Matthew J. Tandy

In short, Christ never said that baptism was the requirement for exaltation/the Celestial Kingdom. He said no one could enter heaven without it and the Holy Ghost. Repeatedly.

I learned this doctrine from both my mission presidents as well as two area authorities. I have several pages on it which I'll have to go find. It's pretty clear: Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess of those in the last resurrection or they will be cast out. Why would they be called Sons of Perdition? Simple. They are given one last opportunity to acknowledge who he is and accept him. It's not enough to simply SAY he is Christ. Christ taught even the devils do that. No, with all evidence, with all the suffering they went through in purification while they waited for the final/third resurrection, they would literally be rejecting and denying Christ when presented with a final ultimatum. They would be looking at him and denying him, the same as one looking at the sun and noon day and knowing it and still declaring it is night. That IS a son of perdition.

Everyone else accepts entrance into the kingdom of Heaven, recognizing Christ as Lord and King. That is baptism. Further, baptism allows the redeeming power of Christ to take effect, bringing them the Holy Ghost. No Holy Ghost means no heaven. It's more than just the fleeting promptings to join the church that a non-baptized member gets. It's the constant presence. Which is what the Telestial Kingdom will have, in the like manner that those in the Celestial will have that of God the Father.

Additionally, the Terrestrial kingdom will be full of baptized people who fully accept Christ and his redemption, but were not valiant. Can you endure the presence of Christ without having been born again? No, you cannot. So it is apparent once again that one cannot say Baptism is for the Celestial only when Christ refers to baptism as entrance into heaven and it must include the Terrestrial.

That one's easy. Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and recieving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

I believe that is the minimum for the Telestial Kingdom. We know that the Telestial Kingdom is for those who can accept the administration of the Holy Ghost, but not Christ. However, you cannot enter even the Telestial without confessing Christ as your Savior and Redeemer (so says the Doctrine and Covenants at least). We also know you can't receive the Holy Ghost without baptism.

That said, baptism and the Holy Ghost are in another sense the minimum for the Celestial Kingdom. The difference lays in valiance in the testimony of Christ.

In 2011, the answer seems to be that the top level is for everyone who wants it whether they are polygamist or monogamist, since everyone will have a chance to get sealed to a spouse at least once if they want to, the second or third level would be for people who qualify for the Celestial Kingdom but totally reject the opportunity to be sealed to someone, and the other level we don't know.

The most recent iteration I've heard is (keeping in mind all being faithful):

C1: Celestial Marriage (or worthy to be and not finding a worthy companion). Joint Heirs with Christ in All Things

C2: Endowed, not married by own actions and choices. Unknown Role

C3: Not Endowed, but baptized and otherwise faithful. Ministering Angels

In my personal opinion, there isn't what I feel is a lot of revealed evidence for 3 clear degrees of Celestial Glory. I view it more as a near infinite degrees of progression open to the valiant in Christ, with those near the bottom able to progress onwards, but always a few steps behind those higher (the two people climbing a ladder analogy Joseph Smith used). Where you fit is unique to who you are.

A "single sentence and no clues"? CFR

Robert,

I will have to get back to you on that. I am basing my statement off of several analysis I saw a few years back. Tracking them down will take some time.

I have seen work from a few people who claimed to have cracked some or all of it. I however was not impressed with their methodology. This is not to say an actual decoding group could not shed at least some light on it, but if it is in fact not a single full passage, such effort becomes much more complicated, and probably impossible. Even allowing the entirety to be a single passage, it is unlikely we could decipher such a language with only that as the reference. We have many languages with more than a paragraph for which we know not the interpretation.

I am surprised this has been allowed to go on so long. Elguanteloko, your frequent statements of "just go" "try harder", etc smacks of the utmost arrogance and impatience. It is arrogance. Are there not better ways to ask someone to get on track? In fact, you can ask the moderators to close the thread to commenting from certain people. But insulting them and telling them to go away is not acceptable.

Additionally, I have studied philosophy extensively. Your arguments are fatally flawed for numerous reasons, of which several posters have eloquently addressed. You continue to run around in circles chasing your own tail when you don't like an answer, but have yourself frequently failed to provide rational responses. In many of your responses the very premise you use if wanting, and yet you only recognize that which is wanting in others.

I believe this thread has run its course and should be closed. The insulting of our members from one such as yourself who, despite claims of having a rational conversation, is in fact using it to stand upon a high and rickety horse of pride and self-adulation, is not acceptable.

Can anyone please point out a single legitimate Egyptian character or sound on the Egyptian Counting document?

Obviously they are on the missing scrolls.;-)

(Couldn't resist the humor...)

Well, of course, you can't disprove it in any strict sense. I hope you're not suggesting that that is good grounds for belief that the claim is true.

Not in the slightest. It's grounds to maintain healthy skepticism, and also good for humor to some extent. For comparative studies, it's also useful.

If the plates were in our possession and no one could translate them but they were authenticated as ancient, it would not in any meaningful way imply that what the Book of Mormon is a literal translation of said plates. Until however the language is cracked, it could not be invalidated. Even then, there are the catalyst theories (which I find much less applicable to the Book of Mormon than Abraham). It's just an interesting conundrum of mysterious languages.

For one thing, the actual techniques applied to the decipherment of unknown languages by Prof. Knight could be applied to the so-called "Anthon Transcript," just as they could to the Voynich Cipher. Why should we limit the applications?

Actually, Prof. Knight is applying it to the Voynich manuscript from what I recall a few weeks ago. However, he said he's running into several problems and according to him he is not sure he can decipher it (partly because no one is even sure if it's anything more than a hoax or doodle book of a mad man from hundreds of years ago).

While I think the interpretation is of course false, I believe one thing he guessed at is a valid possibility of it's origins:

"The language of this book is quite twisted," Ketola said. "The sound syllables are a mixture of Spanish and Italian, also mixed with the language this man used to speak himself. His own language was a rare Babylonian dialect that was spoken in a small area in Asia."

The author of the Voynich Manuscript did not know how to write in any extant language, Ketola said, so he had to create his own alphabet and vocabulary. "This man could not write any language so he had to invent a writing he can read / pronounce himself," he said.

Ketola suggested that the language may have also been some sort of shorthand writing the author used to jot down notes for himself.

If that is the case, then it would have evolved over the period of the book, so typical decoding methods would not work. It wasn't unheard of for people to create their own symbols and such from what they knew, despite being uneducated. If you could read what you wrote, that's all that mattered.

Honestly though, I lean heavily towards it being a book of silliness, possibly even intentionally.

As to applying it to the Anthon Transcript, I believe that would be nearly impossible. A valid theory, and I believe probable, is that it includes symbols and words from multiple parts of the plates and is not one contiguous passage. You can't crack a language with a single sentence and no clues.

Of far greater interest to us ought to be the actual decipherment of real codes by Professor Kevin Knight (USC) and his colleagues: See him on YouTube at

While interesting, and I was very excited about that news when I heard about it a couple of weeks ago (perhaps something useful can be applied to our understanding of KEP and such?), I don't think it's quite as relevant as a man claiming to be a prophet of God "translating" a book supposedly by the power that the learned men of this generation cannot.

It begs an interesting question: How do you prove his translation is not right when no one else has a translation at all? In this instance, we have the actual book and have had it for a long time. Taking this deeper into the Book of Mormon, we know that the learned men of the time could not translate the characters. While much has advanced in the past 150+ years, it is possible that presented with the plates they still could not (there are a few languages we are still trying to figure out from the America's and other parts of the world). So assuming the brass, gold, and other plates were real (which I do) and still in Joseph's possession, how do you disprove a prophetic claim of translation when no one has a better answer?

Just an interesting thought.

Mysterious Manuscript's Code Has Been Cracked... "Prophet of God" Claims

I felt this would probably be of interest to people on all sides of the fence. The applicability I think is fairly obvious. Researching this "prophet", it is apparent he is very interested in capitalizing on publicity, but the book itself is always interesting to begin with.

A bit from the article for those not wanting to go further:

Written in "alien" characters, illustrated with sketches, and dating back hundreds of years, the Voynich Manuscript has puzzled cryptographers, historians and bibliophiles for centuries.

And now the mystery has finally come to an end, according to a businessman from Finland named Viekko Latvala, a self described "prophet of god," who says he has decoded the book and unlocked the secrets of the world's most mysterious manuscript.

Haven't posted for a while, but thought I would jump in on this one... A particular author in the group who participated in the book also taught a class about doctrine as part of CES prep. I took this class from him, and as an academic and one who has been involved in church history and studying the evolution of LDS tradition, I was screaming quietly in my mind almost daily. The class started off well enough, with him giving an excellent review of what constitutes authoritative, doctrinal, canon, etc. Threw a lot of students for a loop.. Then he threw out everything he said and taught whatever he believed worked well via quoting a lot of Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie. He overtly implied people could believe a certain way in the church (on specific topics I won't get in to) and be good members, but they were wrong because of (insert convoluted argument using non-authoritative quotes taken way out of context).

It was one of those classes where I got a great grade because I knew what he wanted to hear... but taking tests was a lesson in how to say one answer is right even when everything within you (and the evidence) says otherwise. I spoke up in class for the first few times and we had lively discussions, but his logic was completely circular. A few people recognized it, but several newly returned missionaries (who I heard swapping ridiculous mission folk-lore as gospel truth) quickly started becoming angry and essentially worshiped every word he said. I could go on and on about the frustrations and blatant willful ignorance... but I don't want to say who it is. He is, as a person, a fantastic guy. He is also a man of great faith, and I would be happy to sustain him if he were called as my spiritual leader. But him teaching that class year after year is a major source of misinformation to a group of people heading out to teach CES and other things. Any book involving him on doctrinal topics is automatically heavily suspect to me, but I do gain comfort in believing some of the other names on there (who I also know) would likely have been able to temper him to some degree.

Okay, ranting done. Breath. Just hadn't hear his name for a while, and in this context it blew my mind!

Pushing this back on topic...

Do you agree or disagree with Elder Oaks statement that this is a matter about the soul of the country? Why?

Do you agree or disagree with Elder Oaks views on the relationship of government tax credits to personal right to income? Why? Does it bother you or do you think it's great that Elder Oaks said this (keeping in mind he is speaking as an individual)?

Please avoid making it further overtly political. This isn't to discuss government regulations, how much you hate or love big government etc. I know the topic can lend itself to that, but I hope that everyone can do their best. Don't let others goad you further.

Watch the video if you haven't yet. Elder Oaks' argument is a lot more complex...

A friend of mine posted this on facebook. One of the best six minutes you'll ever watch of anything from a congressional finance committee.;-)

Lest this just be link posting...

In essence, he is making the case that charitable deductions and their future are more than just economic or political matters, but are about the very future and nature of America. I agree with him. I also agree with his statement about personal income between 4:30 and 5:10, which I found interesting he would say given certain assertions recently by some about the role of government and taxation. Do you agree with his overarching argument? Would the loss of charitable deductions have a major impact on America?

This is interesting to hear. I have tried to go vegetarian a couple of times in my life (and done it properly with the rights amount of protein, etc)---as a personal choice, don't insist that it is some requirement for a 'higher' lifestyle---and have found that my metabolism just won't support it. Very disappointing.

Calmoriah, I think it matters more to God that you try your best. If you eat meat, then it is most important to be legitimately grateful for the creature whose life was sacrificed so that you could live. Ultimately, it is the intent of the heart, not whether we fulfill the counsel to the letter. It is a higher way. I don't live it. In fact, Fresh Market just had a case lot sale and we bought 40 lbs of boneless chicken breasts (for a great price too!). We are trying to cut back on our meat and poultry consumption in our family since we reviewed the book and several conference talks. I admit that I am a major consumer of meat and poultry, especially when the price drops below a certain point, being the cost of alternatives. My family is still quite poor, so our ability is in some degree limited. But we are using the financial boon we had on the great deal for chicken to help us make that last for at least a year as we slowly remove it from our diet to the extant we financially and physically can. I have extreme doubts about my ability to be completely vegetarian. Nonetheless, I will strive to move that direction the best I can, recognizing my own weak nature and the importance of all life.

I've killed my own food several times. A year or two ago we were in a very poor position financially. Someone was giving away a rooster for free, which I picked up, killed, and prepared myself. I knew my family needed the food, and I felt no joy in killing the creature. I can say that we are extremely grateful that it's life was sacrificed to our needs.

In other aspects, I hate carrots. And generally dislike nuts. But I successfully ate a raw carrot in full for the first time in a decade the other day. It was... disgusting.:-)

This is the first time I've ever heard this. Could you provide a CFR? Secondly, the personal traditions of individual Saints - including prophets - are not relevant to the core question before us, which is whether or not such a position as you've taken here is doctrinal.

Susan Easton Black. I forget which book or article, but you can email her. I believe she still teaches at BYU, so you could send her an email (it's on the BYU.edu website). She is always happy to answer such questions. The doctrine is we are to be wise stewards. The individual choice to live that way indicates that is how those individuals believed it was to be applied. Further, the core question is NOT whether or not meat should be banned (it shouldn't) but what is the counsel regarding its use and what are the blessings promised associated with such use. I think it would be extremely difficult to argue that the Word of Wisdom's counsel on meat consumption is invalid, or that just because it's not by commandment does not mean we should not strive for it when the ability to do so exists. If that were not so, then why would God give a health code with specific blessings if we are fine to ignore them/ Just because they are not commanded does not mean the Lord does not encourage us to live them.

Save for the clear prohibitions upon certain addictive, psychoactive substances (alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine) which became a mark of worthiness for Temple worship and of seriousness in living a gospel centered life generally, this interesting disclaimer has never been altered or amended by the Brethren, and that is of primary importance in ascertaining whether claims such as "when the option exists, we should not choose meat," which the Brethren as a unified body have never made, are doctrinal. I have no problem with you, as an individual, for personal reasons, choosing a meatless diet. My concern begins when one makes claims of doctrinal mandate for ideas that the Brethren themselves have never taught or been particularly clear about.

Read the book. I gave you a link that has some large portions. Search the internet. The Brethren themselves have on multiple occasions clearly taught that the consumption of meat would be done away with in the millennium and that we had better start trying to live that way now. Further, I never claimed it was part of Temple worthiness, so you are throwing out a red herring. Also, their is no prohibition on Temple attendance for caffeine consumption, so I am not sure what you mean by "clear prohibition". You could claim it is the spirit of the law and those who have it revealed to them are accountable, but taking it beyond that mark would be the same as me saying their are clear prohibitions against eating meat, which I have stated there is not.

Yes, its an option, but its not at all clear to me that it is required for our spiritual progression.

Like many things in our personal progression, it only affect our progression if we become convinced the Lord has asked us personally to live a specific way and then we choose not to do so. The analogy for this is the aspect (mentioned in another Word of Wisdom thread yesterday) that certain people were commanded to live it individually. Martin Harris had failure to live the Word of Wisdom as a count against him in his excommunication hearing because he had covenanted to live it, whereas the council who excommunicated him did not live it and were under no such commandment. For those whom the Lord has not commanded to, then it is by way of encouragement.

Could you substantiate this assertion from the scriptures? The scriptures say "woe" is unto him that wastesth flesh and hath no need, but I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we are all held accountable for the life of every animal we kill. So long as I use that animal and don't wantonly waste that life, I'm not sure I'm seeing the sin involved. What also, are the logical implications of making this claim of every animal? What are the limits to that claim, if any?

I suggest starting with reading the following Ensign article: http://lds.org/ensign/1972/08/the-gospel-and-animals?lang=eng. Follow that with the book that started this whole thread, which has even more specific quotes. The sources are there for you, I am not going to cut and paste them all. I would point out that the "wasteth flesh and hath no need" indicates that if you don't need the flesh, then you wasted (destroyed, 1828 Websters) it. Even if you took it in the modern concept of wasted, which is to throw it away or let it spoil, or did without purpose, the only way the second part would make sense ("...and hath no need") is if it meant something other than have need. Is tehre ever a need to waste flesh with a purpose? No, it is apparent that when there is not the need to kill, we should not. As both you and I have pointed out however, the line of what is "need" is a rather large grey area. You may need more meat than I do due to various circumstances. It's a decision that is between you and the Lord and no one else.

Yes, but I haven't ever heard the Brethren speak on this topic, in your particular terms, in any venue, and, while abstinence from the prohibited addictive substances is a requirement for Temple worthiness, none of your concerns here have yet been added to the list of core questions asked in the Temple worthiness interview.

Again, this only means you are not aware of the many times it has specifically been addressed. I am more than happy to debate the level of personal application of quotes used in the book and also plentifully found across the internet, but they have certainly been spoken of. In letters, the Juvenile Instructor (New Era/Ensign of the time), in General Conference, etc.

Again, you bringing in the "core questions asked in Temple worthiness interview['s]" is a straw man, It is completely irrelevant to whether God encourages us to live a certain way when able. It is not by way of commandment, but by way of encouragement.

This is interesting; I have never thought of it as doctrine, but only as policy. It is not an eternal principle, but one to guide a covenant people on earth. When the Lord returns and partakes of the fruit of the vine with the saints, it is not grape juice he is talking about. Regardless of when the first three verses were added, they are there and that is what the God meant to say. More importantly, they are still there and no change to the scripture has ever occured. The current policy is in place, but the revelation has never changed.

Storm Rider:

The doctrine aspect is that we are to live it and by doing so there are blessings the Lord has promised us. That is not a principle or policy, that is a doctrine. Do X for your health, and you will be blessed with Y. A policy is "Don't have a goatee while attending the temple". No revealed blessing is associated with that.

Further, the "not by way of commandment" aspect was reduced to some degree when living the Word of Wisdom became a part of attending the temple. That is a policy.

1) The first three verses were not added to the revelation until the 1835 D&C. Minor point, but important to be clear about how the Lord (and Joseph) had to soften it.

2) Not being a commandment does not equate to lacking doctrinal weight. The Word of Wisdom is Doctrine. Further, we are told slothful servants are those who must be commanded in all things. If the Lord makes a recommendation and encourages us to follow it, I think it's safe to say that it is doctrinal and true.

3) You are correct that for some areas and group at the time there were similar views. There were also quite a few contrary views. Medical and Health sciences were still in their infant stages. Along those lines, while the spitting of tobacco certainly influenced Joseph seeking the revelation on health (often related in Sunday School), two other incidents were involved and led to questions from Joseph beyond just tobacco. In Kirtland were the Oanites, a temperance movement made mostly of women. The representatives came to Joseph and said they wanted to close the saloon, but with all of the Mormons coming in it was difficult. Secondly, Graham (of Graham Crackers) was a traveling salesman. He was in Kirtland promoting his long-life graham cracker. He talked about the need to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables. We do not know how much contact Joseph had with Graham if any, but the novelty of graham crackers and the accompanying philosophy would have been talked about in such a small community.

4) While it was not a commandment for the whole church, all those called to go up to Zion were to live it. Strict observance was also to be observed in Zion's camp. Additionally, certain people were "called" to live it. One of the 13 counts against David Whitmer was failure to live the WoW. Although the high council that tried him did not keep it themselves, Whitmer had actually been called and covenanted to live it. In Zion’s camp, two men and a woman were kicked out for coffee, being told they were great but not Zion.

5) I believe the spirit of the Word of Wisdom applies. If you live it, your cholesterol will be lower, coronary disease, etc. Meat only in times of famine or winter. Fruits, etc are fine, though grain is the main one singled out for consumption. Exercise is common sense caring for your body.Again, must we be commanded in all things?

As a long time member of the Sierra Club, I reject silly notions that modern American environmentalism has been taken over by a demonic element. That is nonsense.

Bravo, but wait for the long diatribe.

My take on that:

I don't believe it's been taken over by a "demonic" element. I do believe that some people within the movement, like all movements, take it way too far. As stated previously, I don't view man's contribution to global warming as significant. Additionally, there are without question major elements within the Global Warming movement who view an international global government based on socialist principles to be the only way to save mankind from global warming as such a government is the only one capable of unilaterally making the big decisions. Many of those people feel every country which moves towards socialism is a good thing. Perhaps you don't see that as bad, as some members of our board do not. I personally do. I don't feel they are demonic, just wrong.

That said, I also pointed out that I am against pollution, and I would add I am for forests and natural reserves (though many national parks out east were created in such a way where the very wealthiest used the government to prevent others from creating vacation homes near their summer mansions... so I do have some issue with how land is chosen, as also certain restrictions associated with various areas). Lots of people go in to national forests and act stupidly, endangering both the environment and the lives of others (poor fire practices, trash, dumping chemicals, 4-wheeling through restricted areas, etc). It is and should be criminal.

This is problematic, as those very same apostles have essentially ignored this entire question for generations and have never defined how much meant is "too much." Vegetarianism is not an aspect of the gospel of Jesus Christ,, and hence, this would seem to bespeak the personal agenda/belief of the author. Indeed, vegetarianism poses problems of its own regarding the large combinations of foods necessary to supply the full compliment of amino acids found in concentrated form in meat. For some groups (such as Eskimos and other traditional peoples under similar environmental conditions), vegetarianism is out of the question. While there is little doubt that we westerners eat too much meat (as well as a bit too much of everything, it would seem), it is also the case the modern mass farming of cattle and poultry etc. on a mass scale for human consumption has been key to the eradication of the perennial problem of the under consumption of protein that has dogged human society from time immemorial up until the industrial revolution and beyond. It would seem that what constitutes "hath no need" is difficult to put a clear finger on.

Hyrum Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Joseph F. Smith, and one other (George Albert?) were all by and large vegetarians. It's been a while since I read about it, but it started with Hyrum, and his descendents carried it on off and on. In general, they practiced "not refusing" ala Paul when given, but in their personal lives abstained. Further, the concept for vegetarianism is one where those who can it seems should, while those who can't (native Eskimos for instance) are not under any condemnation whatsoever. Same with those who need meat to make it through the winter or in times of drought. Hence, forbidding meat is wrong. We should not teach it is forbidden. This is not the same as teaching that when the option exists, we should not choose meat. I think that for the vast majority of 1st world country citizens, that is a viable option. Further, we can grow more protein per acre via nuts, beans, and other super-high protein foods that also have much greater side benefits (anti-oxidants, fatty acids, etc). I personally do not have a physical need for meet. Ultimately I believe it is a personal decision, hence the scriptures teach that we are held personally accountable for the life of every animal we kill. Like many things in the gospel, the right or wrong seems to be completely situational.

I've never heard of it. Was this something confined primarily to Utah and the western states? Honestly, I had never heard of it all the time I lived in San Diego, and have never heard of it out here on the east coast.

Paul says, I believe twice in the NT, that the teaching of abstinence from meat is contrary to the gospel, so a "wise use" approach is the best, it would seem

Not quite. 1 Timothy 1:4 speaks about commanding to abstain from meats as being wrong. Again, I don't think one could justify commanding the abstinence of meat. There are just too many situations where it is necessary to basic survival. But as the Word of Wisdom says, it is to be used sparingly, and only in time of famine or winter, and not by commandment (which is the same with the whole of the Word of Wisdom).

It's an interesting topic.:-)

Here is a link to the Google Book preview I found. Chapter 4 has the Humane and Bird Day history.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ijxhs7hnZ8QC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Since I started this thread, let me throw in the purpose of the book:

1) To show that hunting for sport purpose is against the will of God

2) To show that the Church and it's members are sinning in their selective application of the Word of Wisdom in that they consume large quantities of meat needlessly. Much of the arguments for this consumption (or justifications for why it only applied to a society of that time) are specifically addressed by apostles and prophets and shot down. Indeed, it seems that there is open avocation for a slow and gradual move of the inhabitants of the earth, especially in the Church, to become vegetarians (but not vegans).

3) And for the purposes I was looking for it: I simply remembered some points about the church having some sort of environmental day that merged with a national one. I thought it was earth day, but it turns out it was Humane Day, which makes a bit more sense. I find it interesting that on Humane Day in the church, the lessons on that Sunday were specifically to be about the humane treatment of God's creatures.

Lest there be any confusion:

1) I do not believe climate change is heavily (if at all) affected by man.

2) I do believe pollution is disgusting and all efforts on a personal level should be made to care for the earth as wise stewards.

3) I do not believe the government should have a role in this beyond perhaps encouragement. I am a constitutionally based libertarian.

4) I really like meat and barbeque. I am also very much against excessive use and any kind of abuse. Various talks and sermons from church leaders has recently led me to evaluate my consumption of animals in general as I am neither starving or in need of the fat for winter insulation. I just find animals to be the tastiest things ever placed upon this earth and ridiculously easy to prepare.:-) I am not sure however that is a good enough reason when God has said that the life of every animal we take we will have to answer for. God does not outright forbid the use of meat, but he does expect us to use it sparingly and only when in time of need.

Holy cow! You are both quick and awesome! That is exactly the book I was looking for! I have no idea how you knew that based off of the limited info I gave and that the book is rather obscure, but you are the man. I laud your sheer awesomeness. In light of not having actual feet to kiss, just know I would kiss them if you were here.;-)

I am still around and lurking occasionally, but I have not had the time to participate or read as much as I once did here. However, I recognize the inestimable power and collective knowledge of the MADB membership, and once again turn to you for help.

Several years ago, I came across an old book or pamphlet, I don't remember which. It was essentially a vast collection of quotes from apostles, prophets, and early church members about man as a wise steward, along with some history on LDS and environmentalism. There was a fair amount of the quotes about not hunting for sport, caring for animals, and more. Probably some vegetarian stuff in there, but I am not sure.

The main element I am looking for is the history of the church and Earth Day. Once upon a time, before Earth Day existed, we had our own. It was run by the primary or Sunday School I believe and was recognized throughout the church. Then Earth Day came along, and after a few years we combined our celebration into the national celebration.

1) If anyone can find info on the earth day aspect, I would greatly appreciate it. I was in discussion with someone about this specifically.

2) If anyone can find the entire book/pamphlet, I will kiss your feet and laud your sheer awesomeness. :-)

I've searched the internet (which is how I first ran across it, though I don't remember how) and am only pulling up a bunch of crappily done green mormon blogs that seem completely oblivious to their church's own history in the matter.

Thanks!