InCognitus

Exactly my point, except all we have are "words". Read her history. You'll figure it out.

Sorry, I take her at her word. And if she doesn't "realize" that she's doing it, how can it be what you think she's doing?

Yes, perhaps But you said it was "easy to prove". A consensus isn't exactly proof.

I recommend that you take a couple of hours and read through a few months history of Calm's prior posts before you finish your "call". Having seen Calm's activity on this board for the past few years I find your accusations of her playing "mind games" and trying to "entrap" you and "bait" you to be laughable. I've never seen her do anything that comes remotely close to that, and in fact it has been always quite the opposite. The record stands in evidence against your "call". Read the evidence for yourself. It's not in her nature to do such a thing.

But that's really the sola scriptura approach compounded with the debate between scholars, which doesn't prove anything since everyone disagrees on how to interpret the Bible and the historical data. A lot of people say Latter-day Saints have non-Biblical concepts too. We all view the data through our individual biases. But I understand your point, because I find that the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the most in harmony with the entire Bible than any other faith I've encountered, and it best explains the historical data. But I'd never call that "proof", but it is convincing to me.

There is a significant contrast with the Book of Mormon event in 3 Nephi 18 and anything shown in the Bible because of one important difference: The resurrected Jesus was there personally and was teaching the disciples how to administer the sacrament. The same thing is true of the 3 Nephi 20 event. Both of these are special occasions, where Jesus was there personally and was giving them instructions. There is simply no event in the Bible that compares to this. But in the Bible there is a similar pattern, since Jesus gave the sacrament to his disciples first (Matthew 26.26-27) and later the disciples gave it to others (Acts 2:42). As for being "filled", it wasn't because they were eating a meal. They were using the word "filled" in the same sense that Jesus explained it in 3 Nephi 20:8: "And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled."

It doesn't matter what day we take the sacrament as long as it is done regularly. Whether it is Sunday, Saturday, or some other day of the week, it makes no difference. When the church was organized on April 6, 1830, they partook of the sacrament. It was a Tuesday. We typically meet weekly and partake of the sacrament on Sunday now because it works well with our culture (in many parts of the world), but it isn't a requirement of the reason we take the sacrament. I understand that the General Authorities of the church meet regularly on Thursday to take the sacrament, since they travel and are typically doing conferences on Sundays. So I don't see there being any problem with whatever day they chose to take the sacrament in the Book of Mormon. A good resource on this is the Church History Topic: Sacrament Meetings.

The passages in Revelation about the "woman" fleeing into the wilderness explain why: But what reason would God allow this? I can think of two possible reasons. First, he doesn't normally directly interfere with man's agency. Just look at how things play out for Israel in the Old Testament. They went through cycles of apostasy. God sent prophets to try to straighten them out from time to time, and sometimes they responded and other times they did not. The land of Israel had to be conquered a couple of times to knock some sense into them. But God also prepared a way for the temple to be rebuilt and things could get back in order in preparation for the coming of Christ. And then they killed their Messiah. Obviously there were still some good people in these time periods. But I think the reason that God "allowed" that to happen should be obvious: He doesn't force people to do what he wants them to do, and I think this same principle applies to the period following the death of the apostles. And God sometimes uses even the bad choices of people for his purposes. Second, preventing the first century church from falling into apostasy isn't important to the big picture. The seeds were planted and the Christians of the second century onward preserved the scriptures and spread the message of Christ throughout the world. Those seeds made it possible for the restored gospel to take hold quickly some 1700 years later. The big picture is about the sealing keys (as you mention). It only makes sense when there is a period of time when temples can be established and work can be performed for the dead and the entire human family can be linked to the family of God. We're living in the time when it is possible for that to happen.

It's all about the keys. Nobody around had the keys. John, the apostle, had keys but the church was taken into the "wilderness" for a period of time (Revelation 12:6, 14, D&C 33:5, 86:3).

This is, I think, one of many great examples of why excommunication is necessary for the health of the "body" of the church (for the reasons described in that letter). Matt 18:7-9; "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." I believe these verses are speaking about excommunication from the "body" of the church, and not about literally chopping off body parts (that would be gross and unproductive). (See 1 Cor 12:12-31 for a description of the "body of Christ" and members of the church likened unto "hands", "eyes", "feet", etc.)

Do you ever edit your wording as you are writing what you post here? Is everything you change a "change in teaching"? Not every word change is a "change in teaching". Most often it's just a better way to say what they were originally trying to convey.

In an Elders Quorum lesson a month or so ago, we were discussing things that we do that are "customary" as compared to other things that are doctrinal. Someone brought up using individual sacrament cups for taking the sacrament compared with the prior custom of everyone drinking from the same cup, and asked how it would work out if we returned to the custom of everyone drinking from the same cup. In response, someone said, "It would probably increase the number of people willing to sit on the front row." And then someone else said, "And we'd likely have many more that would aspire to be a bishop". You could change your comment to "congratulations" instead of "condolences" in that case.

This is a lot like the Solomon Spaulding and View of the Hebrews theory for the origin of the Book of Mormon with the same results: [network error]

Shaming him with percentages? Where did you get those percentages? Is there a poll of members regarding their opinion on what they think God might change in the future? I'm not weighing in on this issue, I'm just questioning the claim. Edit: Forget what I said. I read your comment above in the context of the question being asked. I didn't see your prior comment where you were quoting the article that had the statistics (shame on me for not following the thread!) But I still question the application of those statistics to what you were responding to. There's a big difference between "views on same-sex marriage" and views on whether "homosexual sex is forbidden by God" (which is how I took your application of the statistics).

Woohoo! Broke through the purple cloud today(aka the prior snow water equivalent in the State of Utah as of this date): See: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/WCIS/AWS_PLOTS/basinCharts/POR/WTEQ/assocHUCut3/state_of_utah.html Utah's snowpack officially breaks mid-March record; rain causes new flooding

One would think that based on the lack of any blue (negative) on the "Mormons (Latter-day Saints)" line above, that people would like us back better than that. And we're the only entry on the list that has no negatives going across.

I'm impressed and unaware that the Church had so much in liquid assets.

Cool. I didn't realize the church had that much liquid assets.

Isn't this a bit extreme? Do we really say that? Every "Christian church and all their members are FALSE and dead"? That's not what I understand the church to be teaching. All churches have some truth, and I'd say that even the Latter-day Saints don't have "all" truth yet. Remember what Joseph Smith taught: "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44, p.316) We should be gathering all truth from wherever it can be found. Or are you referring to the fact that he didn't include Mennonites in his list? The statement about the "only true and living church" was qualified: "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30)

I've got that one too. Or these are good as well: But this new book brings together in one book several topics of interest to Latter-day Saints (including the discussion on the apostasy).

I know there are, I have some of them. But that's just one of the topics of interest to Latter-day Saints in that book.

Have you even looked at the book? Here's a link: Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints Note the table of contents. I notice a few items that have a specific aim toward Latter-day Saint interests: And here's a sample page with a specific Latter-day Saint approach: I also like to read other research on early Christianity. But that doesn't mean a book on this topic aimed at Latter-day Saint interests doesn't have any value.

But D&C 129 is not defining the word "angel", rather it is explaining the different kinds of beings in heaven, although in the context of that revelation it uses the word "angel" to refer to the resurrected personages. The Hebrew and Greek word translated as "angel" simply means messenger. A messenger ["angel"] from God can even be a mortal human (scripture has several examples of this). Verse 4 says, "When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God", it is simply using the term for angel again. So God the Father would not be an "angel" just by virtue of him having a resurrected body of flesh and bones, that's faulty logic. In order for God the Father to be an "angel" he would need to be a representative and messenger of someone else.

Yep, he joined up with the "Church of the First Born" (Fred Collier's group), but he says that was after "the Church had began to persecute and ostracize" him and his wife. I suspect there's more to that part of it as well.