SpiritDragon

Yes, and unlike my watch, sometimes I feel like bragging about her

Okay so here is one source that states quite clearly the premise that the Lord's day and the Sabbath day are separate entities. In fact it goes so far as to say that gentile converts are under no obligation to observe the Sabbath. They provide biblical links, but I personally find this stance doesn't hold up to scrutiny. From biblicaltraining.org: 5. Sunday and the Sabbath: Sunday, however, was sharply distinguished from the Sabbath. One was the day on which worship was offered in a specifically Christian form, the other was a day of ritual rest to be observed by all who were subject? the Law of Moses through circumcision (Ga 5:3; compare Ac 21:20). Uncircumcised Gentiles, however, were free from any obligation of Sabbath observance, and it is quite certain that in apostolic times no renewal of any Sabbath rules or transfer of them to Sunday was made for Gentileconverts. No observance of a particular "day of rest" is contained among the "necessary things" of Ac 15:28,29, nor is any such precept found among all the varied moral directions given in the whole epistolary literature. Quite on the contrary, the observance of a given day as a matter of Divine obligation is denounced by Paul as a forsaking of Christ (Ga 4:10), and Sabbath-keeping is condemned explicitly in Col 2:16. As a matter of individual devotion, to be sure, a man might do as he pleased (Ro 14:5,6), but no general rule as necessary for salvation could be compatible with the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. Evidently, then, the fact that the Christian worship was held on Sunday did not sanctify Sunday any more than (say) a regular Wednesday service among us sanctifies Wednesday, noting especially that the apostolic service was held in the evening. For it was felt that Christian enthusiasm would raise every day to the highest religious plane, the decay of that enthusiasm through the long delay of the Parousia not being contemplated. I am nevertheless interested in any one who believes in this position and do not mean to belittle the position by stating that I don't think it holds up to scrutiny, to the contrary I respect how people come to these conclusions. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I feel fortunate to fully believe in restored truth and revelation to make these points clear for me. It must be tricky trying to reconcile differing view points that all come from the same source material (bible) as the sole authority.

I was discussing the money spent on the watch with my wife and she said something that really hit home; although she doesn't think that spending $50k on a watch is practical, nor easily justified, the bigger problem here is telling people how much was spent on the watch. Why else would some one brag up the expense of a watch besides pride in the ability to acquire such an overpriced item?

Since this is a two part question dealing with wealth and influence, and since thus far mainly wealth has been discussed, let me talk about influence. I would say that we clearly try to develop influence (or should) in order to be successful missionaries. Often times this may not look like actively seeking out what may be considered positions of influence, but simply living our lives in harmony with the gospel which is different enough from mainstream that people take notice. On the other hand it very much can mean seeking out positions of influence, which can vary greatly. For instance a medical doctor may have a bit of influence over his/her patients that represent a different portion of the population than would be influenced by a police officer or even a naturopathic doctor. In my own strange way I feel like I have somewhat been called to do what I do. As a fitness professional I have a decent amount of influence with my clients, a bit less with group exercise participants, and a little less still with rank and file gym members. Most recognize me as the authority to go to with fitness questions and many will also come to me for nutritional advice. I have taken nutritional training that allows me to give general advice to healthy populations, while I certainly can not give advice for treating specific conditions. This all fits into a blessing I was given years ago where I was told that I would be able to influence many to draw nearer to Christ by helping them live the word of wisdom more fully, which is why in my current position of influence I feel a greater purpose than merely bringing home bacon. I kind of look at wealth and influence in the same context I look at gifts of the spirit; to some it is given... I am sure there is a lot of good that can be done by the attainment of abundant wealth, and it is important to have needs met. I am in a hurry right now so I do not have the reference, but there is a biblical verse that talks about a man not providing for his family being worse than an infidel. A painful verse for any man to read when he is not in a financially fantastic position (unemployed). The clincher is when the love of money supersedes the love of god, when the pursuit of wealth becomes more important than serving the people around you than a problem clearly exists. Some are tried through wealth, while others are tried through poverty. The Lord knows His sheep and blesses them or curses them according to their need. It can be hard to be humble when you have more money than you know what to do with. It can be hard to put time into callings when you feel the need to put in extra time at work to make ends-meet.

I don't have them handy, but I'll try to remember to find them for you when I get the time.

Hey team, I was just having a conversation with some colleagues about scriptural interpretation and found it interesting how some (not jews or adventists) thought that the bible clearly teaches that Saturday is the Sabbath... some even accepting that Sunday is the Lord's day, but still maintaining Saturday as the Sabbath for being observed and set apart out of the week for worship. While I was looking into it I found this video with John Piper explaining the Lord's day to give one side that makes sense to me, but I also found other sources clearly differentiating between the two. So I wanted to hear from the great people here (specifically those who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) what your thoughts on the Sabbath are. Do you sanctify and/or worship on Saturday or Sunday and why? Thanks in advance.

I also had trouble believing when I was younger. I was told to pray about the Book Of Mormon and Joseph Smith to know if the church was true and I remember doing so as a young lad in primary and not getting any answers. This made it harder for me as a teenager while I had friends and family around who had strong testimonies and I just didn't. I was still a good kid, I just couldn't say that I knew the church was true, I wasn't even sure if I could say I believed it was true. For me the life changer was hungering and thirsting after a knowledge of the truth. My dad bore testimony to me telling me he knew that the church was true. My dad never lied about anything, and I really wanted to know how he knew... after all I'd tried asking before and didn't get an answer. So I set out to give one final push to determine if the church was true and if God was even there listening and watching over me. This time I made it a point to read the Book of Mormon cover to cover and I waited until I had finished Moroni 10 to take up the challenge to pray about it. Interestingly I was given special feeling through-out the process of reading and studying the BOM to help me learn to recognize the spirit and how answers are given. When I knelt in my bedroom at 17 years of age after finishing the Book of Mormon for the first time I asked my Father in Heaven if he was listening and if the Book of Mormon was true. I further promised to do His will if he would let me know, and I think this was key for me. I felt a great peace come over me and light fill my body, I knew it was all true. The biggest difference for me in this attempt before all others was that I put in a lot more effort and I was prepared to act on my answer. That isn't to say that as a six year old I wasn't planning to keep the commandments or anything like that if I wasn't given an answer, but the commitment level and desire to know were not the same. I wish you well, and hope you find the answers you are seeking. I will promise you that God is there. He loves you. He is listening, and the answers will come. We had an awesome lesson on conversion in priesthood this last Sunday and one interesting piece of information that came up was that sometimes people can be converted without knowing it. I found this intriguing to say the least, but there it was in the true to the faith booklet one of our quorum members had as a resource on the topic. Perhaps you already have your answer and just haven't recognized it. It may be useful when praying to know the truthfulness of the restored gospel to ask for a clear understanding of answers given. All the best.

I thought this write up from Precision Nutrition does a great job of explaining the pros and cons of the Paleo Diet for anyone still interested. Essentially it once again shows that the paleo diet is based on false premises, but that it is a healthier way of eating than most are following. http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet

so clever, I groaned and chuckled.

I found this all very interesting as well. I think it is likely the younger generation is being more and more indoctrinated to believe that religion of all types is ridiculous, lumping it into the same category as magic, myths, and fables. However also having trouble differentiating between ethnicity and religion, especially as it pertains to Arabs and Islam. Thus while disliking the religiosity and doctrine - especially those perceived to be oppressive to women, they still feel compelled to "be nice" to the ethnic minority because that is what they have been programmed to do. As a side note I was curious to have stats on the religious affiliation of respondents. What percentage of respondents were Christians? What percentage were Muslims? What percentage Hindu and other? Of the Christians how many were Catholic, Evangelical, or LDS? How much did the sampling bias the results?

Obviously the fall was necessary to the plan, but after once having a body the consequence of again being separated from it does not seem like anything other than less than ideal. I tend to agree with were the folk prophet is going not seeing the difference between a commandment with consequences and a choice with consequences laid out. The thing is that in the limited scripture we do have on the matter we are told it is forbidden as you stated in your opening post. The physical effects of the fall are only one part of the consequences. Spiritual separation also took place which certainly can't be seen as a favourable outcome either. By my understanding all of God's punishment is simply a natural order of consequences based on decisions, not a vindictive torture randomly selected to fit rules invented for amusement. Therefore I posit that bad consequences and punishment may very well be one and the same, but perhaps not entirely. I like your question of why the tree is named the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I have often thought simply calling it the tree of opposition would be fitting. But I think ultimately the knowledge of good and evil is indeed the best description. Going back to the idea of consequences and punishment I wonder if death was intrinsically attached to the fruit itself as it appears the knowledge of good and evil was, or if it was the affixed punishment to the transgression of the law pertaining to eating it? Either way it is hard to separate the two, because even if the fruit didn't inherently cause mortality with increased understanding, the Lord clearly explained that it would be a consequence/punishment for doing so.

I find this to be an interesting subject, but I don't have the answers. Commandments or having choices laid out, sin vs transgression. I just never know all of what is truly there to be learned and how to wrap my head around everything. Why did it need to be a commandment and not just choices? I really don't know, I suppose on the one hand it could be argued that it was a choice was the options set forth. On the other hand there is the "forbidden" aspect that doesn't really constitute a valid option. Ultimately I believe that it needed to be a commandment and not just two equal choices, because the outcomes of either choice were not equal. One involved falling from the presence of God and introducing death into the world, something I'm not sure God "can" give as an option, therefore it is forbidden, but they were (we are) free to choose. If Adam and Eve partook of the fruit when told it was simply a choice, but not a forbidden choice it would be unjust to cast them out and introduce mortality because it is a punishment. God punishes those who disobey while blessing those who obey. If this process did not follow the laws of mercy and justice God would cease to be God.

I also found that to be a pointless and confusing response to your comment. Not sure why it was given either. Because I don't know crossfitdan's daughter at all I cannot call her out on what I think is likely at play here. Nine times out of ten when I don't feel the spirit in a lesson at church (related event) it is not the lesson or the teacher who is to blame. the other one time out of ten it is actually still not the lesson or the teacher it just takes me longer to realize I'm the one who is not spiritually prepared to be taught that lesson. For instance I can't count the number of times I've been given lessons on doing family history that feel like a terrible brow beating and rub me the wrong way. I feel brow-beaten because I struggle with the subject matter, I feel guilty that I really don't know the first thing about it, never mind that I don't do it. Likewise when any of us find something being taught that we haven't developed a strong testimony of, or aren't living the commandment to the fullest extent, we can tend to feel uneasy because we are either being rebuked by the spirit or simply resisting the spirit due to lack of preparation and humility going in. This is not meant to level judgment against anyone but it is meant to give a perspective to any humble enough to admit we are all sinners and therefore all subject to taking the truth to be hard on points we don't want to hear.

I felt like this excerpt from the body-shaming thread applies to this conversation. I would say that Elder Oaks is certainly authorized to speak doctrine and more or less laid it out there that part of the reason not to dress immodestly is to avoid being objectified (by those around, encouraging problems for them). Also in a similar vein I ask the question, is violence wrong because of the act of pulling a trigger or throwing a punch or because of the impact such acts have on another? To me it seems obvious that it isn't wrong to target shoot or practice martial arts, but it is wrong to do so unprovoked on another human being. So what makes modesty different... it is fine to be naked in private in the tub and fine to practice marital arts, but what about using immodesty as a tool on innocent bystanders?

No I can't say I'm familiar with Dr Wahl. I'll have to look into it, it does sound interesting. Do you have a link? Edit: I found her TED talk.

Hey applepansy, I too find it sad the state of food in western civilization. My wife and I try to eat healthily, and we both know how to cook... life is very busy though and even we reach for sub-par options more often than we know we should. I've mentioned Dr. Furhman on a few occasions in these forums. I really think he has some of the best understanding of nutrition out there. Any way I was listening to him speak the other day on a recorded radio show about allergies. He mentioned how we need to have a certain amount of nutrients in our tissues, particularly antioxidants, to neutralize threats. Some people who have inadequate levels can minimize their reactions by taking certain supplements which bolsters the bodies response, but they are left relying on the supplement. Dr. Furhman is not a big fan of supplements and suggests that through nutritional excellence the cells of the body can overtime be flooded with health promoting nutrients and will no longer respond inappropriately to harmless substances, and not be reliant on outside sources to "control" symptoms.

Welcome. How long has your boyfriend been out on his mission?

I know that in the early days of this dispensation regular clothing was worn for baptism. I am also with MOE that dressing in white is relatively new and symbolic, while non-essential. I was hearing about the old-timers in the area who were baptized in the temple for their live baptism, not for the dead. I am curious if the tradition of wearing white may have started with being baptized in temples.

There are definitely real problems such as celiac disease and gluten sensitivity issues that necessitate the avoidance of grains. What is curious is why these conditions are on the rise. Whole grains have been in the diet for a long time, from Adam's time if we accept it or 10,000 years at least based on the general scientific "consensus." So it is unlikely that it is suddenly a problem of mass proportion that didn't exist before. What is new is more and more processed food, to the point that 60% of calories on average in America come from non-foods.

It does seem more and more that grains (wheat in particular) are under attack. Books like you mentioned, "Wheat Belly," and "Grain Brain," and pretty much everything paleo latches on to the idea that grains are anti-nutrients that are killing us. However I remain unconvinced. It seems that nearly universally all the health problems attributed to grains come from the refined ones that we already know aren't helpful for us. Interestingly one of the main attacks on whole grains is the phytate or phytic acid content which is purported to mess up mineral absorption which is extrapolated to leading to tooth decay and osteoporosis; while phytates do have an affinity to bind minerals, deficiencies have not been shown to be caused by whole-grain consumption (but have been shown from processed flour, which has had the phytic acid removed).

flour

Two Lines of Communication Important understanding of the role of priesthood in regard to revelation.

Amen to that. I was recently hearing about how awful it is for people to suggest that someone dress a certain way because of thoughts it could cause others to have (ie wrong to suggest girls are not to dress skimpy because it might make boys have sinful thoughts). While I do tend to agree that there are better reasons such as simply respecting your body and so forth, I also hear the words of Elder Oaks, "And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you." There is definitely a double standard out there when it comes to larger than ideal individuals. We have a rule at work for our fitness staff not to wear booty shorts, but no one enforces it because they don't mind toned booties running around. If we did have an overweight staff member attempt it however, I guarantee the rule would get enforced.

The thing is that even googling feminism gives multiple definitions. Just because one dictionary labeled in a light you agree with doesn't make it the only possible definition. Take this one for instance: Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending a state of equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. They get to decide what is fair... is it really unbiased? Any way, my point is not to contend. I think feminism by the definition you give is fine, I just happen to prefer anti-sexist because I think it is more definitive and doesn't have the stigma of man-hating attached to it.

So once again the good being called evil thing has reared its ugly head. When did respecting yourself enough to cover up become some terrible wrong suggesting being ashamed of your body or the human form in general? Why is it repressive and not dignified for parents to teach and expect their children not to dress for the wrong kind of attention? Should places of employment and educational institutions not be allowed to set dress standards? What are your thoughts/experiences with modesty being called body-shaming?