JohnsonJones

@anatess Actually, that's not just LDS teachings, that's actually Christian tradition. It is part of what is known as the Johaninne literature which also include the epistles and the book of Revelations. John in Christian tradition was considered the youngest of the apostles and the only one that was not a martyr (the others all were martyred/murdered except for Judas who committed suicide as recorded in the bible). The LDS differ from Christianity in that they teach that this apostle - John, who is referred to as beloved, received immortality to continue his mission on earth. Christian tradition has it that he was the only apostle to die of natural causes and died, I think (memory could be off) at the age of 98. Now, when you get out of those who take the Bible more literally, and those who are more hard core, and get into those who are more secular and less traditionalist, there are some differences. the Johannine literature is still considered one group with a similar writing style and other familiar similarities between them, but it is thought that it may not necessarily have been John. In this, there was a group who had their culture and tradition seeped in this type of writing and style, and it is from this group of Johannine followers that gave rise to the gospel of John and other ensuing pieces of the Johannine literature. However, in general, with the exception of John living beyond his years and not tasting death, the thoughts of who actually wrote the Gospel (as well as the epistles and Revelations) is something that comes from Christian tradition rather than anything specific to the LDS faith.

I didn't get my information from that article or other articles that have been posted on these forums.

Well, some of them. When got my pilot's license we learned we actually don't want to fly through them unless we've verified via Radar there is no turbulence in them, otherwise it's a good way to get killed. I think they must have gotten this idea from the period of time right after world war two. They had all these prop warplanes left over, and every time those planes flew in formation the clouds just blew the other way...

Tough choice, as all the Silents are good. I flipped a coin between silent two and silent guy.

Well, I picked up March of the Penguins from the Local D.I. and watched it with kids (children, their children, nieces, nephews, their kids...etc). Kids found it intense and interesting at parts, and boring at others.

You are!?

Okay, I do not get this Kekistan thing. What exactly is it. IS it some white supremacist group? It says it's part of the Alt-Right, and other things in that regards, but I'm not clear exactly what it is. Origins say it's from the World of Warcraft Clans where LOL was utilized as KEK at one point, and from there devolved into usage by gamers in the Alt Right with references to the white supremacists? Or I also got something that says it is used by white supremecists to refer to posters and others who they feel are saying things that are nonsense (Actually, stronger wording was used, but is unacceptable here at those sites I got the information from). In the context of the conversation I've read above, I think my understanding is highly flawed, but I don't get a clear explanation of what exactly this thing is...

I went on an LDS mission, however, at times, when people ask, I will tell them that I served a different sort of mission (for work, actually) across the world. We didn't do anything with what the LDS would call missionary work, instead doing other things like buildings and such. I'm an odd sort and find it funny to see their reactions at times when they think I'm skirting the question (which I am) because I didn't serve an LDS mission (though I DID serve an LDS mission) and instead did that. In effect, I'm neutralizing their arena of questioning (though for the wrong reasons in this case, I know what they are asking, but as they only say mission, I'm doing it for my own depraved entertainment at their cost...though some may never know it). In likewise, if I had chosen not to have children, and they asked me about it, I'd simply tell them..."We are not able to have children" (and with your husband having a vasectomy, that would be true I think). "This is not really a topic I enjoy discussing...unless you want to tell me all about your deep personal medical problems involving your privates, inner guts, and other issues". At that point, either they'll jump to a conclusion (most likely), stop talking and never discuss it again in deep embarrassment, OR...they'll give you a run down on their entire medical history. If the last one happens, thank them for their very blatant statements, but tell them, it was only being snarky, that you really are NOT as comfortable as they are sharing deep personal items with a stranger (which could also be true). I had a mother that did NOT like children. I am grateful I was born...but I will say, in many instances if a woman does NOT like children and does not WANT children, it should be her choice. She should feel no pressure to have children in that instance because it could turn out to be a very bad thing for some children. There are times it is better NOT to have children when they are unwanted, then to force oneself to have children in an unwanted situation.

Each Dispensation head holds the keys for their dispensation. These are special keys that only they hold as they preside over their dispensation. The Savior thus, is only the Dispensation head of his period of time, rather than all periods of time. He holds the authority and it is through the Savior that all our authority comes, but others hold the keys at various times and dispensations. I suppose a way to look at it is to imagine that I own a company. However, I have janitors and managers that I hand keys out. The janitors come at different times, and are over the building maintenance and cleaning at their work hours, and the managers are also over the company business during their time at the building. Now all those keys COME from me...I OWN all those keys, not those janitors or Managers. However, I have given them those keys so they can do the work that I need them to do. When they leave, or if I desire, I will have them return those keys to me. Not a perfect example, but perhaps it is somewhat illustrative.

Dispensation can be several things. One big item with Dispensations in one sense is that there could be a Big D (Dispensation) and a little d (dispensation). With the Big D, there are seven Dispensations, each with a Dispensation Head. Each corresponds to one day, or one millennia... Now if I can recall it off the top of my head, those Dispensations with their heads would be 1st Mil - Adam. 2nd Mil - Noah. 3rd Mil - Abraham. 4th Mil. - Moses. 5th Mil - The Savior 6th Mil. - Joseph Smith 7th Mil. - the Return of the Lord. Now, not everyone agrees with this, but this used to be a common teaching...long ago. Memory evades me, but I think at times Abraham may have been left out, and instead was replaced by Enoch or I may be confusing those two with the Seals that are opened each Millenium. (edit: Ah, it appears Carborendum touched upon this already, so it appears Enoch is many times counted under Adam's, which makes sense, as well as Enoch's church did not remain on Earth nor did Enoch...sooooo....). During each of these, they are creating the church anew, or it is when the church is normally gone from most of civilization, and they are there to restore that church and the authority that goes with it to create the church. Further, each of these Dispensations and Dispensation heads had a special authority to establish something new. For Adam it would be the race of men. For Noah, it is to establish the race of men anew, as well as the promises of the Lord (as seen via the Rainbow). For Abraham it was the promises of prosperity, family, and priesthood again. For Moses we have the Mosaic law and where we get a majority of the Law we now know. Through the Savior we received the fulfillment of the Law of Moses and the atonement as well as many other things. Joseph Smith is the fullness of times and all those keys are restored through him. When the Millenium comes, it is once again the restoration of all the keys, as well as the fulfillment of the gospel on earth to all men, believed by all men with the Savior reigning. Now, there is another view that parallels the above very closely, and says the basic same idea, but each is not paralleled to a millennia, but to what is known as the Seven GREAT Dispensations. It is STILL, however, the Seven Great Dispensations (big D). In this, the Millenium is not counted as one of those dispensations typically. In this, there are the seven great Dispensation heads...as I have discussed above, but all of them are included...hence...Adam, Enoch (whose dispensation is no more on Earth, but in heaven), Noah, Abraham, Moses, The Savior and his Apostles, and finally Joseph Smith. In this, Joseph Smith has the fullness of the dispensation, but Adam is the great Dispensation head, who holds the keys to ALL Dispensations. I believe it is also that Adam will hand over all these keys to the Savior when he comes again to reign in the Millenium, but I'm not completely clear on this. Each head of the Dispensation has a special position as they hold the keys, or all the keys specifically for that dispensation, whereas individual leaders and prophets only hold the keys to the church for their time period...if that makes sense. These then would be the Big D, or the Great Dispensations, of which there are seven, each with it's Dispensation head. There is also the small d, or dispensations which seems to be the common interpretations now from what I read on LDS.com and from what I've seen at this thread. These are those who also started or restored the respective churches at the time. A prime example would be Alma, who established the church among the Nephites (though we know the Nephites already had this gospel...ala...King Benjamin), it was via Alma who we can presume established it in a more organized method with teachers and priests, though at the time it was Mosiah who was the actual seer if I recall right. Another among the Nephites would be Lehi and Nephi, who established the church among their desendants. Another Book of Mormon dispensation head would be the Brother of Jared who established the church among the Jaredites. etc....etc...etc... Paul, interestingly enough also claimed to be head of a dispensation if I recall right...though memory may be failing on that. In this, basically, we see as the gospel dictionary states it... So, it's hard to say exactly in some ways. The Dispensation heads used to be taught (as I said, a loooong time ago, apparently that has changed in more recent years) in regards to the milleniums they were part of and such, and they made it pretty clear at times who and what they were (though I haven't really gone over this for a while, I think Skousen may touch on some of the heads and their respective milleniums in his thousand year series). I believe McKonkie also touches on this in his Mormon Doctrine, if you can get your hands on it.

I don't know about the lab and such, but apparently some of them tell you where your background is from (Area of the world and such). How they do it, or how they supposedly do it, I don't know, just know those two stories which are particularly funny to me. It could be a false positive, or I think someone said they may have mixed up the results by accident or something (because, those results didn't make any sense, unless it was a joke).

The Japanese are pretty sure of some of their ancestry. That said, I'm pretty sure if the guy had that much African blood in him, it would be pretty well known and he'd probably be ostracized from that particular section of Japanese society. That's what makes it really hilarious. There's NO WAY he had that much of it there...especially if you know about the Japanese and other races in regards to their backgrounds...something wrong had to have happened with that test (mixed up at the lab, who knows) or the entire DNA thing has something seriously wrong with it. The results and the look on the individuals face reading it though...absolutely hilarious.

Responding more to the earlier posts (haven't read all the posts after...) In regards to who one worships...I think many are too judgemental in who they feel is Christian/Saved/etc, and instead of leaving it up to the Lord who is the true and real judge, decide for themselves who is or is not to be saved. I like C.S Lewis's ideas from the Chronicles of Narnia where Aslan saves one who didn't necessarily believe in Aslan, but did believe in a greater being and as such, what he did in fealty to that, was in likewise fealty to Aslan. A prime example of this... When we say Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America...is he really the president? Do you have to know what he looks like to acknowledge he is president of the United States? Is it mandatory? Do you have to understand what his motivations are to recognize him as President of the United States? If you do not, does that mean you cannot or do not recognize him as President? Do you have to have a deep personal relationship with him to say he is president of the United States? If we, as a nation, recognize (whether you voted for him or agree with him or not) that currently, Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America in his current office at this time, how much greater is the reach and power of the Lord for those who believe in him? In that light, I do feel one could be Muslim and still worship the Lord. We cannot know the intentions of their heart, but the Lord does. Even the Muslims (those who bother to even read or adhere to it) have a cautionary verse in their Koran which warns them to be wary of attacking or persecuting the Jew or Christian, for it is possible that they worship Allah. It is impossible for the good Muslim to know, and hence, great care should be taken in regards to those who are part of those religions. In that light, I take the idea that we should not judge, perhaps, to strongly, but I feel much as C.S. Lewis that many we might not feel are Christians or worship the Lord will turn out to be worshipping the Lord. Of course, I also fee that it may be that many we do not think are Christians will turn out to be Christian, and many of those we feel are saved, might not be. It is not for us to decide...but the Lord. Thus, in the case of the woman with the hijab...I might have had a more liberal approach than the college did, and acknowledge that while some of the Muslims may worship the same Lord, they do not acknowledge Christ nor his divine role and atonement that was necessary for us all.

I've heard some humorous stories in this. There was one guy, 100% Japanese, had his ancestry to prove it, and his results...He's partially from Western Europe (probably around the Netherlands or something), partially from Native Americans, and almost 50% from West Africa... To say they got that wrong on a massive scale is to put it lightly... Another...white as white can be...he was supposedly 5% Native American or something like that (as far as he knew, none of his family ever had been to the Americas), 50% from Central Africa or those whereabouts (and what made it notable), and the rest correlated mostly to what he knew in Europe. No idea if these tests actually work, but I've had some inclinations that sometimes some of them might be blowing smoke. They work really well in paternity tests from what I've heard though...the maternal side normally doesn't need to be tested to determine who the mother is though...

So, this is the summer. With Historians, some teach, some do research, and some do both. I utilize the summer time to do research and things of that sort. I've just recently spent some time among Indians (as in, from India) and some thoughts in regards to LDS religion came to mind. The Asian religions are about as far from Mormonism and Christianity as one can get, but at the same time, as I pondered how this life and this world is full of the symbology of the next, I thought of some things...not that these are doctrine in any way, just thoughts I had while doing work. Many of their religions are based around ancestor worship, or the idea of individual deities of a house that watch and protect that family and house. Many times this may be a relative that watches the house (or in some Asian religions, many ancestors). I thought, perhaps this is relative to something in reality. We do not worship our ancestors, but it may be that many of those who die who are our parents and grandparents and great grandparents and so on are assigned to look after their children/grand children/great grandchildren in the afterlife. In this way, we are in some ways, protected or at least watched over by our ancestors. Hence, even though it is not a true religion, and is false, the religions of the East have a splinter of truth to them that if noted by someone with the spirit, may be of gain to someone. Another thought was in regards to ants and other insects which have queens and a lot of workers. IF (and that's a big IF) each woman could have as many children as eternity affords (saying she would want that many children, I imagine there will be no pain of conception/labor, etc involved with the process, and babies are cute...) it could be that entire worlds come from a single woman. In that light, as a Queen ant is the mother of the entire colony, so a mother would be the mother of all there is. She would literally be the queen of the entire world, having dominion over it. In that light, ants (yes, I worked in the dirt somewhat while over there, at a dig site) are also in someway symbolic of the great whole of heaven. Now mind, these are just thoughts, not something I'm forming a defined opinion over, and definitely not a belief...but things that came to mind as I was working. I have about a week off and then I am off to do more research (as I said, it is the summer and this is what I do, it's not just free time). I think that all things manifest the things of heaven, if we but look for them. That is a belief of mine, that all things that are created by the Lord manifest themselves of him, and show that he is and his gospel and teachings. Now, how it all works is a mystery to me, and you should probably use inspiration from the HG or people much wiser then I to figure it out, but I think that all things can manifest of heaven if we but look to them and listen to the spirit. (and I may be mistaken, but it's a personal belief in regards to the world and the Lord).

This is also of what I am of the opinion of.

I think what you say makes perfect sense. I actually agree with you. HOWEVER, it is not the same thing I'd say to a missionary currently serving. While I might not make promises, I would probably tell them to work hard and that by working hard they have a better chance at baptizing. When I served a mission, we had similar promises given to us. Now, at the time I was in one of the lowest baptizing missions, and that meant my current baptisms per month was also zero (and I think the entire mission had an average of 10-15 baptisms total each month, or it might have been yearly...it was VERY low comparatively to other missions at the time). Well, I went on a contacting and working frenzy. I tried to do what they asked to the best of my ability. Now, I didn't have a ton of baptisms, and our baptisms didn't double (if you double zero, it is still zero), but we finally DID have a baptism. Hard work cannot be discounted, and encouraging missionaries to go out there and proselyte cannot be underestimated. It is their mission at that time, to proselyte and convert. Obedience brings blessings, and though it may not be baptisms, it can help develop their own strength in the gospel and build their testimonies to levels they could never imagine. I have never been a Mission President, and may never be one, but I think that in working with 18 and 19 year olds, if I simply said to work hard and it will help you...it is not going to encourage as many as if I phrased it differently. When one uses a number, such as, go out and talk to 20 people every day, and your other numbers such as discussions and baptisms will likewise increase, it is something tangible that they can look at and say...hey, I can do that. Then, they go through the day and count up to 20 as they contact 20 different people. It gives them something tangible that they can work towards. Now, I, of myself, would be more hesitant to promise something like a guaranteed baptism, but then, I'm not a Mission President who has that spirit for their mission who may have the spirit revel that something like that may occur. Of myself, it may take a great deal to convince me to make any sort of promise like that, but as far as numbers in contacting, or goals with discussions, I can see how that can inspire and motivate young men that are still in their late teens far more than promises of testimony growth and personal enlightenment. That's probably just me speaking. However, I do agree with what you are saying, just not sure that is the way to motivate most teenagers that are on their missions these days.

I haven't read the other article that supposedly illuminates the idea, but I think it refers to where Nephi states the virgin (Mary) is the Lord's Mother after the manner of the flesh, indicating that there may be another who can also be considered his mother. It is thus utilized to differentiate that the specific individual he is seeing (Mary) is the mother of the Lord in the flesh, or of his mortal body. It could be interpreted various ways and in many different opinions. It could merely mean he was specifying that the Lord was being born into the flesh, by Mary, or it could have greater inflections as indicated in this thread.

Late to the thread, but as has already been stated, the article is, especially that portion (#9) the opinion of the author. That said, the author actually gives a pretty good summation of a non-member's understanding of the LDS church doctrines, and what I would consider a very unbiased summation of their understanding of LDS views. My opinion is that his opinion is not that far off, TBH, but one should realize that if one accepts the temple work and it is able to be applied to them, that the individual, though dead, is then a "Mormon" which could paint the entire #9 into a slightly different light.

If I understand you right, it corresponds somewhat with what I understand, and I like how you put it. Our exaltation, and our glory, is beyond those of other glories because we can have increase. It is from our increase, or progeny, that our kingdom and or glory is increased. As our own glory is increased, it by default, also increases the glory of our Father. I think it's not just being parents though, but being parents that live the gospel, and that by learning how to be parents in the gospel, it will enable us in understanding and ability to be the type of exalted parent to our children that our Father is to us in the hereafter. I do not know the exact timing (as the OP requested) to when it occurs, I would hope it happens sooner than later, but in all honesty, I have no idea. I would agree it probably has a start though, when we enter the everlasting covenant.

Probably to late, but for clarification, while the one statement on sinless is correct from our viewpoint, this statement above is an opinion, depending on how one interprets it. If this is referring to the Father's mortal life, we do NOT know much about that at all, except for what JS told us, which might be interpreted as you stated, or may also be interpreted that the Father was actually JUST like every one of us (and that would be of this world, not even necessarily LDS as we also can be Saviors in the Temple, will die and be resurrected, and many of us also receive exaltation just as our Father and the Son). It is open to interpretation and opinion. The quoted item and ensuing discussion on it is a good opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. It is in no wise doctrine as far as I know. It has no backing in scripture, or even really teachings from any prophet in that regards, but there have been some teachers of religion who have had opinions in regards to some of the teachings and write or also teach that opinion in the same that mirror yours.

From what I understand, I feel this was a staged event, as in, planned and staged to make a political and public message. This is my opinion. One parent decided to stop being associated with the LDS church a few years back when the LDS church regarding Gay Marriage and their children was announced and published. That parent did not agree with the LDS church and felt that was the final straw. They did not like the LDS policy regarding LGBT rights or treatment, especially in regards to the children. The other parent stayed in the LDS church. This daughter supposedly was going to bear a testimony of this in January. However, supposedly, as per the parents, they felt that the daughter should not do so at that time and instead went over what the daughter was going to say. This is supposed to be the excuse of why the daughter had it written down, as a written statement. The F&T meeting that family brought a bunch of "Friends" to support their daughter. These friends...interestingly enough, from what I would say, are part of the LGBT alliance, or LGBT group in support of LGBT rights. They supposedly cheered and celebrated the event, which isn't really something that one does in an LDS church building after a meeting or anytime typically anyways. My concerns... 1. Knowing the one parent's views and thoughts, I am concerned whether this is really the girl's feelings, or if this was somehow coached upon the child by that parent. It is hard to say. Either way, it being written down isn't really a testimony in the usual sense of a F&T meeting...more like a speech or a talk, and to me...gives a sense of being staged simply for the purpose of staging it for media and public consumption to mock the LDS church. 2. The bringing of those "Friends" which, I don't really think were close friends...per se...but more those to celebrate the event of a media type message to the church...also points to it being staged. 3. It is not a hidden policy that the chapel is not a place to bring cameras and other such media equipment. F&T meeting is definitely not the place for it. That they purposefully brought such stuff, along with their friends, and were filming it, I think speaks for itself on whether this was a planned and staged event to bring mockery to the LDS church or not. My opinion is that this was something premeditated, thought out, and then staged by the Parents in order to try to bring arguments or notoriety against the LDS church. I also posted this in the other thread as well, since there seems to be two different threads.

From what I understand, I feel this was a staged event, as in, planned and staged to make a political and public message. This is my opinion. One parent decided to stop being associated with the LDS church a few years back when the LDS church regarding Gay Marriage and their children was announced and published. That parent did not agree with the LDS church and felt that was the final straw. They did not like the LDS policy regarding LGBT rights or treatment, especially in regards to the children. The other parent stayed in the LDS church. This daughter supposedly was going to bear a testimony of this in January. However, supposedly, as per the parents, they felt that the daughter should not do so at that time and instead went over what the daughter was going to say. This is supposed to be the excuse of why the daughter had it written down, as a written statement. The F&T meeting that family brought a bunch of "Friends" to support their daughter. These friends...interestingly enough, from what I would say, are part of the LGBT alliance, or LGBT group in support of LGBT rights. They supposedly cheered and celebrated the event, which isn't really something that one does in an LDS church building after a meeting or anytime typically anyways. My concerns... 1. Knowing the one parent's views and thoughts, I am concerned whether this is really the girl's feelings, or if this was somehow coached upon the child by that parent. It is hard to say. Either way, it being written down isn't really a testimony in the usual sense of a F&T meeting...more like a speech or a talk, and to me...gives a sense of being staged simply for the purpose of staging it for media and public consumption to mock the LDS church. 2. The bringing of those "Friends" which, I don't really think were close friends...per se...but more those to celebrate the event of a media type message to the church...also points to it being staged. 3. It is not a hidden policy that the chapel is not a place to bring cameras and other such media equipment. F&T meeting is definitely not the place for it. That they purposefully brought such stuff, along with their friends, and were filming it, I think speaks for itself on whether this was a planned and staged event to bring mockery to the LDS church or not. My opinion is that this was something premeditated, thought out, and then staged by the Parents in order to try to bring arguments or notoriety against the LDS church. I'll post this in the other thread as well, since there seems to be two different threads.

A. Name one point where it was actually voluntary after they entered it. It was NOT in Peter's time (couple killed by the Lord, that's not exactly voluntary). It was not in Missouri (excommunication, loss of property, and exclusion if you decided to leave it typically). It was NOT when Brigham Young ordered you to follow it in Utah (then it wasn't even choosing to enter it the first time, you basically did as you were asked regardless of any covenant). If you did not, you could be executed (as per Utah regulations at the time) if it was considered you caused enough harm, though more likely it was excommunication, and/or exclusion to the point of being forced to leave the territory. It is only MODERN day ideas and Mormons who think it is going to be voluntary on the group or groups that are called upon to practice it. Once started, it needs all those who have committed to stay committed, or, as was seen in Missouri when you had many who decided it was voluntary and decided to leave...it all starts falling apart. B. You make a covenant with the government by being a citizen. If you do NOT wish to abide by that law, you always have the choice to do away with your citizenship. Many Americans have done so, it is YOUR choice in that matter. In that, unlike LDS covenants, you are MORE free, as you have the option to back out of that agreement in being a citizen (though for many, they were born into it rather than choosing it, another key difference between being a citizen and an LDS member) while you do not really have the option to back out of covenants you make in the LDS church per se. You may be able to have them revoked for a time on what you are doing, but they are still there (hence the restoration of blessings should one decide to come back instead of doing it all over again), but you cannot simply revoke or back out of covenants you have made. In that light, you are MORE free with the two sided agreement of citizenship than you are with covenants in the church.

I do not know what Osborn is thinking, it may be this or it may be something else. I am not a scientist either, this was learned because, as a historian, we learn a few scientific things occasionally in relation to what we do. Carbon dating has a very short half life that gets more unstable in it's accuracy the further along you go back. Anything under 500 years should be considered mostly accurate. After that the gaps get larger in how accurate or inaccurate it may be. When you get to two thousand years ago, we can still use Carbon dating, but you normally want to use something else to back it up. For example, if you have a scroll that dates to 30 A.D., you can see that it is the same type of scroll used historically, that the item it was found in was an object in the ground where the dirt layers approximate from that date, the language and forms used on it also approximate from that date...etc...etc...etc... Overall, for most of written history, carbon dating is utilized and considered mostly efficient. (what I mean by this, is when modern day historians or archaeologists use it to date something, not that they used it for most of history). There are OTHER forms of chemical dating besides Carbon dating which are much more accurate for things that are thousands, millions, and even billions of years old. I believe one that is particularly well used is argon dating (potassium-argon dating) for things that date into the tens of thousand to the hundreds of thousands of years old. Beyond that, though I haven't utilized this one, I believe is the uranium-lead dating which can be used for things that are billions of years in age.