rameumptom

There are parts of Skousen's expansion of these ideas that I do not agree with. He did get the basis of this from Elder John Widstoe, who probably based it upon the concepts taught by Orson Pratt. My way of seeing it is that the Light of Christ, which permeates the universe, gives intelligence to all things. In this way, smaller things can join to create new things. Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules have specific traits that are inherent in them due to the Light of Christ. When combined, they create H2O (Water), which not only retains the original traits (although some may now be latent), but now have greater ability or intelligence from before. Eventually, we get to intelligences that not only have traits, but have individuality or personality. Herein, we may read in Abraham 3, where the "intelligences that are organized" are equated with spirits, which do have individuality and personality. In this concept, God is willing to wait for as long as it takes for all/most of His creation to choose Him. For this reason, I believe (along with Elder Talmage and others) that there may be progression between kingdoms. God is willing to wait for others to learn to fully obey and accept a celestial law (D&C 88), even if it takes 4.5 billion more years or longer.

My belief is that the Holy Ghost is not one particular person/being, but is the title of the third member of the Godhead. I believe this was once held by Michael/Adam, as a training position for his work on earth. When Michael came to earth, he was replaced by others, such as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. It is possible that Joseph Smith once served in the role of Holy Ghost, as well.

Martain, in light of what I just discussed above, many scholars believe that it is tied to events in the region. The divine son/god Yam had just been replaced by Baal among the Canaanites. Jehovah was explicitly stating that he was Israel's first God, having made the covenant with Abraham; and that he would never be replaced by Baal or any other god.

This is our current tradition of naming the Father and Son. It has not always been so. For example, Joseph Smith calls God the Father "Jehovah" in D&C 110. Elohim and Jehovah are titles, but by the time Elder James Talmage wrote "Jesus the Christ" the tradition was established, making them names more than titles. That said, there is some distinguishing of the two titles in ancient Israel. In the Documentary Hypothesis, we find that "J" always calls God "Yahweh" (Jehovah), while "E" always calls him "Elohim." In early Semitic tradition, El Elyon (God Almighty) was the head/chief God, with his Divine Council of sons/gods. Of these members of the divine council, Yahweh was the preeminent son, given Israel as his inheritance (other gods were given other nations). Margaret Barker notes that Jehovah was the Messiah and the Angel of the Presence of the Lord. So there was an ancient distinguishing of the two. Over time, the Jews combined the two in their worship, as Jehovah went from being a god on Mount Sinai, to Israel's God, to a mobile God that could follow his people to Babylon and elsewhere in the world. Note that Ezekiel sees Jehovah on a flying chariot throne, so that he can be with his people in the Diaspora. By Jesus' day, the most Jews did not know the difference between the two, as monotheism replaced the monolatry of previous times. This is why the Jews considered it blasphemous for Jesus to call himself "I Am" (Jehovah). Barker notes that the early Christians considered Jesus as Messiah and Jehovah.

Thought I'd share with you a link to a blog post I just put up regarding some thoughts on the Creation story in Abraham chapter 4-5. Joel's Monastery: And the Gods saw that they were obeyed Please comment here, as I'd like to see if there are other interesting things that you also have thought about in regards to the Creation and Abraham.

Take the time to actually get to know the person. You are judging the facade, but not really knowing the person's soul/spirit.

I would like ETB or GBH. Joseph Fielding Smith was rather profuse in his speculations (as well as his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie), and I'd rather spend my time studying the words of prophets that taught powerful sermons, rather than those that speculated on anything and everything. ETB's sermons on the Book of Mormon, fatherhood, home teaching, pride, etc., would be amazing.

Most LDS scholars do not believe the Hill Cumorah in New York is the location of the last battle of the Nephites, nor the location where Mormon hid all the vast records of his people. This is believed to be in Central America. Instead, we tend to believe that Moroni wandered for decades after the final battle, ended up in upper state New York and buried the gold plates there. Early stories tell of the stone box holding the plates being washed away or taken by others. So there really won't be anything to see there.

What kind of experiences are you referring to?

Focus on developing your relationship with God first. Don't worry about any other relationship right now. As long as you are not right, no relationship will turn out well. Just work on developing a healthy relationship with God. Once that is in place, then healthy relationships with others will come naturally.

The problems in your marriage are not your bishop's fault. He is not an expert in family matters. He is just a righteous man that was called to a position he is not totally ready for. Chances are good he is not a seminary/Institute teacher or a marriage counselor, so he is trying to give you advice in areas he is not experienced.

I personally believe the ban was created due to racism, which was the common view of almost all white people in America (and elsewhere) in the 19th century. I also believe that the priesthood was limited to the Levites in the days of the Old Testament, partially due to racism. Abraham was racist for not allowing Isaac to marry a Canaanite woman. And, I believe that Jesus and his apostles were racist when they refused to preach or baptize the Gentiles. Or, better, I would say they followed the concepts, beliefs and practices of their day, not knowing what racism really was at the time. So, if I reject Mormonism over racism, then I also cannot be Southern Baptist (which broke away from the American Baptists over slavery issues). I also cannot be any type of Christian, because there is a history of what today we call racism in the Bible. OR, I can realize that God uses imperfect people in an imperfect world to bring forth his work as best as possible.

Why should you research something you already have a testimony of? I think this is just your husband's attempt to confuse you over to his own side. Just remember, when you married, you both had common interests, including the Church. He is the one changing here, not you. So, if he wants to remain married, you ought to have the right to require certain things of him: 1. that he not keep you from worshiping, or try to dissuade you from believing. 2. that he allow you to raise up your children in the faith, as you see fit. 3. that he remain faithful in your relationship. I think if he cannot agree to those three things, it should be a deal breaker for marriage. Why? Because he is trying to change the rules after you entered a marriage covenant with him. He should not be allowed to change the most important things regarding you.

Saguaro is correct. The only question now is whether Joseph sired any children with these women. In the past, this was a secret. Even those members that knew Joseph was involved, often didn't know the extent of it. And that includes Church members in our current generation, as well. Only in the last decade or two has the information been put out for easy and full access.

A handful of characters out of possibly hundreds.

Jaredites were from Asia. Joseph did have many wives. Joseph was a treasure hunter years before being called as a prophet. Joseph was put on trial dozens of times, and acquitted each time. God can use whatever device he wishes to use to bring about His work, which can include strange things, such as a stone in a hat, or Jesus using clay and spit to heal a blind man. Few will become sons of perdition and go to Outer Darkness. You probably won't qualify. That said, many reject Jesus because of errors between scripture and archaeology/history, or conflicting stories in the Bible. So, we should expect some people to reject Mormonism because its prophets and history are not perfect, as well. We do not know what Reformed Egyptian looks like. But we also can be sure that the majority of people here did not use Reformed Egyptian, but their own native tongues and writings. That Egyptian and Mayan both have hieroglyphic writings seems to be an interesting connection. Joseph Smith often used texts or items to initiate revelation. It is very possible that the papyri he used were either lost and never found among the ones we now have, or that the ones we have were used as a jumping off point for revelation. Either way, God can reveal truth in whichever way He chooses to do so. God does not reward nor condemn us for reading things. He rewards us for seeking Him out and accepting his truths, no matter where they are found. He condemns us for the truths we reject, simply because we refuse to consider things with an open mind. Your questions seem snarky and prideful. Many people rejected Moses, Jeremiah, and Jesus, because they thought they knew more than God and his prophets. Perhaps more humility, less stiff-neckedness, and more willingness to hear the word of God may lead you to greater truth.

I once did an experiment with some of relations. One day, we watched The Testaments (about the Book of Mormon telling of Christ's life and visit to Americas). The next day, we watched Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ, an anti-Mormon video that requires, through a false dichotomy, the individual to choose between following Christ or Joseph Smith. I then asked the group which how they felt after watching both films. All agreed they felt the Spirit, love, peace, and happy after watching the Testaments. After watching the anti-Mormon film, they felt confused, tense, and awful inside. I then asked them which feeling felt more right to them; which feeling they would rather have. All chose the feelings of peace.

While it is always possible someone "makes up" the blessing, in my own experience of giving blessings, I have felt the Holy Spirit pour through me and direct the words I've spoken. In some blessings, I've said things that surprised me, speaking of future things for the person, then to see the promises come to pass in the future. Having known many bishops, I'd suggest you strongly consider following his counsel in the blessing.

What things have you done in your past that are probably just as bad as what she has done? Let's face it. Most people have done something worthy of going to jail over. Often the difference is most of us were lucky enough not to be caught. The key is to go into a dating situation with your eyes wide open, and into marriage with your eyes half closed. If you can't do that, then you are not ready for marriage to anyone. You will not find the perfect mate, because she doesn't exist. BTW, you are not the perfect mate, either. The key is for two people to learn to become one. It is a process. My wife and I have been married for almost 27 years. Both previously divorced, and her with 3 kids from that marriage. Our whole past is full of baggage. But our marriage is wonderful, because we focus on caring for each other, and not selfishly on ourselves. We are more "one" now than ever before. Yet, we are still not perfectly one. I suppose the perfect union will come after the resurrection. But it is still awesome today.

Only if it is a tattooed unibrow.

The term "doctrine" is used in various ways. 1 - as a word equating to teaching. 2 - as a teaching that is binding upon the church. Often, we'll see the term "core doctrine" to help us separate out those things that have been fully accepted by the Church from those teachings which are still in the wild. All such doctrines that are to becoe core doctrines are given by the prophet, but must be sustained by the membership, so that it becomes binding upon the membership. We have a lot of doctrines that fall under teachings, but very few core doctrines. Why? Because the Church is set up to allow members the room to discover most things via personal revelation - which becomes binding on the individual, and not on the Church. So, most revelation given by the Church to become binding doctrine comes infrequently, and always be common consent, so the members are bound to it.

Check with your bishop to see if there is an adult scripture class (they usually use the Institute manuals) available somewhere in the stake, or if he would authorize one for your ward.

Just have your husband explain to his family that you are raising the child with certain standards. You want them to be a part of his life and experience, but they will have to abide those standards with the child around. If they get rude, you warn them and they continue even after you tell them, then say that it is time for you to go. You then get up and leave. Once they see that such vulgar attitude denies them access to the baby, even though temporary, they will modify their behavior. Do this each time you have a group activity. Their access to the baby depends on their behavior. Don't look for apologies, and don't give any. Just explain that this is your expectation for YOUR child. The better the behavior, the longer they can have with the child. As for insulting you, I would suggest you leave at that time. Then your husband needs to call them later on the phone and chew out the offenders. This is HIS wife, not theirs, and he expects them to treat you like a lady.

Canuck, I'm not saying there shouldn't be health care. I'm saying it should not be considered a "right." The Canadian system has pros and cons to it. Yes, it is "free" as in the system is taxed into existence for all to use. However, it is still conditional. If a person needs an MRI or a hip replacement, he/she may have to wait months or years for the money to be allocated to deal with it. So, in Canada, does the person have the right to immediate health care, or just when the state can afford it? That is part of the reality, and why it isn't a natural right. I can give everyone free speech, and it doesn't tax the system to do so. But to provide everyone with health care means I must take it from some to give to others. There's also the issue of quality of health care provided. I can get an MRI in the USA in a week, while I know people in Canada who have had to wait 18 months for one. Many Canadians will go to clinics in the USA for such things and pay cash, rather than wait on the government to schedule it. Here, we see that it is the rich and well-to-do Canadians that will cross the border for better health care. How is that any different than what we do in the USA right now, where our hospitals cannot turn away the poor? Medicare and Medicaid are giant federal bureaucracies with multi-trillion (50-100 T) in unfunded liabilities. Adding an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of a system that is enroute to major bankruptcy is not providing health care to the people. It is only pronouncing a pipe dream that will financially collapse soon after Pres Obama is out of office. It would be better to give every American a health savings account, and tell them they can spend it on insurance or use it to barter with doctors personally, etc. Finally, the reality is, we cannot afford million dollar heart transplants for 75 year old people. Nor should we give a hip replacement to an 85 year old person*. If the person can afford these out of his/her own pocket, then fine. However, we need to realize that people die, and we need to allow them to grow old and die, rather than burden their grandchildren with trillions of dollars of debt, just so they can be comfortable for a couple more years. * I knew an 85 year old man who received a hip replacement at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, then died a year later. Was it worth it to society to do this? Would giving him a wheelchair make more sense?

Rights given under the Constitution and the Amendments, until recently, were for things that did not create a cost to other people or states. For example, the First Amendment's rights of speech, religion, press, etc., do not infringe on others' rights or create a financial or other penalty to them. Only in recent years have we begun speaking of additional rights that do require a cost to society. Welfare is now a federal right (where it used to handled by charitable organizations or the states/communities). Education is now a federal right, once managed by communities/states. Today, things are declared "rights" as part of an effort to increase the power and scope of the federal government. These are not natural nor civil rights. A Civil Right does not impose itself financially on other people. Allowing black people to vote or sit in the front of the bus may ruffle some feathers (as freedom of speech can also), but it has no real impact on anyone's pocketbook. Such is a true Civil (and natural) right. But inventing new rights, just so government has a mandate to fix something, does not make them rights. Nor does it mean that government can effectively or efficiently provide a solution. LBJ's war on poverty is a failure, as there are more people on welfare today than in his day. The war on drugs also is failing. Since the creation of the federal Dept of Education in Carter's day, test scores have not budged up an inch (in fact, some have declined). Even our mandate to be the world police force is failing, as our military strength is squandered in a hundred different locations elsewhere, bleeding to death from a hundred paper cuts. No one has a "right" to health care, just as no one has a "right" to an IPad, a house, a steak for dinner every night, or to be married to Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt. These are not rights. These are government-created mandates that are called "rights" in order to change the discussion from whether we should provide some type of health care to we must provide it and so let's just find a big government solution to it.