Jamie

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Well, we can go off how other ultra-powerful beings reproduce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyVlaWrwl4k

 

Nice that they thought the man's fertilization of the woman's egg should feel good, but where is it?  Why didn't they make their baby appear instantaneously as a full-grown adult?  Did the woman choose to carry it for a while for birth?  Where is it?

On 5/18/2021 at 8:52 AM, Rivers said:

The teaching of spirit birth has always confused me.  How do resurrected beings reproduce to create spirit children?  Wouldn’t embodied beings give birth to other embodied beings? 

I recently discovered that Blake Ostler rejects both  spirit birth and heavenly mother since Joseph nor the scriptures teach those things.  Smith taught we are co-eternal with God.  I agree with Brother Ostler on the spirit birth thing.  But I don’t want to give up Heavenly Mother.  

Can I believe in Heavenly Mother without the spirit birth?  

Try reasoning with God on these issues.  He invites and encourages us to reason with him.  I'm not 100% sure that I correctly understand everything involved in these issues but I am sure about more than some other people have been assured.

My understanding is that our Father and Mother can reproduce themselves in 2 ways, 1 way as spirit only (which we can think of as conveying or sharing their intelligence) and the other way as a body of flesh which has the potential to become mortal.  Like how both Adam and Eve lived in heaven, each as a spirit child of their spiritual parents, and then later they each inhabited a body of flesh which had also been created by our parents, a body of flesh that was not mortal then but had the potential to become mortal.

I don't see how you would be able to reasonably maintain faith in a Heavenly Mother without recognizing her as the Mother of your spirit.  You have another Mother that is the Mother of your body of flesh.

3 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

I had a question on this section of the manual. 

153 - King Noah and his priests believed that salvation came through the law of Moses. 
Abinadi wanted them to know that salvation comes through the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

What was the origin of this apostasy in the church?

Some error in understanding that for some reason caused those who misunderstood to either leave the church or continue with that misunderstanding.  Apostasy refers to some kind of falling away or departure from what is or should be..

3 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

I noticed that the manual skipped over one part in Mosiah chapter 13.

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all 
thy work; But the seventh day, the sabbath of the Lord thy God, thou shalt not do 
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, 
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord 
made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; wherefore the Lord 
blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it".

Is this confirming that these days are literal and equal periods of time?

Pete

Yes that confirms those days are literal but there is no mention of how long those days were.  God calls it a day while there is ight for however long or whatever duration there is light, so whenever darkness comes that marks the end of that day.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I have low expectations for the Spirit World. I hope that means all surprises will be pleasant.

Do you think there will be apples and bows and arrows so we could play William Tell?  I wonder how good at that I will be able to get.

On 5/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Stargazer said:

But what about the intermediate place between death and our eventual mansion, the place called the Spirit World? What do you believe will be going on there?

How about some ideas of what may NOT be going on there?  Like eating.  Or sleeping.  Or maybe just walking as we do now.  Our spirits may not need food like our mortal bodies do now.  We won't die just by not eating. We probably won't die anymore, period.

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ahab, you don't understand ecumenism.

Let's just say your understanding is different than my understanding of what ecumenism is, just as your understanding is different than my understanding of what is involved in becoming a member of our Lord's one and only true church.

On 4/30/2021 at 4:19 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

In the LDS view, the temptation was specifically permitted and the Fall was part of the Plan.  And while Eve, in innocence was deceived in part, we celebrate her discernment and her choice.

She saw what was necessary.  Notice that Eve is to give heed to her husband not unconditionally but to the extent that he is obedient to God.  And who decides whether that is so?

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I see that as our Father saying:  Eve, you messed up and caused both yourself and Adam to fall because Adam did what you did only to stay with you, so in the future I want you to do what he says so that you can stay with him.  Adam knows to do what I say.

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The definition doesn't say all people are united as Christians. It says that all Christian Churches are united. All members of Christian Churches are already Christians, so becoming Christian isn't the goal of ecumenism. Its goal is to unite by erasing distinctions between the Christian Churches. As 3DOP pointed out, how do you unite LDS with protestants? It's impossible, unless one group (or both) relinquishes one or more of its distinct claims.

How would Catholics and LDS unite when we both lay claim to an exclusive priesthood? Either Catholics have it or LDS have it -- we both don't. A claim that we both have it or that an exclusive priesthood is not necessary would require both of us to relinquish our distinct claims.

Any church is a group of people so when we talk about promoting unity among all Christian Churches we are talking about promoting unity among all of those people in those churches. 

Considering all of those people to be Christians is one way to promote that unity.  And considering anyone who has any authority from Christ to do anything is one way to say anyone in any church has the Lord's priesthood.

A claim to have our Lord's priesthood doesn't convey his priesthood.  Someone may claim to have it but not really have it.  So only those who really have it actually have it and our Lord is probably the only one qualified to act as final judge on who really has it.

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What you describe here is tolerance for diversity of belief — a worthy goal, yes — but it is not by definition ecumenism. 

14 hours ago, 3DOP said:

You put your finger on the problem.

It isn't a lack of desire for unity that calls for a rejection of ecumenism, but rather a desire for real, full, complete unity. Ecumenism believes that by erasing distinctive traits, the Christians can all arrive at shared core beliefs.

Which Christian group, specifically, believes distinctive traits should be erased, including their own distinctive traits that distinguish their group from all other Christian groups?  I don't think any Christian group seeks to erase their own traits from the collective of Christianity.  I think ecumenism is all about trying to include all who believe they are Christians under the banner of Christianity.  Like how Baptists and Methodists and Lutherans and Catholics and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all want to be considered Christians. 

14 hours ago, 3DOP said:

This might be true, BUT there are practical difficulties to being truly one. We can acknowledge shared core beliefs...and not hate. But our distinctives are not optional...they are essential. What Catholic or LDS could agree that valid priestly ordinances are non-essential?

No, not non-essential, but we all should agree that all; valid priestly ordinances are essential.  And then we would need to determine which ordinances are valid, even if only in each sub-group of Christianity if not the collective.

14 hours ago, 3DOP said:

What Evangelical could admit that it is permissible to believe in an authoritative priesthood that is exclusive to all others?

Only those who believe the priesthood they have is authori\tative.

14 hours ago, 3DOP said:

In my opinion, this is what separates LDS and Catholics, from any meaningful ecumenical discussions with other Christians.

I agree... from accepting each person who believes he or she is a Christian under the umbrella of Christianity.  For some reason some Christians seem to feel justified in saying some are not Christians who say they are Christians.

40 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Next time you see Buddha you'll have to ask him.

That would only give him Buddha's opinion, and Buddha might think being a Buddhist is better than being a "Christian".

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

49 All these and many more, even the ^aprophets who dwelt among the Nephites and ^btestified of the coming of the Son of God, mingled in the vast assembly and waited for their deliverance,

50 For the ^adead had looked upon the long absence of their ^bspirits from their bodies as a ^cbondage.

D&C 138

Maybe they do.

When I think of bondage I think of being bound or limited in what I am able to do.  So I think those spirits in that scripture simply felt limited in what they were able to do, with the limits resulting from having no body other than their spirit body to do things with.

On the other hand,  I think there will be at least a few things that we will be able to do there that we can't or haven't learned how to do here.  Flying, for example. Apparently all spirits without mortal bodies are at least able to hover.  Our Lord Jesus could both ascend up into and descend from the clouds above in the sky.  Hovering over water would be fun, I think.  I'm looking forward to learning how to fly without needing to use any machines.

On 5/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Stargazer said:

But what about the intermediate place between death and our eventual mansion, the place called the Spirit World? What do you believe will be going on there?

I am hoping I will be learning how to fly there, without needing to use any machines.  I hope to be learning how to do a lot of things there that I don't know how to do here.  I won't need to worry about death anymore so I will be able to leap off of cliffs without worrying about what will happen when or if I hit the ground below.  Maybe some of my ancestors will have already mastered it and will tell me how to do it.  When Jesus comes back the best of us will be flying up into the clouds to meet him so this is a skill that I think we will need to develop unless maybe it just comes naturally to any spirit without a mortal body.

Just now, Calm said:

That is because sock puppets are not allowed.  So you are basically misrepresenting your intent every time you start a new alias while agreeing to abide by board terms. 
 

If “Ahab” got suspended, you need to be patient and wait until the moderator lifts it.  Trying to get around it will just delay the process and might make the moderator ban you for good.

Ahab got banned.  So now what am I supposed to do?  Say goodbye to all of you folks forever?  I don't think so.

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

As long as you limit it to God...

Other people try to share their thoughts with me too, so in a sense I am also trying to read their minds when I try to understand what they are saying.  You included.  The words are like clues.  Sometimes it seems that pure thoughts make it a lot easier.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Welcome back, Ahab! We'd missed you since your last account went silent  

Prepare for this account to go silent too soon.  The board Nemesis is out to get me and you people who keep pointing me out to him are just helping him get rid of me.  I am just trying to have some fun sharing some ideas while I can.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Seriously? That does not seem to be the case, generally.

I'm curious to know how you see things then when people do not agree.  Do you not see any degree of separation between people who don't agree on the rules or laws we should live by?

I see an effort to teach or explain things but if after a while of that those people still do not agree on how people should live then I see one person or group distancing itself from the other.  Still visiting maybe sometimes but not living together.

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

We don't need total consensus to achieve a general common set of standards. 

Esoterically-sourced religious beliefs, taken all around the world don't achieve consensus either. 

I agree.  Which leaves separation and execution as the only recourse for those who will not go along with what the general majority or those who represent the general majority sets as a standard. 

Violators banished to some other area outside of public domain, or executed.  Maybe with different classes of violators, banished to distinct and separate areas outside of public domain.  What some people think of as heaven.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

You will need to make it clear whether you are joking here or serious. 

Serious.  Prayer for me is all about trying to read the mind of God when he shares a thought with me, and when I am trying to understand what he is thinking and communicating with me with his mind.  

12 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

 

I can lead Jamie to knowledge but I can’t make him/her educated.  

It works that way for everybody, I believe.  God and Satan can give us thoughts and feelings without words but we can only use words, plus maybe some body language when in the physical presence of others.

We can't make or force anyone to believe anything we say, which is probably a good thing too because sometimes we are wrong when we say sometimes.

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

True. But that may not be what matters in the eternities. 

I'm trying to prepare for that if that is the case.  Hard to imagine even only the celestial people being able to remain in his physical presence forever.  So I am consistently trying to develop my mind reading abilities to be able to read his mind from wherever I am regardless of where he is, as well as I can.

11 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? There’s a difference between complexity and advancement.

No, it is never intentional.  Who would ever intentionally choose to be obtuse?  Maybe I just need some help to understand how something can become more complex without some type of advancement/ additional advantage/ something added to one that is not added to the other / as I understand what an advancement is.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

From a philosophical perspective, the standards are there either way as we now witness, be they sourced in God or the human conscience.

What I witness are different sets of standards.  There is no total consensus among all in all societies on this planet.  Lawmakers make laws and lawbreakers break the ones some lawmakers make when they don't like them, making their own laws in their stead.

Voting doesn't solve anything either because voters are opposed to what others vote when they don't vote for what they want.  Separation or execution is our only recourse and not everybody is happy with that situation either.

You can suggest a solution but not everyone will go along with it.  It is a wonder when we have any peace at all on this planet, and there is never a time when everyone is in agreement with each other about anything.

11 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Um. I have a pretty solid background in biology. 😊

Okay, and if I understood you correctly you were saying you don't regard evolutionary changes as advancements for a species, or the idea that one kind of being or species is more advanced than some other kind of being or species. 

So in my mind I am understanding you to be saying that you don't regard a person, aka human, as a more advanced kind of being than a single cell organism, or a cat or dog or whale or monkey.  To you, we're just different.  Not more advanced, in any way.

Is that a correct understanding of what your solid background in biology has taught you or did I somehow misunderstand what you were saying?