cdowis

It appears that you are not familiar with LDS doctrine.  The short answer is that we all existed as spirits before mortality.  We are all children of God, and are brothers and sisters.
 
Satan lead a rebellion against Father, and he and his minions chose not to  receive a mortal body here on earth, but to remain as spirits.
 
 He is just as real as you and I are real.

"bad bad Byron"
 
But your response will be read by others.  When I do my youtube apologetics, even though it appears that I am addressing "bad Byron", I am actually talking to those other readers who may have an open mind.  So I talk to him as he were willing to listen, just for the sake of the other readers.

DOJ took its marching orders from Obama when he said, even before all the facts were known, that there was "not a smidgen of evidence of a crime."  Following the "hint", the investigation was conducted by a major donor to the Dem party.

I would certainly hope you would understand that members of the LDS church have complete respect for your beliefs.  I singled out that particular doctrine because, for some,  it represents the demarcation between "one of us" and "nonChristian", e.g.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-doesnt-the-catholic-church-accept-mormon-baptism
(Although this is addressing conversion baptism, within context, the meaning is quite clear.)
 
I simply wanted to point out the irony.  And the question was asked.

The House passes a article of impreachment, and then refers it to the Senate.  If it passes the Senate, he simply clears out his office, and goes back to doing what he was doing before -- making alot of money and contributing to the Democrats.
The President would then nominate someone else and the Senate would have to confirm the nomination.  In the meantime, the President will appoint one of his pals to be a temporary replacement.
 
And meanwhile all of this will get entangled in presidential election politics, and has to be done BEFORE the election of a new president for it to any meaning at all.
 
And, yes, I agree with you.  It's all for show.

"I'm sorry"
 
Apology accepted
 

" drives a car"
 
Except a mormon "car" does not use gasoline, but eats oats.  Obviously something about the Word of Wisdom.

There should be no debate on this issue....The rules of this site are posted here  http://lds.net/forums/forum-5/announcement-1-ldsnet-rules-please-be-familiar-with-these-rules-before-posting/
 
Everyone that post here agreed to follow when they created an account (You might not have paid attention to it but you did)
 
The MODS have repeatedly asked/instructed/ORDERED people to report content they think might be questionable and then stay away and not otherwise engage.  Especially if for some reason you think that their violation some how justify your own breaking of the rules by attacking them.
 
Now it is possible to respond to an offensive poster in a loving and Christ-like manner.  If you can do so them by all means go ahead (that is within the rules and purposes of this site).  But most of us (I include myself) have a hard time with this and would be better off stepping away for a bit.

CRITIC
" the book of Mormon was written in 17th century English yet produced in the 19th century."
 
RESPONSE
It only shows that It was translated from an ancient text using what was recognized as Biblical English  ==>> derived from the Bible English 
 
 I have read the translation of several Greek plays, poems and novels, and the translator did not use the common, colloquial language of the day, but a formal style of English.

I know something about the process of translation of ancient texts, having studied Greek and Latin.  You are probably aware that the translation of texts is really an art and the translator will have a particular philosophy and style -- loose vs tight, formal vs contemporary English.

Sine the Book of Mormon is in the tradition of a scriptural text, it is appropriate to use "Bible language". 

Royal Skousen conducted a multi-year analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon and its translation.  He made an unexpected discover
"The original vocabulary of the Book of Mormon appears to derive from the 1500s and 1600s, not from the 1800s"  Some of these archaic words and phrases are not found in the KJV.
Look here for more details  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1316&index=3

Nibley said (more or less), "Woe to that generation which is able to understand why these chapters are in the Book of Mormon."

I came across a very interesting commentary by Michael Savage.  He gives us a perspective on what is happening in the world that would sound very familiar to members of the church.
 
 
 
I suggest that you listen to the first five minutes of his broadcast.  Very thought provoking.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/historic-freedmen-records-released
 
See also http://www.discoverfreedmen.org/
 
Familysearch.org is looking for volunteers to index these records.

Nibley said (more or less), "Woe to that generation which is able to understand why these chapters are in the Book of Mormon."

"Heavenly Father, I have gotten thru this very difficult situation, so please help me to learn the lessons that I need to learn."  

"Heavenly Father, I have gotten thru this very difficult situation, so please help me to learn the lessons that I need to learn."  

Vort,
 
I would have simply sent the money with a short note --
 
"Sorry that we missed the wedding, and here's the money for the dinner.
 
PS I may have forgotten to mention this, but that TV we got for you was purchased rent-to-own.  We paid the first month, so they won't start billing you until next month -- only twelve easy payments."

I really feel strongly about the topic of these false oracles that are distracting members of the Church from the true ones.  In the Doctrine and Covenants, we have an example that the Lord used for instruction and correction.
 
In Kirtland, Ohio, there was a wave of successful missionary work that added hundreds of members to the Church in a place far from the first home of the Church in New York.  The members were excited and filled with zeal.  That zeal led them to many errors.  Satan led new members astray with false revelations.  The members meant well.  They were so excited that God had restored prophecy and revelation to the earth that they got carried away.  People did all kinds of unseemly things in the name of "having the Spirit."  One man, for example, followed a glowing orb that he saw in a vision and it led him to jump off a bluff in pursuit of it.  He might have been seriously injured, but he landed in a tree.  The manifestations were similar to those swooning, fainting, trances that were common among spiritualists of the time.
 
The Prophet arrived in Kirtland and found there was much to correct.  He had to teach these new members that there was an order and economy in the house of God.  The Lord is not disorderly in the way he gives revelation.  Revelations come according to one's stewardship.  Also, the "spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Corinthians 14:32).  What a living prophet receives will dovetail with that of previous prophets.  
 
In Kirtland, Joseph had to take aside Brother Hiram Page, who was receiving revelations for the whole Church via his own personal "seer stone."  The instructions the Lord gave Joseph are in Section 28 of the D&C.
 
 11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page,between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;
 12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.  (D&C 28)
 
When I taught Seminary about 20 years ago, I learned that the contents of Hiram Page's revelations had to do with the location of the future Zion in Missouri.  In other words, Satan was trying to disrupt the plan of the Gathering by introducing some truths out of sequence, before the Lord had given them to the Church through Joseph.  Joseph had to correct Brother Page and had him destroy the stone to remove the temptation to resort to it again. 
 
Today we have all kinds of people repeating so-called revelations from Julie Rowe, Bishop Koyle, Denver Snuffer, and others--some of whom profit from their "revelations."  Members are unwilling to wait for the Lord to speak through the called and sustained prophets.  Even though some of the things these people say may seem true, the Lord is not speaking to the Church through them.  They will lead whoever follows them astray.  I want to say that with as much emphasis as I can.  These are modern-day Hiram Pages who are not called by the Lord to reveal these things, even if there were truth to their "visions."
 
In the Book of Mormon, Lehi's son Jacob explains why the Jews in Jerusalem were smitten and scattered, even though they had living prophets among them.  He wrote:
 
"....Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it" (Jacob 4:14). 
 
If any saints hunger for the "more sure word of prophecy," there are ample writings from true, called, ordained, and sustained Church leaders all the way back to Joseph Smith.  John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, George Albert Smith, and others prophesied exactly how America will meet its demise.  Those hungry for descriptions of plagues, earthquakes, fires, floods, and war will find it from the words of these true oracles without having to resort to today's pretenders.  All of these men held the appropriate priesthood keys and offices to give the revelations they left for us.  
 
Consider for example, Orson Pratt.  Pratt was specifically commanded by the Lord in D&C 38 to "...lift up your voice and spare not, for the Lord God hath spoken; therefore prophesy, and it shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.." (D&C 38:10).
 
Pratt was called by the Lord to prophesy.  He has his critics because was strong-minded and stubborn at times.  He published a speculative work on "The Great First Cause" that went beyond revelation into his speculations and it was declared non-doctrinal by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  Pratt repented and returned in time.  Aside from that, no one in authority every criticized his prophecies.  Likewise, Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor gave remarkable prophecies and we know where their authority came from and how they got it.  
People have a tendency to say, "Oh, Orson Pratt was excommunicated, so we shouldn't listen to him." Then these same people will turn around and follow a Bishop Koyle or a Denver Snuffer, who were excommunicated and never repented or returned to the fold.  There is plenty of true revelation from reliable sources upon which we can focus our studies.  
 
My point is that the Church has a rich body prophetic and apocalyptic utterances from true oracles who were called by God for that purpose.  I value all of these teachings and I have done my utmost to study them and understand them.  I stay grounded in the scriptures and bless God that he has given us these additional words of knowledge to help us and motivate us.  Most of all, I'm thankful for living prophets who we can trust to lead the way and tell us what needs to be done at the time the Lord sees fit to provide those instructions.

I might be interested in the "more reputable sources." I care nothing for the ravings of an apostate.

The question is not *what* he said, but *who* told him these things.  Note that many of these predictions directly attack the confidence in its leaders and the survival of the church.  Some will say, "Oh dear, we have three apostles which have been replaced, so his prophecies are coming to pass."
 
May I suggest that this is a mixture of truth and lies.  As Satan told Eve, "You will not die" after telling her that she will have knowledge.
 
The entire purpose of these statements, as they come to pass, is to cause the saints to lose confidence in the church and its leaders.
That's what I think.
 

What would it be like to be a missionary in spirit prison.
 
https://youtu.be/BIAMDF81w8k?list=FLOGthnff2vitBgcB66Ngm1A

I know of no prohibition against sealing a divorced couple.  Indeed, if a living couple has been sealed, the sealing is still in effect after a divorce, unless they get a "temple divorce".  Those must be approved by the First Presy.

The short answer is "No",
The long answer is.... maybe but it would be very complicated.  At best, after you died, someone would have go convince Familysearch to do a block on your name against any additional work being done.
 
You are obviously having some serious marital issues, and I hope you can work them out.  But the only real answer is what you already know -- she can't force you to have a valid sealing even if she has the work done.
 
Just forget about it, don't worry about it, and get on with your life.  I wish you all the best.

The short answer is "No",
The long answer is.... maybe but it would be very complicated.  At best, after you died, someone would have go convince Familysearch to do a block on your name against any additional work being done.
 
You are obviously having some serious marital issues, and I hope you can work them out.  But the only real answer is what you already know -- she can't force you to have a valid sealing even if she has the work done.
 
Just forget about it, don't worry about it, and get on with your life.  I wish you all the best.

This may be helpful
 

Right!  People don't change just because they are dead.
 
The scenery may change but people are still people.