Nice playtime. Now can I get back to discussing the deliciousness of a Chalupa Supreme with PKM?
Longest Thread Ever
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
Nice playtime. Now can I get back to discussing the deliciousness of a Chalupa Supreme with PKM?
I've never seen a chalupa, in real life. But I have faith in their existence.
thou shalt not have any other taco bell menu items before the chalupa.
Chalupa! It's good ALL THE TIME!
You will burn for this!!!!!!!!!!
since I don't have a clue what a Chalupa is. . . . .
The first commandment is to have no other gods before Jehovah the covenant-maker of Abraham.
who, by the way, came hiking up the road one day in the desert where Abraham was camped, and turned in to say "hi". And ate some bread and cakes and meat from a freshly-slaughtered bullock, according to the Bible.
Never have heard one Christian minister who would use that story in his sermon. Even modern Mormons won't allow that story.
Read Genesis 18, then look at the way the fact is overlooked in a Bible study guide:
https://www.keyway.ca/htm2005/20050801.htm
Sort of the "bread and cakes and meat from a freshly-slaughtered bullock" of our time.
Chalupa!
I beg to differ mon frere. I know the story of which you refer, and it has never been forbidden to be told. If anything it is skipped because it is not understood. There is something else similar that does not make sense to me as well. Forbidden or not allowed sure paints a different picture my friend.
looks like we actually haven't discussed the deliciousness of a Chalupa yet. My wife has a weakness for the Mexfood, and I've even eaten quite a few. But as a true Omnivore with Canine culinary habits, I hardly notice the taste. Chomp. Gone.
A Taco Bell chalupa is mexican food in thew same way a fortune cookie is chinese food. That notwithstanding, chalupas possess a deliciousness that transcends mere adjectives.
It's solidly in the outlawed doctrinal camp. right up there with Adam being the only God with which we have anything to do.
Mormonism has had a series of God concepts. Probably in all justice it could be attributed to the effort to accommodate the public. And probably a sort of confession that none of them are actually comprehensive and without apparent contridiction in scripture.
In the events leading up to the publication of James E. Talmadge's Jesus the Christ, it was the desire of the majority of LDS authorities to move away from some of Brigham Young's statements. The realization that this was a doctrinal need was also addressed earlier by Pres. John Taylor's book The Mediation and Atonement, which sought to restore some consciousness of the importance of Jesus and his atonement.
But the theory equating Jesus with the Jehovah of the old Testament has a lot of problems, including Genesis 18, Psalms 110, and the book of Hebrews. But the most compelling is the prophesy of Daniel which describes Jesus being brought before Adam, the Ancient of Days, and there being crowned and receiving stewardship of the Family of God, an event yet to be realized as a part of the proceedings of the last Judgment.
Well, I have no objection if someone makes observations like this in a Gospel Doctrine class, but the teacher will say thank you while hopefully scanning the class for someone with a tearful testimony about how wonderful it was of Jesus to leave Heaven on his mission to make the atonement for us. And, clutching the manual, will move quickly on to the more relevant aspects of the first principles of faith, repentance, baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Probably about all most people are prepared to deal with, if prepared even for that.
Probably the way most people get into trouble with the LDS authorities is by using the old Brighamite teaching to vindicate their personal claim to already being as good as God.
Last edited: