the Ogre

He hasn't mentioned it, or do you not listen. And man weren't they interesting. I was there then and got the word on the subway (as a then Jack Mormon, I was told I was going to the hot place twice as fast for being an annoying drunk and a Mormon). Like I've said before, there are times when you are wonderful.There is a thing I read about in this thread that I want to bring up now and that is "time". I was a student of physics at BYU for three years in the early nineties and now I am very interested in post-structuralism in identity and cultural theory and from these perspectives I think it is important to note that most likely the "time" discussed in this thread is a social construct that G-d does not need to adhere to as H- is not a member of our society, but rather the G-d of our existence. Society and all social constructs are the creations of people that often lead humanity away from any actual apprehension of G-d. The concepts of ex nihilo or Nicaea's vision of the Nature of G-d like time are also social constructs. We as culturally bound humans do not understand the Nature of G-d and creation because we as humans are restricted to understanding by what we can perceive in relationship to the social norms that we have been brought up with or have adopted (like the several people in this thread relying too strongly on the work of apologists and their man-made theologies) through study. The L-rd has given us texts by which to learn about H-m. If a concept is not included in those texts, then it is indeed the construction of humans. I do not know where in scripture ex nihilo or Nicaea's concepts are mentioned and thus believe they are subsequent ideas developed by humans to explain that which they do not understand. Time is non-linear. Time is subjective. Time is inconstant. Time can not as yet be completely defined. Time is not defined by scripture either merely mentioned and alluded to. Time is a function of linguistics. Time is a social construct. As this is the case and matrix of nullification by which we must operate, why are we trying to base arguments around it? If we begin to grow beyond this dangerous social construct then we might see and understand the socially contrived fiction of a beginning and an end and see that indeed they can both be descriptors for our Eternal F-ther and of ourselves as eternal beings (however one might define that).

I feel most at home during FHE when all the kids get along and the discussion goes for at least an hour like the one this evening. Andy was talking about how he should be preparing for his mission and what his sibling thought he should be doing. After they got past the snide and trivial (they are teenagers after all) the advice and plan turned out to be quite good.

SG, as a single father (with my kids), I've heard a lot of what you are saying. It would be easier if there were a National Health Care Program, but how would we do it? What Europe and Asia has is mediocre if not pointless. I dislike that health care in the US is class-based, but we as Americans have decided that it is something we do not want. Is it because the rich make the rules? IS it because many people do not want the federal government to dictate to them their health care choices? I would like something in place, but I do not want it to be as big a failure as our educational system is where people who live in certain areas have better schools because the people in those areas pay more property taxes. If we put doctors on the same type of salary as teachers, then the doctors are most likely going to care as much as teachers. There are many good and caring teachers, but there are even more mediocre and lazy ones. I do not want this to happen to doctors (even though insurance companies are already doing this). It is not a all or nothing deal. I want something. I am tired of being poor and having no options, but at the same time, there do not seem to be many options that will work.

I actually like what you say and only find one thing to kibble about. Didn't Paul say that G-d is not a respecter of persons. I'm pretty sure he said something like this (maybe it was the S-vior H-imself that said it). When is it we are supposed to say it? Claim and Proclaim (C&P) you say, but when? PC said something interesting once, he said that it is in this life that we are to forge our salvation (he was involved in another thread about LDS doctrine then). It is a nice thing to believe, but what if the particular person never had the chance to know the truth? Never had the chance to a bit of C&Ping. My dad's family are Scots from clan McGregor and were Catholic Jacobites until the late 1700s. They never heard an Evangelical message much less the LDS message. I know many people would say they are condemned, but the LDS position would be that the L-rd would judge them based on the light and truth they had or give them a chance to accept the truth. I love this. Thank you for the contribution. But shouldn't our dead be given the same opportunity to C&P like we have? Maybe you don't think so, but I do not think the L-rd or Chr-st are that miserly.What about the Buddhists of Asia or the followers of Islam? Are they condemned? I don't know, but I think I would let them make the choice (alive or dead) and then let the L-rd determine those that truly know H-m and H-s word as opposed to giving them a blanket condemnation (isn't a little presumptuous for mere humans to speak for G-d, insisting he think or feel a certain way?).

I understand what you are saying, however Stewie (Dr. Steuss) has shown that indeed there is some contention in the Jewish community. Not only that, there is only one point in the Jewish tradition that is considered given, and that is that there is one G-d, however there has been some back and forth about this as well.I like reading about the Jewish community and was at one point considering it for grad school (Jewish Literary Studies that is), but one can never assume that there is any type of consensus. If Rabbi soandso says something be assured his best friend is going to say, "Realy, prove it", and his neighbor is going to say both are wrong and even if the L-rd were to interupt, they would tell H-m to wait H-s turn and to make sure whatever H- has to say better have precedent. I know the pandenominational Chr-stians think LDS are heretical over this idea as well as the trinity or triune or three-in-one concepts based on Niciea. Wouldn't this be one of the best reasons for a prophet, to clear up the babble and silliness? ONe of the things the Gnostics did to Chr-stianity was rob it of its basic apprehensiblness. The explanations are a lot simpler than the pandenominationals would make it out to be. This confusingness takes the truth out of the hands of ordinary people making it important to have professional clergy so that the incomprehensible concepts of the trinity and ex nihilo can be explained. What about making things simple. Creation: The L-rd hasn't let us know yet, because it really doesn't matter.

When I think of anti-heros, I think of Thomas Covenant. Even then, he was more of an unwilling hero.

When was this opinion issued? Does it really go back three thousand years, or was it even at that date a mater of contention. Or could it be another one of those brilliant doctrinal metamorphosis by the RAMBAM not actually based on scripture, but on Greek theo/philosphy . . ? Rabbi Simmons does not quote his antecedent source. This section of Genesis does not support what you are claiming. Do you have access to the ibn Ezra commentary and also the commentary on the commentary and then some of the subsequent debates? Be cautious when quoting a Rabbi about opinion from three thousand years ago unless you claim also to be a descendant of their progenitors the Pharisees and would then actually favor the interpretation of law over the law and word of the L-rd's prophets.

This is fine. Thanks.I was hoping someone was going to link the importance of the creation mystery to eternal salvation. Wait, maybe not fine. In ordering your statement in a pair with an inserted conjunction (or) do you mean these two statements are binary opposites?

In the big bang there was a something which exploded. The question is: what was it? I think the fun question for big bangers should be: who made it?The reason for this is the postulate that says nothing can be created or destroyed. Okay, I can see potential in this, but could you refine your thoughts a little. I think a little more work has to go into what you're thinking.

I like this statement. I think the way we are special has to do with those alive meeting the requirements of the age. I do not think I would have done well in the middle-ages. I do not go with the flow well or submit easily to authority. I think I would have been diced for my rebellious and uncouth tongue.I however do not think the spirits of any one age is better than those of another. I do count my blessings for being born now with the tasks set before me. With that in mind I also do not think LDS spirits born today are any better than the Baptist or Muslim spirits born today.

Yep, absolutely hilarious considering ex nihilo is found no where in scripture. Ex nihilo being a completely pointless doctrine invented by people. PEOPLE. It is not scriptural. That is the point that needs to be made here. Pandenominationals around the world (the 3.6million you mention) refuse to get beyond the point that one of the central tenants of their faith can not be found in scripture and then in the same breath condemning the rest of humanity who does not believe in this most bizarre form of chutzpah. And as yet, no one has tried to point out why even the debate matters. As far as I can tell the entire concept is a red herring designed to lead people away from knowing how to find salvation. Connect the point (ex nihilo) to eternal salvation by quoting scripture and you will have lifted yourself beyond the level of being completely superfluous in content and intent.

Honestly, I thought it was the guys who taught the fifth Sunday combined RS and PH classes.

Poor pity me, I've never been to South America, Scandinavia, either Arctic Circle, the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, or a Beatles concert even if I've been to Liverpool.

Yeah, cousins.

Ah thin theez boyz coun' fer sumpin'.

I just kind of came. I was interested in a board that was not so cantankerous. This one is not too bad. I'm a little more assertive (and stupid) than many members here, but that comes from the chaotic nature of some other boards I mess around with.

It kinda does. Concrete in particular. You know those concrete walls that line the highways; they hardly do anything except keep people from seeing the expressway and giving teenagers another place to express angst.

Hi Snow,I like that you make the distinction here. The humanity of OT texts is fascinating and one of the areas of long term interests for me. Thanks for clarifying for the other poster. It is an interesting notion that the religious narratives of the distant past had no problem attributing characteristics normally associated with the guile that now can not be attributed to G-d without instant condemnation and shunning. Aaron the Ogre

Idealist!!!

I'm wondering, who is it that owns G-d? Hmmm . . . you do, that is interesting!?!I've heard the potter and the clay one before. Bakers and the cake. Writers and the novel. An analogy that is weak. Believe what you want. Now are you one of those that digs so deep to wonder if Adam had a navel. You seem to think that LDSs think G-d had one (your comment about G-d being created). I'm really wondering if you are capable of connecting this to salvation. I mean, how does this argument help anyone gain salvation? So far, you seem to be perpetuating an aura of discord. Is discord the purpose of religion? The purpose of your religion? So who came first? The Baker? The Cake? Or the Leavening?

By Latter-day Saints or otherwise?

I think it is important to start here. Very simple KJV of the events. There is some more. But briefly the statement is a claimant of fact. Not a process or definition of either ex nihilo creation or any other methodology.So we begin here. My opinion? I'm a smart person and not stupid enough to ignore science unlike many people in the pandenominational pseudo-sciensphere (PPS; a world of people who love the works of science [TV, computers, medicine, etc.], but hate the works of G-d by men and hate the words of science, but love the words of G-d by men [even when empty and hypocritical]) and realize G-d is able to work through all people to accomplish H-s goals. Science says there are some possibilities that are worth considering though they are still theory, so I think why not check it out. Many people say G-d only created the universe ex nihilo and that scientists are a bunch of pagans. These same people would put G-d in a box, restricting H-m to only one way (particularly when Genesis is not particular). I think if one only looks at Genesis, then either way is possible. So then what about the LDS position. I would like to say that there are lot of LDSs who feel both ways even if the LDS canon seems to lean in one direction. Now the interesting point: LDSs believe in prophets, continuing revelation and the existence of other scripture beyond that of the PPS's accepted canon. If some people think that means that LDSs are making it up as they go, I then say fine; enjoy your narrow minded ignorance and limited world-scope, but realize, LDS beliefs are LDS beliefs and not yours. So what about the following quote: I like the scripture that says: The reason I like both scriptures together is the pronoun "We." Scripture indicates this is between G-d, the G-dhead, and those that help. I would like to point out that "We" are the workmanship of G-d to accomplish H-s work. So yeah, yeah, I do things for those around me and in church and spray-painting trains to say 'J-sus Saves' on trains (dash included) and in helping create the universe, but that ultimately even if "I" do these things, since G-d created me to accomplish H-s work, it is as if H- did it through me whether I was there or not. Like a waffle-head hammer or can of spray paint, my role is important, but my will is pointless (those of you who want to argue agency, keep your pants on, one has to choose to be a hammer or a can of spray paint). So then where did these materials come from? I don't know. I don't think Abraham mentions it either. Does it mean the L-rd recycled it from other worlds (my Dad's personal theory), created it in the way science seems to think it happened (BTW, unorganized matter sounds like Nebula star-gardens, big areas of unorganized matter), or ex nihilo. Is it possible the L-rd used a method not mentioned? Sure. H- might have, he doesn't seem to mention it anywhere however. (The big bang theorists seem to think that the first matter created was like a giant neutron-or something like it-and that an injection of energy got the process going; maybe G-d and his helpers kicked this thing and helped mold it until blip-blip-blop we showed up--who knows.) Personally, I don't think it matters. I'm a Latter-day Saint who thinks we don't have all the answers yet, but one of these days we will (you know, the role of prophets and all that). Now how are we going to learn all this? Think again the Ephesians section. G-d made us to work. All the work done by us is then in effect the work of G-d, we were predestined to it just like the letter to the Ephisians says like Abraham 2 does and last it doesn't matter to the tools what they do, all glory to the Cr-ator. I just do, recognizing that what I do is not my work, but G-d's. I hope that I will be worthy of H-s favor and that is why I believe in grace through faith and nothing else. Maybe the tools talk sitting in the tool-box and that way we might learn from the phillips-head how it all happened. Regarding workers or assistants, the PPS seems too Sadduciac in their pronouncements and ought to reconsider. Now could G-d create without workers? Yep. I'm not one of those to put G-d in a box.

Keep in mind, some American do fine and are not bad when they visit another nation, but for the most part we are the worst tourists in the world (after us would be South Koreans and then Germans). One of the things that Americans need to do is learn about the rest of the world before we go out into it. Not only are we ignorant of geography, but we are ignorant of international courtesy and deportment.You think American are some type of paragon, boy are you wrong.

Six, I take it then you think we should do nothing to improve environmental conditions. There is really nothing wrong is there? Everything is just fine and nothing is wrong.

Care to share reasons you believe this? Dude,Why are making this so easy. I'm not a Liberal, but I dislike Bush and I do not think he holds many American values. I think he is on par with Clinton as far as Americanness is concerned. Both were incredibly poor choices as president (personally, I blame Ross Perot; Bush sr was a better president then either Clinton or Bush jr -- if that putz Perot had stayed out of the race, I think we would be a lot better off then we are now). El, Though I'm not going to expend the energy compiling a list or responding to the list you made, Slick Willy was as much to blame for the 9-11 attack as was Bush and the list about him would be just as long. My question has to do with this: What are American values and who is the one compiling that list? American values are pretty relative; everyone has a different ideal about what American values should be. Personally, the values I hold I do not attribute to being an American, but rather to being a Chr-stian and a Latter-day Saint. The rest is a hodge-podge of theory and philosophy and I hold no one responsible for any of my personal values.