CrimsonKairos

I tried to PM you but your inbox is full. Apparently you have lots of messages or your PM isn't working. In either case, I'm sure you know that even if not everyone actually posts a reply to this thread, lots of people are praying for you.

Thanks for the info LH. I'll have to look into this Chuck Missler. As for my signature, I saw it on a website once that I can't remember. Perhaps it was his, or perhaps both he and I are copying someone else, lol. Either way, it's a darn good palindromic axiom.

As an employee for someone else, I pay on net income. Why? Tithing is 10% of your increase. If the government deducts taxes from my income, those taxes never get into my pocket, so it doesn't increase my bank account or possessions. I've never heard anyone say to pay 10% of your pre-tax paycheck...I believe in paying 10% of what you actually take home and can spend (that's how I define increase). As a business owner, I pay 10% of any money I get. Period. It's increase I didn't have before, even if it goes to pay for equipment I had to buy for my business (I operate a graphic design/videography business). Businesses file taxes differently than individuals (at least here in WA), so I find out in December if I owe taxes. If so, I don't pay tithing on tax money.

Awesome talk, Outshined. Thanks for reproducing it here. Also, thanks for your service in America's armed forces. I thank God I don't live in a country where a group of unemployed men with AK-47's and RPG's can ride into town, intimidate the populace, and take what they want from whomever they want. My father and uncle served in the Air Force (both fighter pilots); both were involved in the first Gulf War. Anyway, I salute your service. When you return to Iraq, go with God.

This makes a good story, but I have a hard time swallowing so many inferences and interpretations when it comes to the story of our Savior's birth. Secret sect of Magi? Sounds cool, but dubious. Which Chinese astronomers noted this "new star?" (i.e. what source text) I'm not saying I can't believe any of your narrative. It's not far-fetched or anything. I'd just have to read the source texts for myself. But don't let me stop you, by all means, continue.

The question shouldn't be about how many gods we believe in, but how many we worship. We worship God the Father in the name of His Son Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost. p.s. yep, we believe in three Gods.

I reject all of it. I mean I didn't even get an invitation to vote on it. Ecumenical, shmecumenical...

Ray, if you have no idea what chapter and verse to point to just say so. Don't give me this "You're a smart boy look for yourself." And don't give me this, "Even if you read it you wouldn't believe it" crap either. That's garbage and you know it. I wouldn't have asked for a reference if I wasn't going to consider it. Someone who makes an assertion has the responsibility to back it up...that is, if they want that assertion to be considered. You made an assertion; you didn't provide supporting scriptural evidence; hence, I'm not considering said assertion seriously. Here's an example of backing up assertions. I said priests got the left-overs as sort of a perpetual pseudo-inheritance (until Christ made animal sacrifice unnecessary of course). Lev. 5:13 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/lev/5/13#13 (in this case, if the sacrifice was grain, the priest got left-over flour instead of meat) Lev. 7:9 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/lev/7/9#9 Lev. 22:11, 13 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/lev/22/11,13#11 (this scripture shows that the priest's family could indeed eat the left-over meat from sacrifices...but it is more of a provision for providing food for his family, not an ordinance for forgiveness of sins or anything like that. Specifically, no man or woman could eat the left-over meat unless they were in the priest's immediate family, so women didn't go to the temple for free lunches...only a few got the meat and they were family.)

There's a big difference in the ordinances, Ray. The sacrifices of the Old Testament were almost always about the blood of the animal being sacrificed. I've never read any part of the Old Testament where Jehovah says that forgiveness of sins is not available to men or women unless they eat the meat of the sacrificed animals. The Lord's Supper as administered in the LDS Church today does link forgiveness to partaking of the bread and water...a renewal of our baptism as it were. Please find me an Old Testament passage that indicates women (or men) could not be forgiven unless they partook of the sacrificial animal's remains. If you look closely, most of the time the left over meat was given to the priests as their "pay" or inheritance, since Levi as a tribe received no land of inheritance per se when the promised land was parceled out. They received some cities, but no geographical square mileage to speak of. Please point me to the specific sacrifice you are talking about where the women got the left over meat. I don't recall that one off the top of my head. As clear as mud. First you say women participated by eating meat; then you say that is just one way they participate; then you say you don't know how else they participated but they could have; then you ask if you're being clear? Sorry friend, I'm lost. A good starting point would be for you to give chapter and verse from the OT showing where women were giving sacrificial remnants. Then we can go from there in our discussion. Not yet. I haven't seen sciptural evidence to back up your assertion that women "could have participated in many other ways." Likewise. That's a given. If I disagree with you that doesn't mean I think you're a heel or an idiot. If I thought you were stupid I wouldn't bother dialoguing with you.

Ray, I don't consider eating the remnants of a priestly sacrifice to be "participating in the ordinance." Perhaps those who run the laundry at full-size temples are participating in the endowment? Or those who vacuum the celestial room? For all I know you're probably going to say yes.

Ray, what ordinances could Mary participate in?

Whatever guys, whatever. I really don't care one way or the other. I'm simply saying that based on my studies of Judaism, its history, the temple in Israel, etc..., it is unlikely that a woman would live in the temple. When I say in the temple, I don't mean a stable or adjoining building, but in the temple itself (such as it was after Herod's renovation).

It's all here. If you have patience, you'll learn alot. http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html Also check out other John Pratt articles at the same website, he's got an amazing mind for connecting astronomy and the gospel.

Okay Ray, nearly everything is possible. Fine. Agreed. My point is not what is possible, but what is probable. Based on Jewish custom, priestly practices, sacrficial protocols and the legal/social status of women in Jewish society, it is more unlikely than likely that a woman--even Mary--lived in Herod's Temple.

Maureen's point is quite sound and well taken. The temple was a place for priests to live, sacrifice and sell animals for sacrifices (refer to Christ scourging the temple, an act which embittered the Sadducees against him as it was their "right" to sell animals for sacrifices and hence gain graft and line their pockets). Women could not participate in the temple sacrifices. Maureen's question (if I understand it) is why would the priestly inhabitants of the temple allow a woman to live in their holiest place of worship when the women couldn't even assist with the sacrifices or participate/help in any way? The temple was not a hostel or inn. It was the House of God, sanctified and separated for uncommon use. True, there was a porch called the "Women's Porch or Court" where women could congregate and visit. It was here that Jesus did most of his teaching in the temple during his ministry. What possible Jewish custom, law or exigency would require or even permit a woman to live in the temple?

We should irradiate our government employees...who knows, might wipe out all the bad stuff. B)

For me, the atonement refers to the sacrifice that Jesus made on our behalf. It allows God to be a Just God in extending either mercy to the repentant, or justice to the unrepentant. We receive the saving power of the atonement through faith, repentance, partaking of covenant-ordinances, and enduring to the end. For me, becoming "at one" with God means sharing His Will and Desires in this life, and His presence in the next life.

Can't really say it better than I did in that other thread. Sorry.

Have to disagree with you here (or your sources anyway). According to Alfred Edersheim, in his book "The Temple: Its Ministry and Services As They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ," the Jewish custom at the time was for men to marry at sixteen or seventeen years of age, almost never later than twenty; women married much younger, often not older than fourteen. The idea of Joseph being older and a widower was invented because the Bible says Joseph and Mary had children other than Jesus, and Mary had to be a virgin to be the mother of God (so say some ancient religious insitutions, ahem...), so Joseph must have had children with a previous wife because heaven forbid that he and Mary had children and that she wasn't a life long virgin! Gasp! I think it's silly to assume Joseph was older than sixteen or twenty.

As to Christ-mass (Catholic Mass) being on Dec. 25th, that was the birthday of various pagan gods including Mithras god of Light. The winter solstice was when varying pagan peoples celebrated the re-birth of the sun on its way North. Different cultures and countries all shared a similar pantheon linked to December...that was when the Queen of Heaven and her Son were born or celebrated. Catholicism just changed their names from Fortuna and Jupiter (for example) to Mary and Jesus. In order to kill two politically opposed birds (Christianity, paganism) with one stone, both religions' gods had their birthday on the same day. Don't want to offend anyone now, do we? Apparently Dec. 25th was "set" as Christ's birthday in the mid-4th century A.D. Even more interesting to me was how the German name Kristkind (Christ child) became Kris Kringle (spelling varies of course).

Whether or not it's all accurate, this story makes for interesting reading.

What source texts are you using in this narrative?

Several pragmatic considerations have helped me teach more effectively in Church. #1 -- Avoid (at all costs) asking for volunteers. The alternative to asking for volunteers is volunteering someone by name and asking them if they want to participate (say a prayer, read a scripture, respond with a thought, etc...). This leads to number two... #2 -- Learn the names of as many class members as you can (if not all of their names). This allows you to do this: "John, will you read verse fifteen, please?" instead of this, "Hey uh, I forgot your name, yea, you in the back in the brown suit...will you read verse fifteen for us?" #3 -- Give someone in the front row a laminated card that is titled "SCRIPTURE READING." Print below that the following, or some variation: "When you get this card, be ready to read out loud the next scripture verse the teacher names. After you've read the scripture, pass this card on to the person next to you. If you do not want to read a scripture out loud, pass this card on to the person next to you." This helps keep the teacher from having to read all the scripture references by themselves (I can hear the snoring already...). So tell the class what the "SCRIPTURE READING" card is and means. Then give it to someone in the front row. Then, as the lesson requires scripture verses to be read out loud, simply say: "Will someone read verses blah-blah-blah from chapter such-and-such," and let the lesson roll forward on well-oiled wheels of teacher-preparedness.

I pretty much agree with your last post Ray.

I explain my views fairly comprehensively in the thread "What does the phrase 'christ suffered for our sins' mean?" You can review it here: http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7779