VisionOfLehi

I think they're has to be one that has ALL the correct answers, and contains all the truth. Obviously I believe one Church on Earth has this. But I also believe there are other true churches, that do worship God, and are wonderful Christians. The Body, or Church, of Christ... I don't believe that just means LDS people. I believe it means faithful and obedient Christians. They are the Body of Christ... They are not members of Christ's Church on Earth, IMO, but they're definitely... members of Christ. I can't figure out how to word it. But Christ judges on our hearts and our deeds, not just what church we belong to.

I didn't grow up with religion. These were things I learned from my dad: It's never okay to hit a girl. Wait to be offered something, don't ask. Don't take crap from people. From my mom, it's harder to put into a few words. She generally reinforced good things, often times by example. She didn't drink or smoke, which was good because I hated those things. Stuff like sex was an important thing (people called my mom a prude in highschool! Teased her!). Not something you just do willy-nilly and irresponsibly. Be kind to people. Don't give up on them, even if they seem beyond help. I was also heavily influenced by media. Movies and books. Chivalry always stood out to me. Not just when it's labeled chivalry, and not just towards women. After my folks got divorced I lived with my mom and was subject to a lot of romantic comedies and "girly" movies. The "good" guys were models for my morals. Fantasy novels and such always have chivalrous guys! Now, I seemed to home in on these things, though. They interested my from the onset. They stuck on me, as opposed to the negative things, and violent TV. Also, I have always been a sharing and caring individual, with simple wants. Early examples: Halloween candy. I'd take a few pieces and pretty much give the rest to my brothers. Lastly, I learned to have modest wants, because after my folks divorced (so, for about 11 years now) I've lived below the poverty line. I have always been empathic and very well aware of our lack of income, even when my brothers weren't. I believe there's a reason WHY I was drawn to those things. Even before joining the Church. I believe my soul is attuned to those things. I believe I have an innate personality, or character, that is very strong, so it won out even over outside influences. I believe all humans naturally have moral codes. That there is some built-in need for morals. But environment and teaching largely affect how this need is satisfied.

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And when there were a lot of people, the covenant men decided to marry non-covenant women because they were attractive. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. The Lord lays out his punishment: In 120 years they will be destroyed. [The Great Flood] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Some of the children born of the Sons of God and daughters of men were giants, like Goliath. This giants were very strong, and very well known for their strength.

I can make a perfect circle on a piece of paper, with no tools but a marking utensil. Those circles look rough around the edges, and the thickness makes it easier to make a rough approximation of a circle and then increase the accuracy with thickness. Ever scribble a circle and keep going around until it actually looks like a round circle? Same concept. That's a theory... I don't know what this person did.

Nope! The keys to the commanding of the elements have not yet been given unto men.

Sinning against the Holy Ghost occurs when you've made higher covenants and you shed the blood (kill) of an innocent. There may be others, but that's the only clear-cut way outlined in scripture. And since that can't happen until AFTER baptism anyway, then it can be washed away, even. Trouble is that if you did that you're probably serving time, and I don't believe you can be baptized while you're serving time.

All things of the universe are powered by the Priesthood. The laws of nature, which govern the sun and light, are by the power of the Priesthood.

Honestly, I hope they do. Challenge it and win, that is. Even legalized, doesn't mean people will jump and do it. And in the Church it'd still be disallowed unless the Prophets declare it's once again reinstated.

Actually, I agree, and I still think it's unconstitutional. The same with same-sex unions (I don't use the word "marriage" there, as it's been used as a word to denote a sacred union between man and woman for thousands of years across many cultures and religions.) I think it's more than just freedom of religion that it violates. I steps over the bounds of the 3 branches of governments and takes power of choice away from the people.

They refrain from it, but I also think a lot of talking about it would get people up in arms, too. IMO

I think education is a major factor in ALL things. For instance, an African woman with just a 3rd grade education is TREMENDOUSLY less likely to have children she can't take care of. --- I think we need to take care of it at it's source. I like the concept PC was talking about, for the rehabilitation, but it REALLY has to start sooner than that. The ones more likely to commit crimes in the first place are likely those without a successful education. I know there's probably statistics out there to back this up, but I'm too lazy to get them today. But it's for a long time been my belief that the majority of the world's problem arise from being unfair to the next generation: Not educating them, not protecting them, not disciplining them, not instilling morals (Note: not religion, just morals), etc.

I think the point of pointing out that 21% of self-claimed atheists actually believe there's some sort of higher power was simply to point out that claims of atheism are not accurate. Do other studies on atheism ask if they believe in a higher power, or do they simply ask what the people consider themselves religiously? I can see that 92% being entirely accurate. You have to keep in mind that a God, or universal spirit, includes Pagan gods, "Mother Nature" or a goddess, unknown higher force, "karma" (to put it very ignorantly) etc. Elph: From what I've read, the 2001 survey indicates that about 14 percent don't affiliate themselves with any religion at all. This includes agnostics and atheist and humanists and other such groups, all lumped into one. The Pew forum's poll, which I just checked out, reflects this:

I must add to this post. It wasn't because they were the morals of the founding fathers. The founding fathers were chosen because of their morals. Christ established the Constitution of the United States of America. Those leaders who do not enforce it properly or who operate in violation of it shall be dealt with by Him.

No. Jared saw Christ BEFORE Christ came to Earth to receive his mortal body. After Christ died, He had His glorified, physical body. This is when He appeared to Joseph. Now, if you look at the first D&C you posted, that explains that. Now... We see that they have 2 separate bodies, and you've clarified for us that they are now flesh and bone, save the HG. We see further that they are NOT the same person, of a Trinity, because if the wording that would include Christ in the Trinity would have to include Satan in some Holy Quartet. He was the same in the beginning, he speaks to God in the beginning. In fact, he's referred to in much the same manner, save he's not the Beloved or Chosen one. If we all may be one, JUST as the Father and the Son are, does that make us all different aspects of the same person? And since we may be one in Them, JUST as They are one in each Other, than that makes us all part of the "Trinity," too. Note, it says one God AND Father. Not just One God. It's placing one "aspect" of the Trinity clearly above the other. Now, if there were a Trinity, would it not be "GOD" above them all? The composite of the Triune? How can a part be greater than the whole? D&C 76 also helps clarify the nature of the Godhead. And for the rest, we have modern revelation: LDS.org - Ensign Preach My Gospel

No, I wouldn't leave it out, because it doesn't support Trinity, it supports the Godhead. I would take those scriptures and add to them the ones that clarify the separateness of the Godhead. We have the fullness of the Gospel, but it's contained in all the standard works, when you take in the complete message, not bits and pieces.

How many offspring will he raise up with Celestial Plural Marriage?

That doesn't support the Trinity. You can't quote one scripture without relevant scriptures as well, when trying to discuss a whole topic. And that refers to the Godhead, not a single Trinitarian God. Or do you presume to interpret LDS scripture contrary to the teachings of the LDS prophets? I see a common theme when people try to "prove" or "counter" LDS beliefs and concepts: They live out some of the relevant scriptures that don't support their side.

Okay, so I saw this today at the Megaplex 17 at the Jordan Commons. Which meant big and DIGITAL. (Yay! I love how clear it is, and none of those film spots.) The film starts off as you seen in the previews. Hancock drunk and asleep on a bench, bad guys in a shooting car chase. There's a lot of humor in the film, and plenty of action. There were parts where the whole theater was laughing, but definitely not something you'd want young children to be laughing at, IMHO. There's also quite a bit of swearing. The f word at least ones, s word a few times, and the and the 7 letter version of the a word appears MANY times throughout the film. MANY. Parts of the plot were predictable, as well. But I still thought it was good, interesting, and very fun! There's a little more character to it than your normal action flick, but you have to keep in mind it IS an action flick, not masterpiece theatre. There is violence that contains blood. Hancock is a drunk. And pretty much every characters says that 7 letter a word at least once. The swearing was enough to make me uncomfortable after awhile, and some of the violence was definitely not for younger kids. (It's rated PG-13, properly.) If you're okay with that, then I say go, because it's still a fun movie. I heard there's mixed reviews, but I thought it went along and ended rather well. Also, I must say I'm fairly easily pleased. When it comes to a movie like this I don't get highly analytical, and I don't look at cinematography. I just enjoy it, and that's my advice for all movies! (Of course, I'm highly critical of bad acting and bad CG, and I can't say this movie really had that.) For me, I give it a 7/10. Points lost for the swearing, and I don't think I'd rate any movie 10/10 anyway, .

No, but it fits very well with ancient Jewish knowledge. I've done some looking up on Trinitarianism. Probably not enough, but it still doesn't fit. There's no reason for God to exist in three personalities or consciousnesses like that. There just isn't. It's nice to think about, and it's one way to try and reconcile Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but it doesn't make sense. I'm a pretty good abstract thinker... but it still doesn't fit. It seems more like a concept designed to please more people, and to keep them from asking too many questions (back in the day, anyway.)

I think if you're going to take a bone with something, it's not the First Vision account, but this statement (From their site): Which, to me, doesn't seem that strange or unusual. We have to remember, though our roots are the same, the LDS and CoC Churches AREN'T the same. We've had different history, and have accepted different doctrine. To hang your head in shame, or accuse them of waywardness, is just uncouth. The Light is in all religions, this one not excluded. I think we should emphasize that they are our brothers and sisters, and that they're more likely to understand our beliefs than many other churches. Build bridges, don't stomp on the cracks in old ones.

There are times when the laws of man are unjust and won't allow for proper change. My belief squares well with the 12th Article of Faith. We believe in it, yes. But I always believe obedience to the Lord is greater than obedience to the law. GOD and His SON are Kings, Presidents, Rulers. (Dunno about magistrates, ). And they give us the Law. Always comes before civil law. Obedience is the First Law of Heaven.

When I was taught the First Vision by the missionaries there was no mention of the fight with Satan, and it wasn't the Vision account, but the lesson, that made it clear they were 2 separate beings. I didn't learn about him being attacked by Satan before the prayer until an institute lessons months after my baptism that was actually about Moses (the same thing happened to him.) I don't like that it leaves out the fact that the Father and the Son actually appeared. "healing presence of God" and "forgiving mercy of Christ" are not the same thing as them actually appearing. But it's still not inaccurate.

Let's cool it a bit. What I want to know is why it's wrong to call it a vision? We call it the First Vision. We label it a vision, what's wrong with treating it as such? I think all agree, either way, that it was absolutely Divine.

Love him. Love him as much as you can and let him know it.

Some are gifted with the ability to see through the veil, IMO. Children are much closer to the LORD than some of us (they were just there!) I think it's natural that the veil is a little thinner for them. But the ability to do it on command or at your own will? No, I don't believe in that.