the Ogre

Yeah, that's why I asked AJ to clarify what translation he is using. The NIV says: " . . . I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise. (Luke 23.43 NIV)" The JST is silent and so does not say "eternal life." I like how he says we contradict the bible, when he seems to do so on this thread.

Most of the time we believe KILLING EACHOTHER is a bad idea. I think a simplification is good: no murdering and avoid incidental death and mayhem by not running over the guy on the bicycle even if he is in your lane and is only doing thirteen miles an hour.

What a great way to accuse someone of being a Utah or Idaho Latter-day Saint: "You ol' jello-belt mormon you!"LOL!!!!!!

The church is required to be neutral in individuals. It may not endorse anyone for office. The church is free to be as biased as it wants on issues. The church has issued clear opinions on many very important problems: abortion, equal-rights, civic-duties, and many others including the hot-button Immigration.I think often the members think the church is wrong in issuing opinions on the non-religious. In my stake, immigration is a big issue. Many of my neighbors are not happy with many of the illegal-aliens in the area and so supported a recent bill in the legislation that flies in the face of the church's position on immigration. One of the wards that shares our building is a hispanic ward. They are very concerned. Many members are in the US illegally. I know some of them and they have always been the best neighbors. I think the church's opinion is correct and that Utah's legislature is filled with a bunch of low-brow bigots who ignore what the church has to say unless it agrees with their own political positions.

That is fine. I however am extremely suspicious of organizations who know better, but refuse to change to using the more neutral term Latter-day Saint(s) or LDS. When they refuse to change, it is IMO institutional bigotry.With individuals, I don't even bother any more unless they are in a position of authority like college professors at the U and UVU. I am nice about it and make sure they understand a minority of Latter-day Saints see the usage of the word as marginalizing. They always make a change (except the ones in religious studies who see the term "mormonism" as a professional term and do not use it with any implication of pejorative intent). Some people and professionals, however, know what "mormon" is and are happy to be pigs in the mire.

PC, on a different thread and maybe when you have time, could you explain "agape"? It is not a term used by most Latter-day Saints, but it has come up in quite a few recent threads. To say the least, it is a bit jargonistic.Just as a courtesy. I know what it means and implies, but many do not.

Sorry, I support the needs of limited socialism (cops, fire-departments, education, DCFS, and anti-poverty programs). I am a 6 as far as civil responsibilities are concerned, but a 9.5 on philosophical, religious, and political thought and advocacy. Think and believe what you want, but don't break the law and pay your frickin' taxes.

PC, you are absolutely correct. Sites like this allow for civil discussion. <<the ogre coughs though his covering hands "occam's razor" and excuses his allergies>> I suppose the biggest problem with the idea for civil discussion is that many of the posters on this site are not interested in being civil, they are only interested in using language like: liar, false-prophet, deception, etc. etc. etc.. Why should anyone expect civility when none is offered?

See you're changing the subject. This thread is not discussing the CK. We are discussing the Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms; neither of which violate the principle of Revelation 21. Why? Because they are not mentioned. The intent of Rev 21 is to describe the Kingdom of G-d after the end of days has arrived (as a rapturite, have you read up on when Latter-day Saints think this is going to happen?). Neither the Terestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms are the Kingdoms of G-d.So where are the T & T Kingdoms? Like I said the locations have not been revealed. Rev 21 does not even give us a clue. Why? It obviously wasn't a big deal at the time. G-d gave John what H- thought was for the people of the time. Simple. Focused. Clear. Okay folks . . . keep your eye on the ball. Do not look at anything else and stay perfect in the word and hope and you're salvation is sure. If you mean, do I believe the metaphor for salvation represented by "the book of life" is literal? If I believe this metaphor is literal then no. If the metaphor is literal, your name must be written in the book. If however, I think there is even a possibility that "the book of life" is either allegorical or metaphorical, then my previous answer stands: name in the book, different address. Now why would anyone want to do that? I don't reject the bible, so why would I expect the same for you. I think the only expectation I have for you is conduct a close reading of the chapters you quote and recognize the logical fallacy of quoting them when they have nothing to do with the T&T debate. Ummm . . . your answer hinges on one assumption: There is no Modern Revelation and G-d has completed all instruction of mankind.Latter-day Saints would never put G-d the F-ther or H-s S-n in a box. If Th-y feel it important to talk today, then we are willing to listen.

Hi, Tony: We haven't met yet, my name is Aaron. You seem pretty smart, but I gotta let you know your quote above rings pretty high on the who-gives-a-crap-o-meter. I do not think you are going to get a doctrinal answer to your question. If you know of one, great. Your point will ring even higher (but I'm sure there isn't an official doctrine on it, just speculation). I do want to address something interesting about your question. There are fourteen verses in the entire bible that include the passive form (your definition) for the phrase "be baptized." The bible does not give a reason for the verb tense choice by the text or the number of appearances. The bible is not that strong on explaining biblical semantics and grammar, particularly with the English Version. I am using the KJV. The NIV might be different, its translators might have discovered a grammatical explanation written by the original author, but because the church does not recognize the NIV (I like it. I typically do my bible study from it) I am not using it here. For the infinitive form, "to baptize", there is only one (John 1.33KJV or John 1.32JST--the JST is the best version, the meaning is very clear). An explaination for either rests in the realm of apologetics. Apologeticists, in my opinion, are just as dangerous as anti-mormons and so should be ignored. I am not interested in speculation. What is obvious is that there is no biblical explanation for the grammatical forms and because of that it is not an important thing to worry about. Don't get me wrong, worry all you want. Any answer you get will be speculation and as such is out of the realm of consideration. If you know that Thomas S. Monson has ever commented on this question since he became the prophet, please let me know. Have a great evening Tony. Aaron the Ogre

That does not change anything. Be a good hometeacher. Let them work it out.

Take the poll first!!! Fox is reporting: Archie is marrying Veronica! See the vid here

Dude, I don't care if it takes fifty years. It is her time to take. I agree with Skippy, report to the EQ Pres and also the bishop, but most of all do what a home teacher does: support the family, teach the 1st Pres message, remember birthdays, and pray tons. Let the Bishop and H-avenly F-ther do the rest.

Charley, That report is beyond my understanding. There are no words worth saying. The story is too emotional for English.

Sorry, I know he's your home-teaching assignment, but I think the guy is a jerk. He needs to exercise some humility and give his wife a lot of room. She will come to her own conclusion on her own time-scale. No rushing her and no offering any advise. He has proven to be very unreliable. He should count his blessings (one being that she didn't leave him and take every penny he owned) and let her heal. Maybe he should be the one doing the fasting and prayer. He also ought to practice the fabulous skill of keeping his mouth shut until she can trust him again. Until such a time, he has absolutely no credibility. Part of his restitution has be silence, distance, and humility.

Tabasco wouldn't work on my kids. We use Korean gochujang (hot sauce with the consistency of peanut butter) in our cooking. Tabasco is just too mild.

Right, economics is a small part of it, but I have had to defend the church against accusations of "sheep-stealing". My response is generally: "Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa . . . "

Do you know what's funny. My oldest son is a chef. He lives at home and uses my kitchen to cater events from. I have so much booze in the house I could start a private club. I watch him cook and I can smell the stuff on the air (as a recovering alcoholic that is challenging). He knows what to cook so it still has booze in it and how to make sure it doesn't. I wonder if I should put up a mormon-curtain in the kitchen?

Bah, everyone needs an ogre. The antis even recognize the ogre in LDS theology. I do not care about the beliefs of others, just their delivery. Attacks, mocking, and canned responses always deserve attention. Don't take offense at what I say, out reasonable me. Reasonableness is just another social-construction and is just as fun to mess with. Besides all I said was get involved in some of the other forums like the fun ones like the question game. Goodness.

Charley, that is an incredible rule. Unfortunately in Korea, that doesn't happen. It is rude to pour your own or buy for yourself when out with a group (and Koreans do everything in groups; the bigger the better). I have to be very vigilant!!!

PC and Justice: Baptism and other ordinances are not by which we are saved. The jews could not be saved because of their adherence to the law, other wise the celestial kingdom will be the habitation of lawyers leaving the poets and artists on the curb. We receive salvation only through the Grace of G-d (Eph 2.8-10). We complete works because we love the L-rd and they are a perfect type of worship. When I am serving the L-rd I am offering up the sacrifices of my heart. I am giving up my pride by doing the work of the L-rd (Eph 3.7).

I know you understand, but I want to emphasize that "first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. (AoF#4)"Before we even get to baptism, there must be faith. To a non-member this means being saved. After that we have the further steps to follow. We do these things because we want to, but we also do them because they are the will of the L-rd. We do not do these things to make ourselves look better or to inflate our importance before the eyes of the world, but to simply fulfill the will of the L-rd. I want to focus on this aspect of faith. To many faith means to be made perfect in Chr-st. A type of spiritual baptism. When I went through the conversion process (and yes I was born in the church), I had to surrender all my sins like King Laman did. I let them go. They washed out of me before I went to the bishop to begin the repentance process. A new member goes through this spiritual-baptism, this first of saving-ordinances, then they go on to repentance, baptism, and the gift of the H-ly Gh-st. Fulfilling the other ordinances are a joy, because they are already perfect in Chr-st and complete the following ordinances because they love the L-rd so much they would do anything for H-m.

No ("unmormonly" what a cool word). I like restaurants and most of the good ones have a good bar. I like to go to restaurants by myself and often the only place to eat is going to be at the bar. That means dealing with the bartender. I order from him/her and make sure I order a variety of drinks as long as none of them involve alcohol. I often ask: "uhhh, dude, I'm a mormon, watta ya got that won't get me in trouble?" A good bartender always has something. If not, I buy the $3 sprite and mildly give him [crap] (but I still tip: "get some mormons drinks, dude").I even like some bars. Many of my best friends in South Korea aren't LDS. They like bars and night clubs (and noribang). They know I don't drink, smoke, dance, or sing particularly well, but I drive better even when they are sober and I'm generally bigger than the bouncer if things go the wrong way (they never do, Korean are typically silly drunks) and my Korean gets better the drunker they get. It does not matter where I am, I am always a Latter-day Saint. I do not go to biker bars, strip-clubs, or seek extreme entertainment. My friends never invite me. However, to exclude the best restaurants in the world because they have a great bar would be very wrong in my opinion. Food is a major component of culture and I love learning about new cultures. It is wrong to on business to a place like London and not go pubbing with potential business partners or the local reps. You don't have to drink. I've even walked the Edinburgh mile when I was there with AMEX and I was the only one who made it without barfing or peeing my pants. WOOT!

In my stake, when we were doing our block preparation and inventorying what everyone had, the following were in too short a supply: chainsaws, heavy link-chain, axes, pry-bars, and gasoline. I think we often forget when putting together our emergency kits, we forget that it might involve heavy tools. In places where earthquakes and hurricanes have struck all of the gear above was needed. Our hard work as Latter-day Saints will be called for. In my kit I also include: a machete, a hand ax, a crowbar, a chef's knife, a 22oz hammer, heavy gloves, a small tool kit, 50' of rope, and a small dolly.

I told you the exact location hasn't been revealed. Why don't we know? Because it isn't important. The only thing that is important is getting to the celestial kingdom. That is what is meant by "saved" to a Latter-day Saint. Why worry too much about anything else.