Atonement and Judgement - Who Really Demands Justice?

The point of the atonement is to make us clean so that we may re-enter the presence of God (3 Nephi 27:19). Sin has made us filthy. But what is this filth? Yes, we can say it is sin that we have committed, but where does this filth actually exist and why? And why do we need it removed to be in God's presence?

The scriptures tell us that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son (John 3:16). Why? To please himself? Did Christ really perform the atonement because Heavenly Father insisted for self indulgence? What kind of a God of love would that be?

I believe Mosiah 2:38 answers these questions. "Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever."

This demonstrates that it is us who demands justice: Our "immortal soul". It also is stating that it is our own sense of guilt that causes us to stay out of God's presence. In addition to this it is saying that it is us who send ourselves to hell.

So how does this fit in with statements about Jesus being the judge, and the saints being judges etc? I believe this refers to the idea that any person who has taught us any truth is our judge in the sense that their words stand to praise or condemn us. Depending on whether we listened or not. Christ provided the atonement that anyone can accept. If a person doesn't then that also stands as condemnation in that judgement of ourselves. His words stand to condemn or praise; depending on our acceptance also.

Heavenly Father arranged for a saviour to come into us and do the suffering on our behalf. But this requires us to open to him and to really repent. A truly repentant person doesn't go out doing the same thing again. Jesus was the chosen saviour. And he suffered for these sins in the garden.

Why Must real Faith be in things that are True?

Alma 32:21 "And now as I said concerning faith--faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

Many will pose the question of faith demonstrated by people, in things that aren't true. What of idol worshippers, for example? When I first thought on this I couldn't see Alma's point either. But further consideration brought me to a new understanding. An extremist in some religions will give his life for his God. He does this feeling he will be saved by his God, for his valiant effort and sacrifice. But is Alma correct that this isn't faith at all?

I believe he is right. When a person deliberately denies reality and sets focus in one direction, is that true faith? It is only when a person faces his deepest feelings of doubt and is satisfied, that true faith can exist. In other words "blind faith" isn't faith, but just intelligence washing. We come to have faith in God because we try his suggestion and find it works. We eventually come to see that he is a reliable source of correct ideas. But each idea requires us to use our faith in him to actually follow it. Once we follow it, and see it working our faith grows even further.

This post is not what it first appears, so please read it through

Are you one of those successful people making the big amount you wish? Are you entirely satisfied with your current life style and its rewards?

You can become one of the top 0.0000000000000000000000000000024 % of people. And its simple. You can apply the same principles that have made those few before you so successful. Is your yearly income less than 300,000? How would you like to learn a way to increase that by 10 times?
You are obviously skeptical. But this can be tried and proven. What's more is I'm going to give it to you completely free. That is right; this great income maker completely free.

Do you realise that many people aren't making any income at all? Year by year some are actually losing 100,000 points or more. Have you been content to sit in the pews and just increase by only 200,000 points, by merely listening to someone else receiving revelation? And saying he'll do it for me, I'll just listen to him?

The secret is simple - Revelation.

You can use this same skill and increase your spiritual points by 3,000,000 points PER ANNUM or MORE. By it Moses freed Israel, Noah preserved the human family, Alma saved the Nephite nation from destruction. And, yes, you heard me right, this amazing gift is completely free. No postage and handling fees either.

Become one of the rare people to actually USE it daily.

Excommunication - Do members really understand it?

Many who are excommunicated feel that the church has rejected them as a person. Sadly some members seem to take this stance to re-affirm that idea - treating those excommunicated as second-class citizens. How should members see excommunication? And How should those excommunicated see it? To this there is an outward aspect before the world, and an inward aspect to assist the excommunicated member.

The outward aspect _ It can be said that the church is here to represent Jesus Christ. It also represents the members (thus the name of the church). If someone seriously misrepresents both of these then the church may feel obligated, in reverence to Christ and other members, to demonstrate that the person doesn't represent them, until change is clearly demonstrated.

The Inward Aspect _ Excommunication generally comes because a member has committed a sin that requires special work on their part to feel right with God about afterward. With many sins we can feel good once we have repented and sought God's forgiveness. But some things we do make us feel so bad about ourselves that we need to do what could be termed as "penance", so that we can feel right again. This can be a long process. The church provides an opportunity to make this a more effective and quicker process. This is excommunication.

Also when a person commits such a sin the Holy Ghost withdraws from them for a time. It is no longer a constant companion, because the person has cut off communication by their act. They feel unable to stand in God's presence, so to speak, within themselves. There is a feeling of being dirty. But the Holy Ghost can come back as the person works toward change and clearing out that feeling. So when the stake president declares a person excommunicated he is really only declaring something that has already happened anyway. He has the authority to withdraw the priesthood, as that is an authority within his area of responsibility. He can restore this authority at some point after re-baptism.

Some may question, what of where a person has been found guilty by a church court and later been proven innocent? Fortunately I think these things aren't the usual. Unfortunately prejudice etc may blind the revelatory ability of those who may otherwise be inspired. D&C 121:34-40 warns that this sort of thing can occur with church leaders. And those excommunicated members that are in this circumstance may be concerned about their standing with God. As I mentioned before it is the sin itself that removes the Holy Ghost from you. If the sin didn't occur then you will still have him with you as much as before. Your standing with God will not have diminished one iota. It is him that you will stand before at the judgement, and he judges by the heart, not after the hearing of the ears or the seeing of the eyes (Isa 11:3). Continue to support his church and those appointed to positions, regardless of their faults. It is about you and God, not you and people.To members generally I would say to realise that 1. You most likely don't really know that the person committed the offence. And 2. Even if the person did, you have sinned often enough yourself, so don't be high and mighty.
For those in this position I would just reiterate that excommunication is a helping process not a condemnation. Welcome the opportunity it creates for you and use it.

Romantic Dating Approaches - Are they safe, or creating problems

Some dating methods (of the romantic type) concern me. I wonder where the wisdom came from. I'd almost feel that Satan must have invented them. They work on deception and distancing from a person to obtain them. They can confuse men into thinking that whenever a woman says, "no", she means, "yes".
The logic of these methods is like suggesting that to create a good relationship with children parents are best to pretend they aren't interested in them. Parents should just act like they don't care and children will become more interested in their parents. Somehow that doesn't sound right to me.

My wife has, of recent years, died (she died young) and eventually I am thrown back into this nonsense again. This has caused me to more deeply analyse this mess. Particularly as some females have used this process on me. I have been given the "no" and afterwards informed by them that I should have realised this meant "yes". That sounds like a dangerous position for a man called "Look Who's STALKING 2". And a dangerous position for a woman who can find herself being raped while saying, "no".

Amidst all this, women claim more independance these days, yet insist the man make the first move (there are some rare exceptions to this). Yet a woman going to her bishop claiming that a male member is stalking her because he approached her a few times is taken seriously and a man can be branded very badly. Also women will then "warn" other women to avoid him. Because men aren't so inclined to speak out about their problems and women are, we hear an exceptionally large amount about abuse of women and the dangers of being one. I don't wish to detract from any of these issues in making this post. However, if women want men to understand them then they should be plain in their communications. If a women is interested in a guy she would have far better chance by merely demonstrating the fact. Some guys just aren't going to be interested. I realise that marriages occur in spite of this concept being used, but what is the failure rate of this process in comparison to marriage occurring in spite of it?

Then there is the "I've got a boyfriend" routine. This is supposed to make the guy more interested. My response to this has always been to leave females with boyfriends alone, as I wouldn't want someone coming along and taking mine. Also it suggests that a female has made up her mind and chosen. Respecting her right to make this choice, I accept her as out of bounds from then on.

But all this deception isn't a good start to a relationship either.

Evolution - Is it true? (A continuation from the last topic which "evolved" into a discussion of this subject, so I'd advise a view of comments there)

People are faced with a lot of claims that we evolved from apes, and that there has been an evolutionary creation over an enormous period of time. This would also propose a continued evolutionary process.
The claim of millions of years is brought into scriptural conflict by D&C 77:6 "... the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence." This is proposing that the only period that the earth will spend in a temporal existence (where things live and die) is 7 thousand years. This is also expressed in D&C 77:12 " ...even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man..."
The millenium is also referred to as the time for the earth to rest (being a sabbath rest). The millenium is a thousand years. So if it is a sabbath rest then that also points to only 6 thousand years as coming before it.

The question also is one of whether evolution is a sound scientific principle as so many believe it to be?

Make up your mind - Jesus Christ or the teachings of man?

I'd like to begin by quoting my old missionary discussions.
Today man endeavours to explain truth through science, literature, philosophy and religion. ... Knowing the truth frees us from the consequences of following false information that can come to us from other people. Evil men deliberately teach false ideas as if they were the truth. On the other hand sincere individuals might lead us astray unintentionally. Regardless of the reason the Lord has continually reminded us to rely upon revelation for truth, and not on the ideas of men. End of quote.
The scriptures present (by my interpretation) some things that appear to be challenged by these 4 above methods at times. Do we just bend the scriptures to fit in with them, or make a proper challenge of the claims? If the claims are not proven sufficiently, why should I even begin to decide that I need to remould my beliefs? If we just drop our belief at the slightest sign of some apparent conflict, where is our faith? Is it the world that forms our belief mixed with scripture?
Firstly, the scriptures present to me that God had a plan for us to come to this earth. We accepted that plan. Plain, obvious sense tells me that he did not then take millions of years getting on with it. We may have been slow learning how to create things (those who were involved), but millions of years is ridiculous.
Next, any animals living on past worlds were resurrected and therefore any bones found here are from this creation. Again the scriptures (to me) present that when the animals were made they were brought to Adam to name. Thus Adam was coexistent with them, not millions of years after.
Jesus Christ clearly spoke against anger, not in its favour. I have never seen a person angry at someone who had happiness in their heart from it.
Jesus Christ also spoke equally plainly against lust. I also am yet to see a person with true joy yet lust in their eyes. The enormous increase in pornography has not decreased rape, as some "experts" claimed it would.
New parenting methods haven't decreased youth violence, as also claimed.
Divorces haven't produced all these contented women. Most sit around winging about their ex.
(these latter 2 statements are generalisations, as should be noted by the terms used).
Anything that I feel challenges the scriptures needs challenging itself. If irrefutable evidence exists to prove the worlds claim, THEN I will re-examine my view of a particular scripture. And not before.
So far none of these 4 methods above has presented anything that has held ground, where it appears to me to be in conflict with scripture.

Feed the Starving VS Missionary Work - It's a simple choice.

I have often heard the question raised concerning the church and whether it is sufficiently committed to the starving in other countries. Some question whether the money spent on missionary work would be better put into welfare services.
There are 3 things I would like to present in consideration of this question.
Firstly, on my mission I remember coming across a couple who, though not interested in hearing about the church, mentioned their experience in going to a country then in the news for its starving. They said that they questioned the locals and they told them that before the news reporters and cameras came the only group there helping out was the Mormons. And that as soon as the reporters came and the other aid agencies turned up the Mormons left. This would indicate that the church is doing much more than people realise.
Secondly, Christ presented that learning true doctrine was more important than works _
Luke 10:38 "Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word. But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."
Christ could have spent his last years feeding the starving etc. Yes, he fed those following him, and did great miracles of service. But he didn't go out and feed the starving. His focus was primarily missionary work. Why did he teach and demonstrate that truth was more important than food?
The third point on the issue answers this last question (in regard to this matter). I remember, not so long back, hearing the cries of the people of a particular country. "Help us, we are starving and this great warlord is killing us," they said. So in went the US and some other countries to help these poor people. These people cheered as the troops came in to their aid.
But it soon became apparent to me that what they were anticipating was that these troops would join them in killing their old enemies. Instead the troops stood in the way of their enemies attacking them, in their defence - not attack. This also meant that the troops were in their way of attacking the warlords they hated and wanted to kill. They soon came to realise this and hated the troops for getting in their way. The troops had to leave to save themselves from being killed by those they came to save.
Their fields were sand because they hadn't planted: They were too busy killing and hating. So they starved. But in spite of this, their hatred was so strong against their enemies that they would not stop and create peace in order to obtain food. It is like reading of the Jaradites and Nephites in the end. Seeing their destruction coming they still would not repent.
Feeding them to keep killing each other without realising that they must stop or starve is nothing like a solution. What these people need more than anything else is the gospel of Jesus Christ. In order that all the world doesn't become the same, and that these types of people may change, missionary work is the priority.

Was Paul Married? - The Law of Moses command would make it that all Pharasees would be married.

I have often heard people claim that Paul wasn't married. Certain things he stated can sound that way if taken on their own, and not really examined.
Firstly I'll quote these, and secondly I'll present that by the law of Moses all Pharasees, of which Paul was one, would marry.
1 Cor 7:1 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
1 Cor 7:7-8 "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I."
The part of this text that is ignored is, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me". What were these things? We have a half of a phone conversation (so to speak). Let me take this conversation up in another spot.
Matt 19:10 "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." Here we have both sides of the phone conversation. NOTE - "If the case of the man be so with his wife". In other words there are circumstances that make it better not to marry again.
The Law of Moses commanded the following of the Chief High Priest _Lev 21:10&13-14 "And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured..." "...shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife."
So the greatest priest had to be married and (by implication) not divorced, as did his wife. It may be a bit hard to grasp someone else's way of thinking, but just put yourself in the position of the pious Pharasees. Everything had to be by the letter and even greater. They even made their phylacteries (a border on their clothes commanded to be a certain width by the Law of Moses) wider than what was commanded, to make themselves look good. So a command is given for the Chief High Priest to be a married, undivorced person. Can you imagine a Pharasee, therefore, not being a married, undivorced person? I don't believe such a person would be accepted in the first place.
In fact Paul presented this same law himself on three occasions. 1 Tim 3:2&12, Titus 1:6-7. The Greek word translated as "one" on these occasions should have been translated "first", as it is in Mark 16:9, Luke 24:1 etc.
So here we have this devout Saul (soon to become Paul) with his equally devout Jewish wife. She is, no doubt, thoroughly behind his push to destroy this Jesus sect. Cheering him on all the way. Then suddenly he joins them. Can you imagine her position? Being so devout, and in with Pharasees, divorce is a disgrace. So she would most likely remain married to him though have nothing to do with him again. She is not young. He would have to have been at least 30 by the Law of Moses to have even begun as a Pharasee. And who knows how many years he had at it.
He could not have just married a new wife, leaving one at home uncared for. The Jews would have regarded him very poorly by scripture standards. So he seems to have remained a married man who was as a single person. If an actual divorce did occur he still would have stood by Christ's admonition not to re-marry except in the case of adultery - which his wife had not committed.

Atoms - Do they exist - have we been conned?

In the theory atoms have a nucleus with protons. Then theory scientists talk of electrons sailing around this in orbits. There are so many electrons in each orbit. "We can even tell you how many electrons is in each type of atom", says Mr Smith (Janitor of Bored University). When asked how this could be known considering no one had actually seen anything with these parts he was unavailable for further comment. But Dr. Waff Ell said, "it is really all very obvious. You see we realised that there are substances and they are all different. So obviously the things inside them are the same but different. So we invented the atomic theory to explain it. And we have proven it in the way we prove all 'scientific' theories: We prove that the thing exists for which we created the theory. We have proven it because all things are the same but different. You see. It proves the theory. It's all obvious".
Dr Ell went on further to state, "you take certain facts and make a theory as to why it is so. Then to prove the theory you just prove the facts on which the theory was based. This is called 'modern science'. If you are still finding people don't quite believe you then you just make some large names involved in your theory to make it sound like it must be right, highly complicated and intelligent. Then you put it on TV with David Ratinburra; and everyone believes it".
Prof. Gig (Professor in nuts, bolts and screws of all kinds) said, "atoms are tiny little things that are so small that we can't positively identify one even with what we call 'electron microscopes'. Although we have never seen an atom we know they are there: A bit like leprechauns and Santa Claus really".
Miss Iva Teavy said, "I saw how they said they have seen electrons. But all you could see was that it was a stream of something. The scientists claimed the stream had to be electrons, but had no real proof. It could have been my mother's washing. They also show dots that they claim must be atoms. But these small dots could be anything also".
Doctors White and Knight said, "we have an entirely different theory altogether. We believe that matter is made up of little beings that live in general proximity to each other in communities. Certain things act upon them to create disharmony in the colonies and forces that we use are thus produced".
Prof. Gig commented on this by saying, "we are aware of fringe groups with other theories. But the atomic one sounds nice enough and I have enough trouble with leprechauns digging in my garden to worry about and making sure I hang out my Christmas stocking".
Repairman Mr T. V. Fikzitt says, "the vast majority of TV technicians can tell you of incidences that show there are problems in the theory. Some old circuits start to do things they shouldn't. You find that a diode won't work unless you put a piece of wire in parallel with it and the wire won't work without the diode either _ this completely defies atomic theory".
Mr I. Builditt of Powers Electronics states, "yes, our electronic engineers tell me that the actual methods used for palient-doping of semiconductors and the end result completely refute atomic theory of palient-doping: REAL semiconductor barriers are wrong according to the theory".
Mrs. Lotsa Luck of Coldlotto Inc. said, "have you considered the odds on how close to impossible it would be for someone to make up a theory like the atomic theory and be correct? Over the decades they have invented electrons, protons, a nucleus, orbits, how many in each orbit, effects, attractions, splitting atoms and polarities of orbits. All this without ever seeing one! The odds on them being correct on even one issue is astronomical; let alone on the whole lot".
Scholar Iah Tolla foresees problems ahead with atoms. "Yes", he said, "I noticed this the other day with a block of cheese I left on the table. When I came back the next morning it was smaller. This proved that actually the electrons are getting closer and closer to the nucleus. I foresee a time, MILLIONS of years from now (and I won't be around to be proven wrong), when electrons will actually fall into the nucleus and burn up".

What are we - Satan's plan was impossible

D&C 93:36 Tells us "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth."
This establishes that Intelligence is light and truth.
Verse 29 says, "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."
This establishes that we are an Intelligence and that we can't be made.
Verse 30 "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence."
This establishes that we wouldn't exist without freedom of choice. - So much for Satan's plan.
Verse 28 says, "He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things."
This (with what we have established so far) establishes that Our intelligence grows by learning and accepting to follow truth. As we are an intelligence, ourselves, we therefore exist more by following truth. Consequently sense says that the greater the commandments we have (that are followed) the greater our intelligence must become.
Verse 37 "Light and truth forsake that evil one."
Verse 39 says, "And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers."
From this we learn that opposing truth takes away intelligence - We exist less.
Verses 33-34 "For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy."
D&C 131 7-8 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.
We have a spirit made of matter and a body made of courser material. Us having both of these increases our joy.
Hebrews 12:9 "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"
God is the father of our spirits - so our spirit bodies were born also.
As we wouldn't exist without freedom of choice the decision to recieve spirit bodies had to be ours, as with physical bodies.

Who's really the Head of the Home, and what does that mean?

I hear this term stated so often in the church. Then I hear people interpret it to mean nothing like what it says. Because of so many complaints by women to the church relative to husbands misusing their authority, the GAs have begun to advise a system of no clearcut leadership within marriage. This is done in sincerity. In the hope of maintaining love in families. But what has God said in regard this? I realise that those things I'm about to quote won't be popular with women. But if women would take hold of this concept and follow it they would have a wonderful marriage, in spite of the fact they think they wouldn't. This is what is known as "faith". Faith isn't doing what you think works, it is doing what you don't think will because God said so.
Moses 4:22 "Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, said: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (See also Gen 3:16)
That is about as clear cut as it should need to be. The tendancy is to water this down. But any dictionary will tell you what "rule" really means.
1 Pet 3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands..."
1 Pet 3:6 "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord..."
1 Tim 2:12-13 "But I suffer a woman not to teach, nor to asurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve."
Eph 5:24 "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be subject unto their own husbands in every thing."
No doubt many will want to quote one side of this by giving examples of abuse by husbands - feeling that somehow God was unaware of this when he presented this commandment. I've seen some bad things both ways, also. God has seen them too, but still knows that what he has expressed is true.
On my mission one senior companion I had made a lot of crazy decisions which were not inspired. The Holy Ghost kept saying to me, "follow him and I'll bless you." I followed and we were extremely blessed. It was painful at times. But it worked. God wanted to demonstrate to me to follow church leaders (within their areas of authority) regardless.
I say to women, trust God and just do what he says. I say to men be wise and truly love your wives, not abusing such a trust that they place in you. Listen to their counsel. And above all use the Spirit to guide your decisions.

Scientific Dating Methods are terribly unscientific

Professor Lessor of Fundus Institute commented, "we use the finest dating methods. And we know that we are right that these bones are MILLIONS of years old. Carbon dating has been shown to be correct sometimes, to some degree, over periods of hundreds of years _ usually only being hundreds of years out. And we have other dating methods now that are almost as accurate; particularly when we recalibrate our machines when we know what date is required".
Mr Form at Hard Drive said, "I was watching a program on TV the other day that carbon dated a skull found in Australia to be 2,500 years old. But the scientists didn't like that date so they went around trying all these other dating methods and finally found one that said it was about 60,000 to 70,000 years old and so they took those dates. When asked why they didn't use the carbon dating method that is so 'accurate' they said it was because the lime in the soil must have confused it".
Dr G Etpade of Theoretic Institute stated, "we are at a new age now where we no longer have the problems of science in the past that almost always had theories that have been proven wrong in spite of them proving them right at the time. All our theories are correct because we have proven them right on TV. We also have a new advantage to use to convince people we're right called 'dating methods'. This is a cleaver idea where you use some instrument to obtain the date you want. We decide it's MILLIONS of years old then it becomes MILLIONS of years old".
Sarah Gill (LDS) questions, "Those against evolution claim that a rock formed by a volcano only a short time before was carbon dated to be MILLIONS of years old. Also that a rock only a few years old, brought back from the moon, was similarly dated. On both occasions the truth had been kept from those doing the dating. Why should anyone believe all this, unproven, MILLIONS of years stuff"?
Dr Thinkitt of the Local Logicians Club said, "All accepted fact must be based on proven facts (premises). Therefore talk of MILLIONS of years is illogical as no one can PROVE what happened in a time of which we have no way to prove it absolutely correct. If someone makes a claim about ancient Egypt from known facts about Egypt it could be logical. But we have no written record of MILLIONS of years ago and we can't go back to prove or disprove the claim or the premises upon which it is based: Regardless of what instruments are used. No logician could accept someone saying they KNOW about MILLIONS of years ago as anything but the ravings of a fool".
Miss Daytmee of Hobart says, "yes, well, my dating method is to play hard to get".

How does the brain affect our thinking?

In the 1960's some scientists made an exact replica of a brain, and still haven't got any thought out of it. We know that we are an intelligence. Yet when people lose a bit of brain they can have difficulty doing things. Two people can lose the same bit of brain matter and one may walk again and the other not. Also one girl was born with absolutely no brain whatsoever and yet lived for 27 days. An autopsy revealed only a liquid where the brain should be.
I saw a special on all these people in Europe who were born with less than normal brain (many not even having the so-called "human section" which is supposed to be why we are superior to apes). Yet all these people were perfectly normal.
However if someone suddenly loses a part or a part is suppressed by medicine then problems occur. This leads me to feel that our intelligence has to respond to changes where the brain suffers problems. And this is obviously a large challenge.

Will the USA be conquered by the Lamanites as prophesied?

Several times, in the Book of Mormon, threats are made that if the gentils living in all of the Americas don't get right spiritually the Lamanites will come in upon them and take over. In 3 Nephi chapter 16 Jesus makes this threat also. Towards conclusion (in verse 17) he even declares this has been prophesied to occur. In other words he is proposing (as it reads to me) that the Gentiles aren't going to take sufficient notice of this warning. Beside this prophesies abound in regard to serious problems in the last days everywhere.
Questions arise. Such as, how good is our relationship with God to help us through these types of problems soon to occur within the world? Is our communication with the Holy Ghost as it should be to be warned when and where to flee, if cut off from things? It isn't a very comforting thought, but then prophesies often aren't. Also, how will this effect members outside the USA?
What do you think about this warning, and its consequences?

Are Psychology and Psychiatry in harmony with Jesus Christs principles?

Anger management courses teach that anger is good, and just needs to be controlled. Yet Christ taught, "But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment..." (3 Nephi 12:22). So how can anger be good for you?
Also Psychology courses teach that a person CAN'T change themselves, and therefore must just work at controlling their actions. Yet Christ taught repentance and change of heart. What is the point of trying to improve if we can't?
Psychology courses teach that lust is good and masterbation a natural release. And that we will be better off for following these activities. Yet Christ speaks against the lusts of the flesh.
Again Psychologists propose that when people say a particular thing it means they think some thing Psychologists have concluded it means they think. This is based on the fact that someone else who said that had the thought they propose. Yet Christ taught that true judgement of others must be made by judgement of their hearts not their words (or even their thoughts).
What are your thoughts on modern Psychiatry/Psychology?

We can become sinless

I so often hear people say that we all will keep sinning because we are fallen and the natural man is an enemy to God. Also John is quoted that all HAVE sinned. But Mosiah 3:19 says, "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."
This, to me, poses that we can put off the natural man. Sometimes bad thoughts may cross my mind, so is this sin? Doesn't Satan tempt us? It surely can't be sin because Satan throws silly thoughts at us. Wouldn't it only be sin if we accept and go on with these thoughts as our own? It seems to me that sin would require an actual transgression of the law by us ("..For sin is the transgression of the law" 1 John 3:4).

What does it mean that God is omnipotent?

God is obviously powerful in regard to controlling matter and making planets etc. He doesn't appear to have any problems doing whatever he chooses in this regard _ omnipotent. But the scriptures inform us that God cannot lie. Also Lehi states that if certain things were the case that God would cease to be God. D&C 93 informs us that without freedom of choice we would cease to exist. So could God keep us in existence and without choice? Also it informs us that intelligence can't be created or made. Therefore the question arises as to omnipotent over what?

Was Jesus really only in the grave for one whole day?

It is proposed that when Christ said he would spend three days in the earth that he must have meant Friday night, Saturday and the night, and the beginning of Sunday. But is this true? In Matthew 12:40 Christ said, "For as Jonas was three days and three NIGHTS in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three NIGHTS in the heart of the earth." This means all Thursday, all Friday and then all Saturday. Then to be risen already on Sunday morning. Confusion arises because the scriptures talk of the body needing to be quickly buried because of the coming sabbath. But was the coming sabbath spoken of the weekly sabbath (in the law of Moses there were several sabbaths, not just the weekly one). That year there was another sabbath due on Thursday. So was he was crucified on Wednesday and quickly buried to be "in the heart of the earth" for the three days and nights til Sunday morning (as prophesied)?

When we feel good from loving others is this an eternal law blessing?

Or is God just making us happy? When we hate or are angry our spirit (heart) seems to be in conflict with happiness. When we love we seem to be in harmony with things. So why is this the case? If this is by obedience to eternal laws (which it seems to me to be) how does this all happen? The more I love the greater my peace. It seems like I become more of a living being by love. God promises eternal life to those who love. So is this the "life" he is referring to?