BJ64

Yes I agree. As I’ve said before I believe Adam to be a literal son of God and therefore not a descendent of pre-humans.

I think you have shown the two sides of the argument quite well. I personally feel that pre-humans lived on earth before Adam and Eve just as the dinosaurs did and at some point the earth was cleansed and they were removed. Therefore Adam and Eve had to replenish the earth. Young earth creationists however believe that no life existed on earth before Adam and Eve and that there was no death on earth before the fall so they totally reject that idea. If seeing is believing then we do not need to have faith that pre-humans existed, we have a perfect knowledge because we can’t see the remains. Therefore I don’t know how their existence can be denied. Therefore the mystery as I see it is who were they, why were they here, and what part do they have in the plan of the earth?

Excellent, excellent post!

Given the fact that there exists upon this earth the remains of pre-humans where do you think they fit in the scheme of things?

As I see at the bully is the one who throws the first punch not the one who defends himself.

Duplicate post

I guess you could rewrite it that way but in doing so I think you’d be giving me too much credit.

That instance had nothing to do with me misquoting a forum member. It was an accusation of me misquoting President Kimball. Which was not true.

Did I say anything anywhere about anybody being easily offended?

That debate went on and on because some of you had a hard time understanding the definition of the word celibate which means to not marry or have sex and that no one in the church is commanded to be celibate. It took a long time to teach that principle.

I don’t see anywhere in the link you provided that I quoted you incorrectly. All I see is where you argued with me over the fact that in the church when we refer to the prophet we mean the president of the church not the entire quorum of the twelve.

@ScottSorry. The term later prophets made me think of the last half century.

“The problem as I see it is that many of the “Mormons” here have a very shallow understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore argue about it because they don’t know the truth.” ““Mormons" here have a very shallow understanding...because they don't know the truth.” You don’t see a difference in meaning in these two sentences? Sure, someone could go back and read how I originally wrote it but that doesn’t change the fact that you changef the meaning of my sentence for your own purposes. If this is the case, and I’m not sure that it is, the reason is that it can take page after page to teach gospel principles to some individuals. A deeper understanding of gospel doctrine by everyone here would avoid such long drawn out explanations. Point out an example of when I have quoted someone in such a way that it changed the meaning of what they said. I would not call it an ease of offense but rather a quickness of defense. In a fight you don’t wait for the second punch before you punch back. That is not because you were offended by the first punch but because you’re defending yourself. There are bullies here and some of us are willing to fight bullies rather than ignore them and walk away.

.

If people understood the gospel they wouldn’t have to argue a minute point page after page. You will note that I edited your quote where you cut out 22 of my words in order to totally change what I said which is also something quite predictable on this forum and proves my point about the quality of people here. Twisting peoples words and changing their senses in order to change what they said to make them look bad is also a very low class thing to do. Your response to my post is also quite predictable because the “clan of regulars” who are some if the worst offenders don’t like to be put in their place. You don’t create a “polite forum” by simply ignoring those who are impolite.

Since it seems that nobody bothered to read the article I linked to on what prophets have said about caffeine, here is part of the article. “ When it comes to the Word of Wisdom, without fail there is always one topic that creates a stir of controversy: caffeine. Even as early as 1918, an article in the Church's magazine the Improvement Era debated the effects of drinking caffeine and whether or not coca-cola was a suitable drink for Church members, stating, "The coca-cola habit has made rapid inroads into the lives of an unsuspecting people" (Improvement Era, vol. 21, March 1918). Church members and even leaders vary on their views of caffeine, generating personal convictions that can sometimes cause conflict between Latter-day Saints. In 1937, Elder John A. Widtsoe and his wife, Leah, wrote the first major book on the Word of Wisdom, speaking strongly against caffeine, saying, “Whenever a drink is advertised to 'give you a lift,' the 'lift' is likely to be caused by the drug which it contains. Such soft drinks are decidedly harmful and habit-forming, even though sold by the millions. Such caffeine-containing drinks, offered by every soda fountain and most eating places, and consumed in large quantities, should be known and avoided.”

In truth I think the “in crowd” would rather drive everyone they dont like away. However, I’m a trained fighter so when I’m attacked don’t run, I fight back.

@brlenox, your experience is not unique. It is my experience too. However I’ve blocked the posts of many of the “clan regulars” so I don’t have to see what they have to say.

Hostility is what I’ve come to expect on this forum. I agree completely. Mormonism isn’t schizophrenic, members of this forum are. The problem as I see it is that many of the “Mormons” here have a very shallow understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore argue about it because they don’t know the truth.

Thank you @JohnsonJonesVery well said.

No, this has nothing to do with marijuana. In fact I don’t care one way or the other what Utah does in this regard. I don’t follow Utah politics as most members of the church probably don’t. You give a good response. I think that many times if we don’t follow the counsel of the prophet the result is not sin but a lack of blessing. There have been many words of counsel that have been given which members may or may not choose to follow. For example stay out of debt, have a years supply of food, have family home evening etc. where not follow the counsel may bring about its own punishment. The caffeine example, if you drink caffeine you will be subject to the ill effects of the substance.

No. I don’t think we’ll receive more ancient scripture until we no longer take lightly the scripture we have. I also feel the second coming will not be before then.

Read your own quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee. They are the things I have read before as a standard for new revelation.

This has been my understanding of how now revelation works. Only twice in my life has this process of the body of the church accepting revelation occurred.

Thank you. That’s a very good article.