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?