Snigmorder

To quote the black grimoire of death: "The first resurrection ushers in the millennium – many persons have already come forth from the grave in the resurrected and glorified bodies. Righteous that lived from the day of Adam to the day of Christ were with him in his resurrection. (Matt. 27:52–53; D&C 133:54-55: hela. 14:25.) To us, however, The first resurrection, the resurrection of the just, will come with the return of our Lord and the commencement of his millennial reign. 'Yea, And blessed are the dead that died in the Lord, From henceforth, when the Lord shall come, and all things shall pass away, and all things become new, they shall rise from the dead and shall not die after, and shall receive an inheritance before the Lord, in the holy city.' (D&C 63:49.) Non-members of church during millennium – since all who are living at least a terrestrial law – the law of honesty, uprightness, and integrity – will be able to abide the day of our Lord's coming, There will be non-members of the church on earth during the millennium. (Doctrines of Salvation, volume one, page 86–87; volume three, Page 63–64.) Destruction of wickedness as millennium commences– Incident to the commencement of the millennial era, the earth (the Lords vineyard) will be burned. Every corruptible thing will be consumed. (D&C 101:24); all the proud and very that do wickedly shall be burned out stubble (Mal 4:1; D&C 29:9; 64:23–25; 133:63–64); the sinners will be destroyed (Isa 13:9–14); and there will be an entire separation of the righteous and the wicked. (D&C 63:54.) Those only [who shall abide] that day [are those] who are worthy to live on a Paradisical or terrestrial sphere." – Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed.

I say that because, in my opinion, it's clear that the passage as written has nothing to do with preservation, refrigeration, or anything else like that. What Hinckley could be doing is bringing in a historical context and not necessarily interpreting the passage per se. That's all I could say about it, I tried to find something about it but was unable. @NeuroTypical @person0 But what I did find was an article from the Interpreter Foundation titled "Questioning the Comma in Verse 13 of the Word of Wisdom." Here's the article: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/questioning-the-comma-in-verse-13-of-the-word-of-wisdom/ Here's the abstract: "The 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants included an additional comma, which was inserted after the word “used” in D&C 89:13: “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” Later authors have speculated that the addition of the comma was a mistake that fundamentally changed the meaning of the verse. This article examines this “errant comma theory” and demonstrates why this particular interpretation of D&C 89:13 is without merit."

Well I can't explain it to you because its not what the Scripture says, I can disagree with it easily.

I have two grandmothers. The first grandmother thinks it has to do with a lack of refrigeration, similar to Gordon B Hinckley's position. The second grandmother thinks the Saints didn't need a divine revelation to figure out that meat spoils. I agree with the second.

Yeah, those passages do seem to express God's desire that animals be used in an edifying matter for man. And the language between verses 13 and 15 are different in 89. Verse 15 definitely says "do not eat unless." It seems like it would've been just as easy to write it that way for verse 13. D&C 49 does call them "beasts of the field" The same as verse 14 in 89 but not 13. I'll have to read what Ezra Taft Benson said.

So Benson thought this was censure of sport hunting? I didn't even think to consider the adjectives.

I like art. When I say I don't reverence art, I mean I won't tolerate something just because it's "art." There actually is art which I reverence, and that's music, but I don't consider it part of this.

@NeuroTypical @person0 I read a couple verses past verse 13. Here's 12–15 of section 89. "Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger." Comma or no comma, that's pretty definitive, and I don't think he's talking about the grain.

@NeuroTypical @person0 How did the comma manage to get in there?

I don't trust any minimum wage hike because they're always pushed by individuals who have a superstitious fear of business. Raising the minimum wage just gives incentive to cut the workforce.

The one verse that everyone pretends does not exist is verse 13. I hear it all the time "eat meat sparingly", that's not what the Revelation says. Verse 12 and 13 should be read together, there is a semicolon after verse 12. Taken together they read: "Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." The revelation defines "sparingly" as "animals are a back up when you can't eat anything else." And notice how the Lord says "it is pleasing unto me." The way I read the passage, it seems he doesn't want animals arbitrarily used or exploited, perhaps for the benefit of the creatures or the character of the saints. I think this might go beyond health in this instance. And the seasons thing. I get the impression that it might be talking about genetically altered foods (or something like unto it) that can grow anywhere at anytime. But this is pure speculation on my part because I have no idea about genetically altered food and whether or not it can grow anywhere at anytime.

I personally won't entertain nudity just because it's skillfully made is what I mean. By the way I own that album. @NeuroTypical Also, my friend has a word for Snigmorder-ey, fascist.

I have no reverence for art and I am therefore unbothered.

Apparently, according to the Internet, there are 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (seven octillion) atoms in a 154 pound person. A carbon atom has six protons, six electrons, and six neutrons. And apparently these are made of three quarks each. "We will take of these materials" was a modest way of putting it.

The pearl of great price rules out the Milky Way as the extent of the Father's creation. "And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still;" - Moses 7:30 I googled (scientific) how many grains of sand there are on the earth. The search rendered 700,500,000,000,000,000,000 (seven quadrillion five quintillion) grains of sand on the earth (and that's just sand, not all particles of he earth.) I also googled (scientific) how many stars there are in the Milky Way galaxy. Estimates range from 100 to 400 billion stars, while highest estimates are at 1 trillion. There's 1000 trillion's in one quadrillion (according to the converter I used, and I'm not sure which quadrillion it used.) Now, I don't know if Enoch had Genesis cosmology in mind when he made this statement or if he imagined the earth as we do. But I think he knows how small a particle is and that there are a lot of particles that make up the "earth."

Content

So what you're trying to say is, the tone of my post is too much.

Excuse me, I didn't know it was against policy.

I like that term, globb. Sectarians assert that God and spirit is not constituted of any globb whatsoever and is transcendent to globb. You might call something which is incorporeal something which is not constituted of any globb.

@Carborendum Because you implied that energy was incorporeal by applying it to creation from nothing.

Creation ex nihlio is greek philosophy, I can't say anything of such a line, seeing as we put no stock in philosophy as far as religious matters are concerned. All I can say is that I believe there are things which were not created. The minds of gods were not created and the "substance" from which "stuff" is derived is uncreated. And it is all physically constituted of things which do exist and are not incorporeal, even the minds of gods, Intelligence.

I ask this because the idea behind creation from nothing is that you have a line. On one side of the line you have God, and on the other side of the line you have ALL things which are created. In other words, they believe there is nothing which exists that was not created by the only eternal, beginningless agent, God. And by created, they mean caused to exist from literally nothing whatsoever. And seeing that energy is something, I'm not sure that counts as creation from nothing. Because in their view, God would have created the energy.

I will admit my representation of this principal has not been well stated.

That's something of a strawman. Obviously it's not against the kingdom to get dressed in your bathroom. Obviously it is against the kingdom to go out in public essentially naked in a bikini.

Well, please do! What do you have to say about it? By the way, when sectarians read "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" they are reading it as the beginning of all things which exist physically, not just the earth.