Amillia

Thanks Michelle. I think you are right.

It has been over a year ago, so I would have to start over, because all I have left in my memory is my impressions and distaste for the fashion in which they handled any rebuttles. I will say this, they do have a spirit of convincing. There works are based upon actual happenings and journals of disgruntled saints, but their understanding is darkened and their agenda is totally about destroying the faith the members have.Now if it were all about truth and light and discovery of a higher way, I could see their dedication at tearing down the church through the mistakes of those who went before us. But it doesn't give a higher way, it is only about digging up the dirt on a specific organization. When in history have there not been errors made by great men and women? And when did we throw away the constitution or our country's freedoms because of the mistakes made by them. In the world we tend to over look the bad that good men did, and enjoy the good that came from their beneficial works. When you read the site by the Tanners, all you get is a wallowing in the dirt and this is supposed to invalidate all the good. These weaknesses of men are ever present. The apostles of Christ showed these weaknesses continually. Okay, I will stop with the defence and just state that after all the dust is settled, the thing which is most important to have and hold sacred and dear is the Spirit of Christ. The teachings held within the BofM on this point alone is priceless. The BofM is the most complete instruction manual, and correct manual for telling us how to come to Christ, surrender to Him and reap the most precious gift given to man on earth; the pure love of Christ, charity. Charity is the power to endure (Moroni 7:47-48) and what is more necessary in today's world than the power to endure? Charity is more than this, as taught by the BofM, it is the power of the atonement, the power to become like Christ and it is only gained through praying to be filled with it after you have fully become submissive as a child, as taught in Mosiah. You won't find the total and complete instructions for this process anywhere else in the religious world. Joseph Smith the man and prophet was the instrument through which God gave us this marvelous work and wonder. But some can only see the weaknesses and throw away everything good and great. I have done many things that are good. But quite often I am totally rejected because I was arrested once for disorderly conduct. The public record on this matter is totally wrong. The man who arrested me and wrote the false report, only did so to cover up his own wrong doing. Will future generation come upon these documents and invalidate all the good I did because of it? I see many of the things the Tanners have done as doing just that to JS and the church.

I believe that even babies can be made sick by evil spirits within a home. It is scientific studies which as proven that what helps us spiritually helps us physically. Happiness helps us heal. Praying has been studied and found to be physically beneficial.I believe in science and I believe God is the master of it.

I was thinking more along the lines of chemical warfare....like poisoning our water systems.

Sounds like a good way to teach it in my opinion. Amilia, I live in the UK and religion is loosely taught in state as well as church schools, we must have different rules over here regarding the teaching of religion in state schools. It sounds like we do. Maybe it is because we are in Utah ~ a place of religious beginnings and strong holds.

I find it interesting that the mountain was opened by an earthquake and then closed by lime infested moss. Maybe it is because we are to know it exists but are not ready to receive what is inside.

I presume you mean not-so-strong Mormons... Well, everywhere you go..especially if you go on a Mission, you are going to find non mormons and not so strong mormons...don't you find it interesting to listen to their questions about your beliefs, and discuss/debate them in a 'friendly' manner. I feel it is sad that non mormons cannot quote from 'anti' lds sites without being labelled 'bashers', as sometimes the words that these sites use are more eloquent than the ones I use...and they have already done the research into the questions I have asked... What is current policy regarding posting things from anti sites, such as the articles by Sandra Tanner? I would bet that you quote Sandra Tanner and your will be joining me in the mod-status limbo. Oh dear Amilia...did you do that too? What did you think of their site by the way? I haven't been there for a year or so, but I remember feeling like they were trying to sound all detached and everything, like it wasn't because they were doing it for vengence, but it really did seam over the top to me. I also found some errors and they just danced around them.

Actually, it is the other way around. The RLDS has the printer's manuscript, and the LDS own what is left of the original manuscript. I got my quotes from the Restored Covenant Edition (RCE) of the BoM, which was researched and printed by neither church. The person who did the research used both the printers manuscript and what was left of the original, along with the Kirtland edition to put together the RCE. He maintained RLDS versification since it is closest to what was used in the earliest editions (which was paragraph form). The original Kirtland edition matches the original manuscript, yes. So we know that the end result of the research is right? Was it checked by either church? (I'm sorry, I should have been saying the original Palmyra edition, not the Kirtland edition.) Why does it need to be checked by either church? The person who did this started with the RLDS 1908 edition, and, after checking the manuscripts and the original Palmyra edition, changed only those words that were changed from the original. The rest was left as is. I just wondered if he was trust worthy. It seems to be the question everyone asks of JS. Equal questionability under the law and all that.

Not just because somebody dreams about it. Unless Bush and his gang start getting their priorities straight on homeland security, it is almost inevitable---my suggestion, more resources into monitoring world nuclear stock piles and radiation detection at our ports. How do we deal with it on a home level? What places are most likely to be a target?

I think that "Only Begotten of the Father" means that Jesus Christ is G-d the Son and is conceived and begotten by the Father. Because Jesus was begotten of the Father he was not in the fallen state that man is. Because he was not fallen he would not need to be purified. He resisted sin and therefore remained the only Son of G-d. Because we are fallen we have lost our legal claim as a Son or Daughter of G-d. We must be made pure before we can be in G-d’ presents ever again. I believe perfect means to covenant and remain faithful through a trial or test. When I test an automated system I will perform functional test to determine that a system will perform the correct functions in the proper sequence when everything is happening as it should. But I will also perform what are called anomaly testing. This is when we introduce failures or problems into the system to determine how the system will identify problems and recover. I believe Jesus was tested in much the same manner. Because he completed his trial or test by remaining faithful as a G-d he then became the Father of our covenant salvation. This then gives us an inheritance and the only way to the Tree of Life. The Traveler How was he perfect without sin and the only one? How did that happen? We are all brothers and sisters, zillions of us. Yet not but one is perfect? There are thoughts which say we have different comings, such as the Adam God idea. It seems that it must be true if Christ was perfect and we were not. Don't you think? How else can you explain his perfectness?

Actually, it is the other way around. The RLDS has the printer's manuscript, and the LDS own what is left of the original manuscript. I got my quotes from the Restored Covenant Edition (RCE) of the BoM, which was researched and printed by neither church. The person who did the research used both the printers manuscript and what was left of the original, along with the Kirtland edition to put together the RCE. He maintained RLDS versification since it is closest to what was used in the earliest editions (which was paragraph form). The original Kirtland edition matches the original manuscript, yes. So we know that the end result of the research is right? Was it checked by either church?

Really. Sometimes I think that they will use any sort of logic to excuse their exclusion and extreme prejudice.

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory." I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists. The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history. I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When was the last time you saw an attempt by an atheist group try to have science books say specifically, that evolution offers evidence against the existence of God, or even that ANY science textbook writer suggested that it should? It is a non-issue. You may find authors or commentators making such a claim, but I have NEVER heard it even suggested. I would guess that most opponents of religion tend to be scientific minded as it is, and understand the nature of science better than your run of the mill creationist. It's not the texts, it's the lectures. Richard Dawkins is a prime example. The issue is textbooks, that kids read....the kids who the Supremes consider most vulnerable the States attempts to promote religion----lots of people lecture, like Dawkins--it has little to do with the issue of promoting religion in science classes in public schools. I've never heard a public school science teacher even mention his name in a Biology class. His name is not in Biology textbooks, at least at the K-12 level. What is wrong with a broad understanding of all that is spinning in this world? I allow my children, who clearly believe in God, to study a teaching which totally does not allow for God in it, why must it be so one sided? Why can it be more open. The very fact that they are scared our children might hear the word God in the public school system speaks volumes about how narrow and closed minded they are. The Christian/God believers are so much more open and tolerant than these freaks of Godlessness. Amillia--its a little thing called separation of church and state. Evolution is scientific, not religious--creationism and the idea of God is a religious doctrine. Public schools, being an agency of government is not permited to promote or endorse religion over non-religion. It's not a matter of equal time--religion gets NO time in science classes, and shouldn't. High school science classes are about teaching science, not religion. Nor are science classes about about teaching AGAINST religion---religion is simply not an issue. Science teachers teach what the scientific method allows--hypothesis that are testable using the scientific method---religion and God are not, therefore they don't belong in public school classrooms---at least not to the extent that they promote a religious view over a scientific one. It's not like creationism and evolution are both on equal footing scientifically. Creationism has virtually no place in science since no one has yet devise and experiment that can either verify or disprove the existance of God or a divine creation. Where as, there are lots of scientific observations and experiments that can test the hypotheses of evolution. Well we study Einstein don't we? Then why not the greatest of all scientists~ God?

Amilia...are you saying that the school in question did not have any religious instruction lessons at all for its students? Even in the UK our state schools teach a broad religious curriculum...obviously taking into account the many varied religions of their students, and are neutral in their teachings. I agree that all students should be able to be taught a wide range of subjects for life, including science, sex education, religion, and maybe how to debate on political issues...without, of course, trying to sway those students into voting for one particular political party over another when the time comes, as well as following the required national curriculum subjects...english, physical education and others... Our schools don't allow God to be taught. At least when my kids were in them.

Absolutely correct. So few know this. It is very significant that someone who has this spiritual disease~ recognises it. Kuddos sir! Amellia--are you trying to ruin this guy? He needs professional help, not fairy tales about ghosts and goblins. The idea that Satan causes all these diseases and human ailments is stuff from the dark ages. Maybe we should take him to Salem and dunk him in the community pond a few times, that should solve all his problems. You are the one trying to ruin the guy. I know a lot of people who have been totally ruined by psychiatrists. But non who have been ruined by having their demons cast out.

For clarity's sake since I can't edit my posts, my last statement should mean: I find it comforting that there are relatively few editings in the BofM.

Do you think that those changes were made under the guidance of the Spirit? or just by the writers so that people did not get confused about the Trinity beliefs within the church? I just feel a little suspicious of changes being constantly made to the BoM, it sort of makes it less likely to be an inspired book if it constantly needed altering. Have you ever spoken with someone who has done the translating of the BofM into another language? It is interesting to see just how many concepts are lost in the translation and must be edited until it is made clear in the new language. I find it amazing that there are relatively few of these kinds of editings.

Evolve. Is that anything like line-upon-line?

I presume you mean not-so-strong Mormons... Well, everywhere you go..especially if you go on a Mission, you are going to find non mormons and not so strong mormons...don't you find it interesting to listen to their questions about your beliefs, and discuss/debate them in a 'friendly' manner. I feel it is sad that non mormons cannot quote from 'anti' lds sites without being labelled 'bashers', as sometimes the words that these sites use are more eloquent than the ones I use...and they have already done the research into the questions I have asked... What is current policy regarding posting things from anti sites, such as the articles by Sandra Tanner? I would bet that you quote Sandra Tanner and your will be joining me in the mod-status limbo.

Hey, Amellia--why do you use an alpha-helix for your avatar---I thought you didn't believe in human genetics---remember, Satan controls all our genetics--causing people to become gay and such. I believe God is the greatest of all Scientists. I also believe satan is the greatest possessor for evil. You confuse the two quite often.

There are no-so-strong mormons always, everywhere. Where can you run?

Interesting and most probably right on. I was wondering what you might think about the concept that the term "Only Begotten of the Father" meant that HE, Jesus Christ, was spiritually purified by HIS Father as we are spiritually purified through Christ's atonement~ therefore making Christ perfect, without sin and therefore able to be presented as the sinless sacrifice?

I woke up this morning in a real panic attack. I had just had a not fully awake and not fully asleep premonition of real terrorist attacks ripping through our country. Do you think it will happen?

commies? How about terrorists? Come up to the 21st century. LOL

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory." I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists. The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history. I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When was the last time you saw an attempt by an atheist group try to have science books say specifically, that evolution offers evidence against the existence of God, or even that ANY science textbook writer suggested that it should? It is a non-issue. You may find authors or commentators making such a claim, but I have NEVER heard it even suggested. I would guess that most opponents of religion tend to be scientific minded as it is, and understand the nature of science better than your run of the mill creationist. It's not the texts, it's the lectures. Richard Dawkins is a prime example. The issue is textbooks, that kids read....the kids who the Supremes consider most vulnerable the States attempts to promote religion----lots of people lecture, like Dawkins--it has little to do with the issue of promoting religion in science classes in public schools. I've never heard a public school science teacher even mention his name in a Biology class. His name is not in Biology textbooks, at least at the K-12 level. What is wrong with a broad understanding of all that is spinning in this world? I allow my children, who clearly believe in God, to study a teaching which totally does not allow for God in it, why must it be so one sided? Why can it be more open. The very fact that they are scared our children might hear the word God in the public school system speaks volumes about how narrow and closed minded they are. The Christian/God believers are so much more open and tolerant than these freaks of Godlessness.