quote:I'm quite shocked by the laxity of missionaries in general concerning the candy payouts.
Don't look at me. I made mint sandwiches with the finest Swiss Chocolate for my investigators when I was a missionary. If more missionaries took this kind of care in their work, we'd have 20 million members by now.
And lets not stop with the missionaries. When was the last time your home teachers brought you fine chocolate? If they would only put this on the Temple Recommend question list, far fewer would slip away from activity in the church.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of participles, things that dangle have always delighted me. Earings, Christmas tree ornaments, icicles are participles and best when their dangling.
[ May 27, 2004, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had it with linguists and all their silly rules whose primary purpose is to asuage the egos of linguists. Its time for vengence/ All must use a dangling participle in every post.
By using a dangling participle in every post, Jon Boy will be driven by Hatrack to implode.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I've had it with all you unwashed masses who make no effort to use the language with clarity and precision and who would rather criticize those who bother to educate themselves. But I suppose that if you prefer to use words as a cudgel with which to beat others, I really can't do anything about it.
But just be careful. Editors don't implode; they explode and take everyone else out with them.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. I'm translating Kafka right now. I should post some literal translations of his sentences -- JB's brain would melt like Camembert on a hot August day.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
This is the kind of thread that can give a newbie a good feel for the personalities of some of the posters.
Just a few random thoughts, if I may.
First, congrats Mack. I'm not Mormon, but I can see from your posts here that you've put a lot of thought and research into making this decision. Major decisions can often lead to controversy amongst your friends, especially those who don't necessarily like you for who you are. If those with whom you're estranged now were true friends, they'll be back once they've had an opportunity to see that your commitment is genuine.
quote:[size=1]Originally posted by katharina[/size] Sometimes, though, the blessings [of tithing] are in the exact same form. Sometimes it is everything working out financially when it didn't seem possible before. I like the idea of a mix - hand back a skittle, get a combination of skittles, M&Ms, and Sour Patch Kids.
Let me preface this by stating that I am not Mormon. I was raised Wesleyan (think Methodist, but way towards the conservative end of the spectrum), and have never found a valid argument for converting to any other denomination of the Christian faith. The principles of tithing are the same, regardless. I'd like to share with you a concrete example of how this promise has been evidenced in my life.
I used to be someone who would tithe only when I felt I had the funds to spare. A few years ago, I finally decided that I would be obedient to the Scriptures and tithe to my church, regardless of whether I felt I had the funds or not. I was amazed at how the bills always got paid -- even when I couldn't see how the money would stretch.
Within weeks of that decision, I had another company offer me a job. I wasn't looking to change jobs, this was just something that fell in my lap. The offer was enough that I would have been stupid not to consider it. I turned in a resignation to the company I was working for, and within an hour I was called into the Director's office. They made me a counter offer that literally dropped my jaw. The offer was 70% over what I was making. Talk about floodgates! Is it any wonder I'm still with that company?
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tithing doesn't guaruntee a financial return, but there is a guarantee of a retun in abundance. The Lord is bound when you pay tithing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is He actually BOUND? As in, "you have entered into this contract, by which I am compelled to act," bound?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, just like that. D&C 82:10 "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would almost have to be, given that central to most Christian theologies is the idea that humans are, in general, INCAPABLE of doing what God says.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Tom said, plus, in many Christians theologies, God is not bound (in the sense of constrained) to anything.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
huh, i think those will go away. pick too personal or extra bitter. a bit of both is probably true.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get a creepy feeling thinking of God being bound. Doesn't that negate the whole "omnipotent" thing?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So he's not really the same as the Christian God? I always thought they were supposed to be the same guy.
I'm not being snarky, I just really don't know. I mean, since no one can prove the existence of their god, the only thing that lets you know you're worshipping the same god as someone else is their definition of him. And if they don't define him the same way as you do, doesn't that make him a different god?
quote: I'm interested in your reaction-- you would feel more comfortable with a god who had the ability to go back on his word
No, my God keeps His word because that's the kind of perfect and loving God he is, not because He's being forced to do it.
posted
I think a better way to put it is that the Christian God as described by Mormons is very unlike the Christian God as described by other Christians.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good question. The following is a presentation of SMTN: Scott's Mormon Theological Noodlings.
I've said it before without being beat up, so I'll take another chance: from the POV of other religions, Mormons are not traditional, or classical Christians.
Although Mormons believe in Christ's atonement as the one, saving power, the theology we're discussing above may tend to skew us off the path of mainline Christianity.
We do believe that God is omnipotent, in the sense that any power that is available to Him, He possesses. But certain things, like the power to remove man's agency, and the ability to do evil, God MAY NOT do and remain god.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Celia, I really don't know that much about theology. I'm not trying to fight, I am just trying to understand about almost everything.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, but I've seen that fight and it isn't pretty. I'm just trying to help you understand in as few posts as possible to avoid even the possibility of starting it.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the interests of not starting a fight while still being clear, let me try to state it this way –
What the LDS believe about God describes a being that would not be acknowledged as God by most (edit: classical, traditional, mainline, orthodox, pick your adjective in this case amounting to 'non LDS') Christian theologies.
Or, to try a balance, if they existed in the same time and place, the Council of Nicea and the LDS church would each consider the other completely heretical.
quote:No, my God keeps His word because that's the kind of perfect and loving God he is, not because He's being forced to do it.
This is interesting. I'm still a n00b, so I don't know (and for practical matters like being good I don't regard it as very important), but doesn't that amount to the same thing, PSI?
Let me make an analogy to human beings. A good, honorable, and honest man who gives his word could (and often IS) said to be "bound" by his word. Not because he could not break his word if he wanted to, but because he would never, ever want to break his word, because he has long ago made a decision to keep his word everytime he gives it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But in your analogy, he would be bound by his own choice to remain faithful. The Mormon quote sounds like he's being bound by the actions of others.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moreover, the quote pretty specifically establishes that He is NOT bound by His word if mortals don't hold up their end.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no, not if the “word” was to do something if someone did something else. A conditional promise is not breaking your word.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Mormon quote sounds like he's being bound by the actions of others.
Howso? It used the word 'bound' exactly once, and then went on to talk about a promise. That word bound could have either meaing just as easily, and (personally) I think since He talks about making promises and keeping them, that it's more likely God is using the word as an honest person might.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that Scott said specifically that God CAN NOT do those things. That he is not even ABLE to do them.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. God has made (numerous) covenants with people. The very nature of a covenant is that if one side breaks a condition, the other side is not obligated to uphold the bargain.
To quote Braveheart, "An oath to a liar is no oath at all." Not the same thing, of course, but the spirit of that statement does apply, I think.
----------
Incidentally, Mormons do worship Christ. So talk of a 'Christian' God might register as a smidgen offensive.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Scott said God cannot do those things and remain God. That if God did violate His word, he would be no longer be God. I think (but I'm a novice, so don't take my word for it) that this might be the same as saying an honest person cannot break their word and remain an honest person.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh. I figured he can't do evil because God decides what is righteous, and to be righteous is to be God-like, so if God does something "evil" it becomes God-like (righteous) to do that thing. I always felt like "evil" was the opposite of what God does.
Not that I expect God to start doing all these things he said he wouldn't. That's just how great he is.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, do I? Heavens, don't make me add a 
