It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Mormon FAQ (by dragonsdemesne)

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne

If you scroll up about half a page or so, someone else asked a very similar question there, so I will refer you to that.


My apologies-- perhaps I should read posts a little more thoroughly.



Another question, though-- do you know what the current prophet's name is? And when he dies, is it a surprise who is chosen as the new prophet, or is it determined before hand? I know there is a "level" of 12 (?) men just under the prophet, and the new one is to come from them... but is the specific man not determined until the current prophet has died? And how do they choose him?


Also... when the new prophet has been chosen, is it just then that he starts directly speaking with god, or has he been a "prophet" of sorts all his life??



Anywhew... thanks for sharing all of this-- it's very interesting to read!!




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The current prophet is Gordon B. Hinckley. The 'level' of 12 men you refer to are the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. The prophet also has two counsellors, who are equal to the apostles, so in a way there are actually fourteen of them, and fifteen if you count the prophet himself.

It is always known who the next prophet will be. The next prophet is the member of the apostles (the 12 plus the two counsellors) that has been an apostle for the longest time, i.e. the most senior member. So if Hinckley were to die today, we know for 100% certainty that the next prophet would be Thomas Monson, because he is the most senior apostle. Seniority is determined by years of service, not by age. Monson is actually not the oldest, but he has been an apostle since his thirties (which is very rare!) so he has been an apostle longer than the rest, except for Hinckley.

As for whether the apostles speak directly with God, I do not know for certain. What I do know is that the apostles, along with the current prophet, are considered "prophets, seers, and revelators" as part of their descriptions. To me, that would imply that they would also speak directly with God, but that is just a guess; it may be a privilege reserved only for the prophet himself.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Hey Great Job Here,

Just a quick question for you, I'm in the process of becoming Mormon... (Ya I know I stated that I Was....at least at heart I believe I am, Been an Investigator for the past 1 1/2 lol) anyway...I've had all my lessons with the missionaries and all, but one thing I asked the other night...kinda stumped them. I asked....


If Jesus Christ recieved the Priest Hood Authority by the laying of the hands, how did John recieve the priest Hood...if one can only recieve it by the laying of the hands? Thank you very much and I hope all goes well for ya man, keep up the good work.


CTR



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
That's a tough question... I didn't know that one off the top of my head. So I went to some of my books and looked around. I found something interesting; it relates to Adam, though, but by logical connection, it makes sense that the same thing could have happened to Jesus.

From "Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis-2 Sameul, Religion 301, 3rd Ed, p31" (bold part highlighted by me)

"The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Genesis 1:26,27,28..."


It seems to make sense that if Adam can have been given the Priesthood before the Creation, that it could have been also given to Jesus Christ at around the same time. That would mean Christ would have already had the Priesthood when he was born and came to Earth. I don't know if that's the way it happened or not, but it certainly fits with the quote above.

Assuming that this is what happened, then Christ could have easily bestowed the Priesthood upon John at any time. If I recall correctly, in scripture, it states that they were first cousins, so they would have known each other before preaching the gospel, and Christ could have given John the priesthood at some point quite easily.

The next question one might ask then is, how could Christ have had the priesthood before he was baptized, since Mormons are always baptised first, and get the priesthood later. If you look at Joseph Smith - History in the Pearl of Great Price, at verses 68-72, there is the account of John returning to give Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the Aaronic priesthood (which is sufficient to baptise people). Those verses indicate that John conferred the priesthood to Joseph and Oliver, then they baptised each other, and then ordained each other to that priesthood.

scriptures.lds.org...

Anyhow, like I mentioned before, I don't know if this is how events went for Jesus and John, but based on similar events that are documented, it could have happened the same way for them, as well.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I have a question.

Do Mormons still hate black people? You know, that Hamitic curse thing?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
I have a question.

Do Mormons still hate black people? You know, that Hamitic curse thing?



He already answered that, go back to the previous page or so.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I did? Well, anyway, no, Mormons don't hate black people. There are quite a few black Mormons out there, though I don't have statistics on how many. there are a ton of Mormons in South America and quite a few in Africa, and it's safe to say there are many blacks among them. I've met only a few around here where I live, mostly because we don't have a lot of black people around, maybe 2% of the population. (about the same percentage as Mormons here, heh)

There's probably a few individual Mormons that are racists, as there are racists in pretty much any group of people, but as a church in general, we have nothing against black people.

For a further insight to how black Mormons feel, I'll refer you straight to a couple of websites maintained by black Mormons.

www.blacklds.org...

www.ldsgenesisgroup.org...

When I clicked on the genesis group webpage, the front story up at the time was one by President Hinckley condemning racism and speaking some rather harsh words of admonition towards any Mormons who are racists. That should indicate how the church in general feels about the black population.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Here it Goes....



Why is it that Mormons believe that they can become Gods them selves...through exhaltation....and rule over other universes. This said....could God simply have been an average Joe from another universe...and became god him self....and ruled over us....and brought us to were we are today?....


How could GOD be perfect if he...once was Human?....If God was PERFECT...why did he messed up with Adam And Eve....why did he have that tree place there in that Garden..in the first place...if Eve...was going to pluc the apple from it?....

As for the Ten Commandments.... why is it that GOD...sent Moses wiht more then ten at first...yet reduced it back to ten simple ...fined..tuned ones...at the end....why not send them down with moses the first time around?.....


And as for Extra Terrestials...why doesn't the Church Believe in them?...I know that GOd created us in his own image...but ..why can't it not be a feasable...idea...for extra terrestials to look like the cliche....alien...(ZETAN REPTICULI)(SP?)....why are missionaries so arrogant about this?


I hope this isn't a little bit too "deep" doctrine for ya...thanks.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

If God was PERFECT...why did he messed up with Adam And Eve....why did he have that tree place there in that Garden..in the first place...if Eve...was going to pluc the apple from it?....


I found a link here that explains our viewpoint on this fairly well. It says what I would have, only a lot better.


As for the Ten Commandments.... why is it that GOD...sent Moses wiht more then ten at first...yet reduced it back to ten simple ...fined..tuned ones...at the end....why not send them down with moses the first time around?.....


It is because the Israelites were being bad; if you recall, when Moses came down with the first set of commandments, he found his people worshipping a golden calf that Aaron had made for them. He was so angry and disappointed that he broke the tablets God had given him with the commandments on them. God must have known that this would happen, so what I think is that by having the second set replace the first set of commandments, it was a way of expressing His disapproval of what was going on, to give them a different set of commandments. We don't know for sure, because the originals were destroyed, but I have read that the originals were supposed to be 'higher' commandments, like how there was the law of Moses in the Old testament, and then when Jesus came, things like sacrifice weren't done anymore, but stuff like 'eye for an eye' was no longer okay. I hope that made some kind of sense...


And as for Extra Terrestials...why doesn't the Church Believe in them?...I know that GOd created us in his own image...but ..why can't it not be a feasable...idea...for extra terrestials to look like the cliche....alien...(ZETAN REPTICULI)(SP?)....why are missionaries so arrogant about this?


Joseph Smith (founder of LDS church) taught that there are countless inhabited worlds in the universe. He didn't explicitly say (there being no concept of things like 'greys' or 'UFOs' in his day) but it seems from what I've read that he was saying that they were human beings just like us. I don't know what any missionaries might have told you, but if they said that there aren't any zeta reticulan greys or reptilians or whatever, then that is in keeping with LDS doctrine. Whether Zeta Reticula is one of the 'countless worlds' is completely unknown. In the book of Moses and in the book of Abraham (in LDS scripture, found in the Pearl of Great Price) it also mentions these countless inhabited worlds; though it doesn't mention what kind of beings inhabit them, it seems to imply human beings. (the 'made in His image' thing)


Why is it that Mormons believe that they can become Gods them selves...through exhaltation....and rule over other universes. This said....could God simply have been an average Joe from another universe...and became god him self....and ruled over us....and brought us to were we are today?....


I don't recall the exact quote, but I think it was Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses that said something along the lines of how God used to be somebody much like us, on some other world, and had to go through the same mortal life, and his god had to do the same, and back and back, through countless 'levels'. That still raises the question (at least in my mind) of 'how it all started', but then, theologians have been asking that for centuries, and no one really knows for sure. Joseph Smith also taught things along these lines, but Brigham Young put in a lot more of the details.

If you want some specific references to some of this stuff (rather than taking my word for it!) I'll try to dig some up for you. The books of Moses and Abraham do have a lot of doctrine about this stuff, and I'd refer you to those as a start.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Thanks for answering my question, I would highly appreciate it if you could get that info, later.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Ok basically this post is going to be mostly quotes from stuff, that should be mostly self explanatory; explanations will be given if needed. If I have a * in front of the source, it means I actually own a copy of the source. If not, it means I got it second-hand, like sourced in another book or on the internet.


Originally posted by Nephi
Why is it that Mormons believe that they can become Gods them selves...through exhaltation....and rule over other universes. This said....could God simply have been an average Joe from another universe...and became god him self....and ruled over us....and brought us to were we are today?....



*History of the Church, Volume 6, B.H. Roberts
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits
enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were
rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who
upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself
visible,--I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a
man in form--like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a
man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God,
and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him,
as one man talks and communes with another.



*Gospel Principles, Chapter 46, p297

Those who inherit the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, who become gods, must also have been married for eternity in the temple (see D&C 131:1-4).



*Gospel Principles, Chapter 47, p302
Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, just like our Heavenly Father. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give his children.

A few paragraphs lower, there is a list of 'blessings of exaltation' and one of them is given as "They will become gods", referring to those who are exalted.



*Doctrine and Covenants, 76:58
Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God.



Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p.286 (Brigham Young)
The idea that the Lord our God is not a personage of tabernacle is entirely a mistaken notion. He was once a man. Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet, that he would not worship a God who had not a Father; and I do not know that he would if be had not a mother; the one would be as absurd as the other. If he had a Father, he was made in his likeness. And if he is our Father we are made after his image and likeness. He once possessed a body, as we now do; and our bodies are as much to us, as his body to him.



Brigham Young, "The Essential Brigham Young", p.138

What, is it possible that the Father of Heights, the Father of our spirits, could reduce himself and come forth like a man? Yes, he was once a man like you and I are and was once on an earth like this, passed through the ordeal you and I pass through. He had his father and his mother and he has been exalted through his faithfulness, and he is become Lord of all. He is the God pertaining to this earth. He is our Father. He begot our spirits in the spirit world. They have come forth and our earthly parents have organized tabernacles for our spirits and here we are today. That is the way we came.



Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, p 104

Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing. He became God - an exalted being - through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey."


www.jefflindsay.com...
A somewhat lengthy essay on this issue by an LDS apologist. He quotes and references a whole bunch of scriptures, both out of the Bible and the other Mormon scriptures, as well as some early Christian writers.


Originally posted by Nephi
How could GOD be perfect if he...once was Human?....If God was PERFECT...why did he messed up with Adam And Eve....why did he have that tree place there in that Garden..in the first place...if Eve...was going to pluc the apple from it?....


www.jefflindsay.com...
Same apologist, different essay. Here, Lindsay discusses the Fall in the context of LDS doctrine.


*Gospel Principles, Chapter 6, p33-34

Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, Latter-day scriptures help us understand that their fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

After the Fall, Eve said, "Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed [children], and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient" (Moses 5:11).


Also see: *2 Nephi 2:14-26, Moses 5:6-12, 1 Nephi 5:11 at scriptures.lds.org...

From *Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis-2 Samuel, Religion 301, 3rd Ed:

Basically, this chapter says that Satan was trying to trick Adam and Eve into eating the forbidden fruit because he thought it would screw up God's plans. He told Eve a mixture of truth and lies in order to make it more believable. He said that she would become a god if she ate the fruit, but he also said she wouldn't die, even though she would die, as she became a mortal. However, since God, being omnipotent, knew that Satan would try this trick, and knowing what would happen, He set things up so that the devil's plan backfired on him. Adam and Eve left the garden, and then 'multiplied and replenished the earth', as they were commanded.



Originally posted by Nephi
As for the Ten Commandments.... why is it that GOD...sent Moses wiht more then ten at first...yet reduced it back to ten simple ...fined..tuned ones...at the end....why not send them down with moses the first time around?.....


After looking up some scriptures, I think I goofed in my first explanation of this, so it's a good thing I looked it up! If you look at Exodus, Chapter 20, you will see where God gives the Israelites the 10 commandments verbally. Then, later, in Exodus 31, Moses goes up to Sinai and gets 'two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God' (Ex 31:18, KJV) In chapter 32, Moses is angered at the Israelites idolatry and smashes the tablets because he is so angry and disappointed in them. In chapter 34, verse 1, it says "And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." Verse 4 also uses the phrase "two tables of stone like unto the first". In verse 28 it says "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." And in verse 29, it says "...Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony..."

Anyhow, it sounds to me like God actually gave the same commandments both times, and in fact, they were not new commandments, since they were already known in chapter 20. It was them being in written form, written on stone by God Himself, that was different. Basically, it sounds to me like because Moses broke the tablets, God had to replace them, and as far as I can see, they weren't actually changed at all.


Originally posted by Nephi
And as for Extra Terrestials...why doesn't the Church Believe in them?...I know that GOd created us in his own image...but ..why can't it not be a feasable...idea...for extra terrestials to look like the cliche....alien...(ZETAN REPTICULI)(SP?)....why are missionaries so arrogant about this?


As far as I am aware, the church has never had an official position on whether alien life exists. (greys, reptilians, draconians, whatever) Early church leaders have said (as I mentioned before) that there are humans on other planets, somewhere.


*Moses 1:29
And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.



*Moses 1:33
And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.



*Moses 1:35
But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.



*History of the Church, Volume 5, B.H. Roberts
It shall people the increasing heavens as it has the
multiplying worlds with offspring of the Sons of God.


I'm pretty sure there's more on this subject in 'History of the Church', but since I just have an ebook copy, and it's 7 volumes, and I don't have an index, and I'm not sure which keywords to use, it makes it tough to find quotes from it


Anyhow, my 10k char post size has only a bit more than 100 left, so I'll end here. Sorry it took a few days to respond; I've been doing this a bit at a time over two days or so.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Hey I really Appreciate it man!! Thanks a lot, Something to share with the missionaries here in town



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Hey I really Appreciate it man!! Thanks a lot, Something to share with the missionaries here in town



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
heh, Religion ... gotta love it
good luck with your discussions guys.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonsDemesne
 


Hello there!


i would like to make a correction in error in the statement that mormons are too not drink caffeine. Per Gordon B. Hinckley during one of the many conference, he looked square in the camera and stated the things in which are not to be partaken of, and he included caffeine. It was in the year of 2005.

The reasoning that this was to be included is that, it too is an addictive substance, in which pollutes the body and places strain on the spirit from having to bare the task of freeing oneself from any such addiction. Any addiction holds a person back, which in consequence stunts a spirits growth in becoming well established in simply living well, which hinders a spirits capability of living completely happy as the body was naturally created to do.

sincerely,
michaelsannie



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelsannie
 


Hmm, I doublechecked that and you are indeed correct that he said this. Two minutes on google showed that he said this to Larry King during one of their interviews.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Hello DragonsDemesne,

I have a question about Isaiah 14:12 (or the Mormon equivalent) from the Book of Mormon.

Mormons believe that the ancient record, the Book of Mormon, was written beginning about 600 B.C., and that the author of such record copied Isaiah's original writing.

With this in mind let's consider the following:

Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah (KJV), at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

The first problem with this translation is that Lucifer is a latin name. How did the name Lucifer find its way into a Hebrew manuscript written before the Roman language?

The following is a person's search for the asnwer to this question:


To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."


This information can be verified by any Hebrew scholar or person with sufficient Hebrew knowledge.

Why did the Christian scribes choose to use the name Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say:


"this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king...

How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star.

How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."

Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".


My question the is this:

If the Book of Mormon was copied from the original Isaiah manuscripts then why is the word Lucifer included in Isaiah 14:12?

The only answer I can think of is that Joseph Smith was copying the KJV of the Bible. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and you can clear this up for me. Thanks in advance.

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic





Now thats a real question. What a great discussion. OP you are very knowledgeable about Mormonism. I am an inactive Mormon and I can tell you are spot on with the information.
edit on 19-3-2011 by shamaniski because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2011 by shamaniski because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonsDemesne
 


Why do you consider this man to be a prophet...???


edit on 19-3-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Apologies for the slow reply; I actually saw your post yesterday but I've been trying to think of a good way to explain it. I'm not sure that it is possible to give a reason that would make sense to someone not of my faith, but I will give it a try anyway.

On one level, I suppose that I could start with the Book of Mormon. I've read it and I believe that it is what it claims it is, based both upon spiritual experiences and my own research. By extension, this would mean that Joseph Smith, as translator, was a prophet as he claimed he was, and that his successors are as well, including Thomas Monson.

However, I'm not sure that is really adequate. I believe the above statements, but they don't really explain it all. I have also heard President Monson speak many times (including once in person when he visited my hometown, though this was before he was our prophet) and, whenever I hear him speak, I just somehow know that he is a prophet. In my faith, we often say that it is the Holy Spirit that is confirming this to us when this happens, and that is how I feel about it as well.

Another aspect of it is the things that President Monson and other church leaders are actually teaching. The last time I heard President Monson speak (last fall) one of the things he spoke about was how we need to take responsibility for our own actions and make correct choices in life. Another thing he discussed was how important gratitude is in our lives, using the story of the ten lepers in the New Testament as an example. When I heard him talk about these things, they just made sense to me, and I find myself agreeing with the things that he's saying.

I suppose when it comes right down to the heart of the matter, it's just a feeling I have, deep down, and it is my personal belief that this is the Holy Spirit testifying to me that he really is a prophet. On a personal level, it makes perfect sense to me, but articulating it is next to impossible.

I'm not really sure what else to say. I don't expect to convince anyone here that Thomas Monson is a prophet of God with anything I say. I hope that what I did manage to do is convince you that I believe it.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I dont care what anyone believes personally... but you have to admit, Mormonism is just about as fun to poke at as the cannibal vampire christ eaters and their transubstantiation stuff
Just because its common and among us daily doesnt make this stuff any easier to swallow for some of us.

It is good of you OP to explain more in depth some of the more interesting parts of your faith and I applaud you for it. ATS is a tough crowd! However, I do have to post this.. its funny.. and no offense meant to you personally.

About the magic underwear and what they look like
www.youtube.com...

Unfortunately this also has to be posted as well.
www.youtube.com...




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join