rameumptom

My wife recently found out she's on the border line. With a mother who is diabetic, she's jumping on board early to prevent it. We've purchased a few books for making meals that will help her count carbs, etc. We set up a room in the house for exercise, and will work together to improve our over all health for both of us.

You began with an attraction/infatuation. Now that you are married, love is no longer an emotion that you fall into, but it is a choice. You have chosen and covenanted to be a great husband and to love your wife. Chances are, if you were the husband she needs right now, she would gladly follow you to Church or anywhere else. But if you are choosing to not show her love or keep your covenant, then she may fear to keep her end of the bargain. Time to man up, and be the kind of person she was hoping she married. BTW, marriage is hard. Sleeping around and not developing real intimacy is easy. But working through the hard times in marriage and choosing to have Christ-like love towards your spouse, makes you grow spiritually into the eternal mate you need to be.

You are using modern Mormon connotations to understand an ancient text. For Nephi and Moroni, the Gentiles would be anyone who was not clearly a descendant of Israel, either by lineage or at least culturally. So, Europeans were considered Gentiles, regardless of whether moderns could find Jewish DNA in them. As it is, there is no scientific evidence that Joseph Smith was literally descended from Ephraim. It is only assumed by tradition that many Europeans may have Ephraimite blood in them, but that is only an assumption by Mormon thinkers. After all, what denotes Ephraimite blood? We do not have a sample of ancient Ephraimite DNA to determine anything about it. Nor do we have any ancient Lehite/Nephite DNA, either.

I still have my brains. I do not wear diapers (or need them). I am not made from ginger or bread. I have not been scorched in the oven. Other than that, yeah, I suppose there is a likeness....

Pam, I found the zombie in the picture. See below:

We need to clarify that the "hell" being spoken of here is in the Spirit World, and is not the eternal Outer Darkness that Lucifer will go to. I believe people create their own hell and take it with them to the Spirit World. For those whose earthly hell is because of physical/mental issues not of their own making, death will be a release from that hell. For those who create their own hell, however, they will suffer until they turn to Christ, repent of their poor choices, and embrace the atonement. As with Alma the Younger, such will then be rescued from their hell (Alma 36). Suicide CAN be a grievous sin. But it can also be the decision of someone who is desperate or sick, and unable to make a good decision.

You need to find your own testimony. You are focused too much on the people, rather than on your own spiritual journey. Think back about why you went on a mission. Was it to meet people? Or was it because you had a love for the Savior and a testimony of His great commission? I personally do not get a lot out of the meetings at Church. However, I attend not because I'm learning something or meeting neat people, but because I am honoring Christ by showing Him that he is important enough to me that I will attend and partake of the Sacrament with Him in mind.

Do the "Set a Date" program with yourself. Set a date by when you are going to talk to the girl and ask her out. Make it a simple and safe thing for both of you. If you both are shy, do a double date or group date with some friends, which gives you the opportunity to be with her to get to know her, without the awkwardness of nothing to say or do.

Time to make a contract with him. If you pay the bills, then your rules are followed. Why? Because he is not being the adult if you are paying his bills. OR, you pay his bills with the understanding that it is a loan, and you give him a date to have it all paid back. With interest.

Ask her if she minds if you buy a second turkey to cook the following day, so you can have sandwiches, etc for a few weeks.

But, if you find it on the Internet, it must be true!

It is very reliable. Very few of our teachings have dramatically changed. And then, it has mostly been due to speculation that was built up on the doctrine itself. Of the hundreds of talks given by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, very few concepts are not believed today by LDS today, for instance. The issue more often is to figure out the actual doctrine from the non-revelatory speculation that builds up around such a doctrine.

False dichotomy. According to philosophy, I cannot know everything about anyone (including myself), therefore according to your definition, it is all a vast mystery. Must I know every thought my wife has, in order to understand her? Must I know of every red blood cell that passes through her veins in order to know her? I do not think so. To pretend she is a mystery, simply because I do not know her shoe size is simply ridiculous. On a cosmological scale, I am as much a mystery to myself as she is to me. LDS view of the Holy Ghost is as an unembodied personage of Spirit, containing refined mass and matter. I understand what mass is. I understand what matter is. I understand what refined matter is (air is an example of this). I know what a personage is, as I am one myself. There is little mysterious about this. That the Holy Ghost is God is only a matter of glory, not of difference. I am different than my grandchild in knowledge and size, etc. Yet, he can understand much about me, simply because we share many things, including our humanness. In the same way, I once was an unembodied Spirit and will be a glorified personage, so I can better understand the Spirit and God. For the Trinitarian, however, the substance of the Spirit is unknown, incomprehensible, a complete mystery. This is part of the creed itself. We cannot approach understanding it, as it is of a substance we have never experienced or imagined before. It is a pure substance, whereas we are all of an impure substance, so we can never understand the mystery. Which is fine for the Traditional creed to believe in. But in this thing the concept of Spirit for LDS and others is very different: comprehensible for Mormons, incomprehensible for Trinitarians.

Obviously, the Lord wanted you to give him a chance at a friendship he probably needs. You did your part, but he still has his agency. Kind of like being prompted to share the gospel with someone, but he still says no. You win when you follow the prompting, regardless of what the other person does.

When I saw the commercial for the movie, I thought the exact same thing. Les Miserables would have been a perfect movie sans Crowe.

Anatess, Do you know how many Trinitarians over the years have used modalism to describe how they understand the Trinity? Clearly, many do not understand what 3 persons in one God means. As to your insistence that it is only an issue of what the substance is, and not confusion over the 3 persons in 1 God, we'll have to disagree. I'm sure you have a good understanding of it. Yet, I've had Protestant and Catholic priests and lay members alike use wrong explanations to explain it to me in the past. As for LDS concept of Godhead, we don't have such a problem of mystery and incomprehensibility. We know that God's body is made of flesh and bone, he is a glorified man and that his spirit is made of matter (D&C 88, 93, 130). I can literally look at my own body, make a few changes, and Voila! I have God. I can then gather my two sons and me together into one vehicle, and I have a simulation of the unified Godhead. As the Trinity is described, we would have to have one being sitting in three vehicles at one time. Even my mind cannot wrap fully around that one, and so I accept it as a mystery and incomprehensible. Since the Traditional Christians believe that God is of a pure Spirit-substance unlike anything else, there is nothing for you to compare it to, and so it is a total mystery. The only questions for LDS are in the details of how God is glorified: how the resurrection works, and how God works inside/outside of time. While I respect the concept of Trinity, it clearly is more complex and mysterious than the Mormon Godhead. To me, anyway.

And yet the traditional Christians quote St Augustine and others as "proof" all the time! The thing is, neither side can "prove" the point. However, we can show that a concept of separate beings is found in the scriptures and among early Christians (using the ECF), which shows that the traditional Trinity is not the only game in town, nor is the Godhead a modern heresy invented by Joseph Smith. Jinc, you claimed that a Godhead and separate beings cannot be found in the scriptures (see post #5). Several of us have shown otherwise. You have made other claims that we've shown otherwise, using Bible and other evidence. Now, instead of ceding the point, you dodge the issue by dismissing evidence to the contrary of your original statements. Either defend your statements with the evidence provided including that of the ECF, or accept that your initial statements are wrong. You do not get to pick and choose which evidences are provided or used.

Why should you be disappointed? As a historian, I simply discussed the history of the concept of God in early Christianity. I kept it brief, not wishing to engage in too much semantics or nuances on the Trinity (there are many). Besides, most would not understand fully the Trinity, as it is explained as a mystery and "incomprehensible." For someone to say that it is not easily understood, is not an attack on the concept, but simply an agreement with the Athanasius Creed and traditional Christian teaching. As for being "past this", I don't know what you mean. Are you being subjectively upset over me treating this from a certain historical perspective? Here we have Jinc making outrageous claims, based upon nothing in particular but his own subjective beliefs, and when I use history and evidence to back up another stance, you say you are disappointed? Really? Have you considered that you don't have to agree with me, and that is okay. However, I do expect people that disagree in a discussion to bring something into the discussion to back up any claims they make? For example, if a Mormon makes a claim, wouldn't you expect him/her to back it up with evidence? Or am I expecting too much out of you and Jinc?

BTW, it may very well be that baptismal authority is not directly mentioned for certain people in the Bible, not because they did not have the authority, but simply because it was assumed by the author.

The Book of Acts shows the importance of individuals having authority to perform particular ordinances. Phillip baptized in Samaria, but had to send to Jerusalem for John and Peter to lay hands on people for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Paul asked a dozen men who had been baptized if they had received the Holy Ghost. When they said they never heard of the HG, he then questioned who baptized them. They received a baptism similar to John the Baptist's baptism, they replied. Paul explained that John the Baptist spoke of the Holy Ghost, implying that whoever baptized them did not have proper authority. Paul then rebaptized them and gave them the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. So the Bible does show the importance of priesthood authority.

Actually, the early Jews and Christians saw God as anthropomorphic. Just look at how he is described through most of the Old Testament. Noah and Moses spoke face to face with God. And in the New Testament, we have examples of Jesus praying to the Father, Jesus' baptism showing the three separate beings, the Mount of Transfiguration showing the separate beings, Jesus at Gethsemane saying "Not my will by thine be done" showing two wills involved, and Christ on the cross asking the Father why he forsake him (a single being cannot forsake himself). Finally, Stephen the martyr of Acts saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, who sat on his throne. Clearly anthropomorphic AND separate beings. There are many more examples in the scriptures, but these are very clear to show that the Godhead are three physically separate beings. Finally, who/what is more perfect: God the Father without a physical body, or Jesus Christ with a resurrected physical body? The traditional concept of the Trinity came about only in the 2nd and 3d centuries AD, and only after many of the bishops and other church leaders began reading the scriptures through the lens of Greek philosophy. Aristotle had taught there is only one God, who is of pure spirit. He said that we cannot be like him, as we are made of impure spirit. Therefore man cannot be like God. Early Christians in the 3rd century AD argued over the Godhead. The Nicene Creed was formed in the early 4th century from a meeting of many bishops. It was a very political event, with 3 concepts of God considered: 1. Athanasius' concept of Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one substance 2. Arius' concept that the Father and Son are separate beings, and since there is only one God, Jesus is Lord, not God. 3. Origen's concept (from a century before) that the Father and Son are both Gods, with Jesus as subordinate to the Father. Eusebius of Caesarea (historian of early church) defended this concept, but was quickly forced to be silent or be lumped in with the Arians. Athanasius' creed ruled the day, but within a few decades it was out of favor and the Arius doctrine was favored by the Church for almost a century. St Augustine and Jerome restrengthened the concept of a Trinity, and it has been the tradition since. However, the earliest Jews and Christians do not seem to understand the concept of One Substance Trinity, but more of a Social Trinity, where the Father and Son are separate beings but one in all they do.

There is a context behind the statement: Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God. Especially in 2 Ne 31 and 3 Ne 11, we see that Nephi and Jesus teach the people that there are two religions: God's and Satan's. Satan's religion is based on contention and disunity. But Jesus tells his Nephite discples that they must learn to be one, even as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one. In this, both Nephi and Jesus explain that the path to unity begins with Faith in Christ, repentance, baptism (or some ritual ordinance), and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost. In receiving the Holy Ghost, we learn to become one with each other AND with the 3rd member of the Godhead. He then leads us to Christ, who prepares us and takes us to the Father. But it all requires being One. First with each other, and then with the Godhead itself, which is one Godhead.

I have LDS friends that engage in Passover and other ritualistic rites, with no problem. If the rite helps you to focus on Christ, then go for it.

Try this link, for instance: Eternal - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

But what does the term "eternal" mean? Does it mean forever, as modern people think? Or does it just mean a very long time, as ancient Hebrews and Christians believed? I believe God to be Eternal, as well. Whether he has always been in his current state, I do not know. For example, Jesus is God, yet at one time he was also mortal. To me, this means God's state can change.