Traveler

I was sitting in my patrol car one evening, early in my shift, about 8 years ago.  I was in a parking lot I frequently used to write reports.  I was on the phone with on of our canyon patrol officers talking with him.  I had the sudden thought that I needed to drive out of the parking lot immediately.  I shrugged it off, I always sit there, no big deal.  A few seconds later the powerful thought came, "leave now or you are going to be seriously hurt."  I dropped the car into drive and pulled out of the lot and drove away.  I was thinking how odd, but I did it as I kept talking to my partner.  I finished the conversation and turned down another road to go back to my parking spot.  I was thinking how paranoid I was being, I sit in that lot all the time.  The closer I got back to where I needed to turn right and go to the lot, the worse I felt.  Like something bad was going to happen.  As I approached the intersection I said in my head, "Ok, I got the message, I will turn left and go sit in this other spot I use too.  I will stay away from that lot tonight unless I get dispatched that way."  The bad feeling immediately left.  I have no idea why I felt that way.  I was back in that parking lot the next night, and many nights after without ever feeling that way again or having any problems there.

When I was the SS president I asked that an instructor be called for a hall Sunday School class as well as a 3rd hour class.  Have this individual walk the halls, take roll and give short spiritual encouragements to those wandering the halls – perhaps even having an opening and closing prayer.  The bishop vetoed my suggestion.
 
The Traveler

When I was the SS president I asked that an instructor be called for a hall Sunday School class as well as a 3rd hour class.  Have this individual walk the halls, take roll and give short spiritual encouragements to those wandering the halls – perhaps even having an opening and closing prayer.  The bishop vetoed my suggestion.
 
The Traveler

When I was the SS president I asked that an instructor be called for a hall Sunday School class as well as a 3rd hour class.  Have this individual walk the halls, take roll and give short spiritual encouragements to those wandering the halls – perhaps even having an opening and closing prayer.  The bishop vetoed my suggestion.
 
The Traveler

I believe Zoroastrianism is older – at least (according to my research and understanding) there are archeological artifacts related to Zoroastrianism that are older than there are artifacts specific to Hinduism.  I have met a follower of Zoroaster but I would point out that Zoroaster is an ancient prophet not unlike Jesus.  I personally believe that the wise men (Maji) that came in search of Christ were directly connected to the religion we now identify as Zoroastrianism.   Maji is the Zoroastrianism term for Priest.
 
The Traveler

When our family was young we tried taking our little kids to the foyer – we discovered it did not help them be reverent in Church nor did it contribute to our spirituality any more than staying at home.  Mrs. Traveler concluded that the teaching of children begins in the home.  So, she started training our children to be reverent at home.  She would sit in the formal living room with the children training them to be sit quietly with some church only books and toys.  While I served in bishoprics she was alone with the children (5) – on occasions I would take one of the old boys with me to sit on the stand.  It took a lot of practice at home but once Mrs. Traveler took the matter in hand we never had to take a child out.  Interestingly we often take grand children to church when they are left with us and we never have to take any of them out either.
What I learned from her efforts is that children that are taught to be reverent (not forced) enjoy church more than children in foyers.  At least that is the case in our family, friends and ward members I have observed
 
The Traveler

When I was the SS president I asked that an instructor be called for a hall Sunday School class as well as a 3rd hour class.  Have this individual walk the halls, take roll and give short spiritual encouragements to those wandering the halls – perhaps even having an opening and closing prayer.  The bishop vetoed my suggestion.
 
The Traveler

When our family was young we tried taking our little kids to the foyer – we discovered it did not help them be reverent in Church nor did it contribute to our spirituality any more than staying at home.  Mrs. Traveler concluded that the teaching of children begins in the home.  So, she started training our children to be reverent at home.  She would sit in the formal living room with the children training them to be sit quietly with some church only books and toys.  While I served in bishoprics she was alone with the children (5) – on occasions I would take one of the old boys with me to sit on the stand.  It took a lot of practice at home but once Mrs. Traveler took the matter in hand we never had to take a child out.  Interestingly we often take grand children to church when they are left with us and we never have to take any of them out either.
What I learned from her efforts is that children that are taught to be reverent (not forced) enjoy church more than children in foyers.  At least that is the case in our family, friends and ward members I have observed
 
The Traveler

When I was the SS president I asked that an instructor be called for a hall Sunday School class as well as a 3rd hour class.  Have this individual walk the halls, take roll and give short spiritual encouragements to those wandering the halls – perhaps even having an opening and closing prayer.  The bishop vetoed my suggestion.
 
The Traveler

Sooner or later, doing what is good and right becomes difficult for everyone so engaged.  No one should have to face such things alone but standing alone for good and right is likewise inevitable.  But there is one last thought I would add – no one should stand alone for that which is good and right while others that claim to stand for the good and right watch from the sidelines without standing with those standing alone.  Part of standing for good and right includes in standing with anyone else (regardless of their strength or weaknesses) trying to stand for good and right.
 
The Traveler

Sooner or later, doing what is good and right becomes difficult for everyone so engaged.  No one should have to face such things alone but standing alone for good and right is likewise inevitable.  But there is one last thought I would add – no one should stand alone for that which is good and right while others that claim to stand for the good and right watch from the sidelines without standing with those standing alone.  Part of standing for good and right includes in standing with anyone else (regardless of their strength or weaknesses) trying to stand for good and right.
 
The Traveler

When I was the SS president I asked that an instructor be called for a hall Sunday School class as well as a 3rd hour class.  Have this individual walk the halls, take roll and give short spiritual encouragements to those wandering the halls – perhaps even having an opening and closing prayer.  The bishop vetoed my suggestion.
 
The Traveler

I want to emphases again a point I made in my previous post on this thread.  There is a human tendency to overemphasize doctrine.  I believe this is the core of contention between Jesus and the Pharisees.   That the Pharisees just could not get it in their skull that “Doctrine” and belief in “Correct Doctrine” is not the divine purpose and destiny of mankind.  Perhaps I can emphasize this doctrine that doctrine is not so important with a life experience.
I have stated before that my work and profession has taken me to many distant places in this world.  I try to learn from those imbedded in different cultures.  In my travels I worked with a most interesting engineer from a faraway place (one parent was from Germany and the other from India).  I encountered him in Asia.  He was an accomplished and honored engineer but he was also a devout Buddhist and a lay monk – He was also fluent in many languages – I would guess at least 12 – he spoke better English than most English-speaking individual I know even though he had a slight “British” accent.   I am convinced that devout Buddhist are more open to new ideas (both religious and scientific) than any other religion.
I spent a great deal of time with this engineer both in work and personally learning about Buddhism.  I spent time learning the art of meditating – I also met with his Zen master.  I must say that as a High Priest of Melchizedek I have never encountered more open and delightful clergy of other religions than these Buddhists.  We spent many hours discussing varied topics in politics, science and religion.  Of course, we discussed the divine Plan of Salvation and the divine destiny of mankind.  I pointed out my understanding of the importance of Christ, overcoming sin and the resurrection.  A side note here – my Buddhist friends are very open (prepared) to the idea of a pre-existence – more so than any other religion or philosophy I have ever encountered.   The had difficulty with the idea (doctrine) of a Messiah that pays for our sins.  Other than that, they are in complete agreement with the teachings of Jesus.
As I discussed the doctrine of the Messiah with him he was concerned that our Christian G-d would reject Buddhists from heaven.  Buddhism is not an exclusive religion of similar stripe – especially compared to most all “Christian” sects.  I am aware that there are factions of Buddhism just as there are sects of Christianity.  But as a whole I find Buddhists more open to opposing sects of any religion.  I also find Buddhists more charitable.  Unlike any other religion in history as Buddhism spread to new cultures, peoples and languages they brought peace rather than war.  For example, when Buddhism came to China – China was in a period of devastating war – both internally and externally.  Buddhism brought peace and unity.  I have my personal theories and opinions as to why but that is another discussion.
Jesus taught that his disciples are distinguished by their love of one another.  He said, “By this shall you know my disciples, if they have loved one another”.   I told my Buddhist friend that he is more the disciple of Christ than the vast majority; especially of those I have encountered that claim to be devout Christian by doctrine.  Very few Christians believe that loving others is the great single most important evidence someone is a disciple of Christ – like the Pharisees, they demand that their doctrine and their understanding of doctrine be the actual measure.
 
The Traveler

@The Folk Prophet, compared to your usual posts, this one is a little more cryptic than usual. However, based on your usual posts, I'm confident that there is an important idea somewhere in here, and the fault is mine for not being able to discover it.  

In other words, strait and narrow is the gate to progress (i.e. "change"), and wide is the way to damnation (i.e. preserve things as they are and stay the same).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have pondered this post for some time – It is my opinion that it is G-d the Father that is unique and the symbol of change.  That trough his uniqueness there is new possibility and definite change (alteration of what otherwise would be).  That Satan is not unique at all but rather is the default or status quo.  That his intent was to preserve and maintain the natural or seeming elevatable course of things – the ultimate “Natural Man”.
 
The Traveler

I find the taste of kimchee to be odd. That's purely because I'm not used to it. The LDS concept of angels is IMO far more reasonable and even logical than, well, anyone else's. Of course, I'm used to it.

I was thinking of @Traveler's debate with an athiest co-worker. Guess what!! I don't believe in that God either!
If I were to correct the quoted statement, I would make it read
 

Interesting thoughts. As far as personage and persons go I think others have answered this question ably. We worship one God composed of three seperate physically but united purposelly beings. The addition of "we are Christian" to me sounds like the beginning of a defensive statement. Most of us, especially those like me who grew up in predominantly Evangelical and Protestant areas, are used to defending ourselves immediately from the charge that we don't follow Christ. It isn't neccessary in a scholarly discussion, but it's a knee jerk reaction too years of being told otherwise. It took me a long time to stop being hurt by that statement. Like everyone here I love Jesus Christ with all my heart, I have a personal relationship with him, and I know I am saved by His Grace. Because I know this, the accusations have lost some of their sting as I've gotten older, but part of me still jumps to the defense when I hear them so I think that's just what's happening in the paper you described.

Personally I think the 'we are devout Christians' statement seems like a defensive jump the gun move.  I agree to the reason it was placed there, as others have indicated, but it's still kind of annoying to even bother to put it there in the first place.
I almost don't care if people think I'm a Christian or not anymore. Over time I have become less tolerant of anti and uneducated perspectives that people could usually answer themselves with 5 min or less of research.  The worst thing they can do is tell me I'm going to hell* for believing in a different Jesus.  I could tell them they are going to hell** for not having a proper baptism; although I don't.  They wouldn't even understand.
*Hell -> Eternal punishment without end
**Hell -> Temporary Spirit Prison

Sorry, this is my non-religious historian thoughts coming through here...but not an analysis...just a thought in the moment...
This is the very similar (or the same thing depending on the sect) the Hindu religion believes in their dominant Deity.  It was a popular idea taken from Eastern Religions Westward (towards Constantinople and other regions) in the Early years AD.
Or rather, that their dominant deity known also as the Trinity, or Triumverate or the Trimurti of the Hindi religions.  Brahma is the Creator, which is probably directly correlated to that of the Christian Trinity of the Father.  Shiva on the otherhand is the destroyer, so no real parallel in the Christian trinity.  Vishnu is the intermediary, and is very much in many ways similar to the Christian trinity of the Son.  Vishnu comes to restore the balance, coming in incarnations and leaving.
A way to view Christianity is the incursion of pagan ideas into the Christian religion as it progressed.  One way to view the struggles of the 2nd through 6th centuries in regards to the role of Deity and definitions of it is that between those who felt that the three individuals of the Christian theology were separate individuals (and some Evangelical historians have sought to DESTROY history by implying that it was as struggle between divine and non-divine when that was not necessarily the case in all instances of Arianism vs. Athanasius, rather it was a difference between seeing it in a HINDU Deity deferential, verses that of seeing them as NON-consubstantial).
Prior to Constantine, the prevalent Christian thought was actually more along the line of Arianism, which is NOT how many have tried to describe it, but more the idea that The Father, and The Son were different beings.  Some sects were more like how Islam came to portray them, in that the Father was of divine substance, while the Son was NOT of this same substance, but of a different substance, that being a mortal as you and I.
HOWEVER, something that is constantly ignored by many who try to make their point is that this was NOT the only viewpoint in Arianism, and in fact, NOT the one that troubled those who followed the ideas of Athanasius.  This was more of the idea that BOTH were of a DIFFERENT DIVINITY, but NOT of the same substance.  Hence, that the Father was Divine, but the Son was also co-equal.
Some have accused Mormonism of being Arianism revived in our day (though I'd say Islam is more akin to the Arianism of that time period).  Ironically, Mormons may actually have been seen as being party to Athanasius's creed, but in a varied and smaller sect.
In this, we can say that Mormons believe that all power comes from the Father, and that the Father and the Son are one.  That all the power of the Son comes from the Father, and that the Son is literally the Son of the Father.  In this, one could even argue that Mormons believe that the Son is of the same substance of the Father in the same way that a babe is the same substance as it's mother, or created of the same stuff.
It is not as Arianism would posit, of completely DIFFERENT fiber, of completely different stuff.  For example, if we take a more Islamic approach, you have clothes made of wool, and clothes made of cotton.  These are two entirely different substances.  In this, the Father is of one, and divine, while the Son, or the Prophet rather, is made of another, or Mortal like all other men.
On the otherhand, Mormons believe that the Son is of the creation and substance of the father in creation, aka...as You have one shirt of wool made from a sheep, you can also have another entirely different shirt made from the same wool of that same sheep.  In this, the substance is not Consubstantial as many current Trinitarians believe, but it IS of the same substance, or the same make and composed of the same type of matter.  They are the Same substance, but very much individual Shirts.
In this, Mormons do not entirely believe in the Arianism that some believe they do, but it is NOT exactly the same as current Trinitarians believe either.  Trinitarians must take a similar view as the Hindu's in that their deity is comprehensible, and yet, because of the very nature, incomprehensible.  The reason is such...
We take this shirt again, but this shirt is made from the Wool of a Sheep.  This shirt is only ONE shirt, but at the same time is manifest by THREE DIFFERENT shirts.  They are three separate shirts, and yet, they are also the SAME shirt.  Hence, we can comprehend that they are one, we can comprehend that they are three, but for our limited minds, it is very hard to comprehend that all three are simply just that one shirt.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------break
I bring in the Hindu religion because we see many aspects of it in our Current Christian eschatology.  Ironically, many religious professors (as opposed to some Historians) do not study these similarities (though they will try to make arguments of WHY their religion is not similar while misunderstanding some very basic concepts in Hinduism or other pagan religions) and do not realize how much they have added to the Christian religions beyond that which is written or described in the bible.
For example, you will NOT find the trinity found anywhere in the bible.  The strongest verse in support of it, ironically is also used by the Mormons to show why the trinity must also be separate individuals (which, is actually supported by the trinity as well) which is the Baptism of our Lord.  More ironically, the strongest verses in support of the Trinity were actually spoken by Abinadi in the Book of Mosiah found in the Book of Mormon (in a way which I'd even say is almost distinctly Baptist in how it describes it, though from an LDS viewpoint it is seen to say something entirely different). 
However, it is interesting to see how this idea of the trinity eventually came forth.  Arianism was actually the more popular idea at the time of the councils, and it was only through a great deal of strife and hardship (some would say, only by a miracle held up by the hand of the Lord that the trinity was eventually upheld by the main church of the time and has now been accepted throughout the world) that the current ideas of the trinity gained prevalence in what became the Catholic/Orthodox churches. 
We can see OTHER influences of paganism on Christianity through the years, such that of Female/Mother worship, that of a Fall Festival being celebrated at the same time (aka the solstice celebrations) as that of Christian celebrations and other things.  In fact, we can see a very huge turn of Christianity to that of paganism in regards to religious practice and belief.
In this, perhaps the Baptists ideas that the only true document for authority lies in the Bible could be correct for them, and thus do away with centuries of added on ideas.  Yet, even then, many ideas that are not found in the Bible (for example, another that most of us Americans love is the holiday of Christmas.  There IS the birth of our Lord found in the New Testament, but no where is a celebration of it around Winter's Solstice to be found in the Bible) are still utilized in their belief systems.
The same could be seen in ALL Christian religions, including Mormonism.  In all of them, from a secular point of view, they mix tradition, culture, and other rituals from other sources (religions, ancestry, etc.) into their religious beliefs.  It's the grand intermixing of culture, tradition, and various tribal beliefs from the past to the present.
Of course, the question here is regarding the belief in Deity and how it is defined, rather than all these other assimilations from other religions into Christianity.
In that idea, from anyone who is NOT part of Christianity, there is actually VERY LITTLE difference between what a Trinitarian believes, and what Mormons believe.
In fact, it is probably as great as many of the Hindu sects various believes in their own Triumverate or Trimurti.  The similarties of the differences are striking.  To Christians, most couldn't or wouldn't recognize the differences between various sects of Hinduism.  To them, they all believe in the basic same principles.
In that light, whether one believes in the Trinity, in modality, or in Mormon's unique take, there is actually not much difference and from the outside looking in, it is almost literally the same belief to everyone else.  That they would make such a big deal of such a small thing difference is, in some ways, rather hilarious...
Which brings us to the point that a Hindu would probably conclude...
If the Christians are correct and the Hindu religion is not...
The Deity of the Christian religion must have a sense of humor...
(sorry, just some LOOONG thoughts from my more historical ideas rather than my religions ones in this post...might be seen as sort of irreligious from any Christian without a sense of humor though...and yes, that includes Mormons in that...).
 

The secret of my neighborhood success is Mrs. Traveler.  Like my neighbors now - that put up with me but it is worth it many fold because of her.  I doubt you could find anything about her that would annoy you and if I ever annoyed you in her presents - she would likely see it coming even befor you would and stop me from offending you.  Sorry but you have no idea what you are missing.
 
The Traveler

The secret of my neighborhood success is Mrs. Traveler.  Like my neighbors now - that put up with me but it is worth it many fold because of her.  I doubt you could find anything about her that would annoy you and if I ever annoyed you in her presents - she would likely see it coming even befor you would and stop me from offending you.  Sorry but you have no idea what you are missing.
 
The Traveler

Some very interesting thoughts.  In the discussion between you and @Rob Osborn – there may be some possible reflections into the pre-existence.  But this is speculation on my part.  Although Satan was a problem – the problem was not outside the scope of the of the Plan of Salvation.  That is – my assumption and belief is that if Satan had not convinced the partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – that the Messiah would.  Now, I must be careful here because we learn in scripture that Satan was “anointed”.  Anointed means Messiah in ancient Hebrew.  There is another interesting and related notion – which is “birthright”.  What I find interesting about the divine succession or birthright within the patriarchal order of the priesthood (which is the order of G-d; by which all things are created) – is that in all cases that we have record of two brothers competing for the birthright – it always ended up with the younger.  With the assumption that our mortal experience has “types and shadows” of our pre-existence – or that which has previously (long ago) happened (See Ecclesiastes 1:9-10).
The great paradox of the Plan of Salvation is the Fall of man.  How could G-d command, in any degree or part, in the Plan of Salvation that required a transgression of the law for there to be a fall?  It would seem that the arguments associated with this paradox were so strong that Satan was able to persuade a third part of the most brilliant and divinely inspired minds of the most advanced society of intelligences in our universe.   Satan may believe and claim that the right of Messiah rightfully belongs to him.  Because it was his right - he may have concluded that the fall of man corrupted the Father and gave him (Satan) the right to over through the Father.   All because the Father provided agency to man, that by plan, led inevitably to a transgression of the law.
 
The Traveler

But it doesn't change the fact that God commanded Abraham to kill his son.