JohnsonJones

I don't know anything about the documentary you talked about, so I don't know what to respond on that. We used to get the videos from the Living Scriptures with the Animated Scripture stories (Book of Mormon, New Testament, Old Testament) and items such as that. They are probably not the most accurate as far as scriptures go, but they are effective at helping children at least know the basic stories of some of the scriptures. They are told more in the way a Disney story is told, but children, especially little children find them FAR MORE entertaining than trying to read the scriptures to them rote. We also have the entire collection of biographical sketches from them about the Modern Prophets and something which I think is called the docudrama of the Church. All of our items used to be videotapes (well the animated scripture stories, the docudrama and Prophets were always DVD items) and then we got the DVDs We never were subscribed to their streaming service that I suppose is these days. Taking a quick gander it appears that they have greatly increased their library past what they used to have. I had heard that they were acquired by another company (which normally goes by NEST I think) and at one point employed an Anti-Mormon to edit their Bible (New Testament and Old Testament) videos to get further away from the Mormon ideas found within. Of what we got from them, I've always enjoyed watching the videos. They are better entertainment than much of the dreck out there today. On the Living Scriptures site today it looks like they have items that they created and items other people created. Just like any service like this it probably has some good items and some bad items, some that are good for the soul and those that are not. As stated above, I do not know anything about the particular documentary you named or the company itself, but the premise I read sounds far more like someone's speculation on a matter rather than any doctrinal basis. I'd probably rely on your own spiritual feelings on what is appropriate and what is not on what to watch (and not just on this site, but probably on most things).

Overall, it is busy. Work is spinning up again and everything had to be good to go. This coming week is going to be even crazier I think and then, hopefully everyone settles into the routine of things for the next few months.

Well, this week I went out once to Taco Bell, and a second time I took my wife out to a lunch date at a steak house... Then last night also went on a Dinner Date with my wife to a Diner, had chicken fried steak. Ate a little better though, slowly. Had some meals brought from home for lunch this week. I felt hungry many times in the afternoon. Haven't lost much weight yet...people in this thread seem to lose weight quickly. I'm no match for them. I DID buy a scale for my home, I suppose that's an improvement. I still have to take it out of the box. I think I'll put it in the bathroom as that seems to be a popular place for them.

More like the ones that write really derogatory obituaries about the passing of General Authorities. (but then, they do that for 90% of the obituaries of famous individuals to begin with, lest the LDS members feel special. You have to do something New Yorky to impress a New Yorker!!! You would too if you lived in New York (well...maybe...I'm a bad judge since I don't live in New York).

Ah, I was not aware of that. I'm not sure if I've ever done it (I think I have not, though I may have summarized some part of it) but I was not aware of this (if I read about this previously I think I may have forgotten or not recalled it...I blame age). Thank you for the reminder...I will try to not do such things.

Not everyone hates the SLC tribune. The reason many dislike it is due to a stereotype about it. Originally the paper was started by those who were unhappy with the church and in fact, to a degree against the church. Through out the years it, just like the Deseret News and other media, has changed. Today, many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are employed by it. In fact, I think the journalist who wrote the article that stated there were changes in the temple was, in fact, a member of the Church. The difficulty that many express is because it has been typically seen as the paper that is NOT supported by the church today and thus it's views are not tailored to be in lock step with the Church itself. Ironically, this can be said of MOST of the news media that exists today. Because of this, many who are not members of the church or against the Church tend to choose to read this paper rather than other papers found in Utah. Their support and commentary related to the Tribune supports the idea from some members that the Tribune is still highly anti-Mormon in our present time. There are members in Utah that ALSO read the SLC tribune, especially those in Salt Lake City. This is because it is the local News Paper and other papers (such as the Deseret News) do not always cover some of the local news that the tribune does. The tribune covers MORE of the news pertaining to the Church headquarters and it's news releases than many other papers. Sometimes it is not as favorable as Members would like it to be. The reason it covers so much of the Church news releases is because these things happen in Salt Lake City. Thus, as it is a Newspaper covering news for this city, it reports on these happenings more often then News Media found outside the State of Utah. It seems to try to at least have those who are Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be the ones covering many of the Church news releases and occurrences. It is still seen by some members that these reporters at times are critical of the Church in some articles. This is why there is a stereotype that the Tribune is an anti-Mormon newspaper. I would say that it is actually more friendly to the church today than it was in the past, and in many ways FAR more friendly than many News agencies that report on the church that are found in other states (say...for example...New York).

Has he ordered himself not to partake of it? Who says he doesn't eat it already?

I do not drink coffee now days, but if they were too relax the standards and say it was no longer a commandment but rather advice...and we could go to the temple and drink coffee...I'd be in the crowd rushing to the store to pick up some. Of all the things to give up to join the church, that's the one that I miss the most. That said, I'm not sure loosening up the way commandments are is the best way to go about things. It normally can lead to things like apostasy for a religion over time. AS things are "loosened" up the things held holy are held less holy and the perception of those who are against the church to feel that they actually INFLUENCE the church grows until we get a situation like the ancient times where you have several factions in the church itself. It then becomes a secular matter where a ruler and a council determine what is correct doctrine (including with ordinances) and what is not rather than the Lord. The Word of Wisdom obviously would not be something that goes that far, but when talking about the loosening of commandments it can always be a scary proposition considering what happened with the Great Apostasy in the past. Of course, on the opposite hand you have what the Jews did with their church where they tightened and tightened and restricted and restricted with more and more interpretation of commandments and scripture until they followed the Law so tightly that they had no understanding of the Law and thus lacked keeping anyways. (though, it should be noted, they were STILL the true religion when the Lord was in his mortal ministry as he was a member...though John the Baptist was the one with the Authority and the Lord established his church among them that was the correct church afterwards. Unlike what happened with the Great Apostasy, even if we lose the understanding and thus the ability to truly keep the law, as long as we retain the commandments and such it seems we can still have the correct religion even if it's hidden and misunderstood as it was during the mortal ministry of our Lord.

Interesting analysis, but I don't follow on with you how your example of Transgressed the Law fulfills that point. Are you saying that the killing of heretics was the breaking of the Law? Are you saying that it did not occur until 1649 that the Law was broken? Is there not an example prior to 1649 regarding point #1? Perhaps going back to even Constantine or earlier?

It appears someone uses a glass scraper for a glass top stove. If you haven't tried it, try some Barkeeper's Friend

That is some...LOUD music. Can't say I've ever done that. Would that not make one deaf after a while? Good tip for those who listen to music that loud...or having some other way to know when the oven is done. No life lesson, but I have a tip regarding Kim Chee, since it was brought up above. If you have never eaten Kim Chee previously in life and are invited to eat some made by a Korean, be aware it MIGHT be far more spicy than you thought. I was invited to eat Kim Chee once upon a time by a Korean individual that I knew (this was many years ago when I was actually a young man). We knelt (no chairs, we knelt instead) and he had a small cooking pot. He had some other items mixed in with it...and IT WAS SPICY. I don't know what he put in it, but it was Hot. You may think you like spicy food and eat Tex Mex hot all the time, but I tell you, this could compete with the best of them. So, when eating Kim Chee with a Korean, be aware that it might be a tad spicy.

I tend to see it as 1. Physical Temptation 2. Emotional Temptation 3. Spiritual Temptation Or a variation of the above (depending on what I'm thinking at the time). All of which we will experience in this life as well.

This is one of those things where it can be questionable on what they thought specifically. They never came out and specified exactly what they meant in most of their statements, though many have leapt to what they meant with certain convolutions of logic. The most that normally was stated was that the Lord was the Son of the Father, just as any of us our children of our Fathers. Just as we are naturally created, so was he. However, they don't go into details (thankfully, that could be a little disturbing if they did so), though there have been a few (the McKonkie's were some that inferred more at times) that have implied a more direct implication towards what you have hinted at regarding an exalted man vs. a mortal man and the terminology. However, in a world where we already know how someone could have a child without ever actually being intimate, it seems that one who is greater than us all and knows all things could have many ways beyond what we can even understand or comprehend on how a child could be his and a mortal woman. This is an argument that has been utilized by enemies of Christians previously. The basis is looking at the Old Testament where a prophet was told to take a virgin to wife, but in that particular syntax it meant a young lady. As this was symbolic of the birth of the Messiah some have leapt on it to mean that Mary was merely a young woman and that she and Joseph had done things and thus the Lord was a mere mortal instead of the Divine being that we KNOW he was. WE must see it in the context that it was utilized with, and the understanding that it was used in the time of translation as well as the way word itself is utilized in the New Testament. However, one of the stronger evidences we have is that the terminology of the word in Joseph Smith's time when used was normally very similar to what we MEAN when we say Mary had never known any man in the Biblical sense and hence was pure and thus a virgin. When he translated the Book of Mormon, in the book of Alma, chapter 7 it states... Thus, I tend to believe that she was as the scriptures explain and how most would understand it. HOW this was done, I do not know except for how the scripture above states...that she was overshadowed and conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. As per the prophets we also know that he was the REAL son (biologically speaking) of his Father and that it was done in the natural way of things...but what this means...I do not know exactly. It is most likely, as we see this explanation of conception in both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon that it had to do greatly with the power of the Holy Ghost, but how this was accomplished is anyone's guess. It could be as some have explained it in a more carnal way, or it could be some way that we yet cannot comprehend (and I lean more towards the latter) and thus, the best we could understand it is exactly as how the scriptures have explained it.

Martyn stated which was cited by Zwermer in Islam: A Challenge to Faith, 197. However, it sounds as if you are looking for a discourse recorded rather than something specifically written by Zwermer. From your comments it sounds as if you are looking for a specific statement at the Jerusalem Missionary councils...which could be hard to get and research I imagine. I'm not a specialist of religion but those are the individuals that probably could give you the best research items for you to look into this. I did find a link online to where they are slowly putting the Missionary Conferences of Jerusalem in 1928 online. It is an 8 volume set, but I did not see a specific item from Zwermer in it. Sorry. The link to those if you wish to take a look is at Jerusalem Missions Conference 1928 Though admittedly this may not be exactly what you are looking for as you did specify councils and not conference. PS: I should note there is a THESIS that discusses this in some detail by a Yohannes Bekele submitted to the University of Birmingham for a Masters of Philosophy (and I ripped the Martyn quote from there, attributing it correctly). It is called SAMUEL ZWEMER’S MISSIONARY STRATEGY TOWARDS ISLAM And I'm doing a quick search to find it online somewhere if I can. PPS: Found it online publically and available for download. It can be found here http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/4119/

My thought is that much of it was a copy/paste but only because it was more familiar to him and thus easier for him to go with the wording he was used to (with some clarifications). To put it in a similar manner, at least for a historian.... When reading a text that has been translated from another language (we'll say...the Odyssey by Homer) at times when reading it in the original language, you tend to sequence it more in the way that you are used to reading it in English. Hence, if you did an actual translation on your own, it will probably be more similar to the translation you are most familiar with. You CAN do it completely unique to your own specific style, but it is harder to do it that way than with what you are familiar with. It may not be exactly like the other translation (depending on the translator) but there will be obvious similarities. Something that Latter-day Saints may be more used to is for those English Speaking Missionaries that served in another country. It probably is easier for you to read an English version of the Book of Mormon and if trying to read out loud in another language but from an English version, you will most likely read it very similarly to how you have read it in the Book of Mormon translation for that nation. It is easier for you to read it as you are familiar with, than to try to do a more indepth literal translation on the spot. Thus, I think it was very similarly done when Joseph recognized sections of the Book of Mormon that he had read from the Bible, or that were referenced directly in the Bible.