Traveler
-
Posts
15833 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
48
Posts posted by Traveler
-
-
Would G-d ever command a loving parent to kill their child in a ritualistic sacrifice? Would such a thing be more demeaning than polygamy?Originally posted by shanstress70@Aug 12 2005, 04:24 AM
I am bearing my testimony that I 'know' that God did not command polygamy. I have prayed about it and prayed about it, and got the answer from God some time ago.
Heh, those of you who think He did just haven't listened to Him.
A God that is a loving Father would not command something which is so demeaning
The Traveler
-
Again there are those that cannot see. To my friend Snow – from a previous conversation some that do not see - do not know how to look or even what to look for – therefore even their questions display their folly and disrespect of sacred things as well as their inability to covenant or comprehend truth. This thread is another fine example.
In Exodus G-d gave Moses commandments written in stone. One command said “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet in other places in the Old Testament G-d commanded that those that commit certain sins or involved in certain battles be killed.
The point is that to the uncommitted, covenant and commandment is not at all understood. When someone covenants with G-d part of that covenant is to do or not do many things of their own choice. Even though, by commandment, a covenant child of G-d would not choose to do something on their own – kill for example – that does not exclude G-d commanding that it be done. The choice of man is to covenant with G-d or be taken in servitude by Satan. One way or the other we become servants of our master. That service reflects in every way the wish and desire of our master.
It is like the principle of compound interest – Those that understand the principle invest and receive compound interest by contract. Those that do not understand the principle are caught up and smothered in servitude of payments. In America over 90% of the population will die in debt. It was not because they loved dept but because they could not or would not see their way out of it.
The Traveler
-
As I child I dreamed in following in the foot steps of great scientist like Dr. Verner Von Bron. As a teenager I abandoned the dream to launch a rocket into space when a particular rocket exploded and drew a little too much attention. I still have a dream to complete a particular project left unfinished by Nicola Tesla.
The Traveler
-
Your questions are based on misunderstanding because your eyes cannot see eternal things. Your questions are like me asking you, "When will you stop abusing children?Originally posted by Shawn@Aug 10 2005, 06:03 PM
In my first post I asked:
Just taking a poll. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much anxiety and trouble would you experience if Gordon B Hinckley announced that the BOM will no longer be considered scripture to members of the Church?
The responses varied, but I thought far too many people spent too much time explaining why this situation would never, ever happen.
In Part II,I'd like to preface my question by providing a example of two announcements many Latter-day Saints thought they would never hear (but did). First, that the practice of plural marriage was to be discontinued and, 2) that black men would be given the priesthood. With these situations in mind, here is "Would You Care Part II.
How would you respond/react if Gordon B Hinckley announced in the October General Conference that the Priesthood would be given to women?
In Jesus Always,
Shawn
Those that listen carefully to what they are taught at the temple know that women will hold the priesthood - it is only a matter of when. Those that understand covenants with G-d know that the covenant of marriage (polygamy) as G-d covenants and commands has never changed since Abraham and will not, for the things of G-d are eternal. It is the confusion of men that causes some to see with eyes that cannot comprehend eternal things.
It would seem you have the same problem as king Ahaz when Isaiah said to him, “im lo ta aminu ki lo’ te’ amenu”.
The Traveler
-
Ray: You may not understand my post. I do not contend that someone not consider multiple sources. What I do contend is that all consider their sources. If someone is relying on anti-LDS or anti anything they should be clear what they are involved with and honestly portray their sources. The problem is not so much what a person is asking as much as what they present themself as. When someone says they are considering LDS doctrines then ask questions based on anti-LDS sources that should be a RED flag. This is not according to my opinion but based on teachings of Christ. He advises that such types be avoided.Originally posted by Ray@Aug 10 2005, 08:58 AM
Traveler,
Taking your point to the logical extreme seems to suggest that we [all people] should only seek information about God from God, which really is the only pure and living source of that knowledge, and while I am staunchly in favor of that approach as being the only real way to truly know the truth, which is why I try to talk about Faith so much, I still do not see that as the only way to acquire knowledge (or information) concerning God.
And I don’t see that as the only way to acquire information of any particular religion or anything else, either, even though we are all more likely to hear positive things about something from people who accept the information concerning whatever it is they’re talking about.
I think the main idea we need to keep in mind is that no matter where information comes from, we should all Ask God for wisdom and His assurance of the truth, and that until we do that, we will never know the truth.
Anyway, I truly do appreciate your point about how we shouldn’t go around trying to gather “grapes of thorns or figs of thistles”, which is what someone is doing when they try to gather knowledge without Asking God for Faith. And further, someone who goes so far as to teach against the principle of Faith is someone who is doing the work of Satan, trying to chock out the fruit produced by Faith. But someone who is simply asking for information to help them understand some other information they have heard may yet Ask God for wisdom and His assurance of the truth, even if for some reason they feel the need to Ask other people too.
If someone has a better interpretation of "gathering grapes of thorns or figs of thistles" I would be willing to entertain their thoughts but I think it is quite clear.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Snow+Aug 9 2005, 07:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Aug 9 2005, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Aug 9 2005, 10:09 AM
When someone says they are studying LDS teachings and doctrines and asks questions that obviously are not from LDS teachings but inspired by anti-LDS teachings – know with certainty, as Christ prophesied, we have encountered someone attempting to gather grapes of thorns and figs of thistles. LDS grapes do not grow among anti-LDS thorns. What motivates this individual is not LDS teachings but the teachings of anti-LDS. Is this particular deception, as described by Christ, a new experience for you?
The Traveler
Marsha used to ask the same questions. She got baptised. What's the harm in giving a small benefit of the doubt?
Traveler, if you read my posts, you know that I am like an attack dog when I think someone has ill-intentions, and I think that about a fair number of new posters over time. This one may just be playing it cool but what's the harm in finding out without running the risk of offending someone unnecessarily - like I said, Marsha got baptized.
A very good friend of mine was raised as anti-LDS. He has posted on this forum but not for some time. He too was baptized, but it was not until he was willing to drink pure water from the source. Once he experienced pure water he has not been able to deal with water that is not pure. The invitation I offer is to those that would drink pure water from the source. As Christ talked about the seed that would be planted he told of a seed that was chocked out because of weeds and thorns. The weeds and thorns are the teaching of the anti.
This is not about LDS. It is about all religions. Those that would learn of Islam should learn from those that honor that faith. The same applies to Catholics, Baptist, Jews or whatever. My father told me once that if I desired to succede I should seek knowledge from those that have succeded and not from those that have failed. Not because there is nothing to learn from failures but because those that have success understand something that those that failed never understood.
It apears to me that Jesus dealt with the same issue. It is about source. Those that pass judgement on any group or person based on their accusers have errored in justice. The point is simple. Do not misrepsent yourself. If someone has questions because of anti-LDS sources at least be honest about it. I may not be an expert on Marsha, but I do not recall that she ever misrepresented herself or the source of her questions.
The Traveler
The Traveler
-
One of the great paradoxes of existence is in understanding need and necessity. Most people have very limited scope and tend to focus on immediate need and necessity and ignore anything that may be of long term consequence. The question of this thread is if regular attendance at church is necessary? What does the word “regular” add to the question? Irregular and uncommitted involvement in anything is usually a sign of hypocrisy and insincerity though I am sure some of you could be the exception.
What is the advantage of someone that is irregular and uncommitted? For all the excuses offered, I find little or nothing I believe to be good for society, only excuses for personal egos. Should someone regularly attend their job? – yes if they expect to be paid and keep their job. Should someone regularly spend time with their spouse and children? – yes if they expect to foster a family relationship. Is it necessary to have regular sleep, food, exercise, friendship, justice or anything? Should we be regular in spiritual commitments? – yes if you expect familiarity with the divine.
The point my friends; is that if something is worth while, if it is a good thing in society it is best to apply such things with regularity. It is foolish to be irregular and uncommitted to worth while things. If it is not worth while it is silly to do even once, although not impossible to get away with. Just because something can be done for a short interval or because we can get away with something without the sky immediately falling – does not indicate that such things are unjustified or unnecessary in the long term.
If church is not worth regularity it has no worth what-so-ever. We are better off if we regularly are not involved with church. BTW - regular to me does not mean every time it is convenient or when there is nothing else to do. Regular means there is a priority. Personally I have greater respect for those that are committed to a worth while cause over those that think of cause in terms of personal convenience or ego.
The Traveler
-
In the 7th Chapter of Matthew, Jesus is in the process of concluding his most celebrated sermon with a chilling warning. He warns against the effect of false and deceptive individuals as a primary threat to his followers. He tells us that these individuals will employ a sly tactic in that they will pretend to be sheep but their intent is not loyalty to the shepherd or to the safety of the fold. They are really wolves in sheep clothing with the intent to usurp the shepherd and destroy the fold. He then warns that the only way to really discern them is by their fruits and he gives a very specific example in the form of a question: “Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?”Originally posted by Snow@Aug 7 2005, 02:12 PM
Try reserving judegement. The poster may be well-intentioned and at any rate hasn't said anything to the contrary.
When someone says they are studying LDS teachings and doctrines and asks questions that obviously are not from LDS teachings but inspired by anti-LDS teachings – know with certainty, as Christ prophesied, we have encountered someone attempting to gather grapes of thorns and figs of thistles. LDS grapes do not grow among anti-LDS thorns. What motivates this individual is not LDS teachings but the teachings of anti-LDS. Is this particular deception, as described by Christ, a new experience for you?
The Traveler
-
First off, I do not believe this post is honestly seeking LDS doctrine. These questions are typical of non-LDS that preach not the gospel of peace but a gospel of contention and lies. The answers are well know in LDS circles - I do not believe this post is honest. The questions come from communing with anti-LDS and not from seeking any LDS understanding.Originally posted by Mathias@Aug 5 2005, 12:20 AM
I have been considering joining the LDS church for a long time, but there have been a few questions that I can't find answers to. I'm sorry if they seem hostile or whatever, but all the 'softball' questions I had were answered quite easily on the www.mormon.org website. But as for questions I haven't found answers to there, I was wondering if some of you could help me out. (I tried calling this hotline or whatever, but the guy said he hadn't been in the church very long so he didn't know).
So, and I derived this from the website, in 1978 (I think it was) the Priesthood was extended to all worthy males in the church, right? I was wondering, prior to '78, who exactly had been excluded, and what rationale had kept them out, and what reasoning decided that they should be allowed in? Because the way I understand it, the basis of the religion is largely that Living Prophets give God's true word. So were the living prophets before '78 wrong, or did something happen whereupon The Lord decided to extend the priesthood?
Secondly, what is the Church's view point on romantic relationships between LDS members and non-mormons? Obviously they should respect eachother enough to respect one another's religious guidelines regarding sexual activity and family structure and whatnot, but should mormons also be wary of emotional attachment to those who don't belong to the church?
Bringing me to the third question, which is what the LDS believe about the fate of other Christians, and their levels of glory. The first time I considered becoming LDS, this was one of the big issues I had, but I was talking to one or two people only.
Any answers to these questions would be very much appreciated. For the most part I've gotten only answers from bitter ex-Mormons, which is something like reading the Augsburg confession to learn about Catholicism. I would be very grateful if any of you guys are knowledgable in any of the areas addressed by the questions.
~Mathias
To the first question: There is an order in all things in the Kingdom of G-d. As to the priesthood and those who officiate for G-d there is an order based on genealogy. In ancient Israel only the Levites held priesthood to officiate in the ordinances. Those that were not properly connected in genealogy were not to receive the Priesthood (See Ezra 2-62). A similar order of things was established in the last days. The Priesthood was not given to those who’s genealogy had not yet been reconciled. That has changed for the first time in history. In preparation for the coming of Jesus all worthy males are under covenant and commandment to uphold the priesthood. Prior to this time some were not under such covenant.
The second question is quite immature. It is never wise to seek romance with those that do not share your faith in G-d. If you cannot see eye to eye in sacred things - it is unwise to ask G-d to bless your marriage and force you to become one against your individual and separate wills.
As to the final question - The LDS view of the plan of salvation is the answer. It is the LDS gospel or Good news in Christ. I cannot believe you have considered becoming LDS and not have heard of this doctrine called the “plan of salvation”. Temples are built to “redeem the dead” of all peoples - including those that lived loyal to other faiths.
Please try to be honest. If you are seeking to become LDS - you should not have sought grapes of thorns or figs of thistles. This identifies you as a wolf in sheep’s clothing (see Matt 7:15-16).
The Traveler
-
Thank you Roman for demonstrating what it means to be a real Christian and always think of Jesus first - your post is the perfect example of how you really think. We LDS will get right to work on the little tiny speck harming our spiritual eyes.Originally posted by roman@Jul 27 2005, 03:04 AM
snow;
Ah, I see you still employ the ole double standard----In one post you speak for every single mormon on the earth and a few post later---you tell Shawn not to do the very think you just did.
Being around lds most of my life I can tell you that some look to JS a long time before they consider Jesus Christ. they look to lds writings and never consider the Bible. So it goes without saying---what their foundation is. they will also tell me how they love to sing praises to JS---how one must enter into eternity thru JS---how the whole idea of thier faith stands or falls on the validity of the testimony of JS----
I could go on, but you get the idea. Shawn is right---Jesus -at least to some lds----is an after thought.
roman
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by bizabra@Jul 13 2005, 07:20 PM
The Traveler
Trav, not being part of a religious congragation says nothing about a persons ability to make and follow through committments. Ditt about getting along with others. If you recall, I did mention several groups that one could join up with to participate in service to our fellow man. I believe you are making the same fundamental mistake as those who claim that without religion, there is no basis for an ethical/ moral life.
I'm sorry but I have missed the basis of your moral ethical life void of religion. Perhaps you could direct me to the organization that is moral and not connected to religion in any way?
How about the ACLU, communism or perhaps a political party? I know - the US government's poverty programs. Perhaps the United Way. Not every humanitarian program associated with religion is a shining success but the one's void of religion do not impress me.
Here is an interesting side light about service. Many years ago I thought I would become a teacher. I thought I would specialize in teaching exceptional learners. The college I attended certified a lot of teachers, many which specialized in special learners (slow or problem learners). I was the only one that wanted to work with genius. I discovered that most teachers cannot even identify a motivated student from genius. Most (over 50%) of the estimated genius in the USA are never identified. My point in all this? Sometimes I think we go way out of our way to try to prove we are of service in society - perhaps too far in that we do not see or recognize the needs in the people we see everyday. Sometimes we forget about our own families while we are off to some social charity.
If you have to step out of your element to be of service you do not think of service religiously.
Thanks for your efforts.
The Traveler
-
Most Christians (especially Born Again types) that think they know they are going to live with G-d in heaven either have a Pagan concept of that heaven or practically no concept at all.
The Traveler
-
As someone that served as a missionary I can tell you a couple of things. First off missionaries are mostly 19 - 21 years of age and by no means the brightest or wisest LDS members. I think you are confusing youthful enthusiasm with pressure. Now if the missionaries were older with degrees in psychology – then I think you have real concerns about being manipulated.Originally posted by Runnerguy@Jul 10 2005, 04:20 PM
I have a question for you guys...I have been attending LDS church for about a month...I really enjoy LDS as does my young son..However here is the question..The missionary is all over me right after service asking did I like the service and stuff..asking when can they come over..I dont like feeling pressured and have told them that now twice..I will make my decsion when the Lord moves me...not when they want me to make a descion to be baptized....the one missionary I liked alot got transferred.....this week they want to bring a church member over...I have heard him and he seems much like the missionaries...Can anyone give me some tips on how best to handle this..??..are they under pressure to have become baptized..??......Thanks
Because of their youth some missionaries focus on baptisms as a measure of success but most will get over it during their mission. If they error it is because they are anxious to share their most precious feelings and beliefs with you.
I travel a lot in my work and like to look up the missionaries and take them to dinner. I would like to share one experience I had before 9/11. I was headed home and ran into some missionaries in Atlanta that were coming home from Siberia (Russia). They have missed pizza so I bought them some at the air port – there were about 12 of them. One has some rather worn out cloths. He kind of caught my attention. They talked of service in hospitals that did not have hot water. They had been in a very poor part of the world.
Since we were all on the flight to SLC, I watched them as they got off the plain and met their families. The all had quite a group meeting them – except the one with the over worn suit, no one seemed to be there for him. I followed him for a way thinking I would offer him a ride where ever he needed to go. As he walked away from the crowd he met his mother that was there by herself. They embraced with their tears. She also was in over worn cloths. I then understood the great sacrifice this young boy and his mother had made to serve a mission.
If I were to give any advice about missionaries – I would say get to know these guys. Invite them and their influence into your home. Spend some time with them and feed them. You will not impress them with money as much as you will with any goodness or kindness in your home. Do not worry about them talking you into something you are not ready for – they are really just kids with hearts. When they ask about baptism let them know that you will cross that bridge if and when you are assured the time is right. Someday your boy will be 19 and may want to serve as a missionary or he may want to do what most 19 years old are doing in our society. Your attitude may serve as an example to your young son.
The Traveler
-
I believe we both agree that wilderness isolation is not in its self a long term remedy of service – either to G-d or our fellow man.Originally posted by bizabra@Jul 10 2005, 01:07 PM
What I am saying is that one need not be a member of a church, ANY church, to be a productive member of society. A theistic belief system is not required for a civic minded person to be of service to ones fellow man. Heading out to Nature to meditate or find solace by oneself is not a bad thing, but often gives a person the inner peace to make it through another day or week of life's BS.
I think there is some confusion between you and I concerning service. I am not so sure I agree with the concept that you can be as effective on your own without joining with others in some organization inspired by religious beliefs.
I am kind of a commit and do it or move on kind of person. The old I will do it while I feel like it and don’t expect any commitment kind of person – or if it gets a little tough, long or hard don’t count on me kind of person does not impress me as someone that has caught the vision of worshiping a G-d that ask us to love other as ourselves.
The thing I wonder about when someone says they do not need a church to be of service to others is that if they do not like attending church how can they develop the connection of devotion to others as an expression of worship? How can someone be committed to service to others when they have difficulty getting along with others in church setting?
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by bizabra+Jul 5 2005, 07:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bizabra @ Jul 5 2005, 07:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jul 2 2005, 01:59 PM
I have become convinced that serving in the church is not so you can get some eternal reward. I see two reasons:
1. Most people will not perform service without a calling. Unless someone is called to be a home teacher they will not visit certain members - they will tend to make friends and forget about others. So to do things you will not do on your own.
2. To realize that church is not always about you and your needs. It is becoming a Good Samaritan and learning to value others as you do yourself.
I had a friend tell me he could worship as well in the wilderness as he could at church. My response was - How could you love and server others in the wilderness if you are the only one there?
The Traveler
You don't love and serve others when communing with Nature. Doing that is for yourself and your inner "zen". You must reach outside of yourself to your family, friends, neighbors, and others in your community.
CHURCH is NOT required in order to be a volunteer! There are many ways a person can be of use and show love and serve OUTSIDE of church.
Working in a food bank, with your local homeless shelter, mentoring a pregnant teenager, Big Brothers and Sisters, Scouts, etc. the list is very long of things to do to be of service that have nothing to do with any organized religion.
Your answer is glib, IMNSHO.
I am not sure what you are implying? If service in not directly connected to one's covenant with G-d, what is the point of worship or covenant? If this is not regular but the exception - I think one is waisting their "regular" efforts.
The Traveler
-
Jesus fasted for 40 days in the wilderness in preparation for his mission. I do not doubt in anyway that one needs to prepare themselves. Following my 2-year mission and 2-year military service I found myself unprepared to function in society. So I tried the 40 days of fasting alone in the wilderness. A Native American that helped me to understand seeking out my spiritual guides living on only what G-d would provide encouraged me to try the experiment. One of the great lessons I learn is that you do not serve others by focusing on yourself, and you do not worship G-d unless you serve others.
I will not discount seeking spiritual help in the wilderness but if that is the only cog in your wheel you will fail your journey.
The Traveler
-
Personally I enjoy teaching. It was a Sunday School teacher that first made a spiritual impression in my life. I perfer teaching youth because of their honiesty.
My least favorit is leadership (presidencies). Currently I am serving at what I enjoy the least.
The Traveler
-
I believe the spirit guides us and helps us be of service to others. I would tell your friend to do something every day of love and concern for someone else but to do it in a manner that no one know where the good turn originated (take no credit). Once they are use to the spirit they will be more able to allow it to direct them in other ways. The key is doing good to others. Those that focus on themselves will always struggle with the spirit.Originally posted by yb4bets@Jun 29 2005, 04:10 PM
How do YOU personally feel the spirit?
I have a very dear friend of mine who is struggling to come clean after a dirty past. She is doing so well, with some minor foul ups, but she is struggling to really feel close to Heavenly Father right now. She asked me how she might go about doing so. Prayer and scripture study just aren't doing it for her right now. Any suggestions on how she might feel closer to Heavenly Father right now??? Any suggestions would help. THANK YOU!!
The Traveler
-
I have become convinced that serving in the church is not so you can get some eternal reward. I see two reasons:
1. Most people will not perform service without a calling. Unless someone is called to be a home teacher they will not visit certain members - they will tend to make friends and forget about others. So to do things you will not do on your own.
2. To realize that church is not always about you and your needs. It is becoming a Good Samaritan and learning to value others as you do yourself.
I had a friend tell me he could worship as well in the wilderness as he could at church. My response was - How could you love and server others in the wilderness if you are the only one there?
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Cal+Jun 29 2005, 01:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jun 29 2005, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jun 29 2005, 10:07 AM
From my own understanding an ordinance is a ritual (outward manifestation) initiating or renewing a covenant. The intent of an ordinance is to unite the physical and spiritual commitment of a covenant. When we speak of changing ordinances as a sign of apostasy it is indication that ether the commandments and purpose of the associated covenant to the ordinance has become heresy or the proxy representation of G-d is not authorized. Because ordinances are symbolic, by nature, a cultural shift in symbolism can, and often does affect both the physical ordinance and the spiritual significance of the ordinance.
Part of an ordinance is the proxy representation of G-d. Because a covenant is between man and G-d it is necessary that an authorized proxy representing G-d be present. LDS understand the authorized proxy as an ordained priesthood holder (either by G-d or someone that is directly linked to someone ordained by G-d). If an authorized proxy representing G-d is not present then neither the “King” nor the “kingdom” is present or represented.
LDS believe that no man can change the symbolism of an ordinance unless they hold the keys of the ordinance, as Peter did in the absence of Christ. The LDS claim of the ordinances being changed is an indication of apostasy linked directly to the loss of keys to the ordinances. Without the keys there can be no authorization of proxy or ordinances, the infrastructure of the Kingdom being represented is not support by G-d.
The Traveler
So, we know there was an apostacy and therefore loss of priesthood because the ordinances changed, and the ordinances changed because there was a loss of priesthood. I smell a tautology.
Cal: I do not think you understand my point. If you had a checking account with $5,000 and I found a slick (or illegal) way to withdraw that money from your account would you think I had done something wrong? If you say yes and I was of your same mentality and following your logic I could call you a hypocrite. How dare you point a finger at someone else (me), saying I have done something wrong, when all that is doing on is the exact same thing you have done yourself? How come when you do it, you say it is okay but if I, or for that matter anyone else does the same thing that you do all of a sudden it is not okay?
The point is that if men form a committee and take it upon themselves to be proxy to G-d to further their own interests that is very different than G-d sending his authorized (legal) proxy to represent his interest, even if his proxy makes a mistake; that is different than someone else taking unauthorized authority unto themselves.
So here is the point I am trying to make – and you can disagree, no big surprise – but it is still the point I think is important. According to the early Christian era (425 AD) there was no authority to create new scripture, and no authority to change the ordinances established by the apostles. Now we know that the ordinances were changed from the time of the apostles to 425 AD; in the very period that there was no authority to change the ordinances.
Now you seem bent out of shape because the latter day Church is alive and changing with the authority to do so and you cannot see the difference because during the time when the Christian believed change was no longer to be made – and doing so was therefore, apostasy. You may not agree but I see a big difference.
The Traveler
-
From my own understanding an ordinance is a ritual (outward manifestation) initiating or renewing a covenant. The intent of an ordinance is to unite the physical and spiritual commitment of a covenant. When we speak of changing ordinances as a sign of apostasy it is indication that ether the commandments and purpose of the associated covenant to the ordinance has become heresy or the proxy representation of G-d is not authorized. Because ordinances are symbolic, by nature, a cultural shift in symbolism can, and often does affect both the physical ordinance and the spiritual significance of the ordinance.
Part of an ordinance is the proxy representation of G-d. Because a covenant is between man and G-d it is necessary that an authorized proxy representing G-d be present. LDS understand the authorized proxy as an ordained priesthood holder (either by G-d or someone that is directly linked to someone ordained by G-d). If an authorized proxy representing G-d is not present then neither the “King” nor the “kingdom” is present or represented.
LDS believe that no man can change the symbolism of an ordinance unless they hold the keys of the ordinance, as Peter did in the absence of Christ. The LDS claim of the ordinances being changed is an indication of apostasy linked directly to the loss of keys to the ordinances. Without the keys there can be no authorization of proxy or ordinances, the infrastructure of the Kingdom being represented is not support by G-d.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by lindy9556+Jun 21 2005, 04:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lindy9556 @ Jun 21 2005, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jun 21 2005, 03:03 PM
Part of my fear over being shot at is the consideration and execution of alternatives.
Part of my fear IS to be shot at!
That part is not as bad as you think. It is kind of like lighting striking. By time you hear the shot and figure out what is going on - it is all over and if you are not bleeding then you just literally dodged a bullet but you are left to figure out what to do next - and that is something even thinking about is fearful to me.
Lucky for me I have no idea what it is like to be shot.
The Traveler
-
I love reading, articles, books, pomes, novels (mostly classics). Steven King is too involved in details that must matter in order to understand his style. It has been years since I read any of his works – green grass verses the Dark Tower and the Gun man is an odd stand on life, religion and eternity. I too was not impressed.
Many years ago I was doing consulting with a company that specialized in services for the US government – the military in particular. I was living in Maryland and working at a navy base known as “Pax River”. The work involved Anti Submarine Warfare. Interestingly a Russian Submarine had been lost in the Pacific that involved a lot of classified activity (which also foments rumors). Shortly thereafter a book was published titled “Hunt for Red October” that eventually inspired a movie. The book presented many problems to classified activities taking place at the time. Tom Clancy wove many classified facts with ridicules rumors and out right falsehoods. Never-the-less I have considered that book a breach of national security and a must read in understanding inner workings and secrets of our government. I do not have the same insight to his other works and have found his more current works in a different class – appearing to be written as after thoughts intended to cash in for profit.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Setheus+Jun 18 2005, 02:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Setheus @ Jun 18 2005, 02:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Traveler@Jun 15 2005, 04:32 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Jun 14 2005, 09:46 PM
It's uplifting to conquer fears too. Sadly, I've run out of them to conquer
Good for you - I have never been able to get over being shot at!!
The Traveler
The trick to that "fear" is to get the mind set of "YOU MEET TH' FOCKERs!!
" ...with extinsive training. When I get shot at I think to myself. "Ok, he just put a bullet over my head. Now I'm gonna put 2 IN his !
Three most important rules when "Getting over the fear of getting shot at"
1. Trigger control. (most important)
2. Sight Alignment.
3. Breathe.
And a little saying I like to remember. <span style='color:blue'> "Slow is smoothe. Smoothe is fast."
Part of my fear over being shot at is the consideration and execution of alternatives.
The Traveler
" ...with extinsive training.
Questions From A Potential Mormon
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Yeah - maybe - partly.
Do you think the best source to learn about Scientology is from Tom Cruise and Courtney Love?
About like Donny Osmand for LDS. But I doubt you have access to Tom or Courtney for a personal conversation - having their remarks edited and filtered by the media is not ideal eather - tends to create prejudice. There is a figure in the NT that ask the question, "Does our law judge a man before it has heard him speak?"
The Traveler