Doctor Steuss

LOL! One of the apologists I correspond with on occasion once told me that one year there was a group of atheists protesting the protestors. I imagine that the protestors probably saw that as further proof of just how heretical Mormons are. I mean, if atheists are willing to take your side…

Maybe they just need an Xbox 360. Or perhaps they haven't found the joys and rush associated with the carnage of chess.

Methinks you are most-likely right.

You are very welcome. Parallel Prophets: Paul and Joseph Smith

Are you sure about the pay part? It's my understanding that most of these fundamentalists consider these "short term missions" trips, and that they pay their own way. It may be that some of them have raised the money they need for the journey through donations. But, I doubt that many of these folks are salaried. Still don't agree with the approach...but money is not the motivator here, imho. Some might be paid... if you believe this source (a Sister Missionary), that is: One funny thing about these men is that they are paid to do this, and so when each Conference session started and everyone was inside, there was no one to yell at, so they'd put their signs and megaphones down and relax. This was an opportune time to chat. We called one anti-Mormon over who seemed to be our age and asked why he was here. He didn't really know. He was cold and "kind of wanted to get back home." He came all the way from the east coast. (I hope he got a big paycheck.) We noticed one more man who seemed mentally slower than the others. As everyone was entering the Conference Center, he was holding an arrow that said "False Prophet," but it was pointed at the man next to him who was also an anti-Mormon. When his partner noticed, he re-directed his arrow so it was pointing at the Conference Center. We chuckled. Now that it had died down we made eye contact with this man and smiled. He smiled back and waved as if he wasn't aware of what he was being asked to do. My companion and I had a break, so we went across the street, back to Temple Square, to warm up. Before our next shift we really prayed that our presence would have some kind of impact. Without the Walls of Temple Square I think the vast majority are unpaid though. I doubt someone would want a paycheck bad enough to do this.

It’s all groovy. I apologize for getting all uppity. I have never been to a General Conference, but my brother went some years back. One of the street screechers… er, I mean preachers yelled at my little nephew that he was going to hell. I have several videos though of such things as the Book of Mormon being dragged on the ground by a string, people blowing their nose on garments, having signs that equate Mormons with child molesters, etc. So, the well is a bit poisoned for me in regards to these types of demonstrators and I tend to let my emotions get in the way of my mind sometimes. Hopefully you will be able to forgive me for that shortcoming. I see what you’re saying, but I still think there is something completely different about going to a place of worship to target a particular group while they are assembled to worship, and what the missionaries do. Maybe I could see a little bit more of a similarity if the LDS missionaries knocked on a person’s (maybe a Catholic for example) door and started shouting about what doctrines of theirs were wrong, and how they had been deceived, etc. Or maybe if the LDS missionaries stood outside of your Methodist religious services waiting for you to exit and then shouting about how you were going to hell, etc. It is not that they are trying to evangelize. I would be a complete hypocrite if I took offense for that. It is the how that I find distasteful. BTW, If you have had LDS missionaries that are coming back after you have told them not to, you should contact their mission president. They are acting against mission rules and need to be disciplined accordingly.

I would honestly have no problem if they were just standing there, handing out pamphlets or something. But to sit there with temple garments, and a sign, shouting and demeaning while people are trying to maintain the spirit of Christ they just received during a semi-annual religious meeting is wrong IMO.

No. It's just a term of endearment I've picked up. But if I was a doctor, it would probably be in Misanthropic Misology.

Don't hate me, but I'm going to take another side here. What did that guy do that was so horrible? He thinks you guys are going to hell for what you believe. If you thought that about someone, would you try to help them? Do you send missionaries to peoples' homes? Even when they ask you not to come back? And that isn't public property... it's private. I expected to see him saying really ugly things, insulting LDS, but he really didn't. If I missed it, please tell me. Wrong or right... he's concerned and he's doing what he thinks God would want him to do. He thinks that to stay quiet, he is denying God and doing you guys a disservice. I guess it all depends on whether he's on LDS property or public property. I'm not sure what the answer is to that question. Do you not see what is in his companion’s hands? Those are something that LDS feel is sacred to their religion. Do you not see the sign (Liars Deceivers Seducers)? Would it be ok if he was standing outside a Jewish synagogue with a sign that had an acronym demeaning Jewish people while waving around Bigdei Kodesh, and shouting at them as they walked by peacefully going to their religious service? If you see nothing wrong with the approach that his ilk takes, and see it as equivalent to the approach that LDS missionaries take, then I don’t know what to say. Edited to add: I don't hate you, BTW. I don't even hate them. I'm to forgive all men (D&C 64: 10), but it does boggle my mind how people can look at the tactics of these people (these are the same types that used to call newlywed LDS brides "whores" before the city passed legistlation keeping them out of the area) and equate them with the LDS missionary tactics.

From an LDS author, I would probably recommend Paul's Life and Letters by Dr. Sydney Sperry (it might be out of print, but you should be able to find a used copy). Also, you might enjoy this short read. You'll have to print it out because of the way the pages were scanned. And maybe this too (this is over 14 MB, so it will take a while to load). And possibly this one too (this is another big file). It's been a while since I read this one, but I recall that it was a pretty good read. Hope these help. BTW, if you want a really good book that has oodles of New Testament info (including on Paul), I'd suggest The New Testament: An Introduction by Norman Perrin. It's more of a scholarly look at the texts (and the author is not LDS), but I think it is soooo worth owning. Here's a little sample regarding 2 Thessalonians (this is from page 119): Second Thessalonians is so like 1 Thessalonians and yet so different that it must be an imitation of 1 Thessalonians written to meet a later situation. Verbal similarities begin with the first verse and continue throughout; yet there are very real theological differences between the two letters, the most important being that of eschatological perspective. In 1 Thessalonians the parousia, the coming of Jesus from heaven as apocalyptic judge and redeemer, is imminent. When Paul speaks of "we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord" (1 Thes 4:15), he clearly expects the event in his own lifetime. But 2 Thes 2:3-12 sets out an elaborate program of what must first happen before that event can occur. Not only has the apocalyptic imagery changed, but the whole tenor of the expectation is different. Another notably non-Pauline feature of the letter is the idea that the judgment of God will be a reward for the persecuted Christians and a persecution of the persecutors (1:5-10). This way of thinking is not only non-Pauline, it belongs to a generation later than Paul's, more poetically expressed in Rev 16:5-7 and 19:2.

Good afternoon Follower. I guess my answer can only be expressed in questions (for which I apologize…) Why not? Why the need after Moses? Why the need after Isaiah? Why the need after Christ (i.e. Paul)? From an LDS perspective, in many ways “the Bible” (the reason for quotes is because there have been so many different “Bibles” through the centuries) is enough. The Book of Mormon acts as a “second witness” to “the Bible.” There is much more we need to know concerning “life and godliness,” and thank goodness we have the eternities to learn it all. However, G-d has provided “line-upon-line…” here for us. The continued revelations are additional lines, and I hope that once I have grasped them that I will eventually get “another line” (why does it feel like I just made a drug reference?).

A must read! Thank you Mike (not only for posting a link to it, but for writing it…). I never knew this. Groovy.

Acts 13: 9 Saul of Tarsus is Paul. Saul was his Hebrew name. After he began his mission amongst the "Gentiles," he began going by Paul.

I think that some scientists do "sit down with the Author of it all." Dr. Eyring often stated how much beauty (and G-d) he found while looking at science. The problem (as I see it), is those who write scripture probably don't have the same "scientific" understanding that G-d has. He trains them in salvation, not in quantum mechanics. He teaches them righteousness, not botony. He shows them the way to heaven, not the way to biomolecular engineering. Therefore, we shouldn’t be offended if “science” doesn’t match “religion.” Although they are essentially two sides of the same coin, we shouldn’t try to force heads into tails. Of course, this is just my opinion… and I’m often wrong when it comes to things divine.

If you attend a ward, you can ask for a tithing slip from someone in the Bishopric (it’s just a small envelope with a little slip for you to fill out). You can choose what the funds will be used for if you want. One of the options is the “Missionary Fund.” You can also earmark you donation for humanitarian aid, or for other purposes. Or, you can just give it to “tithing” which is basically a general fund. You could probably even ask the Elders to get a tithing slip/envelope for you.

If you can find who made the comment (and/or have time), I'd dig a reference to it. I am aware of one statement made by JFS that Adam may have been transplanted from "another sphere," but I've never heard it proposed that animals were also.

Dr. Eyring (the apostle's dad) said that "there is no conflict between true science and true religion."

IIRC, the Apocalypse of John dates to around 90-95 CE (although I might have that confused with the Gospel of John, but I think that dates later). According to tradition, it was written during the reign of Domitian. Given that there are some pretty strong hints that it was written during some oppressive times for the Christian dudes, this period makes sense (to me). Although Nero is what many think the "Mark of the beast" points to, I think that the reign of Domitian (and Domitian himself) matches better... mainly because Nero's actions didn't really persecute based solely on religious grounds as much as Domitian did. I'm pretty sure tradition establishes fairly well that John of Patmos was indeed the author, although there may have been alterations made to the text over time (about a 52% variant rate between manuscripts), the overall text as we have it is probably pretty danged close to what the original was. Maybe this will help... this is from Norman Perrin's The New Testament: An Introduction, pages 81-82: That John of Patmos can be identified as a prophet is more important to understanding his work than identifying him with some other individual named John in the New Testament. Traditionally it has been claimed that he is the John, son of Zebedee, known to us from the gospel stories, but this is most unlikely. It has also been claimed that he is the "John" of the fourth gospel, but the difference in language and style alone makes this identification quite impossible. However, that he is able to identify himself, and as a prophet (in sharp contrast to the pseudonymity and practice of apocalyptic writers in general), speaks volumes for the vitality, power, and self-confidence of New Testament Christianity. Another most unusual aspect of the book of Revelation is its letters to seven churches in Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (see chapters 2 and 3). This is unparalleled in apocalyptic writing and has to be due ultimately to the impact that Paul's letter writing made on the New Testament church. Paul's letters had become so important that the literary form was imitated even by an apocalyptic writer. The book of Revelation as a whole has the external form of a letter in that it begins with an opening salutation (1:4-6) and closes with a benediction (22:21). The contrast in literary form between the direct address of the letters and the symbolic drama of the remainder of the book is startling, but no more so than the fact that an apocalyptic writer identifies himself and calls his work a prophecy. The fact that we have here the outward form of a Pauline letter helps us to grasp the essential thrust of the work. It begins with a salutation in the Pauline style: "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (Rev 1:5b-6; compare Gal 1:3-5). But then it continues: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amon" (1:7). This is a classic statement of early Christian hope for the return of Jesus as apocalyptic judge and redeemer. Similarly, the closing benediction, "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen" (22:21), is in the Pauline style, but it is preceded by a prayer for the coming of the Lord, "Come, Lord Jesus" (22:20). However, this is the early Palestinian Christian Eucharist prayer Maranatha, which Paul himself used at the end of a letter: "Our Lord, come! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen" (1 Cor 16:22-24). It is a reminder that for all its surface strangeness, the book of Revelation is not to be separated from the rest of the New Testament. The hope it represents is a fundamental feature of a major part of the New Testament.

LOL

Moses 3:5 seems to state that all things have a "spirit" including animals. So, it would seem that if animals have spirits, then a human clone would have one too. Also, if a child born through artificial insemination has a "soul," why not one "born" through the process of cloning? Also, an interesting little tidbit I ran across about a week ago (from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 291) Says one, "I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts." Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect: they were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God.

Sorry, I'm having some issues expressing myself coherently today (gots dem good ole voices making noise in my noggin). What I meant to say is “lesson one” not “one of the lessons.” I’m sorry for the confusion. Hopefully tomorrow my brain will be a bit quieter and I’ll make more sense. Any way. It’s the one that talks about how faith is the moving cause and the principle of action and principle of power for intelligent beings, etc. Sorry again.

Probably a good example for a "gaurdian angel(s)" would be Psalm 91, (in particular, verses 10-12). Or for a "gaurdian angel" that I'm sure we all know the story of; Dan. 6:22

As a scriptorium, he was well above me (well, well, WELL ABOVE ME). I hope my comments weren’t taken as diminutive. I just think he allowed his own dogmatic preconceived notions through a bit too often (JFS and BRM tended to be some of the most dogmatic [not necessarily a bad thing] individuals to lead the Church). I’m personally more of a Talmage (or BH Roberts) fan. The lecture on faith (there is one of the lecture’s that deals specifically with “faith”) is one of my favorites. Especially given some of the nuances of the Greek word pistis.

I meant "trust." The comment in question is in Mormon Doctrine (at least the first edition). In general, I trust Patriarchal Blessings over Mormon Doctrine (which is what I should have said… sorry for the confusion). Don't get me wrong; I think he's right about 85+% of the time in the book. It's just how far off he is in the other 15-% that kind of makes me leery. The latter version(s) are supposedly not as bad. I’ve never picked up a copy other than my first edition… perhaps I should one of these days as I heard a rumor that the most recent printing will be the last. As a side note, he wrote MD before he was an apostle. [edited for clarity... I hope]

Science = How G-d does things. Religion = Why G-d does things. IMO, we should avoid mistaking one for the other.