[Woman as Heart]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

Like in Fiddler on the Roof: L'Chaim!

Of as commonly referred to in certain circles, "Fiddlah!" as in "Have you seen Fiddlah!" It's great!" And the led in the movie was played by an Israeli actor named Chiam Topol! He also played the Pope in another film LOL

[Woman as Heart]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Not just that.  

As I understand it, Chaya is another version of the name "Eve".  This is like the book of "James" in the Bible is "Santiago" in Spanish.  They don't look anything like cognates, but they are considered equivalent names.

http://www.babynamewizard.com/baby-name/girl/chaya

Chaya

Hebrew name meaning "life." The name, Anglicized as Eve, is borne in the Bible by the first woman created by God, the "mother of all the living." Eve was the mother of three sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth.

[Bread in Milk]

On 4/23/2016 at 3:01 PM, zil said:

Yes, I know I could google this, but I thought this way would be more fun.

Is bread in milk a Mormon thing, Utah Mormon thing, American thing, too-poor-for-butter thing....?

I've met very few people who consume bread in milk, and all of them had some kind of tie to Utah.  I picked it up from my dad*, whose family came to Utah with the pioneers.  I don't remember mom's family eating bread in milk (they came from Texas).

*Dad sometimes toasts the bread first, which is highly illogical to me - why make bread crunchy just to put it in milk to get soggy?

Being from a long line of non-Mormons, we had "milk toast" given to us by our grandmother whenever we had a stomach ache [note to self: don't say you have a stomach ache!): toast in a bowl of milk with sugar. She was "Pennsylvania Dutch" and her family lines (Scots-Irish and German) had been in the USA since the mid-1800s. it wasn't bad, but not worth admitting you're sick for! Her grape soda ice cream sodas were much better LOL

[Woman as Heart]

19 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Please don't imagine this to be true. Our daughter-in-law has not born a child, but has three by adoption. And our son and his wife and their children are very much a family.

Lehi

I understand. That is why I prefaced my remarks with, " Without getting into the various ways a family can be structured..."

Still, "No family can exist without a woman bearing a child..." because that is how the Lord set the pattern with Adam and Eve, That is how families -- of any kind --  started in our world, with Eve bearing children, and that is how I suppose it continues in exaltation, with the continuation of the seeds forever.

Now that we have "all the children" coming into the earth through Adam and Eve (but especially through Eve as the vessel), the women, as daughters of Eve, are still the heart of their homes, just as I'm sure your daughter-in-law is the heart of their home.

This is how I take the statements referred to in the first post.

[Woman as Heart]

18 hours ago, Connie said:

A few LDS church leaders have stated in recent years that the woman is the "heart of the home" or "heart of the family." What does that mean to you? What does it mean to be the heart?

Without getting into the various ways a family can be structured, I think “heart” is used in this kind of verbal expression to convey “the essential or most vital part of something,” and “home” to mean “the social unit formed by a family living together.”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heart

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/home

No family can exist without a woman bearing a child, so I suppose that is the basis for saying she is the heart of the home, and the concept builds or extends from there according to her qualities, introducing the Lord into the home, and being one with a husband who contributes his own qualities into the home. Together the three become the heart of the home, but the initial foundation seems to begin with the woman.

From what I’ve seen, a man brings a woman into his house and it becomes a home; a woman brings a man into her house but it is already a home.

[Idol Worship: Jewish and Christian Belief System]

29 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

...many of us believe that the rabbinical teachings are on par with Torah.  In some cases the clarify to a point of superseding it.

The LDS take a similar approach to scripture. The Lord’s servants are “called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them. And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” (D&C 68:1-4).

[Idol Worship: Jewish and Christian Belief System]

30 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

What do you believe with regard to idols and idol worship.  What definition would you give to this practice?  Do you believe, as we do, that even displaying the image of G-d to be idolatry?  What about the cross?

Do you think idolatry is limited to the active worship of material idols, or can the definition be expanded and made more broad?  This could include habits or other traditional practices.

I look forward to your ideas.  Shalom!

I think a good question to ask oneself periodically is, “how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?” from Mosiah Chapter 5. I take idolatry to be any practice, thought, desire, etc. that makes us a stranger to God (for it is us, and not the object, that makes us idolaters).

I think this is why it often compared to adultery: “how knoweth a man the [wife] whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?”

For a more scholarly treatment: https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/enrichment-section-f-idolatry-ancient-and-modern?lang=eng

As far as artistic depictions of God, I do not take them to be idols because He is the focus of the subject matter and I know whom I serve, and seek the companionship of, and try to keep close to the thoughts and intents of my heart.

[Awe from Space]

12 minutes ago, tesuji said:

I used to live in Ivins, Utah near St. George. They have a city ordinance that you can't have the kind of lights that pollute the night sky. It was awesome.

Now that would be feat - how long has that been in place? How much abatement had to be done?

[Awe from Space]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

I find it funny that we need scientists to tell us, "Chinese astronauts were awed by looking at the earth from space because the sight was awesome."

LOL I'm just glad they didn't use the prefix "totally" and the suffix "dude!"

[Awe from Space]

12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

We might notice that, even at this relatively large scale, there is no evidence of mankind's being here.

Yet even one of the astronauts sensed (as reported in another news source): “I had another feeling, that the Earth is like a vibrant, living thing,” Chinese astronaut said Yang Liu said, in one of the statements the authors included in the study. “I said to myself: this is the place we live, it’s really magical.” http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/04/21/scientists-explain-astronauts-feeling-awe.html

[Awe from Space]

36 minutes ago, tesuji said:

I love this. We should build a space elevator so everyone could have this experience (might take a while, 7 billion people...)

It's all about perspective, isn't it. They say the first images of earth from the moon are what really kicked the environmental movement into gear. Here's a beautiful recent NASA photo.

I grew up in NYC so never really saw a real night sky until I was a bit older. Although I remember asking as a very young child whether angels were in the moon, since I had the same sensation from even that (didn't grow up LDS). So as a new member of the Church, this is what I initially thought Joseph Smith was referring to when he said, "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject" (TPJS, p. 324; cf. HC 6:50).

As far as these sensations go, I am also reminded of Abraham Facsimile 2, where the planets and stars borrow light, or serve as a transmitting medium of power one to another. At the very least, I take these feelings to be a manifestation of the Light of Christ.

[Awe from Space]

"Scientists have analyzed the statements that astronauts have made when they see Earth from above, and landed on a common, powerful theme: a sense of awe and transcendence."

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2016041915010037.html

I wonder if this is what Abraham and Moses felt!

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1123&index=15

“Here is an interesting description from the Apocalypse of Abraham. Abraham is taken on a wonderful journey (just as much science fiction begins with the wonderful journey). The whole field of testamentary literature and testaments has seen many discoveries recently, and we learn that any prophet you can name, and any apostle, has a testament; and that testament always ends with a great trip, a guided tour through the universe. The prophet or apostle usually gets in a vessel of some sort, in which he travels around, inspecting things). Guided by an angel, Abraham passes with violent winds to heaven above the firmament. He sees an indescribably mighty light, and within the light there is a vast, seething fire; and within the fire is a great host of moving, changing forms—moving within each other—of mighty forms that exchange with each other and constantly change their forms, as they go and come and alter themselves. They seem to call out to each other, in strange, confused noises.” -- Apocalypse of Abraham 15:3-7, in OTP 1:696.

Or Joseph Smith:

“I looked upon the sun the glorious luminary of the earth and also the moon rolling in their magesty through the heavens and also the stars shining in their courses and the earth also upon which I stood and the beast of the field and the fowls of heaven and the fish of the waters and also man walking forth upon the face of the earth in magesty and in the strength of beauty whose power and intiligence in governing the things . . . are so exceding great and marvilous even in the likeness of him who created <them>.” -- Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 5

[Christ in our midst now]

2 hours ago, Edspringer said:

I was pondering the teachings in Doctrine and Covenants and a certain verse on the 38th section just caught my attention:

"But behold, verily, verily, I say unto you that mine eyes are upon you. I am in your midst and ye cannot see me" (verse 7).

It has been on my mind since the day I noticed it (which was a couple of days ago).

What do you think of the meaning of this scripture? Should we take this verse literaly and assume our Savior is somehow physicaly among us or only spiritualy? If He is physicaly among us, what sources can confirm this and the type of work He could be doing here, since we have been given enough sources indicating His spiritual influence on us through the Holy Ghost. 

All I know, by now (or at least that I can recall) is this reference from the D&C Institue student's manual:

President Harold B. Lee said: “I have a session with the missionary groups as they go out, in the temple, where they are permitted to ask intimate questions that wouldn’t be proper to be discussed elsewhere. They sometimes ask, Could you tell us a certain place in the temple where the Savior has been seen? My answer is, ‘Keep in mind that this is the house of the Lord; this is the place that we try to keep as pure and holy and sacred as any building we have. This is the most likely place he would come when he comes on earth. Don’t ask for a certain place because he has walked these halls. How do you know but what he is here in your midst?” (In Conference Report, British Area Conference 1971, pp. 135–36; or Ensign, Nov. 1971, pp. 12–13.) .

Any thoughts to add?

Thanx to all

I think everyone might get something different out of it according to their need, but I take the particular verse as a general message of comfort and good cheer—that even though we may not see Him, He sees and watches over us and that by being in our midst, He understands the particulars and immediacy of our lives and is readily available to help. He tells us this so we can prepare ourselves to see Him and receive what He has to offer and His instructions on what to do.

[And now, infinite regression has me up till 2 in the morning...]

On 1/16/2014 at 2:06 AM, CommanderSouth said:

Sometimes I wish I could be content to understand that it is probably not possible to see outside of our "box".

But I sit here and try to figure out how God is either A) Always God, which seems to go against ye olde King Follet discourse, or B) Not always God and seems to not answer where everything came from.

Any thoughts? I'd imaging "Deal with it" is nigh approaching

Since we too have "always been," I think Godhood is a matter of acting like the Father of our spirits (when we arrived from wherever we were before into that pre-mortal estate). We have always been striving to act like Him when He was in our place or stage of development, just as we strive to be like Him now. And once we act like Him, it is as though we have always been like Him--just as when children are sealed to parents, it is as though they had always been in the covenant. So there really is no infinite regression to worry about (there is none). He has always been God because He is as though He always was God.

[To Question One's Faith]

2 hours ago, Aish HaTorah said:

A poster started a thread in the Advice section that got me to thinking.  Within your belief system, is questioning your faith considered a fruitful thing or something best avoided?  Are there boundaries?  I guess I am asking if you feel there is any gain to be had in openly questioning what you believe and if you are stronger (or more faithful) for doing so, or if it is a damaging endeavor.  Sorry if I am not asking clearly.

 

I think it is good to apply faith to the religious and spiritual questions we have, and that by faith the answers make sense. Exercising faith is how we gain knowledge of that which is good and true (Alma 32). I think questioning our (and others’) perception and understanding is a natural thing to do, which is why we need divine assistance in cultivating our spiritual senses. Divine assistance can also be obtained in how we handle religious points or claims of fact that we might question. For example:

“The Church is making great efforts to be transparent with the records we have, but after all we can publish, our members are sometimes left with basic questions that cannot be resolved by study. …Some things can be learned only by faith (see D&C 88:118). Our ultimate reliance must be on faith in the witness we have received from the Holy Ghost.”  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/opposition-in-all-things?lang=eng

I also think divine assistance is necessary in discerning the respective roles of fact and truth in generating faith, and which facts and truths are essential for our salvation, and which is more essential.

As far as boundaries go, Alma 32 leaves that up to you (the presence or absence of the "swelling motions" described in Alma 32).

[How to Discern Human Error from False Prophecy]

On 4/4/2016 at 6:31 PM, HawaiianShirts said:

We accept the writings of past prophets (Moses, Isaiah, Nephi, etc.) as scripture, as divine revelation from God. We also accept many of the writings of Joseph Smith as scripture. We believe that prophets speak the word of God, and we have scripture to back that up, such as "whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

We also understand that prophets are fallible mortals, just like the rest of us, except that they have a special calling to receive divine revelation. As fallible mortals, not everything they say can or should be accepted as scripture, right? I mean, if I'm talking sports with President Monson, and I ask him who he thinks is going to win the next basketball tournament, and he says he thinks the Lakers have the best chance because of this player or that coach or whatever else, I'd still be a fool to bet my life savings on the Lakers unless the outcome of the tournament somehow had something to do with the eternal salvation of mankind.

But where is that line? Aside from feeling the Spirit, how can we define what should or should not be heeded as divine revelation?

For example, Brigham Young was recorded in a Journal of Discourses as having said that Adam is God. (I did read the actual passage. He says that Adam is our father, which is true from a genealogical standpoint, and he says that Adam was part of the creation of the world as Michael the Archangel, which can also be confirmed by scriptural references. But then he seems to refer to Adam as "our god and the only god...") This is contradictory to church teachings and scriptures, but it was taught by a prophet. Assuming the quote is accurate, was Brigham Young wrong, or was he prophesying falsely?

That's just one example. There are others, like something I heard about descendants of the Nephites' skin turning pale after they join the church (doesn't happen) or about blacks never receiving priesthood authority. I'm not concerned about those points specifically. Just trying to figure out how to discern divine revelation from the errors of man.

Any ideas?

(I'm sure this question has been answered before, but I can't seem to find a thread for it. A friend asked me, and I had no good answer for him, which made me wonder the same thing.)

The light shines in darkness, and that is what we are to discern. We all have some degree of darkness in our fallen natures, so it is best to hold to the rod that we have, follow the light it leads us to, and allow grace to attend us. As far as following the Lord’s servants, holding to the rod (the Gospel) indicates that there are none better to join up with and follow, according to 3 Nephi 11. The Lord knows both they and we are fallible, so he set up His Church in a way that He can best manage the work of our salvation.

[Adam & Eve idea, outside of the box?]

On 4/6/2016 at 2:43 PM, NeedleinA said:

Well, do you ever have a moment when you learn/hear something different/outside of the box and go, "Hum, that was really interesting!". I just had one of those moments. I just finished up 40 minutes of watching a lecture: Evolution and Latter-day Saint Theology: The Tree of Life and DNA, from a FAIR Conference. 

Perhaps old news to others, but new to me in several areas. If I understood the speaker correctly as he gave his opinion, I took away the following and would be interested in your thoughts.

1. Adam & Eve were not inherently immortal.
2. Death (in various forms) was occurring in the garden. Examples he gave: Did Adam & Eve have hair, nails and human skin? If so, they are the result of dead cells. Did Adam & Eve ever pick a fruit off of a tree and discard it on the ground? Being separated from the tree, did it rot or live forever on the ground?
3. He addresses our common understanding/translation regarding: 2 Nephi 2:22
4. His theory: two mortal beings Adam & Eve had been plucked out of the mainstream (ongoing population on Earth), isolated in the Garden of Eden and while there had access to the Tree of Life. The tree made them immortal while they were partaking of it. Once kicked out, a cherubim had to then be placed in front of tree to stop them from "continuing" to eat from it. 

Anyways, I thought it was interesting enough to open up for a discussion if anyone had any thoughts about it. 

FYI: The videos are 4x 10min parts into 40min whole. Parts 3 & 4 are where he gets into his theory.

 

My 2 cents, from D&C 131:7:

As terrestrial creations, the tabernacles of Adam and Eve were composed of the dust of a “more fine or pure” earth, which would have given them a more refined physiology than telestial creatures possess, one that did not require the separation of spirit from matter for life-sustaining activities and processes.

It could also be said that pure eyes do not discern death. For example, God does not see us as dead, but only as passing from one estate into another.

So Adam and Eve may not have perceived or conceptualized death because they were too pure, and (perhaps more so) because their physiology did not involve death. Other terrestrial flora and fauna would have possessed this same attribute of innocence and physiology.

As far as the physiology of eating terrestrial fruit, there may be some metaphor in the use of the words “eat” and “fruit” in the scriptural text. For example, the “fruit” may have been an aroma or energy wavelength produced by the tree, instead of sweet, fleshy produce containing seed. “Eat” may refer to smelling, touching, or otherwise absorbing desirable energy by means other than digesting a fruit body.

This might also explain how Adam and Eve could not have children (if terrestrial fruit does not have seed or cannot accommodate spirits, leaving the seed or fruit bodies dormant), and how their hair, teeth and skin cells were not manifestations of dead, but of living terrestrial tissue governed by the glory of their own spirits, or maintained by the terrestrial energy they exchange.