Mathonihah

This is a multinational church. Of course it won't endorse a particular candidate or party. It wouldn't be prudent. But that is neither her nor there in this thread. The church always has stood for the freedoms enlisted in the Constitution. Among which is the right to own property. By the way, the church does take a stance on political issues prohibition and gay-marraige being a couple.

Why ask then? If your gut tells you religion is wrong and your head tells you the same thing, why the doubt? All any of us can do is follow our conscience, if you do that you are pretty much okay.

I viewed your posted question as an honest one and answered in kind. Many people are flippant about there attitude towards God, I apologize if my respond seemed to place you in the same category, I was suggesting a reason why some don't receive and answer. Some are flippant, some are sincere but lazy, some are diligent but don't like the answer they are given, some are diligent but just can't connect the dots (that "eureka!" or "ahah!" element is somehow missing) I agree with your wife. Hot dogs are disgusting:D. Now brautwurst, there's a different story:). Anyway, I see your point. And that is one of the reasons people have different religions. But based on taste and comparing it with other foods, would you describe hotdogs as wholesome? Nothing can objectively be shown to be true. Everyone has their biases. Everyone will consciously, or subconsciously "color" what they are trying to show you. And everyone "colors" what they have been shown. The events of the first vision are so removed from me by space and time that the only evidence that I have are a spiritual witness, and the evidence of goodness that the Church brings. I grew up in the Church so believing that fantastic story wasn't hard for me. I often wondered if I was raised outside of the Church, if I would find it. Some years ago I concluded that I would because of my "instinctive" knowledge of good. Lacking as all that sounds, it works for who I am and who I wand to become. And I have taken many deep looks at who I am. :):):)If you have exhausted all avenues of thought, go with your gut feeling. :):):)

God expects us to do our homework. It took two years of thoughtful study before Brigham Young joined the Church. It also took about two years of thoughtful meditation and study for Joseph Smith to feel ready to ask God and get his vision. Oliver Cowdrey was reproached by the Lord because he took no thought save it was to ask God when he tried to translate. If all I do is ask flippantly, "God which church is right?" Why would I expect God to respond? At best I might suppose He would give a flippant response. What about if I asked God sincerely and did nothing to try to reason it out for myself? Remember what James said, "Faith without works is dead." Sometimes you have to dive off "the deep end". But always check to see if there is water in the pool first! I assume you already found out that the pool holds water. Else you wouldn't have married an LDS girl and would have found the Church teachings repugnant. I think the question isn't what everyone else thinks (or knows) but, "How do I know?" or "How can I know?" First I know because it "tastes" good to me. I know when food is good because it tastes wholesome, it satisfies hunger, it leaves me with no regret (like an upset stomach) after I've eaten it. In like manner, I know when a precept is a good one because it "tastes" wholesome, it enlightens my mind (akin to satisfying hunger), it makes me a better person (akin to leaving me with no stomach ache). I also know because of the examples of the Church leaders I see. They are great men and women who care a lot and work diligently and are happy for the most part. They are extremely intelligent too. I know because of the "aura" or spirit I see around Church members. There are some people i can just look at and see they are good and wholesome and obeying the commandments. In this manner I knew the President Hinkley was a man of God. Now you ask, "What about people of other faiths who say they know?" One, I do not know if they know or what that know. I am not them. I can't be in there head. I said I know when a precept is good because it "tastes" good. I assume everyone has this ability too (see Moroni 7, especially verses 13 and 16). I assume that people of other faiths have "tasted" what their churches have to offer and found them (or a parts of them) good. That is their churches teach many precepts which their members have tried and found good and therefore of God. They may then say, "Because this principle is true the whole church must be true as well." Are they right? On the other hand, someone might be investigating the same church and find the one of its precepts doesn't ring true and concludes that this particular church is false. Is he right? One can even investigate every precept that his church teaches and find them all good and of God. Did he find the right Church of God? He can say that all the precepts he has investigated so far as good and of God. I'm not sure that he can say the his church is the "true Church of God" though. Perhaps there was a precept that he missed? Lastly and most importantly, I know that the Church is true because the "First Vision" is true. God spoke to Joseph Smith and told him that through him he would establish his church (see Joseph Smith-History 1:10-34).

Perhaps my definition of Creationism is a bit off. It was my understanding that it is Man and all other life was created by God fully formed out of the "dust of the earth", and there was not Man or other life existing prior to God creating Man and other life. It's as if God had a "black box" and one day he puts in dust and it come out man (And woe unto the man who tries to open the black box and understand the process of creation.). Or saying "hocus pocus" and man was. God created man and thats all there is to it. It is heresy to try to understand God's "black box" This is what I meant when I said Creationism. This maybe a bit unfair definition. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism">Wikipedia</a> gives a pretty interesting definition. "Cleon Skousen in his book The First Thousand Years puts forth a theory that they were bred on another planet and transplanted to this earth." This is my belief as well. I've never seen a Creationist page on the web suggest this though. I would think that traditional Creationists would view this as heresy. My belief is that Adam and Eve were created perfectly (or Celestially) on another planet. That is they weren't some primitive, half-developed, ape-things. They were also created in the usual manner of sexual reproduction. They were immortal before the Fall like the Bible says, which would imply immortal parents. This belief goes against most Creationist thought and Evolutionist thought that is why I said I didn't believe in either. Spontaneous generation is the belief that life (at least very simple life) was created spontaneously without any apparent cause. There was an old belief that maggots were created in grain in this manner because thats how it looks.

Very, Very good point Mama. A very simple way of looking at the Science vs. religion issue is that science asks questions while religion gives answers. Very cool huh? Now not all science asks the right questions and not all religion gives the right answers (but hey, now one is perfect:)). ***Science is not in the business of answering questions but questioning answers.*** A hypothesis is some way to explain or make sense of observed data. If the hypothesis is good and is tested against other data and holds true, it becomes a theory or working model of the way things work. (Note that theory answers "how" questions thus it is an element of religion). I know someone will take exception to my equating science with questions and religion with answers. Think it over. All Truth (answers) belong to Religion. All Doubts (questions) belong to Science. This is my philosophy. Moving on. We have two great Religions (religion as a binding set of answers that pertain to the question at hand namely "What is the origin of Man, life, etc."): Creationism (The answer is that God created (said "Hocus Pocus!" and there was man) us. Period. ) Evolution (The answer is that nature selected us. Period.) My religion is neither of those (or more accurate, elements of both). Genesis said God formed man of the dust of the earth. This is correct. We all are formed of the dust of the earth (We eat plants which grow in the ground which become the building blocks of each of us.). Science will ask the question "Okay, so how was the first, original man formed"? Religion says *** "There was never a Son without a Father, never a Father without first being a Son" *** (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) Science questions this. ... and comes to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "spontaneous generation". ...but still it questions...

I'd like to see an article on that (really:)).

So you are saying that if I find the same ERV in a chimp and human in the same place in the chimp and human genome both the chimp and human must have inherited this ERV from a common ancestor? Sounds like a pretty compelling argument. Has this been done? Has someone found an ERV linking man to chimp (or other hominiod)? So how do we know that the placement of an ERV in the genome is arbitrary?

I knew I'd open a can of worms with this! :) It is my understanding that the laws of thermodynamics are universal and can be apply every where. I looked it up on wikipedia and found this: Second law Main article: Second law of thermodynamics “ The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. ” In a simple manner, the second law states that "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy" rather than decrease it. A way of looking at the second law for non-scientists is to look at entropy as a measure of chaos. So, for example, a broken cup has less order and more chaos than an intact one. Likewise, solid crystals, the most organized form of matter, have very low entropy values; and gases, which are highly disorganized, have high entropy values. The entropy of a thermally isolated macroscopic system never decreases (see Maxwell's demon). However, a microscopic system may exhibit fluctuations of entropy opposite to that dictated by the Second Law (see Fluctuation Theorem). In fact, the mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible dynamics and the Axiom of Causality constitutes a proof of the Second Law. In a logical sense the Second Law thus ceases to be a "Law" of physics and instead becomes a theorem which is valid for large systems or long times. So this theorem is valid for large systems or long times. I would say evolution encompasses both long time and a large system. I'm not seeing why it would be invalid for evolution. Okay let us work with the hypothetical ancestor dog and its decendants. Let's say that these dogs can change over time by adapting to their environment. Let us also say that some of these dogs are sexual incompatible with each other due the change (speciation effent). Let us also say that the second law of thermodynamics is valid here (this happened over a long lime). Then the speciation event indicates a loss of genetic information that would allow them to breed. This would not be evolution. Thank you for sharing about the ERVs. I haven't studied them. Interesting stuff. BTW, "resurrecting" a dead virus is more akin to "resurrecting" a dead computer program than bringing the virus back to "life". You wanted a explanation that isn't evolution? How about this: A long time ago ERVs were rampantly infecting dogs, cats, humans, etc. One strain of this ERV infected orangutans. chimpanzees, and man. Another strain infected cats, rabbits, and mice. Now given this senerio, I would expect (or it wouldn't surprise me) that the DNA at the infected sites of orangutan, chimpanzee. and man would be virtually identical (or a close enough match to assume a common ancestor) but be totally different than cat, rabbit, and mouse. So are man, chimp. and orangutan related because some fragments of their DNA have a common ancestor? I would say not! Only that the same ERV infected them at the same time. So I am not seeing how these ERVs can be used to track ancestry. Am I missing something?

Thats what I meant when I wrote that Neandertal DNA was too different to be an ancestor of modern homo sapiens. I only used Neandertal as an example to make the point that obtaining evidence that supports evolution wouldf be difficult. Here you have a species of man that might be plausible to be haven been genetical similar enough bast on morphology to pass its DNA into our genome but the reality of it was the Neandertal was too different.

Evolution as a means of creating a more complex organism out of a simpler one just doesn't make sense (to me). One law of thermal dynamics states that things become more disorganized over time or entropy in a closed system increases over time. In other words, some (outside) force needs to be acting on object in order for it not to revert back into chaos. Natural selection is an inside force which means it cannot overcome entropy. At best it can mitigate it only somewhat. One can argue that an outside force would be God and that He can steer the course of evolution if he wants to. This is way too complicated. Why would God go through the trouble of nurturing a single cell through countess eons to arrive at man? If God is so great genetical engineer as to "create" or design the first living cell, why go through all the eons and painstakingly go little by little improving on each iteration of "creation" until finally He makes man? He could just shoot the human genetical information into his first cell and be done with it. Natural selection is one method species adapt to their environment. No question about that. That is just saying that one progenitor dog (two at least male and female:)) can produce the variety of dogs we find today. But, at the end of the day, a dog is still a dog. One would have to manipulate the dog's genome very very expertly to get anything but a dog and even thing I doubt its possible.) In order to get real evidence for evolution as a means of species change from simple to complex start with a species and track it back through time until it is undeniably a simpler, less organized, creature. Man is a good one to track since he is the most complex. Homo sapiens trace back to about the Neandertal that is about where we don't see any sapiens around anymore. So is Neandertal any simpler than sapiens? They had a bigger brain size for one. That kinda suggests... no. But thats irrelevant since the DNA is too different from sapien to be an ancestor. Dead end. But lest go further back to Homo erectus. Sorry DNA evidence also suggests that he is not our ancestor. Homo erectus enjoyed a long time in history lets check them out anyway. Now according to my anthropology book, early homo erectus and late homo erectus were not too different. Lo and behold, we have a species that exists for long enough that we should see some significant change but don't. Evidence against evolution wouldn't you say?

They are both correct. If you are referring to the plurality of Gods in Abraham's account negating Moses's seemingly one God approach, concider this: as I understand it, usually when the Genesis account in the KJV of the bible said "God" the hebrew was "Elohim" with is the hebrew plural of god. Where is says "LORD" the hebrew says, "Yaweh" or "YHWH" which is Jehovah in English. So God=Gods and LORD=Jehovah. With that in mind, the account in Genesis and Abraham are nearly identical. (see Abraham 5-6 and Genesis 1-2) The sequence of event are the same. One minor difference is Genesis call the firmament Heaven, but Abraham calls the expanse heaven. Which is fine. I have seen the word "vault" used instead of "firmament" in one English translation of the Bible. So vault=firmament=expanse=heaven. "Day" in the Genesis is rendered "Time" in Abraham. I think that "time" is the better word because "day" makes one think of a 24 hour day and since the sun, moon, and stars weren't set apart for reckoning days, months, and seasons until the forth "time" or "day" (see Abraham 5:14-19 and Genesis 1:14-19).

Elphaba, I'm sorry I'm really bad at segues. Just I though you mentioned your "unbiased" view somewhere in this thread and thought I should clear the air. But I can't find it in this thread, so it could have been another thread or another person who said it. In any rate, I apologise. I agree that being biased doesn't make someone wrong. In fact I agree with you on a lot of points:). One the whole I found this debate educational. (Didn't know who Mark Haufmann was for instance.) I think alot of people (myself included) just look on the surface and make a judgment according to our biases don't delve deeper into issues. Sometimes thats a good thing, sometimes it's a bad thing though...

Snow and Elphaba, don't you have each others email so you can send each other hate mail? I thought this thread was about the Book of Abraham, not about the meaning of accomplice..., or how great you are at making quick jabs at each other. Snow if Elphaba is incapable of giving you the last word, be gracious and move on... Elphaba, if Snow is incapable of giving you the last word, be gracious and let her have it and move on... Elphaba, there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion or an unbiased view point. Your biases are set by previous experience. Pevious experience makes you biased one way or another. This gets in our way in learning the truth sometimes, but hey it makes it so you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time something simular comes on the horizon...

I've watched the video. I beg to differ about the interpretation of facsimile one. THe video sade that this french guy noted simularities between this facsimile and others from burial documents. Okay let us take the position that facsimile one was translated correctly by Joseph Smith and it is Abraham being sacrificed on the altar. What could then be the reason for it to be simular to the others. Wow! They are all Egyptian. Stand to reason that Egyptian hieroglyphs should be simular to each other. Hey, aren't burial, resurrection, and sacrifice religious rites? Shouldn't one expect there to be alot of simularities? It makes sense that the gods are there in each account, they being all religous rites. It makes sense that a table or altar would be in each too. The body has to lay on something, doesn't it? Which brings us to the body. It makes sense that in all three the body is on its back spread out on the table. What would the diffence be then, bwteen the representation of the bodies? Oh, I know! One is dead(burial), one is alive (sacrafice), and one is becoming alive(resurrection). And what three images did we see in the movie? Shockingly we see one body is dead(he's in a sarcofogus) one body which is alive(note position of the arms, hands and feet in facsimile no. 1), and the last is being raised from the dead(feet apart=alive but note position of the hands?). The last two(sacrifice and resurrection) are harder to diferentiate because they are both alive(feet apart=alive). But notice in facs. 1, that one leg is clear off the table? In the resurrection one both feet are on the table. Also the hands in facs. 1 are both outstretched(Pleading for divine aid?) while the in the resurrection one, only on hand is seen with its elbow bent and hand not outstretched(Perhaps not quite awake yet?). All three we would expect to find an officiator(priest or god). Someone needs to be there to raise the dead. Someone is needed to bury the dead. Someone is needed to sacrifice. The other major figure is the bird. I have no problem accepting it as the angel of the Lord. There is a tear where the knife should be and where the head of the officiator should be. So the head and knife may not be accurate. I believe someone replying to in this thread sugests both knife and human head are in other hieroglyphs so that its not unreasonable for the figure in facs. 1 to have a human head and a knife. So I guess if there isnt better (I hardly call 2 simular hieroglyphs good evidence, 10 or 15 maybe) evidence, I'll continue to believe that facs. 1 is correct.

OK, Every heard the song by W.W. Phelps, "If You Could Kie to Kolob" ? Thats the beauty of eternity. There is no beginning and there is no end. Think about it... how can something(or someone) have a beginning(or birth or start), if the wasnt something there to initiate(or create)? So I think youre reasoning that this iterative God who became God implies that there is an ultimate God is faulty. The only way you can get exalted is to have an exulted Being exault you. Sorta like your in quicksand and the only way to get out is to have someone pull you out who is on firm ground. answer to 2nd question: God's glory derives from His children ("This is my work and my gloy, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39)). God's Father's glory is more than God's insofar as God's Father has more exalted posterity(including God). It doesn't mean He is more intellegent(more-all knowing, more all-seeing) though. It is my understanding that once you reach Godhood, you only progress insofar as your posterity does(i.e. more glory is added to you as your posterity gets exaulted). answer to question 3: Read Moses. THere are billions and billions of worlds out there. Enough for everybody:) Some are lifeless some aren't. The closest star to us is 4 light years away. We can't travel nearly the speed of life yet, so it would take lifetimes to get to that star and its(if it even has one) planetary system. Assuming that one planet in that system is inhabited, why would we know about it when we have only begun to send rockets and probes out? (I think I remember hearing that one of our earlier probes had just passed Pluto, or was it Jupiter?) answer to question 4: Again there are billions and billions of stars our there... enough for everybody.... answer to qustion 5: This one may be harder to fathom. (And this is only my guess) Mortality is a trial period, a set up, an imitation or reality(eternity). You come to earth learn a ton, experience a body, learn to used the body well, do good, learn to love, progress, progress, progress. You have a Savior who can (and does) exalt you, if youve live up to the requirements of recieving the Atonement. You return to real life(eternity). Now God saids, "Well done though good and faithful servant..." You now are exalted to Godhood. And because your in real life(eternity), you become a God from eternity to eternity... (again this is my own thoughts) answer to question 5: It's been answered previously. Whomsoever has faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and follows His commandments may call himself a Christian. answer to question 6: same as 5. Anyone who learns from the Master and follows Him is his disciple and can call himself a Christian. The only opinion that matters is Christ's. If He will call me a Christian, thats good enough for me.

OK Argentina and Rize, Lets get some defintions straight. Communism acooring to wikipedia: Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.[1] It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution[2]. Communism by that definition is socialism and I think thats a fair definition of communism. Wouldn't you agree?

There is a danger in taking a little excerpt of any paper or document out of context. There context within the document itself and also historical context. What was going on back then that was so bad that the Church had to issue a proclamation on it? I read the entire document which the discussion about redistribution of wealth seems (to me) only a preamble. It leads up to people buying stock in ZCMI and supporting other cooperative ventures. This sounds to me like a very capitalist venture. From the Proclamation on the Economy, 1875: When the proposition to organize Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become stockholders; for if a few individuals were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved to be as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of cooperation among us. It goes on to say: Cooperation has submitted in silence to a great many attacks. Its friends have been content to let it endure the ordeal. But now it is time to speak. The Latter-day Saints should understand that it is our duty to sustain cooperation and to do all in our power to make it a success. The local cooperative stores should have the cordial support of the Latter-day Saints. Does not all our history impress upon us the great truth that union is strength? Without it, what power would the Latter-day Saints have? But it is in not our doctrines alone that we should be united, but in practice and especially in our business affairs. from Wikipedia: A cooperative (also co-operative, coöperative, or co-op) is defined by the International Co-operative Alliance's Statement on the Co-operative Identity as an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise[1]. A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it. So it seems to me the the First Presidency and Quorum or the Twelve were urging the saints to participate in cooperative ventures not urging the saints to modify their form of Government in any way. You sited a few scripture which you say are in favor of socialism. Well here is on for you. Explain to me the the Parable of the Talents? (Read Mathew 25:14-30) The Master gave one servant 5, another servant 2, and another servant 1 talent (unit of money). Hmmm, doesn't sound equally distributing His wealth does it? The Master then leaves for a time and come back. The servant with 5 talents made 5 more. The servant with 2 made 2 more. But the servant with one did nothing and hid his talent and the Master TOOK AWAY HIS TALENT AND GAVE IT TO THE SERVANT WHO HAD 10 (Mathew 25:28). Sounds like redistibution of weath alright. But wait! It's in the wrong direction! The rich gets the one talent from the poor (assuming that the talents the master gave were the only talents they possessed). Doesn't sound like socialism does it? I'd like to say a word or too about socialism and communism: the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not the word socialist. Communism is a form of socialism. So was National Socialism (Nazi Germany). To be fair I suppose there is democratic socialism. Like Sweden (go look at their economy and compare it to ours). I believe the economic position of the Church is that every man is responsibly for his own economic prosperity. If he cannot meet his own needs he can look toward his family then the Church.