Doctor Steuss

I always found it impressive that Jerald (just realized I spelled his name wrong in my previous post) didn’t jump on the band-wagon with that one. But then again, Quinn did believe it to be real. Such is life. We win some, and we lose some. But, I am grateful for them as I do think they were one of the reasons such places as FARMS got up and running. Before that time, all we really had to deal with was Martin (although he did end up becoming more scholarly in later years) and Decker. Mostly, I just tire of the Tanner's style. Reading one of their books gives me headaches (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Elipses, caps, underline, etc.). Cuz you're too reasonable and smart to jump on the Tanner band-wagon. Hugs, Stu

Allen has put together quite a few little clips and photo essays on this "Christians." They can be found Here. Edit: By "Allen," I mean "Allen Wyatt." There's a lot of info on the page, so it might be easiest to just do a search for his name. Also, the first-hand account by Tiffany Wilde is a good read (she is a sister missionary).

I see PC. Sorry for misunderstanding you. I just looked at the "critical" sites, and they are all credible. I haven't been to any of them for years, but when I did I spent quite a bit of time at them. I would vouch for them. Though staunch LDS would probably disagree, they are not rude "anti" sites. But they are "critical." Elphaba Hi Elphaba. You would vouch for UTLM? I know they have a lot of useful info, and have reprinted a lot of books that are of interest to antiquity, but I would hardly view their creative quote editing, and lauding of such books as Mormonism Unvailed [sic] as being "credible." Maybe I just have a personal grudge against the Tanners though (may Gerald rest in peace)...

It is quite the paradox. Are some psychologists being utilized to develop mental torture/interogation techniques? Who is developing these techniques that are potentially damaging the minds of these individuals? Also, give the nature of psychology, and that it is as much an art-form as a science, and a psychologist won't necessarily be able to "read" every patient (we are all individuals after-all), how much of a "fail-safe" is this?

The best thing to do is ignore them. Or you can sing hyms to help contrast who the real Christians are: Video Time PS. It's Army of Helaman (not plural).

I think your friend lost credibility by linking to UTLM.

The role of a Psychologist is that of a healer. IMO, they should abide by the same oath that physicians take. They should have no part (even peripherally) in the harming of another. Our minds are fragile things, and a moment of harm done to the mind can result in a lifetime of pain.

Sweeeeeet! (BTW, Spellchecker allways tries to change "Stu" to "Stud.")

Will China Lead the Way to Fuel Efficiency?

I should have further clarified. Their stipend is paid from revenue that comes from Church investments. No tithing funds are used. I believe a few of them who have been successful in their lives actually donate the stipend back to the Church. It is also a set amount; they don’t receive more if the investments turn a larger profit.

Just a real quick clarification to this. Although we have a "lay ministry," it is not an all lay ministry. GAs receive a stipend.

This makes no sense: If an error had begun starting with the year 2000, this would not effect 1998, nor the 1990s for that matter.

I was unaware that the missionaries were paid by those whom they preach the gospel to. Seems to me that the missionaries still keep this command.

True 'dat. 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. I assume you have no qualms with theosis/deification/exaltation then? Oh, that my words knew the joy of this pen as it writes of the power to make gods of men… Seriously though. If you abandon Greek philosophical thought, it tends to become slightly less offensive. Being "Almighty" does not necessitate that you can do "anything." It only means that you have all available power. It is strange to take offense at such a trifle thing When it was G-d who made Satan and also created death's sting... Look for any by Ostler. His treatments of the subject are simply brilliant.

Rockwell, is that you?

I think you'd really like some of Terryl Givens' statements from the FAIR conference regarding finding and searching for truth. It's in the most recent issue of the Church News (article is by Scott Lloyd).

It appears my memory was flawed slightly as I only had one part of the talk in mind (the last sentence), but his previous statements may provide some context (maybe): You are all familiar with the facts. On the night Jesus was betrayed, He took three of the Twelve and went into the place called Gethsemane. It was there He suffered the pains of all men, “which suffering,” He said, “caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink” (D&C 19:18). In spite of that excruciating ordeal, He took the cup and drank! He suffered as only God could suffer, bearing our griefs, carrying our sorrows, being wounded for our transgressions, voluntarily submitting Himself to the iniquity of us all, just as Isaiah prophesied. It was in Gethsemane where Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane where His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane where He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him. Ezra Taft Benson, “Five Marks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ,” New Era, Dec 1980, 44 Here's one from President Hinckley that I found while searching (he appears [somewhat] to state that it started in the Garden and ended on the cross): “We honor His birth. But without His death that birth would have been but one more birth. It was the Redemption, which He worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross of Calvary, which made His gift immortal, universal, and everlasting. His was a great atonement for the sins of all mankind. He is the Resurrection and the Life, ‘the firstfruits of them that slept’ (1 Corinthians 15:20). Because of Him all men will be raised from the grave. Gordon B. Hinckley, “Inspirational Thoughts,” Liahona, Feb 2007, 2–6 Also, the Gospel Principles manual and Gospel Fundamentals manual tend to have Gethsemane as the place where "Jesus suffered for the sins of all mankind." Of course this doesn't necessarily mean it is an unmovable "truth." What is interesting is that other than the manuals, as I searched, it kind of went back and forth between people. Some saying it was the "sins of mankind" that He suffered in the Garden, and some saying it was the "pains of mankind" He suffered. I think there is much to your line of thinking CK, and I have thoroughly enjoyed watching/reading as you have shared your thought process. Again, thank you.

Thank you for yet even more great thoughts CK. I will try to find the specific Ensign article. While I'm hunting it down though, I just thought I'd throw in another scripture into the mix: Isaiah 53 4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Joseph had this to say: "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons." History of the Church 5:517

This will most likely be quite disappointing given how long you had to wait CK, for which I apologize. I think you have done a great job of demonstrating the lack of scriptural support for this rather “unique” doctrine within Mormonism. The main question that stems from saying that Gethsemane wasn’t Christ suffering for our sins is: “Well, what was it for then?” I think that Christ was indeed suffering for our sins within the garden. But, this suffering was not so that we wouldn’t have to; it is quite possible that the suffering was so Christ would know what we would go through if we were unrepentant. What better way to fill Him with urgency and compassion than to know the very “Eternal punishment” that we would taste if we failed to repent. There is also the other aspect that you mention; that of empathy. Christ could have had all our sorrows, doubts, pains, struggles, worries, etc. put upon Him so that He would know (in a very real and definite sense) what each of us must go through in life. The Atonement is kind of a hard subject to wrap your head around (or at least wrap my head around). We talk about it. We speak of Christ’s sacrifice. We express gratitude. But in the end, we really don’t know much about the mechanics of what was done. I tend to think at times that the Atonement (At-one-ment) may have begun at Christ’s very birth, or perhaps even in the eternities before we came here. Hope the above makes sense. Only got 2 hours of sleep last night. Also something to ponder: Mosiah 3:7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. His anguish could be an emotional anguish that was so strong that it manifested itself physically(?) And… “…that he suffer the pains of all men, which he did, principally, in Gethsemane, the scene of his great agony.” Note that Elder Romney said that Christ suffered “the pains of all men.” (Marion G. Romney, “The Resurrection of Jesus,” Ensign, Apr 1985, 3) Of course, there is the issue of the teachings of modern day prophets concerning this (such as Ezra Taft Benson). But, we know that infallibility is something that we neither prescribe to scripture, nor prophets. Fantastic thread CK.

How so? Can you elaborate? Covenants are essentially nullified, thus lessening accountability.

Just a quick thought on excommunication. Although it may seem like a punishment, IMO it is an act of compassion.

Gratuitous bump for myself (for tomorrow). I read it again. I want to gather my thoughts and sleep on it. I will post something tomorrow (although from the initial thoughts it will probably be highly speculative and shallow in comparison to CK's post). But a taste of where my current thoughts are leading. Eternal punishment = Christ’s/G-d’s Punishment Gethsemane = Christ’s/G-d’s Punishment My post tomorrow will be less enigmatic, but just wanted something out there other than the gratuitous bump…

Thank you for the clarification. The way the question was worded, I wasn't sure if you were asking if I tried to summon them from the dead with crazy voodoo while sacrificing chickens in my underwear or what.I respect my dead relatives (at least from what I know of them), and the sacrifices they made. But no, I don't "pray for them." They're probably a lot closer to G-d right now than I am, so I'm guessing they have a more direct line (they probably have a cable-modem while I’m still trying to figure out how to use dial-up)...

I believe you're confusing the LDS Church with the recent Catholic delcaration regarding what "churches" are. But, as far as "one true church" goes; the Lord's words are a bit more complex than these three simple words. I suggest reading D&C 1. Edited to add: I still need you to clarify this question: Do you maintain ties to your ancestors in any way?