Leaderboard

No, this isn't an appropriate use. On all printed versions of the directory, it states clearly that the directory is for church use only. That warning doesn't get displayed anywhere in the online directory, unfortunately. If this is a one-time instance, I'd be inclined to ignore it. If it happens again, someone should address the issue with the member.

Thanks to the internet and people speaking up more and sharing their experiences, I believe we are becoming more aware and knowledgeable about mental illness. It is no longer a taboo topic and people does not have to suffer in silence any longer. People seem to accept more the fact that it is a real condition (and not an invention from pseudo-psychologists) and because of that, when we hear about someone committing suicide, a lot of people no longer start with the speech of: "They are going to hell".

This is not part of the gospel as believed by LDS people. The ends do not justify the means because we do not know all the consequences of our actions (which extend into the next life). A common hymn says, "do what is right let the consequence follow" because right is right regardless of earthly outcomes. I believe this hits closest to what we believe. In the Book of Mormon Moroni said, "For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing....Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift" (Moroni 7:6,10). God works from the inside out. He changes our hearts and we change our actions. Rules by themselves do not change a man. Nephi hit on this point when he said, "Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away" (2 Ne 25:27). We must begin with rules and consequences but they are not the end. At some point, they become dead. The law is designed to change us and lead us to follow Christ's way.

My answer has 2 parts:1) No, is it not morally right, but that isn't so much the issue. The issues are how informed do they need to be? And, when should they be informed of everything? A secondary issue is that being informed is not always the moral precedent of the study whereas harm to the participants is. Take two studies for example. The first, the Stanley Milgram experiements in the 60's about authority. All participants were being told they were shocking an individual. What they didn't know was that the person supposedly being shocked, in fact, wasn't. He was just acting. Participants made their own choice to continue shocking them or not. Many refused to. But, all participants were shown after the study that the person was just acting. There was no real harm here to the participants. The second example is the Phillip Zambardo prison experiments. Half the participants played the role of prison guards while the other half played the role of prisoners. But, all of them had full consent (even though this has been wrongfully contested). Despite their full informed consent the experiment ended horribly with physical and psychological damage to both parties. The guards became physically abusive to the prisoners and the prisoners developed learned helplessness, stockholm syndrome, and severe depression. When you take these two studies, it wasn't the informed consent that was the problem, it was how the studies were conducted from the ground up. 2) What really concerns me are ethics of how research results are presented in the behavioral sciences. They are presented as evidenced-based, empirical studies. So the results are taken as scientific fact. But, this is a questionable assertion at best. Take Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for example. This is currently the leading therapy in our field. It is also one of the worst ones. But, it is considered evidenced-based and empirically "proven" to be more effective than any other therapy. But, these waters are beyond muddied, which the researchers know that. The truth is, CBT is not empirical supported. All one has to do is look at the research methods, outcome measurements, and statistical analysis to see that. So, even though those research participants of CBT studies are fully informed, I believe the real immoral precedent here is that counselors, clients, insurance companies and courts, and the general public are misled entirely about the "scientific" basis of CBT, causing them to pursue it, pay money for it, try to live by it, just to find out afterward that they didn't get the results they were led to believe. Thank you for asking. Does this answer your question?

Yes, of course ethics in real life is a messy business. All three approaches have problems. As James12 pointed out, the difficulty with consequentialism is calculating consequences into the future. As for character, well, who decides who is righteous? And on what basis? Deontological ethics are my least favourite, however. The idea of keeping rules for the sake of the rule holds little appeal for a rebel spirit like me. I can see the point of other people keeping to rules I approve of, though! The best strategy may well be to choose one's ethical approach according to the pertinent circumstances, bearing always in mind the strengths and weaknesses of each. My own feeling, at the end of the day, in any given scenario, is that provided one is seeking for the optimal best interests of all the interested parties, one has the right attitude, at least. Best wishes, 2RM. PS Just seen your post, mordorbund. I agree with you.

Printed ward rosters/directories are a thing of the past with the advent of LDS Tools. :) Edit: I do NOT mean the rules no longer apply.

I'm not sure how this plays into my point. Maybe I'm not understanding you well. Aren't morality and God's judgment sort of one and the same? Moreover, you had brought up the non-binary nature of accountability. Accountability requires judgment (as you point out), so isn't it natural to move on to the next step (if that's what I did)? Let's see...so what I'm trying to ask is... At what level do we lose accountability for our views? How far must we be manipulated to no longer be accountable? Certainly, I agree, that in general accountability is not binary. Not in the least. But I do wonder, particularly in the extremes of moral decay in our society, if there may not be a level where people are not accountable for their messed up ideologies.

It is because you have moved on to the next step which is judgment. If someone is not accountable for what happened then there can be no judgment on that action toward that person. However if a person is accountable then judgment can be made, based on the circumstances. One can be accountable but judged very lightly.

Right...but I think when it comes to a lot of things it is not that simple. Take, for example, television and movies and the destructive effect they have had on morality over the past 40 years. Take all the folk who are raised in this society and can no longer comprehend morality. How can they? They don't understand it. They have never been taught anything but amorality. Are they accountable? What, I suppose, it comes down to is a question of how strong is the Light of Christ. Can a child raised by gay parents watching gay tv shows with gay friends supported by gay parades and news outlets have a chance at ever understanding there may, actually, be a choice in the matter? Is there, perhaps, a level of manipulation that is binary. It may not exist in a single instance, but as an overall societal paradigm, is is possible that accountability has been diminished because of this manipulation? It's an interesting question.

Why does accountability have to be binary? Why "this person OR that person?" If I click a button I am responsible for that choice. If I try to manipulate them to do what I want I am responsible for that choice. If I choose to manipulate some one into clicking a button both me and the button clicker are responsible for our actions.

Why doesn't "open everything" describe the first estate test to you? To me, that was "open everything". That was the pick your major, where are trying to go with this type of decision. We had the testimony of God which was more direct than what the Holy Ghost can do while we are here behind the veil. I think we are held accountable for our character. Our choices in life, whether they be carnally minded or spiritually minded outline a form of character testing from which God can justify our final designated Kingdom. The final judgement is not just based in our desire but our capability as well, it is, at least in part, based on a character exam. Like when my husband was accepted to medical school, not only did he have to do well on the MCAT but he also had to do well in the interview and show through his various volunteering and work that he was desirous to become a doctor all along. This life is more like the interview process, the knowledge part of the testing is done, the first estate test. We all here did well on the first estate test. Now we are being "interviewed" as to our integrity and moral character. Part of the moral character is based in intelligence, so that cannot be separated from the test altogether but it is more than that alone, it is a test of our true nature while we are limited. I know I have used this metaphor before but I liken it to the difference between the soldier who in boot camp says "I will never leave a fallen soldier behind" vs the one who in the heat of the battle actually goes in despite risk to his own life and saves the fallen soldier. Not everyone who intellectually agrees with the plan (passing the first estate test) will have the moral character to actually carry through with it despite being in the "heat of the battle". We are in the part of the test where we don't have all of our faculties available, like when morter explosions are crashing all around the soldier going back for his fallen companions, is his integrity strong enough to withstand those drives or does he value the life of his fellow soldier more than the desire to get out of harms way to save himself. This is a test of character, knowledge is part of the character but may not include wisdom or spirituality. We are told to bring up our kids in truth and light. Truth are the facts, light is the ability to discern the truth between different choices while in a state of darkness. Light is the executive functioning, the character. We already had the test of truth, now the focus is the light. Bringing it back to the OP, part of the test of character is emotion, computer like intelligence doesn't concern itself with emotional influences whereas the removal of those drives (under the veil) allows for a more specific test of emotion, of character. This is why the greatest commandments have to do with the emotions of love and empathy.

Freedom may be taken away. Whether this is moral or not, I think, is relative. It is, in fact, the moral choice to deny freedom in some cases. Criminals, being the obvious example. Agency, on the other hand, may not be taken away. No matter what we do to another we cannot take away their agency. God denies freedoms. This is inherent in mortality. We are not completely free because we are imperfect, weak, and lacking in a great deal of intelligence. And this is even relative per the situation we are born into. Some are clearly born with more freedoms than others. God allows this. But everyone of us, kings or slaves, maintains agency. It may or may not be moral to manipulate others moods. That is a separate question from agency. To manipulate another's mood does not remove their agency. It cannot. Agency may not be taken away from us by another. Therefore the search for morality or the lack thereof in such things must be rooted in something other than agency as the guiding principle.

Mimetic Theory, by Rene Girard, may shed some light on this. Desire is merely copied, mimicked. It's mimetic in that once a person sees something someone wants (say an iPhone or S5), now that person wants it too. Ontological Hermeneutics (not exactly the same as regular hermeneutics) describes what's referred to as a background and a foreground in our minds. Charles Taylor has written quite a bit about these. When thoughts, emotions, impressions, etc occur in the background, they are typically not articulated enough for us to respond to and think deeply, or authentically, about. This causes us to be acted upon by these inarticulate, background thoughts, emotions, etc. Once we do bring something out of the background, into the foreground, it is articulated and we are more apt to act, rather than be acted upon. Mimetic theory purports that if our desire is merely mimicked, copied, it is because we do not bring that mimicked desire out of the background, and into the foreground for examination. This is what creates the "herd" mentality that causes us to forfeit, or under utilize our agency. My overall point is that regardless of what manipulations marketing uses, they are only successful when people fail to bring their mimetic desires out of the background and into the foreground where they can (among other things) think honestly and openly about who they are, what they want, what they need, and how they are using their agency.

It is also to have long term non-food storage. Though not all LDS seem to do that. Back when I was in Mutual (what Young Men & Young Women were once called - 1965 when I was a teen) we were taught to store fabric, thread, buttons, snaps, etc. Patterns in sizes for all of our family for every day wear. Grandma & Mom taught how to make an apron pattern, then make the apron to my Mutual class.( My parents were not LDS - us kids were. ) They also taught how to take a dress apart and make two different articles of clothing out of it. I wish I had paid closer attention and practiced more- sure could use that skill today!! Emergency Preparedness is more than just 72 hours - you need to be prepared to go for weeks, months or even years. For myself and my husband, I have a strong feeling that we won't be without water or electricity completely, that we need to get barrels set up to collect rain water, and get alternative cooking - also I feel a great need to turn my side section of the lot, and the back into a raised, intensive food garden, complete with greenhouse. We both feel that we need to get some form of generators - to power our refrigerator and small freezer. I want to have professionals come in and set up my wood/coal burning parlor stove - to use to heat the entire house. It can also be a small cook stove. Some LDS are into guns and ammo - to be used to protect what they have. I am for guns and ammo to kill animals for food. BUT first I must learn how to dress out those animals - which in reality won't happen. I am 62, husband is 72 and the most I have ever in my life have done is gut and clean trout and salmon! BUT I know two young families (one of which is LDS) who do butcher livestock! The LDS family is willing to raise the livestock then butcher it for a fee and homemade bread from scratch! So - we can pay them and with their grain that I will grind, make them bread to total up the $$ amount. My parents were raised during the Great Depression, their homes were mini mercantile stores. When they shopped for food that they didn't raise or grow themselves, they shopped for several months worth at a time, not by the week or meal. We canned, preserved, pickled, jammed and jellied during the entire harvest season. We had wooden apple crates in the cellar filled with straw that held root vegetables for consumption during the winter and into spring - until the garden was ready to harvest. We had two apple trees in our yard, a neighbor had plums, and another had a different type of plums, still another had pears. We swapped fruits. Our two trees produced so much fruit that we, a family of 12, just could not consume, preserve, jam/jelly all of it. Same with our neighbors. Mom taught some of the young wive's how to can. The only thing Mom didn't can was meats. She did not have a pressure cooker - she cold canned everything. When I first separated from hubby #1 - I took the food and half of the cooking appliances. Money was tight- really tight. Every month I bought $5.00 worth of extra food. I also quit buying bread and bought flour and yeast so I could make my own bread. I also quit buying noodles and made my own. A year later I lost my job, and my unemployment benefits were not enough to pay all of my bills AND purchase food. I went on Food Stamps and got assistance from church. The assistance was personal hygiene items, laundry soap, necessary items that food stamps won't pay for. The food stamps was only $45.00 a month - thankfully I had enough food storage to make up for it. I worked odd jobs, and cleaned homes for money to pay for gas to go out on job interviews. I also turned my yard and neglected flower beds into vegetable gardens. One house I lived in had a *to die for* porch. It was protected from the worst of the storms and from the street and neighbors. The hardware store in town sold me six huge peat pots that were cracked down the side for $0.05 each and I cleaned three houses from top to bottom for the money to buy potting soil, veggie starts & some seeds. Three sisters in the branch gave me the turntables from their busted microwaves (they had three each) to use as plant saucers for those huge pots. I had fresh salad makings for three months! My HT/VT couple also gave me 1/3 of their greenhouse space to grow veggies - they helped me grow fall and winter vegetables! I bartered my cleaning skills, and bread making skill with members of the church. One sister sewed church clothes for me. Another cut my hair and gave me manicures. One brother installed some light fixtures and helped me make screens for my windows and screen doors (I had 4 exterior doors) for loaves of bread. All he wanted was 4 loaves - I made him 8 loaves a month for a year. In June, Husband and I gave a 5th Sunday presentation on Emergency Preparedness - Food Storage. We emphasized that it is more than 72 hours, 3 or 6 months, that it is more than just food. It was like discussing my Mother's shopping habits, and what was in her pantry. It was also about the bolts of fabric, tins of thread spools, upteen tins of buttons, zippers, etc. removed from garments too worn to wear anymore and that had been *re-purposed* into rag rugs, rag hot pads, etc. Spirit Dragon said: To me, the Lord will provide by giving me the skills, knowledge and siblings in Zion who have the skill sets I do not have that I can barter and trade with. By living a spiritual life, I will then be in-tune with the Holy Spirit to receive all of this.

This is the classic defence of the wealthy when called to task on the nature of greed or sin of avarice. Our conservative lady prime minister, the late unlamented Margaret Thatcher, once confused her economics with theology by pointing out that, had the Good Samaritan no money, he would have been unable to help the needy traveller. The problem here is a matter of action, not status. If the wealthy were demonstrably becoming less wealthy by their succour of the poor, the sick, the marginal, the oppressed, - blimey, even neutering stray cats, whatever it is they might think most wrong with the world - I might have some sympathy with this position. But the figures show that the wealthy are becoming wealthier, and the poor, poorer. That is the way capitalism works. It sucks wealth out of the 'have-nots', and deposits it with the 'haves'. Those that have advantages, exploit them. Those that don't, can't begin to compete. That is why we need governments to tax and redistribute in our own societies, and, hopefully, spend a little in foreign aid. Because the rich have proven, time and again, that they aren't easily going to be parted from their wealth, and that they are not 'Good Samaritans'. Best wishes, 2RM.

It is my impression that the nations of the civilized world in the last days are represented symbolically Babylon. Anciently Magog was basically a land of the uncivilized barbarians. I have wondered what would be going on in the world in our modern times that would cause and allow support of a global movement bent on the genocide of Israel. I do think we are seeing the beginnings of the unbelievable. I also think there is some misunderstanding concerning Jews being converted verses the Jews returning to Jerusalem. It is my understanding that anti-Semitism has reached new high in all of Europe that is comparable to what was going on in Germany under the 3rd Reich. Something else I have wondered about concerns what many call the battle of Armageddon. My research indicates that no battle has ever been fought in the place which was anciently called Armageddon – rather this was the place of gathering for all the tribes of Israel in preparation for going into battle or war – that would actually take place elsewhere. I have wondered if Armageddon is symbolic of preparations for war by all the nations of the world. Anyway some thoughts.

I think these are useful distinctions to make. I would be tempted though, to divide the poor into two groups; the relatively poor, and the absolutely poor. The relatively poor being those who have sufficient to meet immediate needs, but aren't doing quite so well as their contemporaries. The absolutely poor being those who cannot meet their immediate needs, and suffer hunger. Clearly we have a moral duty to succour the absolutely poor, so far as we are able, but no such duty to the relatively poor. Best wishes, 2RM.

I do not believe it is possible to be both wealthy and righteous. Indeed, I do not believe it is possible to be both wealthy and in any way moral. This is a tough position for Americans to take on board, I know. I just don't understand how one might be, say, a millionaire, and simultaneously ignore the plight of the fully one third of the world's population, some 2 billion people, who eke out meagre lives on less than $1 per day, and then claim to be 'righteous'. I know I am not particularly righteous, or moral, but I know also that if I ever had that sort of money, it would very quickly be spent to improve the lot of the hungry, and my scant knowledge of the Gospels leads me to believe that this would be what Jesus would do, too. Best wishes, 2RM

it can be useful in small amounts in moving a person... but too much is debilitating and harmful.

In the headlines today... China will create own Christian belief system amid tensions with church, says official New Chinese theology must suit Chinese culture and values, State Religious Affairs director says http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1568209/china-will-create-own-christian-belief-system-amid-tensions-church-says This is an excellent modern example of how the Great Apostasy occurred. Constantine created a state church out of Christianity and it was modified to meet the political ends of the Roman Empire. Henry VIII started a state church so he could get divorced. Martin Luther was sheltered by German kings so they could diminish the power of the Roman Church over their domain. Now we see a new state chuch being created in real-time, for political purposes. In 500 years (if the world lasts that long) there will be Chinese Christians contending with Roman Catholics and Protestants that they are the true church! It's the way of history.

It's sort of a sticky wicket of a situation isn't it? On the one hand, you don't want to destroy a child's faith and/or learning about revelation and going to the Lord. However, on the other hand, perhaps an even more important lesson to learn is that A. Not every feeling we get is revelation and. B. You don't get revelation for things that are not your stewardship. Where a child goes to school is not the child's place to say. It is the parents. It is their right to receive revelation for their children on this, and regardless of the child's impressions, it is the parent's decisions and place. As also pointed out, there are legal issues sometimes in play, and regardless of feelings, sometimes we have to do what we have to do legally. So one could try, as an example -- What if I prayed and felt very strongly that I was going to be the next bishop? Would it be my place to go to the Stake President and tell him that I was? What if then I wasn't called to that position? Would that mean the church was false, of that the Stake President was wrong? Can our feelings get in the way of God communicating with us? Etc... In the end, the parent needs to go to the Lord and do as they feel the Spirit directs them. If the answer there is contradictory to the child's "revelation" then it is time to teach that child about stewardship and obedience. If it the answer is the same as the child's then emphasize the revelation and use that as the focus of teaching. Either way, care is required, and the parent should very carefully follow the Spirit's guidance.

Good thoughts. As I see it, there are three tiers to motivation. 1. Fear. 2. Hope for reward. 3. Love. The highest, and best reason to be and do good is, as we know, love. Love of God and love of fellow-man. However, the other two tiers, where lesser reasons, are still valid reasons that are consistent throughout God's word as given in the scriptures. The scriptures are consistent with warnings of destruction for failure to be and do good, and they are replete with the promises of reward for doing and being good. I see it as necessary in the training/raising of children to address all three motivations. I think it is inappropriate to disregard the first two tiers. Parents that ignore them and only go with "love" as the solution to raising someone fail to teach them important concepts of consequence for behavior (punishment/reward). Consequence for behavior is a key aspect of agency. However, as you have implied, I think that it's very natural to fall into defaulting to the first tier, as in, "Behave or be punished", as the full measure of parenting. It is well to remember and incorporate more fully the other tiers as well -- most particularly instilling in our children a love of righteousness, God, and their fellow-men.

Good point! There are actually two battles of the forces of Gog and Magog against God's people. The first is the Battle of Armageddon. No specific nations are mentioned, but Gog and Magog are simply all those who combine against Israel at Armageddon before Jesus appears to the whole world at the Second Coming. The second Gog and Magog battle occurs at the end of the millennium. That's a really interesting topic. If we consider that 3rd Nephi gives us a "type" or template for things which are to come, we see a pattern. Here are the steps as an overview. Prophets proclaim the signs of the first advent (Samuel the Lamanite in particular). The people disregard the warning and the signs appear as prophesied. Many people believe because of the signs. Thirty-three years goes by and people begin to lose faith and patience. Wars ensue. A great destruction occurs. The people who were killed were mostly the wicked ones and the more righteous people (terrestrial kingdom) survive. This is what occurs at the destruction preceding the Second Coming. The Lord appears and teaches the people. They embrace his teachings and live in the United Order with all property in common. (This represents the Millennium.) After a few generations, unbelief starts to grow among the people who did not see the Savior's visit. The three Nephites don't minister among them any more. Apostasy grows. Members of the church abandon the United Order and cease to have all things in common. Social classes emerge based on wealth and opportunity for education. Political divisions ensue. At the end, the Nephite and Lamanites are not "racial" or ethnic groups. They are political groups. (Remember the Lamanites and Nephites intermarried during the years of unity and peace--there were no more "-ites" among them!) Finally, war breaks out, society collapses, and utter destruction is visited upon them. (Final war of Gog and Magog.)We tend to focus on Armageddon because it's the closest to us, but there is a second battle of Gog and Magog. I suspect that this one will be pointed toward the destruction of Zion, the New Jerusalem and will probably take place in North America. The Lord's visit to the Americas was a literal event, but it also contains the symbolic outline of the events that will occur after the Second Coming down to the last battle of Gog and Magog at the Millennium's end.

Please cite the doctrine that we teach that contradicts Paul and John. I suspect it may contradict your understanding of what they are saying or lack of understanding on what we truly believe. Also, please tell us what denomination of Christianity you are a part of so that we can have a better discussion.

I have not read every post, but as a practicing LDS and any practicing LDS should know or come to the realization very quickly that from a historical documented stand point we have NOTHING on the Catholic church. You can make all the arguments you want about the "great apostasy" and weather it did or didn't happen. I personally happen to be a believer, however I am not so naive to think that I "Prove" anything. If you want proof go to a Roman Catholic church and you will find a chart hung up somewhere with a picture of Christ at the top and every Pope down to modern time. This is documented and traceable undisputed fact. As LDS there comes a point and time in our religion were a leap of faith is needed....a big leap. If you want to enter into a scholarly discussion about theology with a Catholic Priest (and I don't know that the responses posted have been done by such a person) by all means go ahead but know that you are out gunned. They go to school for this, they receive training, and instruction. We do not.

Ok, so you guys are posting huge volumes, so I haven't read all of these posts, but I want to point out one simple fact. The Great Apostasy is not about losing truth, or corruption of Christ's Church. It's about loss of authority, specifically the keys of the Church, the loss of the keys given to Peter, James and John, and the priesthood keys held by the apostles. Truth (or lack thereof) is a side effect of not having those keys. Now, anyone can argue that they have the keys, or that the keys were not lost, or that they are no longer requred, but LDS doctrine teaches that these keys were restored to Joseph Smith. And historically, Mormons look at the shift from central authority of apostles to a shift and competition at the bishop level to who was authorized to run His church. There was an Eastern and Western schism, and various minor groups that all claimed authority. That schism and loss of central authority is the Great Apostasy. But that does not mean that all truth was lost, or that the people were evil or planning on corrupting the churches. We could have lost the BIble altogether, or had a perfect copy of it, but the apostasy would still exist. Simply put, another church could have the identical doctrines and practices as the LDS Church, but still lack priesthood authority. Mormons reject RLDS and FLDS claims of authority because they lack a lineage of apostolic succession (or more specificically, we don't recognize their claims of succession). Simiarly LDS reject the apostolic succesion of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and their various protestant branches. No, the key to understanding the Great Apostasy, is understanding the Restoration and the various keys given to Joseph Smith.

If you follow Mormonism then you not exactly why we believe our church is true. But I'm not going to get into a "my spiritual experience is just as valid as yours", useless debate on the matter. You have the right to your views. I don't begrudge you that. Edit: Oh, and as far as the not taught in the Bible thing...are you not aware that Mormons believe that many plain and precious truths were taken from the Bible during the great apostasy? If you did not know that about us, now you do.

I was thinking in that wonderful talk by Elder Uchtdorf, he is one of my favorite speakers. :) One of the things I recall in that talk was first of all, the acknowledgment he gave with regards to mistakes that were not in harmony with LDS values, principles or doctrine from members and church leaders: The other part I recall is: The whole talk is amazing :)

The problem with the apostasy and the restoration is that both are still taking place. The restoration has not been completed nor is the apostasy ended. There are still changes to come before Christ will return as king and rule the world. And there are still many that think that in the name of G-d that they will or ought to oppose the restoration of apostles and prophets sent specifically to prepare a people to accept Christ. As much as men love to compete with themselves – those that adhere to the trump of warning of prophets will gladly unite with all that hear the warning and come to the aid of the Saints of G-d. They will uphold the family and will marry to become one in marriage as G-d has commanded. They will hold life as sacred and especially the creation of human life to protect the great responsibility of bringing froth another generation. Those that say the works of G-d are done – declare a lie. Those that say G-d has ended his word (scripture) misunderstand G-d. Those that think these are not the last days – will be sweep away when Christ does come – and that time is quickly approaching.

Thank you Anatess, you said exactly what I wanted to say. Take the negative and bad out of any historical context and everything looks evil. The post entirely misses all the good things the Catholic Church has done throughout history, and there's far, far more good, and holy people, in our history, then there is bad. But what else can I say? The Catholic Church is nearly 2000 years old, our history is so large, of course there are going to be some rotten eggs. It's a huge target and everyone likes to takes hits at it. I hope this is the end of this thread as well.

Money in and of itself is neutral. It's when, where, how, and why that can make it good or bad, righteous or unrighteous.

Yet I don't think any of the 70 or the 12 or the first presidency made wealth any type of a priority. Many just happened to be successful in careers that paid well.

Spirit Dragon, have you listened to Dr. Wahls' explanation on Mitochondria? She explains why exactly we need to eat whole foods. She personally was dx'd with MS. She was in a wheelchair. She quit chemo and radically changed her diet. She went from a wheel chair to walking in months and in 8 months was riding a bike. I truly believe there isn't a disease out there that can't be cured with what Heavenly Father gave us - FOOD! Novel idea: Food as Medicine. But its working for me. I've been drinking dandelion root tea every day and my chronic kidney issues are gone. I also take Milk Thistle. I sweeten my tea with local raw honey and my allergies are nearly gone. I rarely take a Zyrtec anymore. I can breath. Last winter I saw a recipe for a natural decongestant. Radishes and ginger and honey. Surprise! Surprise! Works as good as Sudafed.

Perhaps I should have started this differently - Who thinks they know where the land of Magog is and how long it has been since any one tried to put that place under singular rule as one country with one leader?

I wonder why so many posters on this forum are alphabetically challenged. :) M.