Traveler

You know that when you say you do not believe in evolution between species you imply that G-d would not or could not do such a thing. Why do you not believe he would or could cause evolution between species?The Traveler

One major basis of political corruption is the manner in which we fund those running. I have often wondered why free people would allow non-voting sources as the primary means of providing the funds for campaigns. I personally do not believe a non-voting source should be allowed to contribute a dime to a campaign. The Traveler

I just thought I would add a thought for those interested in the science of evolution. There are two ways science has been able to prove evolutionary changes. The first is in altering DNA. This is when the DNA becomes altered or damaged (this includes replication error). Most often we think of these alterations as defects. We can track DNA alterations in various species in large populations over just a few generations. We know this happens in all life forms - and yes that includes humans - which leaves me to wonder based on some previous post if the image of G-d is really to be considered in human DNA. The second process of evolution comes from abnormalities in reading the DNA or when the process of reading the DNA within a cell - hick ups and the replication process develops a new DNA code. One theory concerning evolution is that such changes are most usually random. The other is that there are factors (perhaps unknown) that are direct causes of such changes. I personally think the random theory is nuts - just because one cannot pin point a cause in the first few attempts does not mean that a direct cause does not exist - the whole history of science if full of new discovery of causes. The Traveler

There are two things I would like to point out from the above post. First is the importance in understanding the bias of the individual reporting. That bias can be imposed on all the other individuals included in the report. My son, when he was in college, made a film documentary on the democratic party in California. He interviewed many political experts and government officials concerning democrats and corruption. The interesting thing is that all persons interview were democrats but he was able to create the exact opposite impression of their opinions and what they intended to say by editing. The hidden point of his documentary was to demonstrate bias in reporting. Those that do not understand the use of bias in creating movies, documentaries, advertisements and other such things are doomed to be brainwashed and sold a lie. Nothing should be considered outside of the bias in which it is presented. To do otherwise is a very good definition of stupidity. The second thing is the listening bias. That is understanding your own opinion prior to considering information. One option in this is observing someone's response to the same data you are considering that holds a different opinion. Most are inclined to think - well they have a different opinion therefore their reaction will be wrong - rather than considering their response as a sanity check of self impressions. Two things we see propaganda used very often is in the fields of religion and politics. In general when someone has the bias that they never make mistakes of judgement and that their opponents always make mistakes of judgment you can be somewhat sure that you are dealing with some kind of nut case - but there is always the exception that proves the rule and in that situation they may be right - their opposition is the nut case but then they might concede to making a mistake. For myself I think I can admit that I have made some mistakes dealing with the anti-LDS types - in fact I know I have. But I have learned by sad experience that in dealing with anti-LDS types that I am not dealing with kind, rational, non-contentious, live and let live individuals interested in religious openness and freedom. The Traveler

I thought I would add this just so some of the posters will understand that (at least in this case) those that direct criticism against the Book of Mormon are themselves more flawed than what they say is the problem with the Book of Mormon. In 1985 a critic of the Book of Mormon by the name of Thomas Key wrote in the "Journal of American Scientific Affiliation" the following: "...since Pleistocene times there has been in Arabia no Bountiful land with much fruit and also wild honey (1Nephi 17:5) and no timber that Nephi could have used to build a ship (1Nephi 18:1). The problem is that Thomas Key, though claimed to be qualified to make the criticism, he overlook a very unique place known as Taqah/Khor Rori. He should have known better because Taqah/Khor Rori sits exactly where Nephi indicated it ought to be, has all the elements the Book of Mormon said it had, is the only place in Arabia with all such elements and happens to be at the end of the ancient Frankincese Trail. At least in this case the Book of Mormon is more accurate than the so-called experts. There is always danger in saying there is no evidence of something. So here is proof that published experts (as recent as 1985) were wrong and that the Book of Mormon (and young Joseph Smith) was exactly correct. Makes you wonder how critics can makes mistakes and the anti types shrug it off as though it does not really matter that when it come to real proof the Book of Mormon is more accurate than their experts. The Traveler

You thinking is too simplistic. For example a parent of a child that is being held in punishment suffers - as would the spouse, children, friends and anyone else that loves that person being punished. I think the point you have missed is that Jesus made "intercession". Meaning that what justice has meted out as punishment through the intercession by Jesus. There is a good example of this in the scriptures when David (before he was king) declared war on a guy who’s name I cannot remember and Abigail met David and offered payment for her husband offence and offered her life to end the war. The point is that sin can and does cause the righteous and innocent to suffer - This is the great miscarriage of sin in the world. There is no such thing as a sin that effects only the sinner. For example those that smoke defile the temple of G-d because our physical bodies are the temple of G-d. There is no sin against just ourself for all sin is against G-d. The Traveler

There is a little bit of misconception here based on the notions of proof and evidence. The problem is that evidence can often be interpreted in more than one way. Many like to pretend that evidence that supports something concerning the “Bible” is proof of all things concerning the Bible. The second notion is that evidence that supports the Book of Mormon can be interpreted in other ways and therefore cannot be considered proof. There are two problems I have over these issues. The first is when someone that claims that the Bible has been “proven” then provides evidence they claim disproves the Book of Mormon but fail to recognize that their interpretation of such evidence also disproves the Bible. I will give an example: That is that the evidence supports that native inhabitants of the Americans migrated to the Americas in prehistoric times across an ancient northern land bridge in two migrations of 20,000 years ago and 50,000 years ago. Note that a tenant of the Bible is that Adam was the first man and that he lived about 6,000 years ago. The second problem is based on that lack of some evidence. Because something has not been found the Book of Mormon cannot be true. The problem here is that we keep finding evidence that indicates something new that we did not know before the evidence was found concerning ancient civilizations in the Americas. Keep in mind that less than 2% of the known ancient archeological sites in the Americas have even been researched at all and of those that have been researched none have exhaustively been completed. Thus making any conclusions based on something lacking very premature. To answer the first question - in the 150 years since the publication of the Book of Mormon there have been many findings of evidence that support the Book of Mormon. There have also been evidence that seem to contradict the Book of Mormon. But there is no evidence that proves the Book of Mormon and there is no evidence that disproves the Book of Mormon. The Bible is in basically the same position with the possible consideration that much more research of Biblical locations has been studied and completed. The Traveler

There are two parts of justice. The first part is to protect the innocent. This is the most important notion of justice - If innocence is not protected justice has failed. The second part is to punish the guilty. That is for each offence a punishment is required. The problem is that many think that punishment is a payment for a crime. That is not true. Punishment is affixed not as a payment for offence but as a means to make an end to the suffering of the innocent in offences. But there is something in addition because of the atonement and that addition is mercy. Not just the mercy of G-d but the mercy of the innocent that were offended. Because justice has obligation to protect innocence more than to punish guilty there is a major problem when innocence suffers the demands of justice. Jesus being the only innocent in suffering the demands of justice - thus justice can be (or is) overcome or overpowered by the mercy (willing to suffer) of the innocent. Because Jesus has done this it is necessary that anyone harmed by an offence forgive the offender for the process to be complete. This is why Jesus commanded that we unconditionally forgive our trespassers. If we do not forgive our trespassers we deny the mercy of Christ even unto ourselves. The first principle of Christ or believing in Christ is to forgive others - We cannot complete our own process of repentance until we have completed the forgiveness of others. Thus we can know that we (as well as anyone else) are not redeemed of our sins or born again until we have forgiven our trespassers. Sad as it may seem some that pretend to believe in or have faith in the Christ refuse to acknowledge our investment in the mercy of Christ and by their agency deny the Christ and require the shedding of his innocent blood by not forgiving their trespassers implying forgiveness is a work and is not necessary - Christ, by himself, has overcome. The Traveler

If you believe that Jesus is the same G-d that was the Father and king of Heaven prior to the fall; then there was no fall and need for a Messiah or Trinity or Son of G-d. Jesus is the one and only G-d after the fall that can redeem man and return man to the Father. No man can come unto G-d the Father and king of Heaven - except through the Mediator Jesus Christ. Because of the fall man has only one G-d of slavation - there is no Trinity of salvation nor does the word Trinity appear in any scripture - Trinity is a fabracation of man. One of the basic published beliefs of the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints from the beginning is to allow people to believe and publish their religious beliefs even if we do not allso believe such. We did not and have not marched through northern Europe murdering men women and even innocient children in the name of a "Trinity G-d" - causing more death than the "Black Plague" or calling someone that would do such a thing a "defender of the faith". The Traveler

One difference in the Book of Mormon from other scripture is that the Book of Mormon was translated from ancient records by commandment from G-d. Although the Bible comes from many good and important revelations from G-d, it was not commanded by G-d but the scriptures were put together by men seeking their own ends according to their desires and will. There is not scripture that tells us what scriptures should be in the Bible - so in this sense the Book of Mormon fulfills according to G-d's will of what scriptures should be kept among us.The Traveler

I personally believe that every planet has its own "Adam," or first man to live upon it. In that sense, Adam could have been born from a woman in another place, and then placed on our planet and still be "the first man." I'm not even saying I believe Adam was born, versus being created "from scratch," but either theory makes more sense to me than God using evolution to create man in His image. One last question and I will leave you with the joy of your opinion. Concerning you - and if you are created in G-d's image - Were you born with that image or did you have to go through a process (evolution if you will) to receive his image in your countenance? The Traveler

Things from pagan thought, concepts and worship are so much a part of our culture, intertainment, rituals and traditions that it is my opinion that turning away from "Holloween" celebrations is akin to straining at a knat and swallowing a cammel.BTW - I would point out to my forum friends that "Democracy" is a pagan concept and that a "Kingdom" is more in line with government authority according to scripture - ie. Jesus is a King with a Kingdom. The Traveler

Unless Blazius can produce official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that Jesus is not G-d this post should be reported and action taken to limit Blazius from printing deliberate distortions.The Traveler

Prior to the fall there were many g-ds that existed in the kingdom over which G-d the Father is king. When man fell man was removed both from that society and from the presents of G-d the Father. Therefore after the fall man had access to one and only one G-d for salvation and that is the Mediator G-d, Jesus Christ the Son of G-d. Because Jesus does all things in the name of the Father many have come to believe that the one G-d for fallen man is the same G-d as the Father. But if man can come unto the same G-d after the fall as before the fall then there really was not a fall and man needs no mediator. Then there is no need for a redeemer to remove our sins before we come unto G-d because man (Moses, Abraham and other) came unto G-d without a mediator. Before the fall the scriptures identify a purality of g-ds - after the fall the scriptures speak of only one G-d that is the mediator. Without the LDS understanding of G-d there is no need for a Messiah. The inconsistency is in not understanding the fall of man. The Traveler

Interesting concept and idea about Adam - I am under the impression that Adam was the first man. If there were other "first" then I can understand your concept. I am suggesting a concept for what the scriptures call the first man and the possible process for forming the first man. (see 1Cor 15: 45 to the end of chapter 15) The Traveler

Good question Doc T. What is the maximum love you are capable of when loving G-d with all your heart? It is to remind me on the internet to keep references to G-d sacred - both for my self and others that cannot copy material if G-d is spelled out.I wanted to cover one general thought - a friend use to tell me that "your best is not good enough and good enough is not your best". We are not here to just "try" our best. We are here to partner with G-d and accomplish things we could never be able to do on our own. With G-d all things are possible. I believe the LDS mind set is not to do our best or to accomplish some good works according to our best efforts. Our mind set is to create a covenant with G-d and then to act with the power and strength of the Holy Ghost. What we then accomplish we do by the grace of G-d and with his strength to uphold us. "To walk and not be weary and to run and not faint." It is not about what we give with out talents and abilities to G-d it is about what we do in an alliance (called covenant) with G-d. The truth is that the more we work at doing things with and through the grace of G-d and by the power of the Holy Ghost the better we will become and the more divine power will work within us. This is the real agency. Not that we do things by our will but with the will of G-d by the power of the Holy Ghost within us. Perfect is nothing more than doing by covenant G-d's will with his spirit within us, assisting us. It is not about what we can do but what we can do by covenant with G-d. The Traveler

I do not know that there is a huge difference in our thinking. So far I have not been able to get the just of your thinking. When I ask questions to verify what I think you are saying - you seem to give answers that are not consistent. I thought we came to an agreement that human intelligence is an eternal thing that was established based on man's (human) spirit and has nothing to do with anything physical; in that our intelligence (light) was well established before any human physical form or body was created. In fact I thought we established that human intelligence was established even before the creation of anything physical in our universe. I agree that there would never be a spirit of any man placed in a physical tabernacle (temple) that was not according to G-d's design for man. I have not demanded that man must evolve from something similar to apes - What I am asking is why you have completely eliminated that possibility. What is it that you have considered that I have missed? I am trying to get a handel on how you came to that conclusion. From all the data I have studied it appears to me that evolution is the best solution we have going. I realize there are problems with the theory of evolution that center in the evolution of such creatures as the shark and the bat. I understand there are problems in the evolution and size of dinosaurs - but these are tangents to the direct question of how human bodies may have been prepared for the very first man (Adam) to receive the "breath of life". That G-d may have utilized existing life may be unreasonable to you - so I would like to understand how and where you came to that conclusion and what you used to establish your opinion. The Traveler

The people that left us the Dead Sea Scrolls were very much concerned with what the scriptures said about the Messiah, they were doing all that they could to be ready and pure when the Messiah came. They even knew with in a few years when the Messiah would be born. They knew all the signs - what more could they have done or been doing? Yet when the Messiah came they seemed to have missed him (at least the majority did). What are you doing more than they? Why do you think you know more than others what to expect and how to be ready? The Traveler

After an egg is furtilized and becomes a zygote when does the fetus take on the "image" of G-d? Did you know that there times that a human fetus has gills? Is that part of the image of G-d? The fetus does evolve from something that is very much less than the image of an ape to that of human and/or G-d. I am still trying to understand why you do not like truth from science and the discovery of how things are and occur. The Traveler

I'm trying to see if what you are saying is logical. Sorry if this doesn't make sense. I should probe. wait until hopefully next week but here is what I'm thinking. You said "in all honest, we cannot work enough." You then said "we saved by Christ's grace after all we can do." I'm familiar with that quote but have never really thought about it. Here is my problem, when you say "we cant" then the stipulation of salvation is on "after we do all we can do" the rub lies in the ultimate irreconcilable propositions you just laid out. What would after all we can do mean? Could you not have lied one time less? Could you not have been less prideful on one occasion? Could you not have been more charitable? We can always improve, in my opinion, and therefore my dilemma of "after doing all we can do." We can always do more. Do you agree with that? If we can always do more, and ultimately we can't work enough, then do these two concepts really make logical sense? Maybe they will when I feel better but they don't to me right now. Sorry if I didn't explain myself correctly. Dr. T The concept in what to do is the same as loving G-d with all your heart, might, mind and strength. Someone may say "what is all your heart, might, mond and strength"? If someone is thinking in terms of what is the least they can to do qualify they have missed the point. It is not about what is the minimum necessary - it is about being committed and it is about doing what G-d ask with joy. It is about never giving up and keeping G-d in our hearts. Those that are in to no more than what they have to in any relationship have already failed the relationship. How would you like to be married to someone that was always interested only in what was necessary to keep the marriage going? And then made a big deal about doing and talking only about the very minimum that was necessary. If you are like me you would not have must trust in such a relationship or marriage. The Traveler

CrimsonKairos, I was reading through this thread and finally came to your post here. You mention that the scriptures are silent on the issue of who God was before the creation of the earth. Well, I was doing some reading and studying and came across Psalm 90:2 which says, Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. I did a cross reference and came across another verse: Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting (Ps 93:2). These two verses from the bible seem to indicate that God has always been who He is: God. Do you have a comment on this? thanks mucho, blazius Jesus Christ is the key to understanding all important things concerning G-d the Father. Jesus demonstrates that as man now is - Jesus the Christ once was. Jesus also demonstrates that as he was resurrected - so shall man be. The Traveler.

What I'm about to say may surprise some. I've been blessed to sit under the most advanced, sophisticated, academic teachings my church offers. I could go one step further (Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA offers a Ph.D. in Renewal Theology), but won't being doing so any time soon. The time I spent in study was mostly enjoyable, challenging, and meaningful (Greek taught me humility, for example). Having said all that, the Christian faith is rather simple to apprehend. For example, the NIV Bible is written at a 7th grade reading level. The Good News Bible at a 5th grade reading level. Even the KJV is 11th grade. Great scholarship is not necessary to understanding Christian belief. What is complicated is growing in the practice of the faith. "Love your enemy," takes no great genius to comprehend. However, many great scholars have failed to embrace this 'simple' truth. So...I'm a bit cautious about an approach to religious study that says some truths have to be eased into. When Scriptures speak of "meat" vs. "milk," the reference is to the difficulty of obeying, not the complexity of the teaching, imho. Additionally, those who've been in the faith for a sufficient time ought to withstand correction with less sensitivity than the 'babes in Christ.' Excelent post - It has never been about passing a doctrine test - it has always been about love, compassion and kindness - first in regards to G-d and then to all man kind. I have known the so called "slow minded" to catch on and briliant scholars miss the mark. The Traveler

If the intelligence of man has always existed and is based on the spirit of man then it should not matter at all where the physical body of man evolved from - I am just trying to understand why you oppose scientific possibilities. The Traveler

When you forget yourself and enjoy serving and helping others. The Traveler

I understand what you are trying to say but you have not understood a couple of things correctly. There are people that have liminted intelligence. Some such humans have inetelligence less than the horse you speak of - it is not kind to limit such slow minded people from human consideration. Also there was an ape named Coco that was taught to sign and scored 90 on an IQ test. Please understand that the average for all humans is 100. My point is that if G-d can raise man from dust he could also raise man from another already existing life form. I would point out that most adults in our generation know and understand how humans (man) are created. The Traveler