Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Happy Valley (by way of the UK and Canada).
  • Interests
    Church history, doctrine, temples, priesthood, and all things pertinent to the eternities.

Recent Profile Visitors

8,245 profile views

JLHPROF's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • One Year In

Recent Badges



  1. I would think destruction of private property is legal if the property is being used for illegal/dangerous activities. For example, the burning of marijuana plants or demolition of a meth lab. Now for the printing press in question it was declared a public nuisance as I understand it. Does that rise to the level of illegal or dangerous? What do our resident lawyers say?
  2. I have three bookcases full, but I don't think everyone needs to read everything available. For building a library to start I think Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith is indispensable. (Words of Joseph Smith by Ehat/Cook is a good alternative). Rough Stone Rolling for a pretty definitive biography of Joseph. As you mention History of the Church and certain Nibley titles are also good. Others to consider: House of The Lord by Talmage Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt Lectures on Faith Discourses of Brigham Young by Widtsoe a personal plug for Robinson's "Believing Christ" - the book that helped me finally understand faith, works, and the atonement. Many of these are available for pennies on the dollar in every used bookstore in Utah.
  3. And had he remained faithful to what his Father restored Joseph III may very well have led the Church. During his lifetime Joseph wanted Hyrum to lead the Church organization as that was his Patriarchal right. Joseph planned to preside over a higher order of priesthood. In the end both roles became combined under the President of the Church. But it took several decades for the Presiding Patriarch to be removed for exactly the reason of confusion over Church leadership. (D&C 124)
  4. Yes, well you can guess my feelings on that too.
  5. Very well put. So, if they lacked moral agency (ability to know good from evil) how then were they held accountable for transgressing the law? If they weren't accountable when they partook of the fruit but became accountable after taking the fruit does it hold that we are accountable before God for sins committed in ignorance/innocence? How then do we justify the age of accountability related to baptism?
  6. Whenever Christ is upon the earth, those are the high points. Literally the Meridian was when Christ broke the bonds of death on the 3rd day. The veil was rent, death and sin were overcome, and all the blessings of resurrection became available. The fullness of times features increased light but we don't currently enjoy the same presence that we did when that came to pass.
  7. Please define the difference. If being immersed in water makes you clean and not being immersed in water leaves you without that blessing it is absolutely quibbling to say the water is merely symbolic.
  8. I did read the quotation, I disagree with your interpretation. You are speaking of accountability, not agency. Agency is the ability to choose. They may have been innocent but they still had the ability to make choices. They were still given commandments to follow or not follow. They were able to act, not just be acted upon. It also defies logic to say they couldn't be held responsible for their choices made while innocent in the garden. They literally chose to partake of the fruit and bore the consequences. Oh, and I completely reject your archetype description of Father Adam and Mother Eve. They are absolutely actual people, even if the words Adam and Eve are titles that many hold.
  9. They were tempted before partaking and falling therefore opposition. They were commanded not to partake and chose to partake anyway before having fallen therefore agency. Sorry, your statement isn't in evidence.
  10. I don't think they would be liable in the same way. But I think given the way in which scouting was used in the Church there could be danger of liability. Perhaps this is simply to help offset potential future claims. When I attended scouting the meetings were at the chapel, the scout leaders were members of the ward, the activities ran through the ward, every aspect of my scouting experience was being run and administered under Church oversight. If anything had happened I could see the Church being held as liable as the scouting organization.
  11. You are welcome to that opinion. Others have differing views.
  12. I understand this. There are literally billions of scientifically valid precedents that once we die we're dead. There an unbelievable mountain of scientific evidence against the possibility of anyone who is dead returning to life and their remains reanimating. It's the subject of zombie movies, fantasy films, and fiction. Yet we go to Church every Sunday and worship in the name of someone we believe did exactly that. Scientific evidence doesn't stop us believing the dead can rise again. Why should it stop us believing that God can cover the earth with water and leave no physical evidence? There is still cultural evidence in many cultures that share similar "flood myths".
  13. The act of being immersed in water actually cleanses. It is the only act that cleanses a penitent believer. Just because the physical water doesn't remove the sin doesn't mean the physical act of being immersed in the water has no effect beyond symbol & metaphor. Saying that the act doesn't actually create the response doesn't make much sense to me. Cause and effect. It's quibbling to say that the water doesn't remove the sin if being immersed in baptism actually does. That's like saying the sealing ceremony doesn't unite man and wife, God's approval does that. Well, yeah, except without the sealing ceremony God doesn't. So the sealing ceremony actually does. Or saying that praying to know if the Book of Mormon is true doesn't give you a testimony, the spirit does when it witnesses. Well, sure, but to get the spirit to witness you need to pray. So prayer actually does. To quote Joseph again: "we can not obtain the blessing by pursuing any other course, except the way marked out by the Lord." We can't ignore the so called metaphorical or symbolic acts that bring about blessings as being just representative. They are the catalyst for the blessings, even if they aren't the delivery system. The material of the garment doesn't protect us. But wearing the physical garments according to the covenants does. So the garments protect us from harm. That's not metaphor or symbolism. That's literal.
  14. Yes. Not because I am a science denier on most things. But rather because when speaking of acts of God scientific law doesn't have to apply. Science says the dead don't come back, water can't turn to wine, and humans can't walk on water. God says they can. Why should any other act of God be restricted to scientific understanding?
  15. Because God won't consider you completely clean spiritually if you don't enter the waters of Baptism. The act of being immersed in the baptismal waters (assuming you have repented and accepted your Savior) literally makes you clean before God. Do you believe you can be in clean through entrance into the covenant with Christ without being washed in authorized baptismal waters?
  • Create New...