LeSellers

Sorry, Vort. Helium is a very small molecule. One He atom is two protons and two electrons. The electrons completely fill the ring, so it takes only one atom to make a molecule. Also, being a "noble" gas, it is wholly non-reactive with any other atoms, so there are no helium compounds. A helium balloon is not filled with 100% helium, most of the gas inside is air. Helium is very much "lighter" than air, so it only takes a small proportion of He to displace the weight of the balloon. The air is the same weight (for all practical purposes) as the air around the balloon, so it takes almost no part in the question. A helium balloon rises in air because, as you said, it is less dense that the air around it. The weight of the air that would be in the place of the balloon is greater than the weight of the balloon, the air and the helium in it. It goes down, under the force of gravity. This forces the balloon up, but there was air there, too. So this "new" air, also being heavier, goes down, and the balloon takes its place. The process is endless (until a ceiling or some other denser matter "gets in the way"). I think we may say that the force of gravity drives it, but that the proximate cause of a He balloon's rising is the density differential, which does not answer Carborendum's question, since there are but four Physical forces. He wants it defined in terms of one (or more) of those. Lehi

Thank you. You are most kind to say so. I believe your are correct, or would be, if, by "apostasy", you limit the discussion to doctrine. I do not. By apostasy, I mean the loss of Priesthood. The doctrine of Christianity could be 100% pure, and there would still have been a total apostasy because there was no Priesthood after about 150 AD. (Even John's keys were on hold, however much he tried to keep people true to the faith. The same is true about the Three Nephites.) We can look at Popes, at Reformers, at other restorationists (e.g., Hebert W. Armstrong, Mary Baker Eddy) and while they did "restore" some true doctrine (and a lot of false, as well), they did not recover the Priesthood. Joseph Smith alone* did that. Reformers looked at doctrine, and came up short on Priesthood. Popes have tried to reform their own church, and came up short on Priesthood. The true Church of Jesus Christ is the vehicle for Priesthood ordinances. The Priesthood can exist outside the Church, but the Church cannot exist without Priesthood. * He got it from Jesus Christ, through the human intervention of John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John. Lehi

What????? Whether men can take those rights away or not is PRECISELY the point!! If men can take them away then they are NOT inalienable, are they?? Houston, we have a problem: The words of the Declaration of Independence are not always the words we'd use today. Thomas Jefferson wrote it in his own language: that of a well educated (but largely unschooled) man of the XVIII. The word 'inalienable" to him meant something different from what either of you has stated. It meant "cannot be given away." We have rights that are as much a part of us as the heart or toe nails. They are, we must note as well, not "free": each comes with a responsibility (or many of them). We have the right to defend ourselves, for instance, because we have an obligation to defend our families and ourselves. We have the right to think or believe as we choose because we have a responsibility to make of ourselves something better than a slave. We have the right to be safe in our homes because we have a duty to raise children who are good, upstanding people. (None of the duties listed here is exhaustive: there are others associated with each.) When we abrogate our duties, we forfeit our rights. Thus, the Constitution is a document for a government of a righteous (not necessarily a religious, but almost always so) people. When people neglect the responsibility to be charitable, the government must impose welfare (we ignore, for this discussion, that the government makes it harder to be charitable). When we fail to educate our children as God has required, the government steps in to do it "for" us (with the same caveat). We forfeit them, they are not taken from us, nor do we specifically give them away. If we want rights, true rights, we must attend to the obligations that go with them. And, we must defend our right to perform them, not for the right itself, but for the duty. That said, when people insist that government abridge their rights, they don't want it to be only their rights: they want the government to infringe on yours and mine, as well. That is a problem Lehi

Hey, may I suggest that you're both right? Yes, the Articles of Faith are a dictionary version of a creed (at least in a very broad way). But they are unlike any other orthodox Christian creed in that they are merely an explanation of belief, not a definition of them nor an us/them statement. Also, the Articles of Faith, unlike any other religious creed (that I know of) does not carry the label. For some reason, that is important to those who accept them. Nor do we recite them as part of our worship of Jesus Christ, as many others do in theirs. I often refer to us as non-creedal Christians and most of the rest of Christianity as creedal Christians. I also use "orthodox Christians" and "Trinitarians" to describe them. I trust none of them would find it insulting: I do not mean it that way. ('Course, nowadays, there are a myriad of people whose lives are defined by being insulted, outraged, or offended by the merest of words, acts or colors. Who knows?) When we speak of creeds among ourselves, we almost always exclude the "Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" because, for us, it fills a very different role. It seems as if estradling is using the term this way, while dberrie insists there is the one way to understand it, and no other. But, hyou are both right. In my opinion. Lehi

My mother died while I was serving on my mission in Toulouse, France. That was hard (but not as hard, perhaps, as if I had been home). But it was far, far worse for my little brother: she died on his birthday. We have a very young sister, and our father remarried soon after Mom's death on her account. Our step mother's father died the next year, on that same brother's birthday. The following year, another close relative died, on the same date. He's gotten over what he, back then, called the curse. But it was not a quick recovery. Our father died about 25 years ago. Again, I was not "home" when it happened, but it still hurt. This time, though, I was grateful that he died — grateful, but very sad. He had been suffering for years with cancer. Death was sweet for him (as it was for our mother — although I didn't know it at the time), bitter for us. There is a M*A*S*H episode where the one of the doctors (Hunnicutt, I believe) falsified a death certificate because the soldier who died on Christmas had children, and he did not want them to look at Christmas as the day Daddy died. As to what one should do on an anniversary of death, I have no insights. Remembering that loved one is important, and however you do it, I think you will know that you have done it appropriately: it will make you smile. You may be crying when you do it, but you will be smiling, too. Please know I wish you a fast, though not painless, recovery from the grief and sadness to the gladness of knowing the Plan of Salvation. Lehi

I can't speak for cdowis, but for my part the answer to your question is yes. (You knew that, thus the emoticon.) The Bible, from start to finish, promises that there would be a restoration of the Gospel in the last days. There would be no need for a restoration absent an apostasy, a complete apostasy. The majority of the New Testament, the epistles of Paul and the others attest to the fact that there was an active apostasy. The loss of Apostles indicates a complete apostasy. The book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ (aka the Apocalypse, aka Revelation) tells us explicitly that there was and would be an apostasy. The epistle to Galatians, the very verses we are discussing, was written because the apostasy was in full flower among them: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him* that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. * "Him" is not capitalized in the Greek (and no one supposes that it should have been, no matter who it refers to). In some English versions, it is, making it point to Christ, but most do not (making it ambiguous). It seems to be a reference to Paul himself: he was the one who preached to them, who "called [them] unto the grace of Christ". It seems so, because the most critical element of the apostasy is the loss of apostolic authority. Yes, the entire Christian world fulfills the prophecies of the apostasy. Protestants must, by necessity, accept an apostasy — there is no rationale for their existence without it. Your (collective) obligation is to show how the Reformation restored pure Gospel doctrine, and, even more importantly, the Priesthood of God. You have told us here that the Priesthood is "the priesthood of all believers". But that is a throw-away line. What does it mean? How does it function? What does it do? How does it meet the specifications of Hebrews 5? Lehi

The Gospel is not explicitly defined in the Bible except in the first half dozen verses of 1 Cor 15. The Gospel is the Good News of Christ's resurrection, and of the future resurrection of all mankind (For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive). Jesus Christ appeared to the Nephites and Lamanites in (I believe) Central America in late 34 or early 35 AD. They did as Thomas: they felt His wounds, just as he did in Israel They kissed His feet, just as Mary did in Israel. He blessed them and their children, just as He did in Israel. He healed their sick and lame, as He did in Israel. He preached to them exactly as He did to the Jews in Israel. So, we might ask, how does the Book of Mormon, in your opinion, fail to preach that same Gospel? Lehi

No one claims they had no right to pen what they believe. The authority they lacked is authority from God. The creeds, all of them, are the words of men, not of God. The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were written by a prophet of God, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. They are scripture. Lehi

But there is no right to any of these things. The only rights one has are to his person and his labor and the property he has legitimately acquired. Rights come with concomitant obligations and responsibilities. If you have the right to food, for instance, you have the right to force someone else to give it to you, in other words, to make him your slave. If you have the right to housing, you must have the power to make someone else give it to you, or, in other words, to make him your slave. In the case of health care (which is not the same thing as health insurance), in order to have the right to it, you must have the power to make a doctor, a nurse, a hospital give it to you, in other words, to make them your slaves. Absent that power, you must have the power to force someone else to pay the doctor, the nurse, the hospital when you use those services. In other words, to make him your slave. I find no mention in scripture where it gives you or me or anyone the right to force others to pay for my education, for my food, for my home. There is no right to make others my slaves. You bring up the abomination of "public" schools. (Please note I did not say "public education" because the laws pertaining to them require attendance, not learning.) The issue is that when Horace Mann imported schools from Prussia in 1852, he did it for one reason (and only one): to divorce children from their parents, from their parents' values and their religions. (See Mary Peabody Mann, Horace Mann: A Life.) Any education that happens in a government-run, tax-funded welfare school is purely by accident or is the bait to get parents to turn their children over to bureaucrats to raise them and instill acceptable value to those children. When John Dewey described the effects of grtf-welfare schooling, he wrote, "What can they do in their one hour of Sunday School when we have their children six hours a day?" Charity stops being charity the moment it is forced. Welfare in any form is immoral: it takes from those who produce and gives a tiny portion of the proceeds to the group the government deems "needy" and keeps the majority for itself. Charity is vastly better than welfare. Welfare destroys, welfare weakens, welfare undermines the Family, God's fundamental unit of civilization. Charity builds up, ennobles, and builds the Family. Finally, government is incapable of doing anything without taking something from someone, and taking it by (the threat of) force. The force is potentially lethal. All laws are based on lethal force and will be enforced by potential lethality. Government has perverse incentives. Government cannot make good decisions because it cannot understand all the parameters and cannot turn on a dime when that's the necessary action. Lehi

Thank you for allowing me/us to live up to our covenants as Alma explained them at the waters of Mormon: 8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; 9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, I am sorry for your loss and rejoice with you in the knowledge of the Resurrection and the Atonement. I know your faith is not misplaced and that you will receive your little one in the morning of the first resurrection. I have spoken at funerals for the young. It is a tragic loss, and it makes us weep. Only the sure knowledge of the resurrection and the love our Father has for us can make that loss bearable. Please know that we do, indeed, mourn with you, and that our deepest sympathies are yours. Lehi

My name is a patrimony from my grandfather. Whenever anyone asks for my name, I tell them "Lehi", and he looks puzzled. It becomes an opportunity to give someone a gift of the Book of Mormon. I've had only one person pull a pickle face and tell me "I don't need that." Lehi

They may be based on scripture, but they are not scripture. And, as with anything, it is impossible to base something on something else and not change it, at least subtly. The men who wrote the creeds (and there are many), were not prophets, did not speak for God, and had no authority to write in His name. Further, the mere fact that the creeds exist is evidence of alteration of the beliefs the purport to refine of define. Lehi

Howdy! One thing we tend to forget, at least we don't emphasize it enough, is the third requirement of "Moroni's Promise" (Moro 10:4~5). '… with real intent …". The answer to your probable question, "what does that mean?" is the answer to the question, "If God reveals that the Book of Mormon is His word, what will you do?" If that answer is, "Well, that's interesting," please know that you will never get an answer. For a prayer "with real intent", see Alma, chapter 22, verses 11 through 18. The most important is verse 18, Lamoni's father's prayer: O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day. Faith in Christ is critical to receiving an answer. Sincerity and truly wanting to know are also important. But God loves you enough to withhold the answer if you won't act on it. The knowledge would condemn you. No one wants that. Lehi

I like 1 Peter 3:19~22 19 By [the Spirit, interestingly not "His" spirit] also [Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. Lehi

I should have said that they reject baptism as salvific, that is, they reject the covenant and the ordinance as being crucial to the Gospel and to salvation. Lehi

We don't believe that, either. It's far more complex than that, and we do not have all the information we would like on the matter. I believe this out of Father's love for us. If we knew, for instance, that your point of view was correct, then that would give some of us an excuse to feel superior to those who "chose poorly". This is my own view on how we ended up here, where were are, and when. It is not in any way an official or semi-official position on this question. Father knew us and loved us before we were born. He knew our needs, our strengths and desires. He knew that I needed to be born in the mid XX to an active LDS family. He knew that Koramiba needed to go to an African family in the ii. He knew that in each case, we would make the best progress we could compared to other alternatives. He knew, perhaps that Koramiba was so humble and hard-working that he didn't need the physical comforts I would enjoy, and that he could grow up in poverty and still be able to accept the Gospel in the Spirit World once he heard it. He knew, perhaps, that I was lazy and proud. That without the Gospel in my earthly life, I would have no chance of accepting it ever. I don't know what He considered when He sent me to my where-when, nor for Koramiba and his. Why Al Capone or Idi Amin ended up where they were, I do not know. I have faith that He sent them to their where-when because it was the best option for them. Each of us, whether LDS, other Christian, Moslem, atheist, Hindu, is a cherished son or daughter of God. He wants us to return to Him. He would never hurt us without its being for our good. (Sometimes this "good" may be simply to stop us from doing more evil and harming ourselves spiritually further.) (I know you are not a Calvinist.) It just seems odd to me than anyone could believe that God created people for the sole purpose of watching them suffer endlessly in a fire of sulfur with no end to their torture. This view of God makes Him a monster. It is said that the Hussein boys in Iraq loved to watch people die in horrific ways,. and those ways had to get more and more depraved to satisfy their appetite for cruelty. This is how a Calvinist's god looks to me. Lehi

I agree to the extent that we need to recognize that God is not going to apply the Atonement to us if we don't serve Him and follow His commandments. However, the gotta-be-perfect thing can arise when we think that we have any power to save ourselves. I don't see that you are saying we do, but there are people who work themselves into a frenzy about being "perfect" and, frankly neither they, nor I can do it. Lehi

You are preaching to the choir here. Faith without works is dead. And there is no artificial separation of faith and works in the revealed Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Protestants, however, by and large, reject works. It is they who have separated them, not us, not I. Further, most Protestants confuse "works" with "works of the Law [of Moses]". Paul rants endlessly, and rightfully about relying on the Law of Moses and its works for salvation. But these are not the same as righteous "works" like baptism and other covenants, and performing "true religion and undefiled". The Law of Moses had two parts: one defined what men must do ritually. The other defines what they must do in regards to others — the poor, the widow, etc. The first was considered salvific, but only, as we learn in the Book of Mormon (and by Paul's words, too), if practiced in faith in Jesus Christ. The difference between the Law of Moses and the full Gospel of Jesus Christ is that the daily rituals, and sacrifices have been superseded or "fulfilled" and are no longer required, but the faith is still mandatory. We no longer have rituals of washing clothing and so on, but we do have prayer and scripture study, we don't worry about killing our lambs at the temple, but we have the sacrament and the concomitant sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. (Of the two, I think ours is the harder hurdle to leap.) Lehi

My thoughts also. I admit to taking a bit of interpretive license about the priesthood. It's an extrapolation of what I've read about Zwingli elsewhere applied to this article. The point I've taken from the Reformation in general is that the Reformers were disgusted (and well earned) with the Catholic Church and the immorality (sexual and otherwise) of the priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope. They rejected the notion of a priesthood of God and substituted an apostate form of the "priesthood of all believers" the Bible speaks about. This was out of ignorance, not malice, to be sure, but it was apostasy nonetheless. With baptism out of the picture (as a salvific ordinance and covenant), there was no need for priesthood. Zwingli and all the Reformers had to jettison priesthood because they knew they didn't have it. Cottrell doesn't have our insights on the subject, so he was handicapped by that lack. Lehi

One other thing that Joseph had that others did not was corroboration and participation. It doesn't really apply directly here, but others, notably Oliver Cowdery and Sydney Rigdon, shared his visions and revelations. If we look at section 13 or 76, we see that these shared visions make rejecting Joseph's calling as a prophet problematic. He was not imagining his experiences. He was not mentally unstable. He was a prophet, and others' participation substantiates it — particularly when these others became disaffected and left the Restoration movement. Lehi

Thanks for the Brown, Driver, Briggs definition. It is deeper than Strong's. I didn't include it because it's also much longer. The OP was already far too long for most people. Lehi

It isn't necessary to have Hebrew to have insights here. The original language is not as important as the Holy Ghost and prophetic statements. Further you may have had personal revelation on this (I have). If so, keep them sacred, and reveal only what is pertinent to a wider audience. For myself, there hinges a great deal of doctrine in these two verses. They define some of the power of God and His Priesthood. Some people see Genesis 1~2 as literal descriptions of the creation. Others see them as figurative. I tend to see them as symbolic, a third category altogether. In any case, if we start out right, it is easy to stay right, but if we start out wrong, it will be difficult to get right. Joseph said this first, but it is good philosophy. Lehi

Eldred G. Smith,. Patriarch to the Church gave me my blessing in 1967. His words were: "By virtue and authority of the office of Patriarch". Looks to me as if the words are not critical, as long as the authority is clearly stated. Lehi

Wish I had Volume I, but the bishop who married my sister-in-law and her husband said by <something> as an Elder in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have heard that he does not say "bishop", etc., to avoid any possible misunderstanding about whether this is a "Church" marriage confused with a "Temple" marriage. Lehi

Not terribly easy, but Cottrell's major point is in his first few paragraphs: the common Protestant/Evangelical position on baptism was invented by Zwingli in the XVI. He supports this by reference to the Bible itself, and to the early, ante-Nicean Fathers. He refutes the charge that the early Reformers were also anti baptism. Luther, particularly, supported baptism as a salvific ordinance (sacrament). Finally, he points out that Zwingli had to reject baptism (although these are not his words) because to accept it meant he'd have to accept Priesthood. Since he, Zwilgli, had no priesthood, it was a smokescreen to hide the fact that God has one, and, as we read in Hebrews 5, even Jesus didn't take the Priesthood: He received it from His Father. In the end, I posted it because many people assume, wrongly, that all Protestants, and all Evangelicals, reject baptism. I posted the entire thing for two reasons: first, the copyright seems to require it. Second, the arguments are very good: people who reject baptism (and other ordinance and covenants) are in the historical minority. Lehi