Capitalist_Oinker

No doubt the Nephites thought the same thing right before each one of their civil wars. Mormon made it clear that he was writing to those who would live on the promised land in the last days, and he used up an awful lot of space on the plates talking about the Nephite civil wars. I don't believe that was a coincidence.

I can understand why you "don’t say it" (political correctness and all), but I don't understand why you "don’t mean it"? Quite frankly, (don't misunderstand me; I'm not accusing you of this) I don't understand someone who is afraid to pronounce their religion "right" (true) and someone else's "wrong" (false), and if they have no conviction that their particular religion is true I understand them even less. I expect any Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Mormon or what-have-you to have the courage to say, "I’m a ______________ because it's true (right)! If we define religion as a specific, unified system of worshipping God (yes, I know there are nontheistic religions, but I'll leave those out here), then there is a point regarding religion which should go without saying (and it almost always does but for the wrong reason)---the point being, a religion is either true or it isn't. It either teaches the truth about God or it doesn't. It either correctly teaches what God expects from us, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's a false religion. It's just that simple. The idea that one religion is as good as another is patently ludicrous! If Christianity is right; Islam is wrong! If Islam is right; Judaism is wrong! If Judaism is right; Christianity is wrong! How can a religion that is WRONG be just as good as one that is RIGHT? Any religion that does not teach the truth about God, our relationship to Him, and His expectations for us, (no matter how sincere they are about it) is a false religion, and that's all there is to it. But the debate goes farther than that. If Islam is right, which version of Islam is true? Is it the Sunni version or the Shia version or the Sufi version? If Judaism is right, which version is true? Is it the Orthodox version or the Conservative version or the Reformed version? If Christianity is right, which version is true? Is it the Catholic version, the Baptist version, the Assemblies of God version, or is it one of the hundreds of other sects? Once again, it's patently ludicrous to suppose that one Christian sect is as good as another. If one teaches that God has a body of flesh and bones, and another teaches that he doesn't; one of them is wrong! If one teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and another teaches that it isn't; one of them is wrong! If one teaches that there will be a bodily resurrection, and another teaches there won't be; one of them is wrong! How can a Christian sect that is WRONG be just as good as one that is RIGHT? I'm reminded of a story that Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve told: "Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: ‘You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days." Here was a man who was not afraid of his own convictions. Here was a man who was not afraid to pronounce his own religion true and Protestantism false. (And no doubt he was not afraid to pronounce Mormonism false either.) I have great respect for such men no matter what religion they belong to. I have great respect for anyone who has the courage to say, "my religion is true, and yours isn't." I am a Mormon because I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, which obviously means that I know the others are false. And I'm not the least bit timid in making the declaration. You are a Christian, because as you proclaimed, "it is right". You belong to the Assemblies of God, and I assume you belong because you believe it to be the correct version of Christianity. Therefore, there is no reason you shouldn't say it, and especially no reason you shouldn't mean it.

If by "destroyed" you mean cease to exist as an organization then I agree with you. However, the BSA WILL be "destroyed" as far as being a moral force for good in the world, and a training ground for turning young boys into men. As I've said in the past, if you like what the Girl Scouts HAVE become, you’ll love what the Boy Scouts WILL become. Along with the new "Sustainability" merit badge (nothing but a climate change primer), you'll have merit badges for "sexual identity", "diversity", "tolerance", and of course, "water balloon safety". The word "God" will be removed from the Scout Oath just as the British scouts have done, and atheists along with transgendered girls will be welcomed with open arms.As more and more conservative groups leave the BSA, more and more leftist groups will fill the vacuum. The militant homosexuals, environmentalists, animal rights advocates, anti-second amendment stooges, etc. will permeate the organization and ultimately change the very nature of scouting. While the BSA will continue to exist, it will only superficially resemble the original. You may think this is all hyperbole, but (perhaps) with the exception of a couple of those merit badges, you will see what I have said come to pass.

C'mon, you don't really think (at least I hope you don't) that I think our (Latter-day Saints) salvation is in jeopardy if we don't know where the story took place? What I do think is that we (Latter-day Saints) have a responsibility to warn those who currently occupy the Promised Land that their TEMPORAL salvation (setting aside their spiritual salvation) is in jeopardy if they reject God. And unless we can identify that land, I don't believe the warning can be effectively issued. A dominant theme in the BOM is that the "Promised Land" is a COVENANT land reserved for a people who will worship God and keep His commandments. Much of Moroni's final words were a direct and pointed warning to the future inhabitants of that "Promised Land". He warned that unless they served God they would be swept off and utterly destroyed. He gave us the lesson of the annihilation of the Nephites as a case in point. He wrote similarly of the tragedy of the Jaredites as another case in point. There is an eternal deed affixed to this land with an everlasting decree that those who live here will either serve God or they will be destroyed, and not just spiritually but TEMPORALLY. I believe Moroni was an American. His people were Americans, too. His words constituted a people-to-people message; ancient Americans speaking to modern Americans. Theirs was the voice of bitter experience seeking to persuade us to avoid the mistakes which resulted in their annihilation. It just seems to me that unless the "Promised Land" can be identified, the prophecies, promises and warnings that apply to that land and the people who will live there in the latter-days, are of little or no value. Or it could be that I'm just up in the night.

I'm sorry, Traveler.I've been stuck here at work (several 18 hour shifts in a row) for a long time and I'm running on very little sleep. I took a remark made by someone else and attributed it to you.My apologies.

David, While I have some time here at work I'd like to address your questions and confusion. You wrote: "What troubles me, with my limited knowledge is the idea that Satan does not have a body. He is an evil spirit and can take many forms." Satan (Lucifer in the pre-mortal life) is a son of God, just as you and I are. He was born in the same way, and with the same kind of spirit body all of God's children have. If you were to look upon him you would see a man with a face, a torso, arms, legs, mouth, eyes, etc.---a man in every sense of the word. He does not and cannot transform himself into anything else. It's true he may enter into the physical bodies of men or beasts, but he does not "transform" himself (alter his spirit body) into one. "In the Garden of Eden he takes the form of a serpent." There is nothing in the story that indicates Satan "transformed" himself into a serpent. Satan could have merely possessed the body of the serpent while speaking through it; or he could have persuaded the serpent to speak the words he gave him (assuming beasts had the power of speech before the fall); or Satan could have appeared to Adam and Eve just as he was (a man) and Moses used the word "serpent" symbolically--- "And while we were yet in the Spirit, the Lord commanded us that we should write the vision; for we beheld Satan, that old serpent, even the devil, who rebelled against God, and sought to take the kingdom of our God and his Christ" (D&C 76:28) "I guess the answer to the op is that in Moses 1: 22 Satan takes a form or appears in such a form to have teeth." Once again, Satan is a man with the spirit body of a man. He cannot be anything other than what he is. He has all of the features of a man including teeth. I find it curious that the "teeth" thing seems to bother some here, while the "voice" thing doesn't. If a spirit body cannot gnash teeth, why would one be able to make noise through a larynx?? "I thnk it's clear that Moses recognizes who he is from the start, tho' he does say "Who art thou?". Why is that (that he recognizes Satan)?" Whether or not Moses recognized him from the start, it's clear that at some point in the conversation he did. Perhaps through the workings of the Spirit the veil of forgetfulness was lifted and Moses recognized Lucifer from the pre-mortal life? When Moses asks, "Who art thou?", I don’t believe he was asking in the vein of , "who are you---I don't know you", but rather he was saying, "who the heck do you think you are that I should worship you? Where’s your glory, pal? I couldn't look upon God except I was transfigured before him (otherwise being in His physical presence would have destroyed me), but I can look upon you without any such transfiguration (in the natural man). Am I right? Huh? Yeah, I'm right, so take a hike! Or if you prefer, get thee hence! "God told Moses "Thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten." in reference to Satan. Here Satan has taken the form or appearance of Jesus, no?" Uhhh, no. You're misreading the verse (6) here. "And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth…" God is telling Moses that he (Moses) is in the similitude of the Savior, not that Satan is. “So he has no particular body, but can appear in many forms.” Once again let's be clear---Satan is a male spirit child of God. He has a spirit body of a man just as you and I do. He looks like a man in every sense of the word, and he cannot transform himself into anything else. He is what he is. As to the first two scriptures you quoted I think it's clear that comparing Satan to a serpent or a lion is just a figurative expression, much like comparing the Savior to a lamb. As for the third scripture, "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."---this is merely an example of Satan posing as a messenger from God. Remember, angels are nothing more than men acting as messengers for God; either men who have been resurrected, men who have died and not yet been resurrected, or men who have not yet been born. Men in each category have been described as angels in scripture, although it would be more accurate to refer to resurrected beings as "angels", and unembodied (those who have yet to be born) and disembodied (those who have been born and died) as "ministering spirits". When Satan wishes he can appear to individuals and pose as a messenger from God, and thus be referred to an "angel of light". Unless a man has the key to understanding the difference he can be deceived. (D&C 129) I hope this clears a few things up.

Once again, spirit matter IS NOT immaterial. What is it about the concept that troubles you?

In the FOS thread awhile back I wrote about something Elder Holland said regarding the BSA, which was this: "brethren, we see the writing on the wall, and the Church will be prepared should we find it necessary to separate ourselves from the scouting program."

I don’t see a problem with this scripture. The Doctrine and Covenants explains that "the spirit of man [is] in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast; and every other creature which God has created" (D&C 77:2). That spirit bodies resemble physical bodies is demonstrated in the account of the premortal Jesus visiting the brother of Jared many centuries before Jesus' birth (Ether 3:9-16). On that occasion, the Lord revealed his spirit body and said, "this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; ...and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh." So, Satan most assuredly does have teeth, just as every other spirit being has. We also learn in the D&C that: "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes." (D&C 131:7) Satan's teeth are not immaterial, but made of matter; therefore he can no doubt gnash them if he has a mind to.

Sorry, James, but being "informed" isn't the issue. What little respect I have for Gates and his ilk would be difficult to measure, which is why I didn't bother to read his speech. I was primarily responding to your statement--- "I tend to agree with him that sooner or later this will come down to a court battle and one judge or another will determine that LGBT leaders must be allowed."Exactly who would these "one judge or another" be? Will some federal district judge rise up and with a wave of his magic gavel overturn the SCOTUS ruling?? Gates' putative worry about the courts is pure B.S. in my opinion. Gates is an ideologue who, during his time as Defense Secretary, turned the military into a petri dish for various leftist sociopolitical crusades. It was Gates who enthusiastically dismantled the military's “Don't ask, Don't tell" policy, and rather than "one judge or another" it will be Gates and his toadies who dismantle the BSA policy. Gates is happily pounding nails in the BSA coffin while the body inside is still still breathing. When it exhales for the final time he'll simply move on to the next campaign.

Perhaps Gates needs to bone up on current events.The question has already been decided in the courts, James. A scoutmaster by the name of James Dale went public with his homosexuality and was subsequently expelled from the BSA.His case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled (June, 2000) that BSA is a private organization and has a constitutional right to exclude homosexuals. The court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message. If Gates wants to allow openly homosexual adults to serve as scout leaders now, because eventually the courts will rule that BSA has to allow them; he is either dishonest or an ignoramus.

That depends on what your definition of "doctrine" is? If by "doctrine" you mean only those principles that will ensure the salvation of those who accept and act upon them (This is my doctrine,...that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God) then I agree. These principles are fixed and unchanging.However, if by "doctrine" you include all of the revealed teachings that are either aspects of the doctrine of Jesus Christ or extensions, elaborations, or appendages of it, then I disagree. These can and have changed over time.

Let your Branch President know that you would be happy to give a talk in Sacrament meeting "if he can't find anyone else". I promise you, it won't be long before you get your chance. On a side note---there is no prohibition on primary kids speaking in Sacrament meeting. In fact the whole primary does it once a year.

Regarding video games, movies, music, television, etc.----as disciples of Christ we should all be a good deal more discriminating than we are. One of my favorite quotes came from a returned missionary who got it from his mission president who got it from an apostle. He said this: "If something isn’t appropriate for us to do, it isn’t appropriate for us to be entertained by it." I always taught my children that if they wouldn't feel comfortable inviting the Savior to sit down with them to watch a particular movie or television program, or to play a particular game, or listen to a particular song---that should be a signal to them that whatever it is they're watching, playing or listening to is simply not appropriate and should be avoided.

I predicted this in another thread. It's only a matter of time before the Church leaves the BSA. The left-wing zealots will ultimately take over the organization just as they did the Girl Scouts, and the BSA will end up just as morally irrelevant as they are.

Then we might just as well declare the entire western hemisphere the "promised land" to be on the safe side. I just don't believe the promises and prophecies allow it.

You and I obviously disagree on the "where" of BOM geography, but we do agree that it wasn't a small area. When Nephi records that they traveled "many days" it's unlikely his journey was only a few hundred miles.

I have.I've also read most everything Lund, Peterson, Roper, Ash, Hauck, and a truckload of other Mesoamerican proponents have written. And I disagree with all of them. I remember the first book I ever read with a Mesoamerican angle--- "Warfare in the Book of Mormon". The thing that struck me was how the authors continually pounded the square pegs of BOM text and Joseph Smith’s writings into the round holes of their Mesoamerican theories. They began with the assumption that the Mesoamerican model was true, and therefore any evidence to the contrary could be explained away no matter how presumptuous the interpretation. Some of their analyses were laughable in my opinion. I have a great deal of respect for Peterson and the rest of his FairMormon cronies when it comes to Mormon apologetics, but I have little use for them when it comes to BOM geography. Too many times I've seen them dismiss valid Heartland model arguments with not much more than a "Meh", while spending WAY too much time engaged in character assassination (e.g. Meldrum, May and Porter).In fact, I believe it was this disposition that caused BYU to essentially divest itself of FARMS.

I’m sympathetic to your statement, but I also wonder about something?It seems obvious to me, that unless we can determine where the "Promised Land" was (is), the prophecies, instructions, and warnings given throughout the BOM to those who would live in the Promised Land in the future are meaningless. For what purpose are explicit warnings given to those living in a particular land if that land cannot be identified? I know the Church has not taken an official stand, but I believe the words of prophets and apostles from Joseph Smith to most recently L. Tom Perry HAVE identified the land the Nephites occupied and HAVE identified the "Land of Promise". I believe it is the same land where the Garden of Eden was; the same land where Adam-ondi-Ahman was; the same land where the New Jerusalem will be built; the same land that would be the base of God's operations in the last days; it is the land we call the USA.

I understand what you're saying, but remember, my sons had never exhibited ANY sort of violence in their play up until they were introduced to DOOM. The fact that "killing" suddenly became more appealing to them than "rescuing" hints at something more than just “boys will be boys”.

For many reasons I was a proponent of the "Heartland" model before there even was such a thing. We just called it the "One Cumorah" theory (as opposed to the "Two Cumorah" theory fostered by FARMS) before Meldrum and May came along. But I love both of them (along with Bruce Porter) for all the work they've done. I've met Meldrum and May numerous times and they are both good, honest men in my estimation; a claim I can't make for a few of their professional detractors.

I have an interesting story (at least to me) regarding the insidious nature of violent video games. Years ago I had a first-person shooter game called "DOOM" on my computer. I've never been a serious video game player, but I enjoyed playing DOOM now and then. During that same time frame my two oldest sons (who were about 5 and 6 years old) loved watching a cartoon called "Rescue Heroes". The show consisted of a number of different characters whose job it was to rescue people who were in danger in a variety of different circumstances. Each "Hero" had his or her own special abilities that were useful in the different rescue scenarios. In conjunction with the cartoon, there were "Rescue Hero" action figures that kids could play with and my sons absolutely loved them. They would play with them for hours at a time, rescuing everything that could possibly need rescuing. My wife and I appreciated the fact that the cartoon was about people helping people, and likewise our sons' play acting with the action figures was the same. Anyway, back to "DOOM". Like I said, it was a first person shooter where you played the character of a space marine on Mars who was tasked with fighting hordes of demons to keep them from attacking earth. My sons were fascinated with the game and continually pestered me to play it. My wife was against it, but I, in all my wisdom, told her it was just harmless fun and all they were doing was killing monsters. So I allowed them to play it. They split much of their "play" time between "Rescue Heroes" and "DOOM". Then one day I came home from work to find my sons playing "Rescue Heroes". Only this time something didn’t seem right. As I watched them playing with the action figures I soon discovered that they were no longer rescuing people. My kindly and compassionate little boys had half the Rescue Heroes arrayed against the other half, and they were in the process of killing each other!! Billy Blazes was killing Wendy Waters; Rocky Canyon was killing Jack Hammer; and poor Al Pine was being shot by Jake Justice. Needless to say, "DOOM" was doomed. I tossed it that very day and then apologized to my wife. And I have never forgotten the lesson. Violent video games absolutely DO have negative effect on kids, and most likely adults as well.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but of course it means you'll die! It's pretty difficult to be resurrected until you do. As for your Patriarchal blessing (and comfort blessing for that matter), no one here has the authority (and hence the ability) to interpret them for you. And you should be leery of anyone who claims they can. As to your apparent fear of dying; WHY are you afraid? Does your fear stem from the thought of leaving loved ones behind?Fear of the unknown?Concern that you're not yet prepared to meet God?All of the above? I'm no psychologist, but I'd like to offer you a couple of thoughts. First---don't worry so much about WHEN you're going to die. You're a child of God; your Father is omniscient and omnipotent. NOTHING can happen to you unless He either causes or allows it to happen. President Joseph Fielding Smith once said that: "No righteous man is ever taken before his time." President Spencer W. Kimball said he agreed with this and commented further by saying, "It has been said that the death of a righteous man is never untimely because our Father sets the time. I believe that with all my soul." He further said, "I am confident that there is a time to die. I am not a fatalist. I believe that many people die before ‘their time’ because they are careless, abuse their bodies, take unnecessary chances, or expose themselves to hazards, accidents and sickness. … I am positive in my mind that the Lord has planned our destiny. We can shorten our lives but I think we cannot lengthen them very much." If this is true (and I believe it is) then you need not worry about when you're going to die. You may hasten the time by being foolish, but if you are living a righteous life you will not be able to lengthen it much. So your objective should simply be to live a righteous life and then leave the "when" of your death in God's hands. I'm reminded of the words of a couple of righteous men. One was the prophet Ether who wrote: "Whether the Lord will that I be translated, or that I suffer the will of the Lord in the flesh, it mattereth not, if it so be that I am saved in the kingdom of God."(Translation---Doesn't matter how or when I die, as long as I am saved.) Another was the prophet Abinadi who, when he was facing death for his testimony, said: "But I finish my message; and then it matters not whither I go, if it so be that I am saved."(Translation---Doesn't matter how or when I die, as long as I am saved.) Just live a righteous life, Chris. Keep the commandments; magnify your priesthood and callings in the Church; love and serve your fellow man; and then you can be assured that God will watch over and protect you until He decides it's time for you to come home. Then you can claim the promise in D&C 42:46 --- "And it shall come to pass that those that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them" Then you can view death as the prophet Enos did--- "I soon go to the place of my rest, which is with my Redeemer; for I know that in him I shall rest. And I rejoice in the day when my mortal shall put on immortality, and shall stand before him; then shall I see his face with pleasure, and he will say unto me: Come unto me, ye blessed, there is a place prepared for you in the mansions of my Father." Or as the people of Anti Nephi-Lehi did--- "they never did look upon death with any degree of terror, for their hope and views of Christ and the resurrection; therefore, death was swallowed up to them by the victory of Christ over it." I say again, just live a righteous life, Chris, and you will have nothing to fear.

I agree wholeheartedly. This post is spot on. I've had a bit of experience distributing Church funds, so I'd like to make a couple of points. First, bishops aren't omniscient. They must rely on ward councils, home teachers, and individual ward members in order to stay informed. Second, there IS a great deal of fraud and abuse within the system, and I believe any bishop would be grateful for pertinent information in connection with the distribution of Church funds to those receiving them. In regards to smoking, we once had a couple who had been receiving financial help from the Church for more than a year. He had a full time job but the pay was meager, they had a large debt load, and he simply didn't earn enough to make ends meet.We regularly paid his utility bills and even paid his house payment a number of times.It was common knowledge that both of them smoked.They came in for a regular interview one day and the subject of cigarettes came up. They were asked point blank how much they spent on cigarettes in a month. The woman hung her head for a moment and then replied, "about a thousand dollars."Excuse me!!She then ran through the numbers explaining how much a pack cost and how many packs they smoked between the two of them, and yes, it came to about $1000 per month!Not being a smoker and not even having a clue what a pack of cigs cost I was just blown away.Here we were paying utility bills and sometimes mortgage payments almost every month, and these two were smoking away enough money to pay for it all with some left over.Needless to say, the situation was unacceptable. A person could argue that they were smoking away their own money while the Church was only paying the bills, but in reality it's a distinction without a difference. As for the OP, I believe estradling's advice is correct. Mention it to the bishop (the odds are he already knows anyway), and then just leave it alone.

mirkwood, Thank you for taking the time to post these. I have most of them in my files but a couple I don't (didn't) and am glad I do now. Taken all together they paint a sad and scary scenario.