Snigmorder

I've been reading the book of Genesis (started in chapter 6) and I'm currently on chapter 16. So far my experience with Genesis has been one of a paranoid child walking through the woods at night jumping at every sound he hears. I'm skeptical of every verse I read thinking to myself "how close is this to the original, how many errors are here?" I know the 8th article of faith but it doesn't answer my question. Its getting to the point where I'm only accepting a minority of what I'm reading. For example, the account of Ham's cursing is so vague that, if read literally, Noah cursed Ham for seeing his penis. It's described as "this thing you have done" it's obvious there's something missing in the account. And for some reason I doubted that Abram had hundreds of servants, imagining him as some kind a vagrant with a small flock. "He couldn't have that many servants back then" (I don't even know what this statement means.) Apparently certain theological groups in Judaism altered certain passages of the Old Testament to remove any indication that Yahweh was subservient to the most High God. How prevalent was this practice? So, basically, here's the question. Am I reading a great fiction penned by scribes and poachers? Is it a bad plastic surgery? Or is the Old Testament fundamentally accurate in it's rendering of the original text? How should I understand the Old Testament?

That reminds me of a story I'm sure most of us have heard. When Joseph Smith finally got his hands for the first time on the gold plates at the depository, he set them down next to him so he could look inside to see if there was anything else. He looked over and was startled to find the plates gone. He looks back in the depository and sees the plates. He didn't get the plates that time and had to wait another year before attempting again, you know why? "We commanded you not to let go of the plates."

I didn't like his liberal use of quotations from The Journal of discourses to reach broad and far-reaching conclusions. Of course, I never read the book entirely, just read a few pages here and there. I did read an entire chapter about law and didn't agree with what he seemed to be saying. What do you think of the book?

Florida Gators are mediocre.

@omegaseamaster75 "So for you everything is sexuallized?" The attitude behind this needs to be reconciled with the principles of righteousness or else it needs to be jettisoned. It is essentially a sneer at the idea that two-piece swimsuits are immodest.

What if I called it nakedness and pornography?

I agree, here's my complete opinion on swimsuits. Wear a T-shirt and swim trunks (with a one piece underneath.) That goes for men also (minus the one piece underneath.) As far as I'm concerned there's no reason to sacrifice modesty for the sake of some kind of cultural construct "swimming." If someone gets it, great. If they don't, great. I'll sleep like a baby.

I would like to add that the I've said was not learned or acquired from conference talks, church sermons, or "church culture." I hadn't watched conference or gone to church in 13 years until last September. The point being, some of the things I've said echo what the brethren have said and what the church puts out. I would argue that this is because they come from the same source, and not some arbitrary culture of lay-doctrine.

You're not a man are you.

You and I have different definitions of nudity and different definitions of sin. Nudity is not defined (I don't care how the world defines it) by whether or not the nipples and genitals are showing. Bikinis are nudity. Righteousness is not a series of compartmentalized behaviors. It is an attitude which is an outgrowth from light and truth, the way things really are. The commandments are not righteousness per se. The point of the law is to bring about righteousness. Asking whether or not caffeine is a sin is the wrong question to be asking.

What I've said about the movies demonsterable. I'm surprised by your statement. Admiring naked women (bikinis) will get you in a lot of trouble, Spiritually or otherwise. That general authority is in error and needs to humble himself. Then you need to study the doctrines and learn what the scriptures say.

I understand what you're saying, and what I'm saying isn't necessarily contrary to what you're saying. We shouldn't run faster than we have strength. But there are certain attitudes that ought to be jettisoned. There's a difference between weakness and stubborn pride. There's a difference between wearing a bikini and denying that it's wrong, and wearing a bikini but knowing it's wrong, and proceed anyway due to your current weakness. I think there's a bigger issue with complacency than with the actual substance of caffeine, movies, etc. To not humble ourselves before the Man of Holiness, our Father, and give up our comforts, be they physical or emotional, is a mistake. We are in for nothing less in this covenant. You disagree with what I consider wrong, fine. But no man can change my mind.

You certainly do have vices. No respectable man would be seen with Pepsi.

To quote Orson Pratt: "This tree, of which they both ate, was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why was it thus termed? I will explain a mystery to you, brethren, why this was called so. Adam and Eve, while in the garden of Eden, had not the knowledge you and I have; it is true, they had a degree of intelligence, but they had not the experience, they had not the knowledge by experience, which you and I have: all they knew was barely what they knew when they came there; they knew a commandment had been given to them, and they had sufficient knowledge to name the beasts of the field as they came up before them; but as for the knowledge of good, they had not got it, because they never had anything contrary to good placed before them. We will bring up an example. For instance, suppose you had never tasted anything that was sweet--never had the sensation of sweetness--could you have any correct idea of the term sweetness? No. On the other hand, how could you understand bitter if you never had tasted bitterness? Could you define the term to them who had experienced this sensation, or knew it? No. I will bring another example. Take a man who had been perfectly blind from his infancy, and never saw the least gleam of light--could you describe colors to him? No. Would he know anything about red, blue, violet, or yellow? No; you could not describe it to him by any way you might undertake. But by some process let his eyes be opened, and let him gaze upon the sun beams that reflect upon a watery cloud, producing the rainbow, where he would see a variety of colors, he could then appreciate them for himself; but tell him about colors when he is blind, he would not know them from a piece of earthenware. So with Adam previous to partaking of this fruit; good could not be described to him, because he never had experienced the opposite. As to undertaking to explain to him what evil was, you might as well have undertaken to explain, to a being that never had, for one moment, had his eyes closed to the light, what darkness is." I don't read past this point because he starts to sound Protestant. Also, I'll take this time to say I don't like Tad Callister's book. There, I said it.

It has nothing to do with R-rated movies, or bikinis. Say these things aren't doctrinal all you want, or that they're great council, that's not the point. Movies are written and filled by the world and their view of things. They're full of violence, vulgarity, disgusting abuses of sex (showing or talking about it at all really,) ransacking the name of our Lord and our Father, harshness and cruelty. The movies are filled with the character of the devil, he's the one who influences these things in the earth. To tolerate these things for the sake of entertainment is a personal choice, but salvation is a personal choice. Two-piece swimsuits are nudity, they are pornographic, they are equal to the moneychangers at the temple. They are absolutely morally untenable. Caffeine is a neurotoxin and is addicting. Drink it all you want, it's not a commandment. But you shouldn't have to be commanded it all things. Regardless of whether the church claims doctrine, or whether you approve of their "advice" is irrelevant. These things are derived from uncreated truths, the way things really are, which reside in their fullness in the Eternal Civilization. Truth cannot be reduced by flustered embarrassment before the Gentiles, or an irreverent delegation of truth into memes. "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one." - D&C 93:36-37

My favorite thing about the hymn is that no other religion can accommodate it. It is the most "Mormon" hymn ever written.

"What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?" I'm not sure failure is the right word for Jesus. Has he failed if someone doesn't choose him? Yet it's still considered a loss by him, do you call it a failure? What can you call it? I would add that failure can be considered a part of this fallen condition. And Christ knows full well the infirmities of this fallen condition.

The Holy Ghost can dwell in all people. If the Father's person were to occupy the exact space which my body occupies. I would explode and die.

Gucci

If his complaint was with the phrase "where gods began to be" I would ask him to explain where God our Father acquired his anthropomorphic shape if it wasn't inherited.

It was in a slander thread against Bruce and someone had a contrary opinion (the story.) You translate? What language?

I don't know anything about mormon matters.

That reminds me of a story I read on an anti-Mormon website (I think that's where I read it.) it was an anecdote, I have no idea if it's true. I'll paraphrase: Bruce was giving a talk at some mission somewhere. There was a missionary and his companion, the companion couldn't speak or understand English very well, so the missionary had to whisper the translation into his companion's ear. Bruce saw this and had the missionary brought to the mission president's office and there in front of the mission president, asked the missionary something to the effect of: "so you think you know enough that you can ignore an apostle?" And the missionary replies "Oh, no sir. I was translating for my companion." Bruce says "I was greatly mistaken, you have my apologies. I hope you can forgive me." And then hugged the missionary. Apparently the missionary forgive him.

That Mormon Matters post might contain an error. It says: Despite the fact that David O. McKay declared the book not be republished, Bruce R. McConkie published it anyway six years later when the Prophet was in poor health. This is incorrect according to Bruce's "biographer." I'm paraphrasing here, he said Spencer Kimball was assigned to Bruce as a "mentor" to assist with changing the book for republication. http://www.ebornbooks.com/blog/2011/04/07/30/