SpiritDragon

I more than agree that the theories are beyond stretches, and still it is helpful to minds like mine to theorize. The act of engaging the mind and refining theories I believe is one of the ways we come to understand more complex topics. Eventually we may feel we have a theory refined to the point it can be taken before the Lord for ratification in prayer. Obviously these theories are not there, nor are they intended to be. And while I have also seen the same flaw in the theory that you point out about other intelligences "figuring out" how to realize perfection and thus not having to go through the same channels as every one else (which we don't believe to be the case at all) it doesn't prove that this could not still be the case. If one intelligence was innately gifted above others it would be able to do things others could not. You can think of it like knowing how to run, but still not being able to run as fast as Usain Bolt. In this example Bolt has the right application of training principles, effort, and genetics on his side... not that what he has done can never be done again. My point is simply that just because one did it/can do it does not necessarily equate to others can too. This particular point is evident in the idea that only Christ could be the Saviour, not that others didn't know what was involved or even have desires to do it, but because only Christ could.

I do more or less believe that this is one of those things that we simply will not know the answer to in mortality. At the same time I have also found it to be an intriguing and important concept as well. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have oft been told not to worry about such things because it is not pertinent to salvation. This scripture sometimes make me wonder if knowing the origin of God is indeed important. That being said it may not be important in this mortal experience. WARNING: What follows is pure and wild speculation One intriguing theory I have on this is actually helped along with an analogy I read recently on one of these forums, I unfortunately don't recall which and therefore can't properly give the contributor credit. Essentially the analogy is made that an acorn will grow into an Oak tree because it is in it's DNA. Therefore one could argue that the acorn and the Oak are the same thing. In the book of Abraham we are exposed to the idea of eternal intelligences that can neither be created nor destroyed. If one were to view intelligences as Gods in an embryonic state, or even man for that matter, and certain intelligences do go on to become Gods are they necessarily changed? The concept of an unchangeable God gets interesting here. Suppose for instance we speak of an individual person, it suits my point well enough to use myself. When I was born I was much smaller, and in many ways different than I am today... and yet I am still me and this could be seen as no change. Now for the wilder part of the narrative that is far from refined and really can't even be backed up. Based on the idea that there are constant laws of cause and effect, laws refined into commandments for us to reap positive effects and avoid negative ones. Laws that simply are and always have been, always will be. Suppose an eternal being (intelligence) were to learn all of these laws and master them. Through the application of these laws this being realized perfection. When perfection was realized this being wished for all of the other intelligences to also achieve perfection and formulated a plan to help them get there. In this theory the original God would be the intelligence that mastered the laws that are. Another wild speculation would be to say that "the laws that are" are the original God existing from everlasting to everlasting and that those who would be perfected and become one with god are those who learn to abide by the laws that are and use them wisely in only ways that bring a fullness of joy. It is far more likely that neither of these theories is accurate and when our minds are expanded upon outside of mortality we will be able to comprehend things that we cannot now comprehend, kind of like a two dimensional being trying to understand a cube. Along this line a fourth dimension such as time could become a factor in understanding God. If we all have access to a great urim and thummim and past and future become irrelevant because we can see them all... it becomes more clear how in this context something that has not yet happened may be considered as good as happened and therefore a "future" God may also be considered God already and therefore always was, is, and will be. Of course this is also hard to wrap the mortal mind around because it wreaks of destiny as opposed to fore-ordination and agency. I know this doesn't answer your question. I don't believe it can be answered, but it may give you something to ponder or help you in some way. All the best. Edit: Upon reading this post I also wanted to add the idea that indeed with intelligences being eternal Our Heavenly Father has always existed and has always been God as far as we are concerned... even if He "started out" as an intelligence. In some ways this makes it irrelevant if there were others before Him or not.

I appreciate you following through on this thread Church. For me the logic that God can't change the ordinances is that God is bound by the rules of Celestial law the same as any Celestial being. He doesn't make the rules as he goes, but they are in place and He must play by them... which he does perfectly and powerfully. That being said I do believe God can make symbolic or linguistic changes to help us better understand covenants that we are entering into. In any event for the time being I am far more satisfied that rigid views on unchanging ordinances is not necessarily doctrinal at all, even though it seemed fundamental to me for some reason. I have always kind of put it the back burner every time it has come up to bother me, but this time I remembered to bring it up here.

Agreed. I was mostly pointing out some of where the idea may come from. I am definitely starting to think that ordinances can change and there need not be any justification whatsoever. I am however surprised at how no one else seems to share the original idea of ordinances being set and unchangeable. It is very pervasive in my experience.

My ward Christmas party had a live re-enactment of the Christmas story... not really sure this qualifies though.

Hey LM I like where you're going with this (I think??). I can see how if the ordinances can be fulfilled with the law of Moses and therefore no longer required, or changed into something greatly different than surely ordinances can change. It just seems that I have always been taught that they cannot and should not. The main justification I can see for it at this time is in the link I posted previously on ordinances. I'll post it here for easier viewing: Ordinance Summary A religious rite.1 JS taught that ordinances were covenants between man and God, in which believers could affirm faith, gain spiritual knowledge, and seek blessings.2 Some ordinances were considered requisite for salvation.3 The manner in which ordinances were performed was typically given by revelation and generally administered by priesthood authority.4 JS taught that ordinances existed in all dispensations from the time of Adam and that the changing of ordinances contributed to the apostasy from Christ’s original church.5 The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, baptism, confirmation, blessing, anointing, endowment, and sealing were types of ordinances.6 Some of these were to be performed in temples.7 In August 1840, JS taught that baptism could be performed vicariously for one’s deceased relatives.8 An 1841 revelation directed that certain ordinances could be performed by proxy in temples.9 See also “Anoint,” “Baptism,” “Confirmation,” “Endow,” and “Seal.” This appears to support the idea that changing ordinances is not good (ie leads to apostasy) However I also found an interesting article here:Mormon Monastery » Mormon Temple Changes The article discusses some of why people believe ordinances are not to change, and why the author does not agree. Perhaps I have been mislead all along and it is fine for ordinances to change. This will be a re-evaluation of my beliefs about the church's doctrine. (to think I thought I knew everything... how disappointing)

Jerome1232's thought process seems similar to my own. I think the question of God's or Gods may appear to have two different meanings, but actually not be giving a second option at all. As far as we are concerned we have only One God. In trying to define our One God we would likely first come to the conclusion that Heavenly Father is that God. Yet, the scriptures often make mention of Christ being God as well. Thus we could get into a monotheistic vs polytheistic conversation. However we also learn that although they are separate beings, they are one. Further we learn of Jesus praying for us to all be one even as He and The Father are one. Therefore I find it more than plausible that any number of Gods are one with each other and therefore just as accurately called God as opposed to Gods. After my little rambling I submit my answer to the original question of the priesthood being God's or Gods is YES.

Indeed Isaiah 24:5 is a key player in the thought process as is the teaching of Joseph Smith that changing of ordinances was a contributing factor leading to apostasy. Ordinance - Details I'm confident I'm not the only member under the impression that "THE" correct form of ordinances needed to be restored because they had changed during the apostasy. This clearly seems like something that is not supposed to then go changing again after being restored to its correct form. So while I agree that God knows what is the most important aspect and therefore could indeed reveal what seem to be changes or at the very least modifications to an ordinance while keeping the integrity of the ordinance intact I'm curious as to what criteria one would use to know when and what changes are okay and which are the inventions of men contributing to apostasy.

How is it different to claim that God changed the ordinance so long as it goes along with LDS doctrine as opposed to say Catholicism deciding that God said baptism by sprinkling is okay? Is there any hard and fast rule on what is acceptable? Or are we to rely on the mysteries of how an unchanging God can change ordinances which are not to be changed?

I have often been somewhat perplexed by this one. I remember on my mission teaching about how God is the same yesterday today and forever and that his ordinances are not to be changed. For instance Baptism is to be done by immersion and not sprinkling and has very clear wording... yet even the wording has been somewhat different in certain circumstances. For instance "having authority given me"(3 Ne 11:25) as opposed to "having been commissioned of" (current practice). The slight change of wording here has never bothered me. But changes to other ordinances like the initiatory have troubled me at times. What exactly constitutes a change to an ordinance and what is okay to change/alter/amend/re-arrange if anything?

Leah, perhaps The Traveler does have a bias against overweight people, I don't know. What I do know is that when I read the post you quoted and attacked I didn't see his intentions that way. I really should know better than to even get involved, but I feel it is only fair to share what I see in the hope it's helpful to any party involved. What I see is that TT basically pointed out that our society is so far off in our daily dietary practice compared to what is truly healthy that even the act of sharing what one does to stay healthy can be perceived as extreme and does indeed require effort. A lot of people get upset at the notion that what they are doing isn't ideal and to make themselves feel better they attack those making efforts to be healthy whether by making snide remarks about how people eat or labeling them as "health nuts," or "fitness freaks." Since people are so sensitive about it, it is often best to remain silent and keep to yourself to avoid conflict that is not intended. Usually comments about healthy lifestyle are really meant to be useful not to make people feel bad. So sadly, in my observation your comment attacking TT as having size bias issues only proves his point that some people are really sensitive and it is better to not to engage in honest conversation with them because they will take offense. I want to finish by saying I respect both of you. I don't know what other history may be between you in these forums to lead to the conclusions Leah has drawn. I simply wanted to offer food for thought that I didn't see it that way. Perhaps an outside perspective will help. Perhaps I too should just be silent.

Oh and I thought I would add that it wouldn't help missionary efforts for people to give up tea, coffee, alcohol AND MEAT. Thus it is again something considered more of an individual privilege with blessings, but less of a commandment per se.

I always find this topic interesting in just how clear it is to me, and yet how controversial it becomes. I'll start with what I believe and why. I'm adding a preface to my thoughts that this is simply what I've come to believe and I do not judge or force this opinion on others. D&C 49: 18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; 19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance. First of all it is not our place to tell others not to eat meat, but this does not mean we should or shouldn't. It only states that the Lord is okay with it if we do. D&C 89 12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; 13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. I read this to clearly state that it is okay to eat meat when other food sources are not abundant, otherwise the lord is most pleased if we feed on plants rather than animals. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. I believe (but again do not impose on others) that we are supposed to come to the conclusion that meat is acceptable to eat when other food sources are scarce, but the rest of the time it should certainly not be front and center in our diets. Thus a mostly vegetarian lifestyle would be great. I believe that the Lord has provided the nutrients we need in abundance on the earth and that we should be able to get them from our food. I bring this up because strict vegans who avoid all animal products will not be able to get sufficient (any) vitamin b12 without supplementing. Simply eating a small amount of meat on occasion will easily cover the b12 demands in otherwise healthy individuals. Not that I want to get into a nutrition debate on your topic... just that I think it is an interesting point to note that there are certain animal derived nutrients (zoochemicals) that our bodies do better when levels are kept within appropriate limits than when they are too low. On the flip side we have a much greater need for plant derived nutrients (phytochemicals) so we should have an abundance of seasonal fruits and vegetables in our diet with adequate whole grains (staff of life) to maintain our strength and health. As for changes to the punctuation in section 89... I don't know? It is an interesting musing... pray about it I guess. Finally I want to add, 3 Nephi 11:30 30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away. It is fine to ask and have conversation about such things, but it isn't something worth arguing about. I think this is actually why the general authorities stay silent on the issue, because it would stir up too much contention over a point of doctrine better left for us to discover and follow individually. ...and that is my two cents :)

I have really enjoyed Dr. McDougall's writings in the past (I keep a copy of A challenging second opinion around even though it is getting fairly outdated). I will have to check out your link another time when I have time to watch it. Thanks.

I can not speak for other men, but I can offer my own insights in the hope that getting the perspective of this man can also help you in your quest to understand others. In my marriage I came to the realization very early that my wife and I have very different perspectives and especially reactions to the sexual experience. I could not understand what she was talking about when she told me that she had never been aroused before (before marriage). I was kind of hurt... I mean here I was thinking she found me attractive before agreeing to marry me. After all I had the exact opposite experience, not a day went by from the age of twelve to the age of 24 that I wasn't aroused. Simply being around girls arouses me... or at least it did when I was a younger man. I'm not sure if this has changed because of my relationship with my wife, or because of age. Anyhow the point is that I felt undesirable just knowing that being around me never brought about arousal, because the inverse was not true (I experienced arousal around her). After coming to terms with the fact that arousal is different for women, I learned that she does being physically intimate. But it is true that she rarely initiates intimacy, which can leave me feeling undesirable. The whole experience is just plain less satisfying if I feel like she is being a martyr to satisfy my "man urges" but doesn't reciprocate desire. This is how I feel when I always am the one initiating. I feel unwanted, or at the very least frustrated. One crazy thing that I have also noticed is that I apparently have a fairly feminine perspective on setting the mood. You see I end up doing well over 90% of the dishes at my house, and if I don't work to tidy up the house it doesn't happen. This trumps my desire for my wife. I just don't want to engage her when my needs for a clean living space are not being met. As for your remark/query about the wife doing all manner of other things but not having the red hot bedroom activity not being enough... I think this has to do with wanting a lover not a mother. We certainly have our expectations of what should be done around the house and home (and it would be great to have them done) but from the far more masculine side of my psyche comes the thought that sex is what makes marriage tolerable. Without it their simply would be no point putting up with this woman and all of her ideas, expenses, and needs. Now I know that sounds terrible, and their is more to the relationship than physical gratification, but it is undeniably an important aspect that helps bring us together and keep us together. Anyway I hope this is useful to you in some way. As for the second point about men being intimidated by strong women. I'm not sure really what your experiences are (I apologize if this has been hashed out in detail already in this thread because I'm late to the party and the thread is long), but I find this to be more of weak individual thing than a gender thing. If your boss is being a bit of a bully it may have nothing to do with you being a woman. On the other hand it may have everything to do with you being a woman who may come across as being arrogant and suffering from a superiority complex. I've personally never felt "threatened" by women in power positions (usually the ones considered strong women), but have often been very irritated by their attitude that women are better than men. I'm not saying that this is you - just stating my own experience, which may shed some light on where he is coming from. But then I view strength of character a lot differently than most. I do not appreciate pushy people that are revered for their confidence and self-assurance, nor do I appreciate posturing to always be right. I see it as a greater sign of strength to admit mistakes and to humbly perform the duties we are tasked with. I suppose I simply don't really follow the second question that well. In what ways do you have to diminish yourself to stroke his ego?

Hi Bini, There is a useful little acronym that can often help you solve what kind of training effect you will get from a particular exercise or training program. It is "S.A.I.D." This is commonly referred to as the said principle as well. It stands for Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands. Essentially our bodies adapt to the demands that we require of them. So if an activity leaves you struggling for air, the body will adapt by getting better at distributing air. If the activity requires more endurance, the body adjusts by building more endurance. Thus we have different trainable attributes such as strength, endurance, flexibility, aerobic capacity, and so on. Many trainees focus or specialize in a particular area such as strength or speed training. To truly dominate in a certain attribute or event a great deal of specializing is usually required. However some systems train multiple attributes at the same time. This is often referred to as "cross training." Crossfit utilizes cross training to attempt to ensure that an individual is rounded out in multiple facets of fitness. Thus it requires strength, endurance, cardiovascular fitness and so on; hence each of these systems is forced to improve according to the SAID principle.

I would tend to agree with Jenamarie about not getting into it if you can avoid it. However, if it does come up the following may help. In "The family: A Proclamation to the World" we learn: ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. It is important to note that gender is an eternal quality that comes with specific characteristics of identity and purpose. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Here we learn a little more about what role each gender plays in God's plan. I like the following excerpt from Priesthood and Church Government by John A. Widstoe of the council of the twelve (1939): Why should God give His sons a power that is denied His daughters? Should they not be equal in His sight as to status and opportunity to perform the labors of life? Since women are just as necessary in life as are men (indeed life were impossible without them), justice demands their recognition before their Father in Heaven. Surely, a just God can have no favorites! This division of responsibility is for a wise and noble purpose. Our Father in Heaven has bestowed upon His daughters a gift of equal importance and power, which gift, if exercised in its fullness, will occupy their entire life on earth so that they can have no possible longing for that which they do not possess. The "gift" referred to is motherhood-the noblest, most soul-satisfying of all earthly experiences. If this power is exercised righteously, woman has no time or desire for anything greater, for there is nothing greater on the earth! ... Woman may claim other activity, but motherhood should take precedence in her entire life. One beautiful way this whole concept was explained to me is that men and women are powerful equals with special roles that each is tasked with by eternal design. The greatest blessings of the priesthood to be had in the temple can only be had by a husband and wife. Women bear the greater part of the procreative responsibility and as such are trusted with the responsibility from God to bring spirit children who kept their first estate into mortality. While a woman can't simply make children on her own, she is blessed with the power to cultivate a life within her and allow it passage from pre-mortality to mortality. Once children are brought into the world (mortatlity) again it is a joint effort between father and mother to teach and raise the child, but the father is now tasked with and blessed with the power to give the child those ordinances necessary to provide safe passage from the second estate into the eternities. Thus both have played an equal part in the great plan of happiness.

I appreciate were you are coming from. I suppose however, that the main premise of my reply to your post was to counter this very notion about my comments being uninformed. I have personally worked with former Crossfit enthusiasts who either can no longer participate or can no longer afford it. However, I am perfectly willing to admit that I do not know everything. Perhaps it is just a case of one bad apple (Crossfit gym) in my area that is destroying Crossfit's reputation. But other professionals around the world at various seminars have also reported similar findings... and I'll even admit some of them likely were just saying something to fit into a conversation or based on something they read on the internet, but not all. As for the study I agree it is important not to read to deeply into random blog conclusions. I actually learned about the study through my email from a kinesiologist I tend to trust, the blog post was the closest thing I could find in google to what he explained. I was sad that I did not get access to the complete study myself... but I came by the interpretation of it honestly from what should have been a reputable source. I simply can't align with this kind of reasoning. Let's all go bridge jumping in shallow water... why would we let injury potential slow us down? It just doesn't add up. But there is an important point to be had in your statement. It all depends on the reasoning behind participation. If you love Crossfit for the thrill of the challenge and pushing your limits then by all means go for it, injuries (if they occur) may simply be worth the risk because of the enrichment it brings your life... But if you generally hate to exercise and are only doing Crossfit because you think it is the fast track to a sexy physique then the injury potential has to factor in when you consider there are ways to get equivalent results with less risk. I hope I do not sound argumentative. I am just trying to politely explain my position and how I have come by it honestly. I actually seriously contemplated getting certified as a crossfit instructor several years ago but decided not to on account of my research findings at the time. There is no disagreement that good quality instruction is good quality instruction. Does good quality instruction exist in Crossfit, I'm sure it does. Does poor quality instruction exist as well? Absolutely. The same could be said of my field as well. Like I said before I respect Crossfit athletes. I think it is great people want to do it, it promotes physical activity which our culture tends to be sorely lacking in. Unfortunately my experiences with it (dealing with clients) have generally shed a poor light on Crossfit, as has my research. That being said, I like to keep an open mind and your comments have actually given me greater hope for the future of Crossfit bringing superior instruction to the public. Compared to other fitness/sporting events Crossfit is still in its infancy, and so certainly quality control and training have room for growth as the organization and movement matures. In fact I am now more likely to ask more details of former crossfit clients. I know some just think it sounds hardcore and state they are Crossfitters without having had much if any formal Crossfit training. I guess to me to say my comments are uninformed is to call me ignorant, which I just don't believe to be the case. I am not someone with no experience on the matter chiming in. My closing thoughts: were my comments uninformed? No! Misinformed? maybe. Drawn from different experiences leading me to different conclusions? Definitely.

I generally concur with Quin's take on this. For people who are already in shape Crossfit isn't out of the question. I respect Crossfit athletes, but I do not agree with the system as promoted for all walks of life. It beats the heck out of sitting around doing nothing, but is not the place for sedentary people to start. There are also better ways to customize training for the elite level.

You are entitled to your view, but these comments are neither way off nor uninformed. I approach this topic with 13 years in the fitness industry teaching a wide variety of classes including martial arts, TRX, Kettlebell, traditional weight classes, spin, and indoor/outdoor boot camps. I have a diploma in the exercise science field and have been personal training clients since 2007. I have specialized in corrective exercise and did a a 135 hour practicum in a physical therapy clinic. While I was there we had multiple crossfit related injuries come through, and more than one of the physiotherapists let me know that it was common to have Crossfit clients walk through their doors, injured and re-injured. Suggesting my post appears to be a cut and paste job seems to simply be some kind of cheap tactic to lessen the quality of the post when you lack the position of a solid or valid argument. In this case, I dare say, it does the opposite by affirming that all over the internet exercise professionals are condemning Crossfit. This real science Crossfit study shows that although Crossfit has benefit for improving body composition and fitness it comes with the very real price of attrition. 9 out of 54 participants were unable to complete the 10 week study due to injury. That is 16% of participants in just over two months. This is substantial injury risk. These injuries were sufficient to make the people leave the study... they were not mere scrapes and bruises. Although no doubt plenty of that happened as well. Injury prevalence is much lower in most sports and way lower in most fitness activities. Crossfit is more of an extreme sport than a health-supporting pass-time. Not only is the position of being concerned about proper form and building up as part of a systematic individualized program as opposed to quickly progressing through exercises that take a lot of practice to master and then being thrown into a circuit using them one after another and working to exhaustion not uninformed, it is the way exercise programming is taught by reputable fitness organizations, schools, and certifying bodies. If your assertion is that the Crossfit mantra isn't go hard or go home, than you do indeed run a different form of Crossfit than what I'm talking about. The Crossfitters I have met tend to have atrocious form, but they work themselves into the ground. My brother in law works at an accounting office were one of the partners is also affiliated with Crossfit and promotes it around work. My brother in law confirmed that they teach what they call "the Crossfit slop" which is to say that taking the time to use proper form is compromising intensity. You just do it "close enough" and soldier on to exhaustion while racing the clock. This brings me to a point you made that I can unequivocally agree with Good coaching is paramount, and Crossfit has seen a need to improve and is working as an organization to rectify their weaknesses. In my area our local Crossfit has lowered their prices to $127/month for unlimited classes. This is an improvement over the $170 for ten visits it used to be. Even so the other gym's in my area range in price from $33-60/month which also includes unlimited access to exercise classes. Many of them even offer boot-camp classes at no additional fee, or a marginal fee compared to well over a hundred dollars for crossfit. That being said, I will acknowledge that there are other boot camp only venues that also charge similar rates to CF. Personal training also tends to range from about $40-60/hour in my city. Using the average of $50/hour a person can get just shy of three personal training sessions. This would give them 1 session every ten days in a month for the same ball-park as the Crossfit experience. With this one on one mentorship (assuming it is a good trainer)the client will get more value than they will get from participating in a group class... even if they can go more often to the group class. This is a simple fact that one on one attention trumps attention divided up by a group. There is more opportunity for correction and coaching to take into the following work-out. This also serves to make the client more autonomous and able to move forward without continuing to fork over into a perpetual money machine. A bold claim that many a fitness professionals will stand behind. I have everything to gain from people engaging in Crossfit; because when they get injured they come to people like me. My position is not that of a lone voice in the wilderness, nor is it because I am worried in the least about Crossfit taking away clientele... it is a different niche and that is fine. The primary reason Crossfit gets called out by people like me is because we hate to see people get hurt. Edit: The link to the study above is only the abstract... as such it does not show the injury details found in the meat of the study. You can read more about Crossfit and the study here: Why we don't WOD Crossfit Case Study | Spartan Fitness

You could always try this --> Ask them to answer this riddle: Three guests check into a hotel room. The clerk says the bill is $30, so each guest pays $10. Later the clerk realizes the bill should only be $25. To rectify this, he gives the bellhop $5 to return to the guests. On the way to the room, the bellhop realizes that he cannot divide the money equally. As the guests didn't know the total of the revised bill, the bellhop decides to just give each guest $1 and keep $2 for himself. Each guest got $1 back: so now each guest only paid $9; bringing the total paid to $27. The bellhop has $2. And $27 + $2 = $29 so, if the guests originally handed over $30, what happened to the remaining $1? The answer is of course that final equation of 27+2 = 29 not 30 is irrelevant because the men still paid the hotel $25 and when added to the two dollars the bellhop kept it makes $27 as it should, with an additional dollar each making up the original $30. If they happen to know the answer to the riddle, let them know that their questions are of the same nature. Christ and His Apostles gave the world all that was necessary... but they were rejected and the power needed to perform acceptable ordinances was lost. Therefore a restoration needed to take place. Why is it any harder to believe that God could return and re-establish what was lost than to set it up in the first place. As for believing a man who came 2000 years after Christ... where does the bible state we don't need direction any more? It doesn't it states the opposite in Amos 3:7 And obviously every word that proceeded out of Christ's mouth and every letter of each apostle has been kept and recorded so we have it all (um, yeah. About that...) The questions are avoiding the real issues of obtaining a testimony for oneself through personal study and prayer by throwing up smoke and mirrors that sort of appear to matter some how.

Ahhh! How did I know to marry my wife? Well that is an interesting story of faith and trial. When my wife and I started dating we both were amazed at how easy it was for us to talk to each other --> and it didn't matter what it was, we could talk about everything for hours. We found that we tended to have very similar ideas about the way things should be done and really liked being around each other. I really didn't want to mess up on this decision because I knew it would shape the rest of my life (eternally). I studied the scriptures a lot and read several talks and an institute manual on marital relationships. I learned that there is no such thing as "the one" as in the one and only, but I like that your wording is the one you're going to marry. Most important of all I prayed about it like crazy. I kept hoping that god would either tell me to marry her or tell me to run far far away. Again I had to relearn the way revelation works. Ultimately, to get my answer I had to make a decision that I thought she was right for me to marry and presented this idea to the Lord for confirmation. When I felt the spirit strongly in a similar fashion to when I gained my testimony of the Book of Mormon I accepted this as the Lord confirming to me that I had made a good decision. Once we were engaged things got a bit ugly because we did not really agree on anything about the wedding day. I was concerned because she seemed so unwilling to even make the smallest compromise. I was so close to calling the whole thing off so many times I can't count them. The only reason I didn't was the answer to my prayer that she would be a good eternal companion. Oh, was I scared though... if she couldn't compromise on wedding plans would I be entering a relationship where my opinion was always discounted? As it turned out she loved our wedding day, I hated it, but we have a good marriage. It does make me sad that what likely should have been a happy time for me was overshadowed by deep hurt that certainly didn't help our marriage off to the greatest start. The good news is that with time and the help of the atonement that I have largely overcome the hurt feelings of betrayal in not getting a single personal request granted on my wedding day. It was such a rough day for me that I wasn't sure I could go through with it in the temple, when the spirit again came and brought me peace and gave the courage to go forward and a "yes" came out of my mouth. The last 5 1/2 years of marriage have been a blessing to me though, and although my wife is not perfect... I am no super prize either, but she treats me like one anyway.

So you admit it! You were too busy with trivial nonsense like voting for men with washboard abs to see the real issues... there is food snobbery in America!!!

I don't know that it has ever been officially taught that spirits are made up of intelligences. The first time I had ever heard this concept was from Cleon W. Skousen (in person actually) at a district meeting on my mission in Utah. But to my understanding this is speculation drawn from Abraham chapter 3 verses 22-25 22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; 23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. 24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and bwe will make an earth whereon these may dwell; 25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; This could just as easily be referring to spirits using a different word as it is to be referring to something spirits are made up of. I do not think there is any concern of running out of spirits or intelligences. There must be some way of perpetuating the process indefinitely.

Well I understand there are a lot of eligible young men returned missionaries that would not complain if a few more sisters were around :)