Free Republic

Hey...I want my Obama aquarium!

Hey...I want my Obama aquarium!

I think you meant $40,000 each. I guess I’ll have to kick in for my kids and my wife, so “our” bill is only $240,000. Not sure I can swing that one.

That was the best.

And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment

You call them wedding "witness". Most people and the Bible call them wedding "guest". They are synonymous.

On to your question about exclusion: As the scripture points out there were some that were not "worthy". You say that family members are forbidden. That is not true. They must, however, conform to the wishes of the Lord as to worthiness. Certainly someone who is antagonistic toward His Church and His People would not be welcome in His House. He would rather have such a person "bound hand and foot" and cast out. The remedy for this, of course, as the Gospel outlines is for that person to repent and submit their will to the Lord. Instead of fashioning a god from their own understanding, they must do the will of the Father and the Son. In so doing they will be both worthy and welcome. The person who vaunts himself/herself before the Lord will never come into His presence- no matter what the circumstances. Not in this life or the next.

Do you believe that as long as the LDS refuse to allow immediate family members to attend the weddings of their parents, children, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, best friends unless those family members are considered "worthy" by adhering to this set of rules that allows a "temple recommend" or ticket of admittance, they are honoring families?:

Here is what the scriptures have to say about that.

Matthew 22

8 Then saith he to his servants,

The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:

12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

The scriptures are plain and precious. Leave it to an Evangelical to take a whole page of philosophical wandering to explain one verse of the Bible. LOL. And still get it wrong! LOL LOL.

When would be a good time for a couple of our highly trained young folk to stop by your home to help you understand the error of your ways?

The sooner the better.

First of all, the Church does not claim this culture as its culture. It is the culture and people of the Book of Mormon. However, I personally may claim it as part of my culture, since my great grandmother was of a HaplogroupX tribe.

Your links go to prove my point further. To wit:

Thus far, haplogroup X has not been detected in numerous Asian/ Siberian populations analyzed by high-resolution restriction analysis or CR sequencing (table 3). Three (2.9%) of 103 Mongolians harbored both the 16223T and 16278T mutations, but they also contained the 110394 DdeI and 110397 AluI markers (Kolman et al. 1996), placing them in Asian superhaplogroup M (Ballinger et al. 1992) and excluding them from haplogroup X.

If you don't understand what this publication is saying, let me educate you in the most non-"erudite" manner I can.

The markers of what appeared to be HaplogroupX found in Mongolia among the Altains were actually introduced into the genetic pool during the time of the Khan. The mitochondrial markers are from the Slavic and Eastern European Caucasus regions. They do not bear the markers of the HaplogroupX found in America and the Near East and certainly not at the same frequency. This non-matching HaplogroupX is found at a rate of about 3% among the Altains alone (no other Asian population has it), while the matching HaplogroupX with matching subset 2 (as it varies from the European HaplogroupX subset 1) is found at a frequency of 26% among the present-day inhabitants of the region encompassing Israel.

We have been over this before. So here is your question (again):

What of the multiple wives of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Gideon and so forth?

If your assumption of which scripture he cited is correct and your assumption of what it means is also correct, then why would Jesus use that scripture to defend Himself? If it refers to “unjust gods”, then Jesus would be calling himself and unjust god. That makes no sense. I think your explanation is wrong.

Your question is best put to Christ. It is His quote, not mine. The meaning of His words is clear:

If a man be called a god by God, what is your problem. We can become gods is exactly what the Psalmist is saying. We do not become God, unless you believe in the Trinity because it says:

John 17 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Your teaching of the Trinity is that Jesus and Heavenly Father are the same being because the scriptures say Jesus is one with the Father. Following that line of thinking, then we are also to be part of the Trinity. By your own theology we are not just gods, but God. Of course, this can only be true if you believe the concept of the Trinity, which I might add is mentioned nowhere in the scriptures

Jesus said he was the Light and Life of the world.

They opposed Him then, too.

So professor, explain HaplogroupX to us then. That is solid DNA evidence of a people, the Hopewell Indians, who covered North America from present-day New York in the East to the Great Plains in the West, the Upper Great Lakes region in the North, down to the panhandle of Florida in the South. This haplogroup is found in Europe, not Asia. The distinct subset of this particular founding haplogroup (meaning that it originated on the North American continent around 600 B.C.) can only be found in one other place in the world- the region encompassing present day Israel. Might I add, the archealogical evidence, such as the Hopewell temples, which have been found and surveyed by the Army Corps of Engineers, are constructed after the manner of the ancient tabernacle and the pattern of Solomon's temple, complete with the outer courtyards. These temples are described in the Book of Mormon and are exactly where the Prophet Joseph Smith said they would be.

Moreover, if you know anything about the people in the Book of Mormon, the descendants of those inhabitants are referred to as the Lamanites. In the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith called several bretheren to take the Gospel to the Lamanites, as had been promised them in the scriptures. Every tribe he sent missionaries to is a member of HaplogroupX. That is not coincidence. You might also take note, based on your previous assumptions as to where the Church or the Prophet thought the Lamanites lived, that he never sent anyone to preach to the "Lamanites in Central America" He does not even mention Central and South America. For years anti Mormons have propped up academics who are also members of the Church and their belief that Central America was the setting for the Book of Mormon. The only fruit of their quest to make it so has been to divorce themselves from the Prophet Joseph.

He never said anything about Central America, which has been more of Church culture, since no Prophet of the Restoration has said that is where it was. In fact, as late as 2 years ago, the late Gordon B. Hinckley (Prophet of the Lord's Church) said the evidence had not come forth yet. It was in a discussion with a German reporter who thought to score some points when, at that time, DNA evidence showed no link between the indigenous lines of Central and South America with the Near East. All of the Church critics were quick to seize on this as a "nail in the coffin" to Mormonism. Little did they know that just two years later a confirming witness would come forth, not just showing a "European" DNA haplogroup- in which researchers would include the Near East, but strikingly confirming its link to Israel specifically, which is where the Book of Mormon says they came from.

I will continue when you have done more research. I won't spoon feed you the rest. Let me know if you have any questions on what you find.

No, it is usually where someone suggests remedial English classes.

I believe it was given as:

Be fruitful and multiply

Eph. 5: 22, 24-25, 28

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

• • • 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

• • • 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

Col. 3: 18-19

18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

1 Pet. 3: 1

1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

Does the Spirit strive long with those who mock the Lord?

The Varsity team showed up? Sweet.

My point made perfectly. Thank you for supplying the link.

What are you talking about? Is this the part where you go incoherent?

Thoughtful opposition will always be met with civility and discourse. The brand of “liars and bigots” found on FR will also be dealt with accordingly.