a-train

Would persons or sects expressing a belief in Christ, but rejecting revelation through Peter during his lifetime be considered members of the Church? Could I, living in the time of the Apostles, reject their admonition to abandon certain Mosiac Laws or scorn their adherents for their belief in the Apostles teaching of a bodily resurrection of Christ and still be part of the Church only by virtue of an acceptance of the divinity of Jesus? Could I have organized my own congregation excluding these doctrines and denying them on grounds that the Apostle's assertion of such were not authoritative and binding, but still be considered part of the Church? Do traditional Christian's see the Church as diversely divided into various denominations who dispute the various principles of the gospel but are somehow of the same body through acceptance of the divinity of Jesus even though that acceptance can vary in it's meaning? The Catholics certainly don't see it that way. The Catholics view the whole spectrum of Protestantism to be apostate and heretical. Therefore, can they be considered part of the unified 'body' whose parts cannot reject one another? If they are to be rejected by the body for their rejection of other parts, should that body be rejected also? -a-train

The 'gay dude' thing is a joke. Perhaps I should repent of my light-mindedness. I confess it was inspired by how I perceived the question posed to be light-minded in the first place. Excuse me please, I apologize. Discussions so far removed from reality can only provide limited enlightenment. But, I suppose that the question of our willingness to perform the will of God regardless of what it is can only be truly answered through a test of Abrahamic proportion. If God asked you to kill would you do it? What about a family member? A popular government official? A rare and healthy animal? At least these examples are as close to us as our scriptures. We simply have no record of God's dealing with polyandry within the whole of Judism, traditional Christianity, or the LDS Church. But rest assured, if our own understanding of God be so base, so crude, so elementary, that His will for us is poylandry and we have yet to become worthy enough for Him to so much as intimate the notion, then we are far removed from the capability of living the principle. Let us suffice to say that we are intent on keeping all of God's commandments as we are guided by him and although the concept of polyandry is contrary to all we now understand, let us not commit ourselves to any principle of labor or abstinence independent of our diligence and heed to the first and greatest commandment of serving God with all our heart, mind, and soul. GOD BLESS -a-train

Just so everyone is clear, LDS do NOT believe that the Primitive Church was overcome and destroyed by Satan. -a-train

Did these Brits not see the shooting in Manchester on Monday that I mentioned earlier in the thread? Or the racist shooting spree in London? Why are we still acting like shootings are so rare in the U.K. when a 16 year old kid smoked his 12 year old sister with an illegal firearm this very week in Manchester?!? He was on the front page of the BBC site. Just a question: How many of the anti-gun people here have been a victim of a gun crime? Me: Held at gun-point once, threatened with a gun in an attempted robbery, and lost my father to murderers who shot and robbed him -a-train

Dude, that's gay. -a-train

I think the topic of 'authority' stands alone as the most divisive singular issue since the institution of the primitive Christian Church and remains to be so to this day. The matter is, by nature, one of political and social implication. The aura around the term seems to emphasize control. To say that a man has 'authority' seems to present the notion that others are bound to perform as he dictates. There seems to be little contention about Peter's possesion of 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven', but the definition of those keys and the implication of his power to 'bind' and 'loose' things in both heaven and earth have come under great debate. More debated is the question of the location of such keys after Peter's death. The position of power constituted in wordly kingdoms ruled by monarchs, dictators, autocrats, and etc. manifests itself in the servitude to which the ruler's subordinates submit. However, a very different relation exists in the Kingdom of God. The Saviour explained: 'Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.' (Matt. 20:25-28) As explained by the LORD, those who would be in authority among the members of His Kingdom are not to be served, but to serve. Perhaps the most vivid expression of Peter's possession of the keys of the kingdom is in the LORD's communication to him that the Gospel should go unto the Gentiles in Acts 10 and 11. Peter, as designated as the keyholder able to bind and seal on earth and in heaven, received revelation from God that the Church's strategy as a whole in the preaching of the Gospel was to extend beyond the Jews. While a difficult practice to accept, the work was the will of God and Peter's pronouncement of the notion was binding upon the Church. Notice however, that the decision to take the Gospel to the Gentiles was NOT Peter's. This is the key difference between God's Kingdom and man's. In leaving the keys to Peter, the LORD didn't excuse Himself from His position as the decision making cornerstone of the Church and leave that work to Peter, but he commissioned Peter with the role to communicate the will and mind of God to the Church and the world but only after having it made known to him by revelation. This places Peter in a position of service not only to the LORD, but to the Church and the world also. Indeed, Peter became the servant of all. Without such a keyholder would the Church have taken the Gospel to the Gentiles? Imagine if this revelation had not been given. We may not be having this conversation right now. Acts Chapter 1 demonstrates the manner by which Matthias, through divine communication, was appointed as an Apostle in replacement of the deceased Judas Iscariot. The 11 Apostles prayed: 'Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen.' (Acts 1:24) In this case also, the decision as to the movements of the LORD's servants was made by God himself. A close examination of all the scriptures will deeply demonstrate in both the Old and New Testaments the fact that all of God's directions to large bodies of people come through revelation to appointed and set apart servants such as Prophets and Apostles. Worldly Authorities have ever feared these chosen men. Pharoah, Nebuchadnezzar, Herod, Agrippa, Pilate, and countless others through all the generations of mankind have feared greatly the loss of their own power in the presence of God's lowly revelators. Even the LORD Himself, whose birth initiated such fear for the loss of worldly power, that it brought the death of countless babies, was not appointed to replace any worldly king, for they all misunderstand the LORD's great secret: 'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.' (John 18:36) The great debate stands yet today as to the location of the keys of the kingdom which the gates of hell cannot prevail against. The Catholics believe the Pope has them. If he does not, then who does? The gates of hell cannot prevail against them. Who is left to receive revelation on behalf of the Kingdom? How can we know if one claiming such keys is true? How could we have known that Peter had such keys? Could he and his associates have lied? Were there really any such keys? Was there even a need for such keys? Can't just anyone accept Jesus without any necessity of the LORD to direct the Church by revelation to a revelator? If there had existed the need for such a revelator in Peter, why with his death would that need disappear? If there is no need now, why was there one then? Where can we find these answers? -a-train

To make it short, I had an Alma-the-Younger style conversion around my 17th birthday. I was a rotten kid with rotten friends headed for trouble. I had the spirit of the LORD hit me hard. The scriptures seemed to consume me. I couldn't stop reading them. I prayed constantly. I cut myself off from all evil influences. I would go days without any ceasing of the burning in the bosom. The Holy Ghost was poured out on me and I found myself saying things in my mind that I never knew and understanding things that I never had heard. Then, I read the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I read his talks, his letters. I read the Church history volumes. Much of what the LORD was saying to me had been said to Joseph. Now, 14 years later, I still feel the LORD's Spirit in my bosom when I read Joseph's words. He was and is the prophet of this Dispensation. And how great the knowledge and mysteries that God saw fit to dispense! I can say that my testimony of Christ has come by the Holy Ghost, my testimony of the Scriptures has come by the Holy Ghost, and my testimony of the restoration and of Joseph Smith as a prophet has come by the Holy Ghost. I place full faith in God that if I or any man will trust personal revelation over all other influences, that man will come to more knowledge, happiness, and freedom than by any other means. For if we continue in His word, we shall know the truth and the truth shall make us free. (John 8:31-32) -a-train

First of all, I would seek the miracle of her conversion while she is still here. Even if she is unable to accept the restored Gospel here, imagine if she goes beyond the veil having heard about the restoration. Second, the miracle of her temporal salvation could be available. Submit her name for prayer in the temple and take the Elders with you to visit her. Testify of Jesus Christ and the importance of the message and have the Elders present the gospel to her. Let her know that you love her and that you personally have learned what they are sharing by the Holy Ghost. Be open and honest. Let her know she can obtain a priesthood blessing and if she so desires, have the Elders present her with one. If it is the plan and will of the LORD, she will be healed, but if He desires her to come home, then let her go in peace knowing He has in store for her something there. Third, What is here name. I will pray for her. GOD BLESS -a-train

CK, This is exactly why Mitt is doing so well. America is fed up with a President who cannot change his game-plan regardless of where he's at in the game. This is kind of like that old adage about the guy looking for a stage driver and he asks the candidates how close they can get the wheels to the edge of the cliff and still safely get to the destination. The first gives his answer of so many feet and the next gives a distance smaller than that to show that his skills are more precise. The last one says: 'I don't know, and that is exaclty why I am going to stay as far from the edge as the road will allow.' The adage ends with the last candidate driving the stage. That is precisely what America wants to hear now. They are fed up with ideals so awesome that they might be impossible to attain. They want reality. They want change. They want someone who is willing to accept defeat and go on to the next battle a better man. Hopefully for Mitt's sake, the other guys won't figure that out. Ahh, but it's too late. If they say 'Oh wait, I changed my mind, I can change my mind.' They'll just look stupid now. You gotta love it. -a-train

That would certainly be disrespectful to speak to your wife that way. Do you think that is how Brigham Young who wouldn't even wear pants with a fly in the front because he thought that was disrespectful spoke to his wives in that manner? What about father Israel? Did he speak that way to Leah or Rachel? How about Moses to his wives? Lamech? David? Solomon? Nahor, Abraham's brother? Abraham himself to his wives? How about the other score and a half of polygamously married men in the Old Testament? Perhaps I'll admit Zedekiah could have been so disrespectful to his wives. Perhaps some of the others. But I don't see how a man could hate his own wife and receive the Spirit, and receive revelation. A tough pill to swallow for many is the fact that the Holy Pentateuch was first written by a polygamous man who had once murdered. But millions have lived and died believing the words and works of Moses. At least Joseph Smith never killed a man. All who believe the Old Testament whether Jew or Gentile, must come to grips with the polygamous marriage of our prophets. -a-train

Kansas City is a bank-robber town. I got a close friend (who IS LDS) doing time right now for bank robbery. Perhaps the fact that Jesse James is from these parts has something to do with it. Anyway, the penalties for bank robbery are many times stiffer when the perpetrator uses a firearm in the act. Now, this is no secret because there are billboards and signs on busses blazing it all over town. My friend did NOT use a gun for this reason and he will see only 33-35 months. Had he used a gun he would have seen an additional 60 month minimum gun-crime sentence. A crew of bank robbers who used to brag about their capers and spend big bucks in my shop told me they never use any guns for that same reason also. They all got caught a couple of years ago and I haven't seen them since. This is a different subject but..... What I can't help but think about here is the fact that our justice system seems to have altogether abandoned the notion of civil reconciliation. I had my shop get broken into a few years back and the idiots got time, but I still got nothing for the $600.00 damage they did. They call THAT justice? They take taxes out of my check to afford their prison and I get to pay the damage bill!?!?? Does this make any sense? My mother who was widowed at the age of 25 got no reparation whatsoever when a man murdered her husband and left her with three children to take care of. The murderer has now lived many years in prison with food, a bed, climate control, cable television, a health care plan, and then some. Meanwhile, my mother and her three children were living in a 2 room house with no a/c and no healthcare at all while taxes from her tiny check waiting tables theoretically helped pay for the murderer's lifestyle. The biggest issue is the fact that criminals never have to face their victims. They never have to repay them. They get off clean whether busted or not. This is why we have such a crime problem in this nation, justice has left the building. Sitting convicts in prison to live off of the working people doesn't help the people or the criminals. We need to put these knuckleheads to work and the very first earnings they make need to go to their victims. -a-train

That would be gay dude. -a-train

An article about a racist from North London who only 19 days after getting community punishment for 'racially-aggravated assault' went on a shooting spree: The Independent This guy's priors (10 years of violent crime) certainly showed signs of irrational violent tendencies and he was still able to do the killings with a gun in the U.K. Another article tells of a 16-year old Manchester boy who allegedly killed his 12-year old sister with a 'Section 1' firearm: The Independent Police have yet to release the specifics of the firearm, but whatever it was, it was illegal to possess. A follow up article from today reports the '16-year-old boy has been charged with murder, possession of a Section 1 firearm and possession of Section 1 ammunition.' Arguements about the possible means by which the teenager obtained the weapon and the failures on the part of his parents will only further demonstrate that the laws prohibiting his possession of the weapon were useless in saving the girl's life. The prohibition of alcohol as previously mentioned was attempted in the US in the early 20th Century but found to be unenforceable. There are a great many restrictions on weapons in the US, but this doesn't keep criminals from having them. A blind reliance on the proper and universal enforcement of the law by our government officers has historically proven to be hopeful fantasy. They just can't catch all the crooks. And, they certainly can't foresee tragedies like the one in Manchester. -a-train

Did anyone hear about the shooting spree at Ward Parkway Mall in Kansas City? Look: Article The shooter was stopped by police who shot him. -a-train

It's always the same arguements. Here is mine: I am a nasty American and own guns! I love 'em! I was raised on Clint Eastwood pictures and shot stuff like crazy as a kid. I'll never grow out of it, and the pouty-pants so-called liberals can choke for all I care. I'm here, I'm packing, get used to it! If Michael Moore likes Canada so much, then why doesn't he move! I visit my wife's family in Arkansas regularly and they rarely lock their house. They leave the keys in the ignition of their cars in the driveway because carrying the keys around is just too burdensome. They own guns and live in the heart of the good 'ol USA. Arguements about gun control making Canada superior somehow are nonsense. Did Michael Moore mention the fatal April 29, 1999 school shooting in Alberta? Perhaps the statistics show this nation is full of criminal minded persons, but the availabilty of guns isn't the cause. -a-train

I'd say overall, I like it. Perhaps it serves a purpose to have someone tell it from the outside. We could pick it apart and mention things like the fact that persons in a Disciplinary Council are NOT alone, they are with their Bishop who is only there as a friend and comfort. Furthermore, half the Council has only the purpose to see to it that as much mercy as possible is extended to the individual. Additionally the brethren in such Councils should not harbor any notion that the individual is hereby cut off and they will never be seen again, but shake the hands of the individual and even offer comfort and friendship which literally should extend to them in every setting. The purpose of disfellowshipping and excommunication is to keep them from further breaking of covenants and the ultimate goal is to see them back in full fellowship. But this would be nitpicky. I seriously had tears on many of the testimonies in the film. -a-train

Thanks for bringing this up James. You know, I think all of us are completely comfortable believing that Jesus had power to proclaim the fulfillment of Mosiac Law and the institution of a Higher Law which would no longer include many outward ordinances of the fulfilled law. Imagine how seemingly impossible it would have been for the New Testament Christians to show from the Torah and the Prophets this change. I doubt any Jew denying the divinity of Jesus Christ and the authority of His Apostles can see any of the New Testament practices or doctrines in their scriptures. To them, Christianity is a cult of blasphemous assertions which have only stolen some of the sacred and precious principles of Judism to create a phony belief system of myth and legend. It is so with the Restoration. Christians who deny that the LORD had anything to do with the prophet Joseph see no vindication of any Temple involvement on the part of the Primitve Church in the scriptures, even in those you mentioned. We LDS can look at the scriptures and there is nothing in our heart to prevent us from believing that the Temple had a part in New Testament Christianity. We believe in the reality of the LORD's Dispensation through the prophet Joseph Smith which proclaims that the Temple has been and will always be an essential part of God's kingdom on earth until Christ comes again. It always comes down to the same exact thing. Revelation. LDS believe our religion is revealed to us. We remember answers to prayers via the Holy Ghost that gave us the definitive answer to the question of Joseph Smith and the Restoration. We don't need to see a complete description in the Bible giving the specifics of the Restoration, Temple Ordinances, the immortal spirit of man and our ante-mortal existance, etc. Understanding this, the LORD has not sent His missionaries to the world with the Bible alone. Our missionaries are not asked to attempt any effort to prove our religion through the Bible. They are commisioned to share the message of the Restoration with the promise that the LORD Himself will testify of it's truthfulness by the power of the Holy Ghost. This is the great message of the Restoration, that the Heavens are open! We are therefore comfortable as were the New Testament Christians in believing modern revelation. God Bless -a-train

There is a part of me that wants to tell everyone else to spend, spend, spend. I own a business that makes it's income on excess. The whole business rests on the skateboard. I don't think I have a single customer that buys from me for transportation or any other necessary purposes. They simply want to enjoy skateboarding. It could be argued that skateboarding provides an invigorating work-out and a good clean interest for our youth. I can say that skateboarding gets people of all ages together and is among the most racially integrating activites I have ever seen. Still, the shoes, the clothes, the boards, all of it is excess. A person could buy their shoes for $30 at Walmart, but they choose to buy the $100 Nikes from me because they look so hot. So there is a part of me that says: 'I'll be conservative and save my money, but I hope my clients will go to every excess.' Actually, I don't hope that any one of them will go into debt but I hope that there will be enough clients affording enough product to keep me in the black. I think it comes down to honesty and integrity. I don't intend to deceive my clients. I simply secure what they cannot otherwise obtain and am paid a gainful wage for my effort. That is honest. Many of my clients can't afford what I sell, but they buy anyway. Many could afford a great deal more than what I offer. It is simply not my place as the lowly skateshop dude to teach my version of frugality. What I offer, I offer to all at the same price and I let them judge. I would define excess as that which could be used to build the Kingdom of the LORD, but is spent on selfish desires. If a $100,000 Mercedes will glorify the LORD, then do it to it. But if we can't buy that car and build the kingdom in the same act, then we must think again. 'But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.' (Matt 6:33) -a-train

Eat light, turn off your lights at bedtime, and for crying out loud, buy a MOTORCYCLE!! Vegetarianism is far from compulsary in the Church, but there is no harm in preserving precious resources and no effort to do so should be frowned upon. Additionally, efforts to prohibit the use of meat are to be avoided, old Paul said that one of the keys by which we may identify those that 'shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;' shall speak 'lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.' (1 Tim 4:1-3) Still, anyone that has had genuine vegetarian Indian cuisine knows what superior food tastes like. -a-train

Yikes, Take it easy. I didn't say you were. I said: 'anyone'. Regardless of what sort of situation anyone is in, if the question of whether an endowed Church member should be wearing temple garments is asked, the question should be posted to the individual's priesthood leadership. They should not take advice on such a matter from anyone other than those who hold those keys. This is all I am saying, I am not intimating YOU are in any disciplinary action at all. -a-train

I wonder if this will inspire someone of greater means to produce a full-size replica. What would really get people talking is if a full size replica were produced and made sea-worthy. Whatever happened to the old story about an Ark being found atop a mountain in Turkey? The sattelite photos? Expeditions? A group was touring the nation doing ministering presentations showing evidence of the find to Christian Churches collecting funds for further research. The group came to Kansas City in the 1990's and performed their presentation before my sister's ex-husband's non-denominational congregation. Another similar group came to his congregation doing the same for the Ark of the Covenant as well. He regularly referred to such as proof of the Bible and would often mention there has been no such finds for Book of Mormon relics. I would ask: 'How did you believe the Bible before these finds?' He doesn't talk about them anymore, I wonder if they decided that was all a hoax or what? -a-train

If anyone is in Church disciplinary process, they should counsel with their leaders about questions such as wearing sacred garments and so forth. This is not even slightly a question this forum can answer. An issue of this nature is decided by revelation to those holding keys to receive such, members of this forum possess no such keys... ..unless your Stake President is a participant in the forums, then still he will discuss your situation with you in the proper setting. -a-train

I think the change in public opinion regarding the legalization of gay marriage is only a glimmer in our media's eye. The legal oposition to gay marriage has NOT decreased whatsoever, but has been emboldended over the last few years in the form of state constitutional ammendments defining marriage between only a man and a woman. Since the Massachusettes Supreme Judicial Court's rulings in November of 2003 and February of 2004 brought a new awareness to the nation that the definition of marriage in constitutional law was not already exclusive to heterosexual couples, almost half the states in the union have passed amendments to insure the definition of marriage be between a man and a woman. Today, about 41 states have laws that prevent gay marriage, but since the constituionality of these laws could be feasably challenged, amendments have been brought forth in half of them. In many states, voters flocked to the polls to support these ammendments, an example being South Carolina where 78% of the vote supported Amendment 1 which defined marriage as only legal in heterosexual couples. Furthermore, efforts to create unions of similar status have failed miserably in many states as well. In 2006, Colorado introduced Amendment initiative 43 which defined marriage heterosexually and Referendum I which would create domestic partnerships applicable to homosexual couples. Amendment 43 passed, but Referendum I failed. Here, in the Show-Me-State, some 70% of voters approved a gay marriage banning amendment in 2004 in a sharp voter turn out increase. Currently, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey offer civil unions to homosexual couples, New Mexico and New York have no laws either way, and Massachusettes stands alone allowing homosexual marriage. The remaining 41 continental states maintain laws or even amendments banning homosexual marriage. Some point to Arizona where a 2006 Proposition to ban gay marriage failed with 51.4% saying no and 48.6% saying yes (hardly a landslide within 2%). However, a number of voters who voted 'no' have said the language of the Proposition extended restrictions to unwed heterosexual couples that kept them from voting 'yes' on an otherwise favorable action of state government. Frankly, I see little swing in favor of homosexual marriage. Additionally, it appears to me at least that even the most secular Americans have a strong disgust for polygamous unions. Regardless of the logic or understanding, the sentiment is there and is not on its way out. Furthermore, if polygamy was nationally legalized today I doubt seriously that our current Church leadership or that of the rising generation would seek to re-inact the practice, but would rather go on hoping the LORD would allow a pass on the issue. I doubt they would even ask the LORD about it for fear He would say to them what He said to Joseph. For a serious reality check, peruse this site: www.christianpolygamy.info Freeky eh? -a-train

There is only one issue with the notion of a priviliged minorty removing God from this country: It can't happen. Not even a majority can do so. Only God can remove Himself. In Waxahachie, Texas there is a famous courthouse. It has served Ellis County for 110 years. As one walks around it, noticable is a beautiful angelic face in the center of one of the capitals over one of the many granite columns of the structure. The face is continued on each capital as you circumscribe the building. With each repetition the face grows uglier and uglier until grotesque demon-like gargoyles glare at the onlookers. Legends surround those faces. A story of a love gone bad during the construction of the building has oft been told. The young man who carved the faces lost his love in eventual bitter animosity over this period and the face of his once beloved took on such abhorring appearance in his eyes as her heart grew colder towards him and his toward her. Now imagine if I said to the citizens of Ellis county that the story is all a big lie and part of a great hoax. Do you think that if I had the proof they would change those faces? Do you have any idea how stubborn a Texan is? If they have anything to do with it, those demons will glare another 110 years. Now, these faces do not preach any particular religion. They are not any symbol of any union of Church and State, but they are an image of history and are analogous to those things found in museums and galleries. And although superstition and legend can be connected therewith, this is not done by any imposition of the state. Even so, the tables of stone baring the Decalogue have artistically and dramatically symbolized the spirit of justice and law throughout the ages for men of all types of faith and understanding. Efforts to remove such artistic expression and symbolism from a public courthouse are akin to those to take down the angels and gargoyles in Waxahachie. The process is meaningless and is only symbolic of the inability of the onlookers to make their own suppositions and interpretations of the images. I don't feel Waxahachie government has forced me to believe in gargoyles, angels, or even a story about a love gone bad. But as for those who believe the story, taking those symbols down will not take down their belief. Nor would it make or break any reality of any existance of angels or gargoyles. Therefore also, let us not think that the taking down of the Decalogue from a courthouse would signify any rejection of God on our part, but it only shows the fear and uncertainty on the part of the few disbelievers who cannot bare the evil glare of the ten commandments. -a-train

I don't think the LORD has called me for much because I have been too involved in time-consuming economic pursuits. However, in this past year, that has changed. I am currently the Ward Executive Secretary. I like teaching though, I was a teacher in the Elders Quorum until a week or two ago. I must admit I am not sure I like the idea of giving out callings on the forum. If someone takes someone else's statement wrong, they could think things like: 'That was an ex-bishop!!!' or 'He is a High Priest!' or 'She was in the Primary Presidency!!!' etc. Magnify those callings yall! -a-train