Doctor Steuss

Chipotle (which I believe is pronounced as "Chih - pot - llll") PS. Look what I did to your name in the quote. EEEEEVVVVIIIILLLL

Ha-zah!!! I would like to note that Satan doesn't make an appearance in the OT until rather late (or at least later than you'd think such a key player would appear). And, as a side note (for those who think Satan was the serpent in Eden), I happen to think that the serpent was actually meant to represent another god in the region, and was depicted as the "bad guy" in order to show the primacy of Israel's religion. ----- Property values of this thread just fell 10%

I am here for evil shenanigans and the refreshments. Chances are that there is a general sense of chagrin that I have now tainted yet another message board with my presence. In the words of J. Golden… “I’ll repent for that later.” Hugs, Herr Doktor Mohel of the SSCE

And always will be. Forever, and ever. Amen.

What an ol stick in the mud! He actually even threatened to turn the wagon train around (true story -- although the following dialogue is a re-enactment which may not resemble actual events): John Eldridge: Brother Brigham, William Clayton is touching me again. Brigham: I swear, I will turn this wagon train around. Don’t make me come back there! That’s it; we’re going back to Missouri. I don’t do these trips for me you know… I am so turning this wagon train around if you don’t cut it out.

This is an actual note that was penciled on the date indicated at the top. As the Saints were making their trek West, they began to pass the time by holding mock trials. It gave them a good reprieve, and they enjoyed the joys of "calling" various high ranking Church authorities to trial, and having them answer to various "charges." This particular note was for one such mock trial. Brigham, a few days after this little letter was written, harangued the Saints for their levity. He felt that they were losing their religious zeal and he put a stop to the mock trials.

Proverb 10:21 Indeed it is hard to understand and fathom. And I love thinking about it because I can feel my mind, soul, and heart stretching to new heights. One thing that I have always found interesting is there are several passages in the Book of Mormon that speak of people receiving Christ's atonement before Christ was even born. Understanding the infinite nature of His gift, and the retroactive and eternal nature of the Son of G-d helps this to make sense. But at the same time, grasping how someone could feel the benefits of something that had not yet occurred is mind boggling. The forward of eternity is usually easy to grasp. The backwards portion though... oi vey.

ciustudent, You are doing yourself an injustice by relying only on lexicons for this particular word. Any lexicon (even those that run upwards of $300+) will ultimately carry the biases of the author/translator. A great example of this is how most lexicons claim that elohim can mean "judges." It did not gain this meaning until long after the Deuteronomist reformers. I'd suggest finding some non-Biblical period documents in Greek (between 1 CE - 200 CE) and see how modern translators have translated the word pistis (and its derivatives). You may find that the majority of them don't translate it as "belief" or "faith." It is only those in Biblical studies that seem to think that the word all of a sudden changes meaning when written in epistles, etc. Also, find some Jacobian English era documents and see how they use the term “faith.” It didn’t exactly have the same meaning for the KJV translators that it does now. People have just clung to the KJV verbiage despite the changing of the connotation of the word because it helps their cheep grace dogmatic ideals. Having a Lord necessitates obedience. Anything else is heresy. Antinomianism ultimately results from those that try to eject obedience from the equation of receiving G-d’s grace, and even the great reformers rejected this tripe for what it is: heresy in the eyes of the Almighty. Pistis is loyalty and fidelity. "Faith" in a Lord requires these things. Lack of obedience is a sign of a lack of loyalty for a Lord. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling... Edited to add: In the interest of disclosure and honesty. "Obedience" isn't a viable translation for pistis; however, I have naturally included it as "loyalty" and "fidelity" ultimately necessitate "obedience" when a Lord is involved.

The word translated as "faith" (pistis) has a connotation of fidelity/loyalty/obedience/etc. The Works vs. Faith arguments are ultimately about two sides of the very same coin. So, I just want to change your question a bit: "Are you claiming that Christ will extend his saving grace to someone who neglects [pistis] in Him?" Tah-dah!

I have no life. I love it because, despite all the bad stuff that was going on around them, they still found the time to make jokes about farts. The humor of men transcends time and space.

<div align="right">Pioneer Camp, Wednesday, May 26, 1847</div> To Marshall O.P. Rockwell: Sir – You are hereby commanded to bring, wherever found, the body of Col. George Mills, before the Right Reverend Bishop [Edson] Whipple, at his Quarters, there to answer to the following charge, viz.: -- That of emitting in meeting on Sunday last, a sound, a posteriori, (from his seat of honor) somewhat resembling the rumble of distant thunder, or the heavy discharge of artillery, thereby endangering the steadiness of the olfactory nerves of those present as well as diverting their minds from the discourse of the speaker. -------------- Letter to Rockwell for a mock trial while the Saints were traveling (around the time they reached Chimney Rock). As cited in Schindler’s biography of OPR, Second Edition, pg. 157. Original in possession of the LDS Church Historical Department.

I hate you guys. I just wanted to chat with you.

a-train, I know this will seem silly, but could you please capitilize the "G." We all have the same G-d. We just have different understandings of Him. Thank you, Stu (I really am sorry for being so silly, but it's just a sensitive thing for me).

I know what a dry Mormon is. do tell....we are all on the edge of our seats.......... In today's society it would be someone that follows all of the teachings of the LDS church but without actually getting baptized. Therefore the word "DRY" indicates never having been dunked. Also known as a Bisquick Mormon. Just add water…

... I'm asleep.

It is a given point now. It was not always so. Judaism is not as static as we would like to believe. There were many reformers from the quasi-ancient Maimonides all the way up to the 19th century Samuel Holdheim**. Judaism has gone through many changes, and to an extent, cannot even necessarily be referred to as a homogeneous religion anymore. From the changes of an anthropomorphic G-d, to that of Greek philosophy, to the battles of G-d's dwelling place, to the changing and melding of El Elyon and YHWH into one entity by the Deuteronomist reformers, Judaism has not been static. So, it's important when stating that Judaism believes in something, to distinguish between past and present. In the past, ex nihilo was not native to Judaism. It is a shame that the holy Torah that once held such high regard has been reduced to reinterpreting such plain words as bara' to mean something completely contradictory to what those who originally penned the word knew it meant.**For a groovy article on Holdheim: Immanuel H. Ritter, "Samuel Holdheim: The Jewish Reformer", The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Apr., 1889), pp. 202-215 You can get a copy through JSTOR It is a basic assumption to those communities now. But this wasn't always the case. Most scholars don't believe that it had any place within Judaism or Christianity until the 2nd Century. I am perfectly ok with those who hold this belief that acknowledge that it came about as a later development; after all, the LDS have several such doctrines that have no support in antiquity (such as Adam=Michael). But to claim that this doctrine has always been a part of not only Judaism, but also Christianity is not supported by the evidence.Edited to add: We need to be careful of going with whatever doctrine seems like a "basic assumption." After all, His ways are not necessarily ours...

For a view from prominent members of Jewish Studies (and what scholars of Judaism are finding): Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism. The one scholar who continues to maintain that the doctrine is native to Judaism, namely Jonathan Goldstein, thinks that it first appears at the end of the first century C.E., but has recently conceded the weakness of his position in the course of debate with David Winston. Peter Hayman, "Monotheism - A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?", Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991), 1-15. The Talmud also supports a creation from the "chaotic waters" (not ex nihilo). Also, the verb foudn in Genesis presupposes the use of material. There are many Midrashic homilies that can be interpreted to mean a creation from nothing, but most of them have some form of pre-existent substance, even if it is something as abstract as "G-d looking into the Torah." I don't doubt that there are many within Judaism that hold to this belief. But it is hardly a solid doctrine that has always had firm roots in Judaism. It gained it's foothold around the same period it did in Chrisianity (while the Christians were battling the Gnostics).

I'm pretty sure G-d the Father, and Christ don't think so either.

There was a primordial atom of sorts within the BBT; it doesn't support ex nihilo creation. It doesn't necessarily support LDS concepts, but it does dictate that there had always been "something" there.

Ed Decker?

I'm in a Yellow Submarine.

This generation is very special... just like every other one.

Also known as theosis, which is quite biblical. Wouldn't it be crazy if ancient Jews believed in YHWH having a consort? Book of Enoch? This belief has a place in antiquity. I know this is not in our scriptures because it isn't doctrine. At most, it's speculative doctrine that comes from the logical progression of the docrines given. In the end though, it isn't doctrine. Then why did you bring them up? Glad to know you base your own personal beliefs off popular opinion. I'll keep this in mind before I seek the words of the ancients... I have a lot of respect for many who believe in ex nihilo; however, none of the people I respect ever felt the need to commit the above logical falacy to bring about my respect.

I get a bit hurt when people reduce him to a nebulous cloud of plutonic philosophical thought. Are you going to give Gary A. Hand credit for this dribble? IMO, plagiarism isn't acceptable, even anonymously on the internet.

We may have survived... Ted Danson's career didn't though...