Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Why would they assume OD1 was strictly political? If plural marriage were reinstated it would support OD1 where it is clear in the reasoning that this is allowed because it has become impossible to practice and that God approved the change because of this. If we could practice it and did not it would be more damaging to OD1, though still not very damaging.
  3. Yes. What if they are descendents of Adam&Eve but their forebears ate vegetables that contained weird volatile chemical compounds? Dr. Jeckle Mr. Hyde effect? Genesis speaks of a race of giants. Whats up with that? Did they NOT make it to the ark?
  4. That you equate pledging allegiance to one’s country as equivalent to pledging support for a serial adulterer and habitual liar is also chilling. If the pledge of allegiance was to a person you bet I would be upset. Even in most of the surviving monarchies the monarch’s appeal to loyalty is more about the institution then the person. Trump and the United States hold much different positions on my allegiance scale. One is “grateful to God for this blessing in my life, willing to die for” and the other is “what the hell do others see in this, will consider not running it over in the street if it runs in front of my car while I am in a hurry”. I will leave guessing which is which as an exercise for the reader.
  5. This reminds of that great musician, Al Yankovic's "Word Crimes":
  6. A Catholic analogy would be to see it as a liturgy or "Mass" which follow various formats in various traditions called "Rites" which are performed differently, but all Catholics see those Rites as still having a valid "Mass". And of course there are other variations even in Protestantism which Catholics have at least in the past, recognized as "valid" If I recall correctly, according to Catholics, Anglicans, which are a Protestant group, still have "valid orders" meaning that Catholics acknowledge to some extent the validity of some Protestant sacraments. Perhaps that has changed- I have not kept up with it, but changes to the temple ceremony and its format of presentation including masonic elements, is no more questionable than the Byzantine Rite mass or even the Anglican Mass mutually recognizing each other as "valid". Again perhaps someone more acquainted with these issues as they are today may comment on this- but at least it was this way in the past.
  7. You are speaking of those who die before the age of accountability, I take it?
  8. The verse reads: "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords" (Deu 10:17). If these are just man made false gods and idols, then the verse doesn’t make any logical or theological sense. Think about what that would really mean. Would you be comfortable saying that God is the God of Baal, Dagon, Ashtoreth, Chemosh, Milcom, Zeus or Diana? That makes it sound like God is nothing more than a fictional god who leads all the other fictional gods. These “gods” don’t even exist. According to Paul, idols are "nothing". Wouldn't this mean that God is just the God of nothing? But this is a Hebrew superlative, just like the other example in this verse of "Lord of lords", or elsewhere, King of kings, Holy of Holies, Heaven of heavens, Sabbath of sabbaths, or song of songs. This type of Hebrew superlative emphasizes the greatness of the first over the second, using the plural of the same word following. So you may be on the right track in suggesting that God is the Ruler of rulers (as is expressed in "Lord of lords" or "King of kings"), but it would be wrong to suppose that the classifications of the two are different except in their comparative greatness of the first over the second. To be God is to be the ultimate ruler. But in this case the expression is "God of gods" (elohi ha elohim). These "gods" of necessity must exist in reality for this to be a logical statement, don't you think? Have you ever stopped to think about what Isaiah 43:10 really means in context? What does it mean for God to say "before me" or "after me" in this verse? Isn't God eternal, without beginning or end? That being the case, then why would he say "before me" or "after me"? And who are his "witnesses"? The context makes it clear, the LORD is speaking to Israel: "I have declared, and have saved, and I have showed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God." (verse 12). Obviously the "before" and "after" has to do with his declaration to Israel: He is the God of Israel (he is OUR God) and there is none other that is the God of Israel. There is none equal to Him. Do you think this means that God is saying that no other gods exist? Obviously not, or God would not also be declared as the "God of gods". As the context shows, he is telling us that there is no other "GOD" (in the supreme sense) who is our God. As Paul says in Eph 4:6, there is but "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." But just in case you are still thinking Isaiah 43:10 is saying that there are no other "gods", you should also consider verse 11: "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Does this mean nobody else can be a savior at all, or is it that nobody else can be a savior in the context of salvation of all of Israel? If you are leaning toward the former, take Obadiah 1:21 into consideration first please.
  9. I suspect that there is a possibility that the Lord would require plural marriage to be reinstated, just to give "casual Mormons" a chance to identify themselves by leaving. I don't expect that the Lord needs to do this, however, as I suspect the way the world is going, there will be plenty of "casual Mormons" leaving in due course anyway.
  10. Today
  11. The same as on every previous earth. They shed their immortality in order to provide mortal bodies for us. They became subject to natural temporal law. They sacrificed for us. And sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven.
  12. Probably. But the Church would never use such a crude term for a Celestial principle.
  13. The 403 Forbidden status code that Bernard was talking about is an automatic feature that the web server implements. What you're talking about is the mods deleting a topic, which is something done by humans.
  14. Uh, yeah. Have you ever seen the skull of a Neanderthal compared to a modern human's? Is an individual Neanderthal a person? Sure, why not? But stand a Neanderthal next to a modern human and it would be clear that there are significant differences. Would they be intelligent on a par with humans? I don't know. Would they be volitional, like humans, and with that subject to sin and redemption from sin? I don't know. I suppose that if they need salvation, and we'll be responsible for dealing with it, we'll address it during the Millennium.
  15. She is not fit apparently to raise children, IMO. But her replacement? Oh, so worrisome. Hope this has a happy ending, but she tried to be above the law. She is going to pay big time in prison in that country. I think if I were her and sentenced for life, I'd get online with someone in China and get a drug to off myself. I know that sounds awful, but I can imagine the horrible things that could happen to her in that country's prison vs. a US prison.
  16. Sure, if you want to start your own church. This is the origin of the Reorganized CoJCoLDS. Or CoC. It's easy enough to say that they took your question seriously, because they looked at D&C 132 and said "Nope. Not happening". Because of course polygamy is not scriptural.
  17. As I recall, I asked about it one time and was informed I could request a statement from the financial clerk any time I wanted. Perhaps I should have done it more often. Maybe then we wouldn’t have ended up with unused money in the account.
  18. Your claim that the 1916 statement is ad hoc necessarily assumes a history of interpretation. And I believe the articles I cited push back against your interpretation of the Book of Mormon, showing it is neither necessary nor privileged above other interpretations.
  19. This is another one that should have been an easy, open-and-shut case. Writing words is literally written speech. I don't see how it could have gone the other way. Well, I can see it going the other way, just not going that way and being right.
  20. I misremembered, on the form she claims waiving of fees because she has 4 special needs children and one full time needing to go to a special preschool, she got 1500 a month in child care and another 500 from financial assistance. She also appears to have ripped someone off while declaring bankruptcy and during the same time period used her debit card for over $6000 in jewelry while on assistance. Then refused to provide any info regarding such. Not a trustworthy person. And if the jewelry was for herself and not resold, bad impulse control when she wants something. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/utah-woman-arrested-at-manila-airport-with-newborn-in-bag/2019/09/05/14f8cdb6-d03f-11e9-a620-0a91656d7db6_story.html changed to better citation
  21. Earth life is the most important stage for those of us with agency in this life, but not for the billions who come to this earth only to receive a mortal body, having qualified for exaltation in our premortal life.
  22. She does sound like a sociopath. From the same source. 'I think the desperate part is the story she wants to get out there instead of truth. She doesn't think she has to be honest and truthful in her dealings with people or authorities. And she may have just met her match this time with the Filipino government.'
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...