SpiritDragon

So moving back to the human practice of polygamy and not the animalistic breeding habits of domesticated cattle... I found this excerpt (non LDS) interesting: Food for thought.

Maybe I'm completely missing what you're trying to say. I'm reading this to mean that you don't think we'll have physical bodies in the resurrection, but that the "body" being resurrected is only our spirit body. Is that what you mean to say. If so I believe it is fundamentally flawed. The atonement overcame both spritual and physical death. We (our spirit bodies) are reunited with our physical bodies. However I agree that they won't be exactly the same as they are now, because they'll be perfected and there are varying glories they can attain, such that they are obviously not exact replicas of our current ones in form and function (not having blood is a clue). I am also in the camp that assumes the same in this context has mainly to do with appearance, while the continuity of memories comes with our spirits.

We learn the beginning of what we need to solve this one in Helaman 1:16 16 Therefore, the king of the Lamanites, whose name was Tubaloth, who was the son of Ammoron, supposing that Coriantumr, being a mighty man, could stand against the Nephites, with his strength and also with his great wisdom, insomuch that by sending him forth he should gain power over the Nephites— So now we have established that Tubaloth is the son of Ammoron, we just need to figure out what scripture tells us that Ammoron is Amalickiah's brother, hence and answer to one known uncle. We find what we need in Alma 52: 3 And it came to pass that the brother of Amalickiah was appointed king over the people; and his name was Ammoron; thus king Ammoron, the brother of king Amalickiah, was appointed to reign in his stead. What Book of Mormon character was a descendant of Nephi and ancestor to Alma's main teaching companion to contend with Zeezrom?

Great digging Skal, I agree that it is not spelled out easily in scripture, but I believe the Isaiah passage does explain it in a round about way. 20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. 21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. 22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. What is your next question?

Cyrus Isaiah 44:28 Ezra 1:1-5 What is the age of a tree as it pertains to longevity of man in the millenium?

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't believe anyone has said that humans are God's children simply because He made us. We believe we are God's children because of prophetic revelations offering clarity to scriptures too numerous to be worth citing that state we are God's children. The notion that because God created other things besides His children has no more bearing on the possibility or veracity of the human family being God's children than my wife and I building (making) a house disproves our child is indeed our offspring.

I always walked to and from school from grade 1 on through highschool. This was done under the supervision of my older brother and sister (2 years and 1 year older respectively) who walked with me until they moved on to junior high and I was walking with my younger sisters or friends and cousins. My mom was pretty paranoid that one of her babies would be snatched and I spent a lot of my childhood being afraid of getting kidnapped. As such, although I was allowed (even encouraged) to walk to and from school at such a young age, I was never to ride my bike farther than my mom could see out the front window unless dad was riding with me/us. I don't think I ever really rode off on my own until around 13-14 years of age. All the while the other parents felt justified to let their children go all over town freely as young as 8-10 years of age. At the end of the day, I guess what I'm saying is that I think that my parents found a good balance that worked for us, but the other parents also had a balance that worked for them. I don't think it criminal to let your kids out to play any more than I think it criminal to leave them cooped up with access to satellite/cable TV and internet unsupervised. I personally think the balance for me and my kids in the future will be for me and my wife to play with the kids outside. They can invent games and have free play with parents present as long as parents allow it. We don't even have to take part in the games, we can just observe from a safe distance. I think it is good for kids to develop independence, but they can do so while being watched. I think that parents should be allowed to make parenting decisions themselves. So I don't like where this has gone and could be going. It makes sense to me when intentional harm is being done to a child to intervene, but when we start intervening because we don't agree with someones parenting philosophy I think we get into trouble. To me it is similar to parents getting in trouble because they choose a treatment for a sick child that is not mainstream medicine, I think a parent should have the right to try to heal their child according to their own conscience. Where do we draw the line? Will teaching children religious values become some sort of great wrong in the coming days because they have been painted to cause feelings of guilt and breed hatred?

Thanks Palerider.

1. My wife is having a baby this year and I'm confident I'm the father :) (our first, we were starting to wonder...) 2. I'm going to continue to love my job 3. I'll have an excuse to go trick or treating - re:baby

Not that I can remember, so if I did the embarrassment hasn't had lasting repercussions. HYE fallen asleep while driving?

Certainly we don't get answers simply by asking without putting in any effort, but then that isn't faith either it is a vain request. Perhaps this a relic of the talking past each-other vocabulary out there. Anyhow, you're on the right track that study, reason, faith, and prayer are all part of the equation. The real trick is determining what points of information are true knowledge and what points are false knowledge. If one tries to reason with false information it is easy to draw conclusions that make sense based on that information that is ultimately false. So the question is how does one filter out the misinformation and distill out the truth? In my studies this morning I came across this scripture: 2 Nephi 9: 42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them. It struck me that the learned can have a really hard time receiving answers from God, largely I presume because much of their learning is flawed. Until such a person is ready to set aside this "learning" and be taught from God, the answer isn't going to come... which is merciful because if they know the truth by receiving the answer and yet are too prideful in their own "knowledge and wisdom" to accept the truth and act on it they are under greater condemnation. A humble petition requires the one asking to be ready to accept the answer no matter what it is, someone willing to let their preconceived notions fall away as scales from their eyes and begin anew with real truth given from God as a starting point. Thus our frame of reference becomes those things that we have learned through study and have had confirmed by a witness of the spirit. Anything else we cannot be sure of. Sometimes a witness of the spirit comes during the studying process, while other times it requires prayer for confirmation. But as soon as we start letting our own ideas that we presume to be true but haven't had spiritual confirmation of govern our conclusions... then we can be sure we're going to end up off course.

Interesting. From what you describe I feel like we are not too far off in terminology. The key difference I'm seeing is that LDS don't generally use Soul and Spirit interchangeably, so the prime matter would be the physical body, the substantial matter would be the spirit body, and the soul would be the body and the spirit together from the LDS perspective if I'm understanding you correctly. We look at the family tree of our spirit bodies as only having one level back - Heavenly Father to us - He created all of us (as His literal spirit children). The first of these spirit children made is our saviour Jesus Christ. As a resurrected being Jesus' Soul is still made up of the same spirit He has always been as well as His perfected physical body. Our Heavenly Father is constituted in the same way of his spirit and perfect immortal physical body - which together make up his eternal soul. Each of us is an eternal spiritual being experiencing mortality and physicality for the first time. Upon our death our spirit and body will be separated until resurrection at which point our bodies will be raised to various levels of perfection and reunited with our spirit as complete souls.

Not really. I try to carefully weigh large purchases in advance... not that this makes me immune to mistakes, but I can't think of any big purchases that I regret other than a bad business deal. Have you ever seen a chicken takin' a lickin' down by the bay?? :) Sorry, 'have you ever' just struck me differently this time. Have you ever come across a dead person unexpectedly?

Summer! Winter is not pleasant. Diet or Exercise?

Moriarty

Hi CatholicLady, I think what might be causing some confusion is separating words with specific definitions surrounding an action from the action itself. For instance sex is an action, that is fully acceptable and wonderful within the bonds of matrimony, but as soon as we use terms like fornication or adultery we have already added the context to the action (sex in this case) to redefine it outside of matrimony, so while sex isn't inherently evil - the other word quickly clarify conditions where it is inappropriate. The same goes for killing, there may be times that is not evil, such as in the old testament offering sacrifice as required or even of another human being in self defense as a last resort, or under the rare instances that God actually commands it. But when defined as killing of innocents than it is wrong.

Zek - Grand Nagus

False dichotomy :) Landline all the way - I hate people being able to call me anywhere and expect me to be at their beck and call. Italian food or chinese?

Not a store, but a restaurant. I was on a first date as a teenager, and we were both so caught up in conversation that we just walked right out after eating and forgot to pay. It occurred to me later that night that I might have left without paying so I called the restaurant to confirm my suspicions... sure enough I had dined and dashed. My server was grateful to learn that I'd be paying after all, or it would be deducted from her pay. Since the restaurant was in the neighbouring city I drove back in the next day (1 hour) to pay the bill and right my wrong (I was a teenager, didn't have a credit card and wouldn't have trusted that info over the phone at the time). Have you ever hopped in the wrong vehicle leaving a location?

Are you referring to the cities in the OP or the pink or blue gun? I'd go with blue, maybe a dark navy It'd go better with my eyes and would be less likely to give away my position should I need to be stealthy than pink. Honda or Toyota?

LDS don't need to bypass it because we recognize the divine potential of humanity as gods in development. God is our literal parent, we have inherited god DNA so to speak. Back to the caterpillar and butterfly, caterpillars come from butterflies, they aren't yet butterflies, but they have the potential to become butterflies. We do know what the God substance is... a body of flesh and bones united with spirit eternally, which is different than a body of flesh and blood united with a spirit mortally which will ultimately be separated and reunited as an immortal union after the Resurrection. (The resurrection being analogous to us coming forth from our human (caterpillar) state of flesh and blood to an immortal (butterfly) state of flesh and blood with a whole new world of possibilities) I don't have a problem with saying that Jesus is fully *human and fully Divine. I have a pile of beautiful young women in my ward who are fully human and recognize their divine nature as they recite values each Sunday. Of course they are not fully divine (yet), but they have that potential. *contingent upon the condition of being a perfected human, and not human in the sense of human weakness and failings. I don't follow what you are getting at here. LDS teaching is quite clear that we do have the potential to be gods. If LDS teaching is true (which most that come around will likely tell you it is, and I think you'd agree yourself) than He'll make good on the promise to make the faithful into Gods and Goddesses. The unknown is whether or not as such we will all become one with God in the sense that as multiples we are all one, or if we become the One God to all of our creations who will need not concern themselves with other exalted people from this earth or any other that came before or after. The scriptures are not nearly as tidy and clear on the Only One God as you may think. In Abraham there is reference to the gods, the name Elohim signifies plurality, and even in the godhead and/or the trinity we are looking at a three in one. We know that we only need to concern ourselves with One God, and that in the context of our existence there is only one.

While it is not up to me to put limits on what God can do I do believe He plays by a certain set of rules, yet as I said it "seems" (like JAG I believe in wiggle words) a contradiction which is possibly worthy of discussion. I am not saying that it is impossible for Christ to be fully divine and fully human, just that in the usual use of the term "fully," the reference is absolute. Thus you can't have a barrel that is fully filled with gasoline and fully filled with water, but you can have the same barrel fully filled with gasoline or water AND be fully filled with liquid for example. This also doesn't mean that all liquid is gasoline or water. More importantly is the notion of them (Divine and Human) not being the same. I agree that they are not the same (in the identical fashion), but they may be potentially the same. Just because a man can't make himself a god, doesn't negate the possibility that God can make a man a God, unless of course you impose limitations on what God can do :)

This is interesting to me, because it seems a contradiction that Christ could be "fully" human and "fully" divine unless of course we acknowledge the two are potentially one and the same... sort of like a caterpillar to a butterfly.

I am pretty good at avoiding this, but it has been known to happen. My wife takes after her mom a little in this regard though, we jokingly speak of "safe places" as a reference to somewhere things will be lost for good :) I can't remember ever doing this, but I have come back to find that the wash didn't finish for some reason. The machine was still full of water as though I'd left everything to soak, only I hadn't. I'm also spoiled in this regard because my wife does most of the laundry. I was happy to help when we first got married, but I quickly learned I have no patience for sorting out her extra items that can't go through the dryer... in my world this disqualifies them from being worth having and I don't put up with it. So now the laundry is her detail unless I manage to have enough of my own clothing pile up to constitute a load without adding her apparel to the mix. HYE jumped on a trampoline in a thunderstorm? I found it exhilarating the last time I did.

So I was introduced to this video today as if it were the greatest thing ever. I found it to have some interesting talking points, but it really seemed to be anger-toned which I found off-putting. I also felt that it was presenting things such that desired conclusions would be jumped to, although they are not necessarily true. What do you think? Is it fantastic expression of what's wrong somewhere in America, an angry shout-out offering no solutions, or something else entirely?