cannot do) And my answer to your question is: No, God cannot. (There are some things even God cannot do) Are we there yet? My mistake Ray, I must have mis-read your post, sorry Josh