darth_ender

All their descendants?  I don't remember that ever happening from either a religious or secular point of view.  But how did Noah and later get there?  Well, I'm not entirely sure on this one.  In a worldwide flood, that would be no problem, but I'm not quite as literal in my interpretation of the Bible as many are, and "that strict Mormon Church that tells everyone what to believe" actually allows for a great deal of leeway in interpretation.  In other words, I believe a flood did happen, but I believe it was far more local.  Could it have been migration?  Yes, it could have been.  Could it have been continental drift?  Interestingly, the Bible makes some references to a Pangea like state (Gen. 1:9, 10:25), but that doesn't seem to fit with accepted theories of plate tectonics and the millions of years it takes to drift.  I would probably have to side with migration (heck, it's amazing how far ancient people were capable of traveling, even without landbridges to get them to another location).  To me, however, I don't claim to know all the answers.  Some answers come later, some not at all in this life.  But faith is not without evidence.  Sometimes some tangible evidence is given to assist faith, while other evidence is withheld to promote faith.

Ooh, like a Hall of Shame or the stocks in the center of a medieval town.  I like it.

thenihilest said:

darth_ender said:

I'll give a thumbs up as well.  I'm the kind of guy who likes changes, as long as they're interesting.

As for Vader folding his arms, you must remember, Vader never lies down, leans on a chair, sits on a table swinging his legs, covers his mouth when he sneezes, or anything.  He simply sits or stands (or on rare occasions, kneels) with arms at the side, looking as tough as possible.  It takes a physical toll, but it's the price ya pay to be cool.  Besides, he has all those robotic limbs.  No need to rest.

I see your point, but I have to think that when Vader was new to the suit and the complete set of fake limbs, he had to be a bit uncomfortable, and would stand/sit/walk in ways he might not otherwise until he gets used to it.  Also I see folded arms as a sign of impatience, one of the things that led him to the dark side, and almost did with his son.

 I actually have no problem with him folding his arms.  It doesn't seem out of character to me.  I was just being silly :)

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

As for the Garden of Eden, yes, we teach that it was here in what is now the American continent.  Might seem weird given the various names of familiar places in the Old Testament, such as Ethiopia and the Tigris.  However, mankind spread upon the earth, and it's not hard to believe that places received the same names.  For instance, I live near Miami...in Arizona.  On my mission in Georgia there were cities named Athens and Rome.  It's not too hard to believe that different locations carried the same names.

Granted...but why is there reason to believe the Garden of Eden was here?

 Revelation from Joseph Smith.

http://lds.org/ensign/1998/01/in-the-beginning-a-latter-day-perspective?lang=eng&query=garden+eden+jackson+county

Well...I can't argue with that.  I don't believe it, but it's another point that doesn't allow for further discussion.

I believe I will end up posting the above comment quite a bit in this thread ;-)

 I imagine so.  I never plan on proving anything to anyone.  I simply want to raise awareness ;)

Now I must stop for a time, as I have to meet work obligations.  Taken alone and out of context, I fear some of these answers may sound weird.  We have a beautiful and logical and deep belief system for those who explore it in depth, and really all these surface scratching answers don't do it all justice.  If you are genuinely interested, as more questions and continue doing research on your own.  While you may find some interesting and sensationalistic information from anti-Mormon sites, you should at least do yourself a favor and broaden your research, as those with an agenda are likely to approach historical information from a very negative angle.  Remember, I've probably read or heard more anti-Mormon info than you, and I'm simply a casual researcher.  The Church does not obstruct research, and we have many respected and intelligent scientists and historians who are aware of far more than anyone on this site or on those anti-Mormon sites, including stuff that might seem damaging to our reputation.  Also, trust me that when you read crap like, "Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are blood brothers!" that this is clearly a tabloid-like approach and that the more correct answers are far more interesting and and logical.  Ask me if you want more answers.

And with regards to any questions, comments, or jokes that I have not commented on, believe me, I appreciate all your input, and I may have simply overlooked it in my haste to put out so much information here, or simply don't have time to even comment.  My apologies, but again, I appreciate your participation.

Always feel free to check out lds.org or mormon.org (the former more targeted at Church members familiar with doctrine, the latter more for newbies to the Mormon scene).

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

As for the Garden of Eden, yes, we teach that it was here in what is now the American continent.  Might seem weird given the various names of familiar places in the Old Testament, such as Ethiopia and the Tigris.  However, mankind spread upon the earth, and it's not hard to believe that places received the same names.  For instance, I live near Miami...in Arizona.  On my mission in Georgia there were cities named Athens and Rome.  It's not too hard to believe that different locations carried the same names.

Granted...but why is there reason to believe the Garden of Eden was here?

 Revelation from Joseph Smith.

http://lds.org/ensign/1998/01/in-the-beginning-a-latter-day-perspective?lang=eng&query=garden+eden+jackson+county

TV's Frink said:

New question - ever watched Big Love?  Just curious about the Mormon reaction to it.

 Never watched it, not too pleased with its delivery without much education to the public (I believe they only stated at the beginning of the first episode that the people portrayed are part of a schismatic group with no affililation to my church), not happy about their lack of respect of things we consider sacred, not surprised at their humorous efforts to portray real Mormons using goofy terminology.  But hey, we live in America, and the freedom of speech means the freedom to be disrespectful.  Don't tell the ACLU, and by the way, why didn't they come to our rescue?

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

God does not want us to be lustful.  Of course masturbation can be done without lustful thoughts, but...yeah right, like anyone's doing that.

This very topic came up on another forum recently and I was unable to get even this much out of the "resident religious dude," so I'm pleased that you are even willing to address it.

I don't know if you will be comfortable answering this...but does God not even want us to be lustful with our chosen life partner, with whom we may have even married in a House of God and presumably with his/her approval?  What could be bad about that?

 We interpret lust and love as different things.  Love is selfless, lust is selfish.  I have a wife and three children, so obviously I've had sex at least twice in m y life (the first two were twins, and I promise it's been more than that ;).  I love my wife and respect her, and therefore our sexual relationship is based on that love and respect, not simply a desire for some female flesh.  Understand our distinction?

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

In response to Frink's inquiry, I'm sure I will take flak for this, but sometimes a person of faith acts on faith, even if they are not sure why.  Sometimes God simply wishes to test our obedience.  Looking at the kosher laws of the Old Testament, God did not mention how much cholesterol or the various parasites you might find in pork.  They simply obeyed because God wanted them to.  "Oh no!  Blind faith!"

God testing our obedience is not something we can really discuss.  Either you believe that or you don't - I don't see that there can be a logical discussion about if that is correct or not, so I'll just have to let it go.

So if God simply said "tea is bad, don't drink it," I'll have to just drop it.

But let's extrapolate this out to alcohol.  Is tea as bad as alcohol?  Obviously, from a secular point of view, alcohol is potentially much worse.  The effects of binging on tea are nothing compared to doing the same with alcohol.  So...is the reasoning for no alcohol the same as for no tea?  Or is it due to the potential effects?  Or is it God's word for tea and both God's word AND effects for alcohol?

Incidentally, God didn't mention the bad things about pork, but (s)he also didn't mention that eating a reasonable portion of well-cooked and inspected pork won't do you any harm.

 No, we certainly don't hold tea and alcohol on the same level.  But as a matter of principle, we strive to obey both.

You are correct about the pork thing.  My point is that to the people of the Old Testament, he expected obedience.  He expects the same of us.  I promise not to judge you too much for drinking your Nestea ;)

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Christianity.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (King James Version) 

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

hmm, didn't read those verses before.  

Just about half of the rules in Deuteronomy are pretty whacky.

 Christians don't always follow Deuteronomy, in part because it was intended for the Hebrews and is part of the Old Testament.  Much of it (note the lack of any specific percentage or even any inference to a majority or minority of it) is not applicable any longer to Christians (see Acts...15 I think, trying to hurry, don't have time to look, about the changes in expectations of Christians).

walkingdork said:

Hey man, I actually like Mitt Romney for being the most level headed guy in the Republican race (and being the most moderate). I don't care that he's mormon, I care that he's not waving his religion around like a maniac. He's a politician who happens to be a Mormon. That's better than Bachman or Perry who act like their religion makes them a better candidate. For Christ's sake Perry held days of prayer for the Texas drought and the economy (it didn't help). Say what you want about Obama's plan to solve our economic woes but at least he's not just going to "give it to God."

If there is a God (and there isn't) I doubt he gives half a shit about the economy. I think he would care about how people react to adversity and how the fortunate help the unfortunate through tough times. I don't mean "raise taxes" or "increase services," I mean donating time and money and helping people on a personal level.

My uber religious grandparents (Methodists) had strangers and refugees living in their modest home my entire childhood. They were smart enough to stay the fuck out of politics and just worry about what they can do to help the people that crossed their path. It bugged my grandpa that I am not religious and we've talk at length about how it doesn't take religion to be that kind of person. I think he agrees on some level but still worries about my soul and all that silliness.

 

You'll find Mormons are very pragmatic in general, believing very much in God's capabilities, but believing as well that he has entrusted much to our hands.

Ziggy Stardust said:

Two questions:

Why was Joseph Smith put into prison? Do you really believe that Adam and Eve lived in Missouri?

 Joseph Smith was arrested several times in his life, defended himself in court around 48 times (according to Brigham Young, Joseph's successor), never faced a court proceeding on other occasions, yet was never convicted.  Tough to answer your question, though this link might be helpful:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Legal_Trials_of_Joseph_Smith.html

His final arrest was for destroying a newspaper printing press that was printing inflammatory information about the Church, particularly regarding polygamy.  He was ultimately assassinated while in jail in Carthage, IL for this charge.

As for the Garden of Eden, yes, we teach that it was here in what is now the American continent.  Might seem weird given the various names of familiar places in the Old Testament, such as Ethiopia and the Tigris.  However, mankind spread upon the earth, and it's not hard to believe that places received the same names.  For instance, I live near Miami...in Arizona.  On my mission in Georgia there were cities named Athens and Rome.  It's not too hard to believe that different locations carried the same names.

doubleKO said:

With the rules for Mormons seeming to be more morally strict than other Christian denominations, I am even more confused by the whole polygamy angle. What is the rationale or justification behind it?

 Polygamy was an ancient practice that was introduced in modern times.  There are several scriptures to support it, particularly in the Old Testament, and several to condemn it, particularly in the Book of Mormon.  Jacob 2 in particular speaks against it, but in verse 30 makes the exception that "if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [one wife]."  In the early days of the Church, the population was small and the people were severely persecuted.  My belief is that polygamy was introduced to help keep the population high enough.  Only 20-25% of LDS adults ever were part of a polygamous household, so it's not like it was the rule for everyone.  It was discontinued in 1890, which upset some people who split from the Church and continue to practice today.  If a Church member is found to advocate or take part in a polygamous relationship, disciplinary action is pursued, and without change, that person will likely be excommunicated.

Midnight_Trooper said:

After visiting Colorado last summer I was left wondering about Mormons so this thread is already of interest. 

My thing is this; why is the theology based on the teachings of some guy in the 1800's who claimed he had visions of God instead of historic scripture? You cant base a religion on the Bible and the teachings of Christ and then add a bunch of new rules to it.Granted the Bible has many variations and authors but providing the intent of the teachings of Christ are preserved what else matters? Why make up a whole new set of rules for earning your way into heaven when the teachings are what is important and they are already established?

Lots of branches of Christianity have crazy rules and traditions that come from man and not God. People tend to forget that Jesus did not stress the importance of ceremonies or traditions. He didn't say "Make sure to ring the little bell three times to make it Holy" Or "Its more Holy when you do a mass in Latin" (Digs on the Catholics ; )

He taught about the importance of loving God and each other. Also that we are sinful by our nature and therefore we can't ever behave well enough here on earth to earn a spot in heaven. It is by the grace of God we are saved and that comes with faith and trying to behave the way he taught us.

Now that's not saying I think Christians should behave badly just because its human nature to sin. But as far as rules for how we should live Christ essentially is saying, Try to live the way God wants you to live because that system works. He was a patient and forgiving teacher.

Sorry that's not a very clear post. Here is another question;

I understand masturbation is not allowed and that is based on a passage from Genesis? If that is correct I would wonder how that connection was made since the passage is not really about that.

 

Peace. Be excellent to each other..

 

 

 You must understand, we do not claim that our teachings are those of some dude from the 1800s.  We do not believe he even added any new doctrine.  We believe that he restored what Christ had already taught, and what was eventually lost to the earth.  We do not claim to be Catholics, Protestants, or anything in between.  We are Restorationists, who believe that the Church, its authority, and its teachings were corrupted with the deaths of the apostles, and that Joseph Smith restored what was lost.

As for grace, faith, and works, which is often a hot topic between Mormons and Protestants, I wish you'd been at my Sunday School lesson about three weeks ago (yes, I teach Sunday School at church).  I addressed this very topic, and Mormons and Christians don't believe so differently.  We acknowledge that salvation is only obtained through accepting Christ's grace.  We acknowledge that all our actions and faith amount to nothing, and that it is through Jesus Christ that we can approach God.  The biggest difference is that we believe that "faith without works is dead" (see James 2:17-18), which we interpret to mean that in order to accept Christ's grace with faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), he expects active effort.  It's not like he has a checklist of good and bad deeds performed.  He just wants to know you've done your best to be obedient.

As for masturbation, it has nothing to do with that passage.  It's kind of an awkward topic to address, but let's leave it with two quick points: it has nothing to do with the Genesis passage (Double05 has it right, he was punished for disobedience), and God does not want us to be lustful.  Of course masturbation can be done without lustful thoughts, but...yeah right, like anyone's doing that.

Uh, wow.  When the cat's away, the mice will sit around and ask lots of questions.

To C3PS, I had hoped to type up the argument for the Book of Abraham myself, but as it is already probably the longest point to make and so many things have been brought up, I will briefly summarize my stance and refer you to this website, which also has responses to numerous other criticisms.  The link I gave you specifically refers to the Book of Abraham, but look around and you might find some other interesting info.  Anyway, to sum up the possibilities, it must be first acknowledged that only a fraction of the total number of papyrus scrolls Joseph Smith had have been found.  Thus, the following theories, taken from the linked website, include that fact:

"1) The text was revealed much in the same manner as that of the Book of Mormon, without the need for the actual papyri, 2) The text was present on portions of the papyri that are missing, and 3) The Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings manuscript and was lost. 4) Perhaps there was a way of understanding the Egyptian ideograms anciently that is unknown to Egyptology in our day, yet to be discovered, deciphered or acknowledged, that could yield an interpretation of a text that is different than the standard Egyptological reading."

My interpretation is essentially the first theory.  According to the Book of Abraham, Abe taught the Egyptians astronomy and many sciences, as well as the nature of God (some of this is actually stated by Joseph Smith, since the Book itself was never completely published).  If he taught them and there was any acceptance of it, many of their sciences would be influenced by his teachings.  The actual scrolls date from much later than Abraham's time.  Thus, in my opinion, they are actually what remained of his teaching couched in Egyptian mythology.  Joseph Smith's translation was likely a restoration of what Abraham's original message had been.  This website here shows a number of surprising parallels between Joseph Smith's translation and what Egyptologists have deciphered.  Hope this is at least a good starting point for you.

In response to Frink's inquiry, I'm sure I will take flak for this, but sometimes a person of faith acts on faith, even if they are not sure why.  Sometimes God simply wishes to test our obedience.  Looking at the kosher laws of the Old Testament, God did not mention how much cholesterol or the various parasites you might find in pork.  They simply obeyed because God wanted them to.  "Oh no!  Blind faith!"

More to follow soon...

I play with Megablocks with my kids.  I guess that doesn't count, does it?

Ooh, levels upon levels!!! :)

Okay, better said, try to understand "The Mormon People" better.  That's my point to the thread.  I know where you're coming from as well, and I respect it.  I'm just a simple man, trying to make his way in the universe, and on the way, raise a little awareness.

Mr. Smee!

I know this isn't the right thread, but let me just add that ever since I first watched TPM in theatres, I couldn't help but think of this when I learned of Anakin's mother's name.

ben_danger said:

Personally I try and avoid "of the" in the middle...

...So to start us off
CHAMPIONS OF THE FORCE - an alternative to AOTC.

I guess it's a little to the right, not smack-dab in the middle

In all seriousness, I think this is a good thread to create.  I for one actually found Attack of the Clones the best name of the PT because it fits the cheesy '40s-'50s style Star Wars has tried to emulate.

I actually like Revenge of the Sith as well, given its relation to Return of the Jedi, basically being opposites, one the finale to a tragedy of a fall, the other being the finale to a triumph and redemption.  Mind you, I'm not commenting on the quality of the films themselves, but rather the choice of names.

Personally, the name in the whole saga I dislike the most is The Phantom Menace.  Something more foreboding and foreshadowing would better fit to me.  I'll try to think of an alternative.

I'll give a thumbs up as well.  I'm the kind of guy who likes changes, as long as they're interesting.

As for Vader folding his arms, you must remember, Vader never lies down, leans on a chair, sits on a table swinging his legs, covers his mouth when he sneezes, or anything.  He simply sits or stands (or on rare occasions, kneels) with arms at the side, looking as tough as possible.  It takes a physical toll, but it's the price ya pay to be cool.  Besides, he has all those robotic limbs.  No need to rest.

Oh, I'm just teasing, based on TheBoost's error.  Believe me, I spent about 2 weeks being the grammar police just to irritate some bloke...can't remember his name anymore...but thanks for the help.

Hey, no need to understand.  Just understand people.  That's all I'm asking.

I love and hate this place for it :)  But I'm using my time better than I was.

The term "hot drinks" is obviously rather vague.  It was clarified to mean specifically coffee or tea, hot, or lukewarm (ha ha, get it, LUKEwarm, we're at a Star Wars site, get it? Ha ha ha).

As for why, "No, no, there is no why! *exasperated sigh* Nothing more will I teach you today."

Okay, I will teach you this one last thing, and then I will follow up on the other comments tomorrow.  The reason for opposing such drinks is not given in the revelation.  However, caffeine does have some minor negative implications and can be addictive, as has been shown through the success of Starbucks (Starbuck's? S'tarbucks?) and our country's heavy reliance on coffee.  Based on  my limited research, some evidence shows that coffee has negative effects on health, though I know that this is contradictory.  The same can be said of tea, with its (it's? 'tis?) pluses and minuses.  When the said revelation was given in 1833, the negative effects of tobacco and alcohol were not known, and yet they are well-known now.  We churchy folks are happy to attribute this to the wisdom of God who knew before we did that these things just ain't good fer ya.  We believe that he knows what is best, and thus we do not consume.

BTW, I enjoyed a nice hot Ovaltine (R) malt with marshmallows with my wife the other night.  I sure enjoyed it :)

O! P.S.  CP3S, FYI, I should add that I questioned the wisdom of starting this thread myself.  However, I read what some people say online, and I wish I could at least clarify with some people what those weird Utah people (including those of us in Arizona), think.  I don't mind honest, even blunt lines of questioning.  I served my mission in Atlanta, GA where the door-to-door salesmen were looked upon more kindly (the nerve!).  I can take it, as long as it's genuine and respectful.  Your questions are truly fair and understandable, and are in fact the kind of things I'm looking to answer.  So again, tomorrow you will have at least the beginnings of an answer :)

Okay, to answer the coffee question...Frink the temperature does not in itself define hot drinks.  In a book we consider scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants, section 89, it states that hot drinks are not appropriate.  This has been clarified to mean coffee and green or black leaf teas, specifically.  Therefore, hot cocoa, Dr. Pepper, and raspberry leaf tea are all okay.

To TheBoost, to give a more in depth answer is difficult, as I am not God (a recent discovery, BTW [I'm joking! I'm joking!]).  I don't know the pleasure of coffee, but I am appreciative that I don't rely on it to geth through my day.  My original answer would have gone into greater depth about the Doctrine and Covenants revelation, but since that's not what you're seeking, I'll try to reframe it.  God has given other things that many consider great: illicit drugs, sex, video games, pornography, whatever.  Of course there are those that morally disagree with me on this, but God sometimes provides things that can be pleasing, but he places restrictions: for LDS members, no drugs, only sex within marriage, use your time wisely, no pornography.  Just because something is pleasing temporarily does not mean God thinks it is truly in our best interst.

I'll get to other qustions later, maybe tomorrow.

I'm aware of a couple of others.  I'm definitely very vocal about it :)