Leaderboard

In sci-fi and comic books, continuing story lines sometimes introduce new material that seems to contradict something established earlier in the series. "Retroactive continuity", or "retcon", is making up creative (or sometimes not creative) explanations to make the "old" story fit reasonably well with the "new" facts. This is a perfectly acceptable pastime with fictional stories -- a rather fun game, in fact. But I see what look to me like similar attempts often made to explain how Elements X and Y of the gospel work together. For example, the many early explanations of why blacks could not be ordained to the Priesthood or participate in temple work (besides baptism for the dead) were, in effect, a retcon attempt to explain how the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the higher law that went with it could fit together with the doctrine prohibiting African blacks (but not those black-skinned people of other origins) from receiving these authorities and blessings. In reality, we don't know what those reasons are; any of the "old" explanations that have been openly disclaimed as LDS doctrine might indeed be true. The same principle applies to the "explanations" offered by many putative Latter-day Saints today to explain away the Priesthood ban as "racism" or some other leadership vice. It's all retconning, and in the end, it's probably all nonsense. I would think it obvious to any believing Saint that such things should be avoided. Sadly, they are not. The previous situation is but one example (going in both "directions", as it were) of exactly this phenomenon taking place among those who should have known better, or at least should have been much wiser. But the same thing happens every Sunday in gospel doctrine classes around the world, where people come up with the most marvelous and inventive explanations for this or that scriptural teaching. I do not exempt myself from being guilty in participating in such nonsense. Along with many of you, I have done this very thing on this very forum. It seems one of our less tractable human weaknesses. But we believe a REVEALED religion! That means that, unlike those early "Christian" philosophers of the first few centuries AD, we have something far more reliable to depend on than reheated Platonic philosophy and inventive but hollow explanations about things we just can't understand so let's make something up. How would it be if, when we had a question or deep concern, we took it humbly to our Lord in fasting and mighty prayer instead of whining about it and making sure everyone else knew all about our oh-so-perceptive concern? How would it be if, instead of finding some way to say what a pervert Joseph Smith was or what a racist Brigham Young was or what hidebound ignoramuses the prophets have all been, we kept our mouths shut and went to God with our questions, assuring him that we could be trusted with important information and certainly wouldn't blab it all over the place if given such revelation? I don't know, but I have a guess. My guess is that we would have a whole lot more personal understanding of the gospel than we actually have. My further speculation is that there are many among us, perhaps not as a percentage but still surprisingly numerous, who already do exactly this, and who as a result have great knowledge given them that is withheld from the rest of us because we don't ask in faith.

Let your heart not be troubled, neither let it be afraid. Ok? I was the one in my marriage that wanted to leave the church. And my husband has handled it like a champ. He didn't over react. And he didn't judge me. In fact, on more than one occasion he told me he trusted me. That one thing reinforced me more than anything. Knowing he trusted that I was still a good person and that he knew I'd find the path way of truth because he knew who I really was. What a gift he gave me! I look back on those years now as some of the most important of my life...and the life of my marriage. Husband and me...gosh we had some great conversations. We didn't care so much about agreeing. We just tried to practice seeing things from the other's point of view. And that really helped. It made it safe to explore or even get things wrong in front of each other. It felt so safe to be able to trust my husband to know I didn't believe in God or that I didn't trust the priesthood in the church or that I didn't understand if Jesus knew my name. All of it passed and resolved over time. And I felt God walk with me through the whole thing and received more than one witness that it was part of God's plan for my life to experience all of it. But to have my very orthodox, conservative husband walk with me through it to helped me feel so loved and so much less afraid. And I tried to do the same for him. To be there when he talked about how hard it was to be married to someone who might leave the church or to think about the scary alterations that something like that would bring. I look back now and I wonder if part of the reason it all happened was to teach the both of us how to love more. Pretty cool, eh? And I really cherish all the building that those experiences gave to my marriage. Priceless.

A liberal complaining about solving cultural problems with political solutions.... Hmmm...

Whether or not our prayers meet with the same answer is unimportant, as long as we are all receiving bona fide revelation from God. Truth is large and we are small. If you and I ask God the same question, both in faith, and we each receive an answer according to our level of understanding, we may be assured that each answer is correct. But since we are not identical people and are likely at different levels of understanding, your revelation and mine might be somewhat (or very) different in content. Thus, my revelation is mine, private, not generally shared, and the same with yours. Then you probably do not understand what I'm talking about. Or maybe I don't understand what you're talking about; you refer to 'the Great Debate' as if it's a thing, a known quantity, an understood and ongoing concern, but I am not familiar with the term in the present context. My concern is not philosophy. All philosophy is foolishness, however much I personally may engage in it. What I ultimately care about is divine truth, and divine truth is not discovered through philosophical meanderings. It is discovered through revelation, and only through revelation. If you read the OP carefully, I think you will see that its motive was actually quite the opposite of that suggested by your warning. The "select few" who are privy to divinely approved answers are those who seek the Lord in sincerity, humility, and mighty faith. God is no respecter of persons, so this is a self-selecting "select few". Two siblings were discussing the birth of their younger sister. Billy: Sally came from the cabbage patch. Bobby: No she didn't! The stork brought her! Billy: That's ridiculous. A stork's wings aren't large enough to generate the necessary lift to carry an infant human. She's clearly from the cabbage patch. Bobby: Don't be naive. Does Sally look like she's full of chlorophyll? Soft tissues are not generated by plants, which have rigid cell walls. Billy: Hey, I know! Let's go ask Mommy! Bobby: Shame on you for attempting to shut down our useful and informative debate. My suggestion is not that inquiry cease. Rather, I suggest that we go to the fount of knowledge and drink deeply of the pure water, rather than drink downstream after the cattle have waded through it.

I'd be happy to give you some warning points if you are really wanting them. And if you get 3 within a year's period you win an automatic ban from the site.

A very fascinating discussion indeed. For me my faith is constantly shaken due to issues that I've shelved time and again. My testimony of the Book of Mormon is based on an answer to my prayer of faith where I felt a great peace come over me that I believe to be a witness of the spirit. If I am stubborn in my contention that this feeling was from God than I have my answer and there can be no higher appeal to be made. This is great except that I have have felt the same feeling on numerous other occasions that seemingly led me astray (not into sin, but the answers that came didn't turn out the way I interpreted the feeling to indicate). This leads to a conundrum that is at least two-fold. On the one hand I can't trust the feeling that I perceive to be the spirit guiding me to be constant and true, on the other hand I can trust the feeling... but not my interpretation of its meaning. Either way the result is the same. If I can be wrong about interpreting it now or in the past, how do I trust that my witness of the Book of Mormon or anything else is true. How do I trust spiritual witnesses in the future? So if I take the spiritual witness off the table for what I can rely on to build my testimony and faith, I feel left with reconciling my faith doctrinally by digging into the scriptures. This works to a point as I feel confident that the scriptures make a very compelling case for "mormonism" as it were, but obviously proof is elusive - hence the faith thing. I've fought with this for over a decade, but I have never felt as sure about the gospel truth as I did when I received my testimony of the Book of Mormon which seems forever tainted by the possibility that I set myself up to have a feeling that I convinced myself was an answer when neither are true. The other struggle is that I have never enjoyed attending church services, so part of me would love to prove the church wrong so I could stop going, while on the other hand I would be devastated if the organization I have dedicated so much of my life to - paying tithing, going on a mission, home teaching monthly, etc. is a fraud. Are unresolved cyclical doubts the same as shaken faith syndrome?

I don't know how on-point it is, but as I was reading the OP I thought of the following quote from Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 194-195):

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, or if this is really, really old news, but I thought I'd make aware that The Maxwell Institute has a youtube channel and one of their playlists is the Hugh Nibley's Pearl of Great Price Lecture Series. I enjoyed it, thought others might also.

The event hasn't been cancelled. It's only postponed until a coatroom can be found of sufficient size to hold the requisite checked privilege.

"I am referring here to establishment Republicans, which for 150 years have consistently been the party of the rich and ungenerous." Two clickable lies...go ahead...click...I know you want too Republicans give to charity twice as much as Democrats and Forbes Magazine found that 60 percent of the Ultra-Wealthy affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison.

Me. PAAAAALERIIIIIDERRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!! I want my money back!!

Joseph Smith's self-reflection on this topic (his mistakes) is as follows: Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing; the wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature, like other men. No man lives without fault. Joseph is accused of a great many things, most of which I expect are either simply false or taken wildly out of context. I personally see very little of what Joseph did as "blunders". In his position, I would never have done half so well, nor IMO would have any other man (or woman) who criticizes him. In my view, the membership's problem vis-à-vis Joseph Smith is less an application of the false doctrine of infallibility and more a lack of application of the true doctrine of faith in the words of a prophet.

It's worth pointing out that the phrasing in the scriptures is "vain repetitions". I don't doubt some blessings on the food qualify, but I would think the solution would be to stop the vanity not pray less given the scriptures also talk of praying always.

Who do you have to pay off to get the warning points to go away? (Not that I need to know personally, of course. I'm asking for a friend.)

This is an interesting thing, and something that conflicts a bit in my own understanding of teaching, helping others, sharing the gospel, etc. Where, I suppose, do we draw the line of sharing our faith building experiences to help build others faith, and keeping our mouths shut? That's a tough one methinks. Goes along with the paradox of let-your-light-so-shine and do-not-your-alms-before-men I suppose.

I'm sorry. But this assessment feels rather one dimensional to me. I appreciate the idea that one little breeze of anti mormon sentiment shouldn't topple a strong testimony, but we can't know what happens in peoples hearts. We can't know their experiences and what leads one to an experience with doubt. I look back at my life in the church and I now appreciate so very much my experiences with doubt and disillusionment. They were necessary building blocks and I'm a better person for it. And now after having some experience with this stuff, it hurts me to feel such judgments from other members. Other members who may have looked at my experience at some unstable moment in time and completely misunderstood what God may have been doing with me.

This article is, frankly, lunacy. A couple of thoughts that came to mind as I read it: --How dare the prosecutor in a manslaughter case talk about nonsense like "evidence" and "witneses" and thinking his job was to evaluate the facts of a single specific homicide! Dosn't he know there's a race war on here? --"[M]any from the white, Christian community stood to the side and, loving the sound of their own voices, gave a tone-deaf running commentary on what had caused the bleeding and how much blood was being lost"? Stupid conservatives, thinking that talking about a problem indicates that the talkers want the problem solved! They should have understood--as one wise woman said--that (to coin a phrase) --"Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown, Sr., the parents of Michael Brown and the most wronged parties here, . . ." Now, let's have a little honesty: The Michael Brown apologists don't want understanding. That, and a buck fifty, will get me a ham sandwich. (Which would have been indicted more easily than Darren Wilson was.) They want money. Taxpayer funds are ideal; but if those can't be had, then they want police to turn a blind eye as they inflict a reign of terror over those who got off their keesters and worked for a living. And the destruction of minority-owned businesses last week in Ferguson just teaches us that it really doesn't matter if the "haves" in this scenario are the traditionally "privileged" (i.e. "white") groups or not--say what you will about Benjamin Crump and his merry band of morons; but at least they're equal-opportunity kleptocrats.

Excellent thread.....I have wondered the same thing before. I do wonder why people don't get on their knees and pray and ask for answers. I can remember telling investigators that if Joseph Smith is a prophet and the Book of Mormon is true everything falls into place and if you pray about it and find out it's true the it's important to you. If you pray and feel like your answer a no...then do nothing. Can't tell you how many people I sat with and listened to their concerns and things and questions that bothered them and when I asked them if they prayed about what was troubling them , their answer was no. If we pray we will get answers, may not be right away but we will get answers to our prayers.

Well I'm in the same boat as you in some aspects. If attending church (which your husband seems to forbid) literally going to tear your family apart - don't do it. Despite his reservation and sceptiscism, I'm assuming your husband is a wonderful spouse and father? If this is the case, try baby steps that aren't so abrasive to him, like maybe a ward activity that doesn't revolve around a sit down doctrine lesson but is primarily a social opportunity for the community to get together. Or maybe you can volunteer at a charity event and invite him to join us, emphasising that this isn't a "Mormon thing" but a "giving back to the community thing". If you're just wanting social interaction, while the Church is known well for this dynamic, there are other venues you can find this. Maybe look online for meet up groups with other mothers who have toddlers. Good luck.

LiterateParakeet, on 24 Nov 2014 - 03:18 AM, said: I'm interested LitPara. You're applying personal experience to ALL the world. That strikes me as a stretch. As much as I accept that any of us can fall away if we do not remain diligent in our obedience, study, faith, prayers, and the like, the context of your post seems to imply that it can hit anyone in spite of these things. I would be interested in hearing more about your experience (if your comfortable sharing) and how you have come to this conclusion, assuiming I'm not reading too much into it. As a broader discussion, I'd like to discuss the causes of shaken faith syndrome and what we can do to avoid or overcome it.

I just might have to listen to this.. My wife and I have been studying the Pearl of Great Price. I hope others have done the same. If not I encourage you to do so. Awesome !!

...hmm That's understandable; you*ve pay all the food for your horsen.

Silhouette, If your husband has decided that church is not for him, then your marriage counselor is right. You are being unreasonable to expect your husband to do something he has clearly disavowed/dislikes. That being said, you are in an abusive relationship. You need to get out. I see you are located in CA. Divorce laws are favorable to spouses in CA. If you have been married for some amount of time you will be entitled to alimony. Get an attorney, a good one. Move out. Find a job. You are scared for nothing. It is never as bad as you imagine it will be.

Probably has to do with them committing 49% of the homicides and 54% of the robberies. One would think that's a pretty easy cause effect relationship to see.

Agree with the profound effect comment. But overall public acceptance in sheer numbers is not necessarily the prime variable, imo, for judging profoundness of impact. Without the media's subtle teachings of normalcy, getting right at the core of Joe-sixpack's moral center, the legality/illegality would never have been an issue in the first place.

What I find myself saying a lot is to be a 'patient missionary'. I agree with Anatess and the subtleties of being Catholic. You seem to indicate you were not Catholic, and therefore I would assume you not married in the church or otherwise under the marriage sacrament. Anatess was a better Catholic than myself, so I would defer to her on the impact your joining a church has on your husband's standing in his. Overall, I would recommend moving forward in your persuit of the LDS faith, but be sensitive to your husband. Don't try to eat the whole elephant. Take it slow. Watch that the church does not consume too much of your time and attention (it will try - callings can be demanding). As long as you look for a balance, your husband should see the change for the better. You will be a better wife and mother. Take your time, but keep moving.

Vortex is right about job protection from religious persecution, but the statement above would be grounds for termination. Best just let you personal life be your personal life and not take it to work. It may seem unnatural in a small company but I bet there are a lot of peronal things you wouldn't talk about at work.

Having converted from Judaism, I can say that "Reform" Judaism is so far from the real thing as to be almost un recognizable as Judaism. While they may say some pretty words fro time to time claiming otherwise, it's very much a self-centered approach. Keeping Kosher has no personal meaning for you? No problem! We applaud you for being "your authentic self" by not keeping kosher! Oh....and the fact that you never, not once even attempted it? No problem! Just be "your authentic self!". I'll probably just get really annoyed if I read this guy's words.

And herein is the crux of the matter: The difference between 'Mormonism' and the rest of the world is that the world puts its faith in the reasoning of men, while those in the Lord's kingdom put their faith in Jesus Christ. You are mistaken, by the way. Revelation is not capricious, though of course it's not easily handleable like policy. As a highly respected LDS scholar named Hugh Nibley once said: That was the classical education which Christianity embraced at the urging of the great St. Augustine. He had learned by hard experience that you can’t trust revelation because you can’t control it—the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, and what the Church needed was something more available and reliable than that, something, he says, commodior et multitudini tutior—“handier and more reliable for the public”—than revelation or even reason, and that is exactly what the rhetorical education had to offer. [Emphasis in original speech] (Outstanding address, by the way, possibly the best given by a man known for giving amazing lectures. Worth your while to read it in full.) If we want to know God, we must go to God. All the discussion and philosophizing will never, ever, under any circumstances, bring us to a knowledge of God. Only God can do that.

My guess is that the rabbi is defining conservatives by their issue stances--i.e. Pro-life, Pro-traditional marriage, anti-gambling, anti-pornography, etc., rather than by the classic conservative political philosophy of controlling social mores through the force of government authority.

Maybe the best answer is, rather than taking the bait and choosing culture over politics, we simply do both. It's like the classic college professor who says: A or B? And the brilliant freshman who correctly answers, "Yes."

I would argue that there are no knots. But...obviously it's perspective. Not to get snarky either...but rejecting it in the 20th century is still highly problematic. Practicing it...yeah...different matter. I do think it highly interesting (and this isn't necessarily directed at you...just using your post as a springboard for a thought) that we struggle SO much with issues that are 100% absolutely cultural as if they have any bearing whatsoever on eternal truth. Polygamy being a prime example, of course. The wrongness of polygamy as a theory is entirely cultural. Entirely. And yet so many cannot look past their own obvious cultural bias in that and similar things. Interesting.

Usage of words like these does more to hurt the conservative position than... ... :D

Off topic...but I disagree.

I looked up dhimmitude ...was not disappointed

The notion of redirecting our efforts into cultural outreach sounds nice, but overlooks three facts: 1) Judicial fiat did far more to normalize gay marriage than Ellen or Will & Grace did; 2) the mass communications channels necessary for cultural outreach on the scale of what gay rights groups have done, are largely controlled by gatekeepers (in entertainment, news-gathering, and academia) who are devoted to squelching alternative viewpoints; and 3) libertines always--always--view people with self-discipline as "mean"; and no amount of PR is going to change that. Methinks the good rabbi is trying to lure us into a sucker's game, the end of which is that we quit fighting in any arena and accept the political and cultural dhimmitude liberals have in store for us.

Yawn. I stopped reading half-way through when I realized that this author, like many other social critics in our culture, seriously believes that massively large groups of people in our country all think and move with a single consciousness. That idea deserves an F even in a high school essay, and yet I see it all the time in the writings of our elite thinkers. Sensitivity to shades of gray, openness to the strong points in your opponents' thinking, and a willingness to hold opposing ideas in uncomfortable tension... these are the hallmarks of great thinking. But what do you expect from a publication with "Beast" in its name? They're publishing this silliness for one reason only: to attract eyeballs to their site so they can charge higher rates to online advertisers.

My husband and I were very active when we first met and in the early years of our marriage. I was in the Relief Society Presidency and he was Elders Quorum President. The kids came along, and we stopped going when they were young because it was such a battle every Sunday to get them to get ready and attend. They absolutely hated Church. Hated their classes, and hated us for making them go. My husband baptized each of them when they were 8, and we all promptly became inactive. Fast-forward to present. Both kids are inactive still, they drink and have no idea of moral standards and despise organized religion. They have no tolerance for me attending Church and the duties and demands that my new calling entails. I've started attending again these past several months and received a new calling last week. My husband drinks every night, watches porn, lies, keeps secrets from me about my children and how they are doing because he agrees with them that it's none of my business, hasn't touched me in any affectionate way in over 7 years now. No hugs, cuddles, or kisses, no hand holding, no kind words, no empathy or sympathy about anything that concerns me, and sex has been non-existent for at least 7 years too. There has been zero support for me for the demands of my new calling (Primary Secretary), and he allows both our children to abuse me verbally and emotionally. Once my son shoved me and knocked me down and I called 911 because I was afraid. My husband got on the phone with them on the house phone and told them I was lying. The police came and threatened to arrest ME for lying and trying to file a false report. He is impatient and selfish, and views the Church and members with contempt and hatred. If I had the means to take care of myself financially, I would be out of this hell-hole faster than you could blink. As it is though, I must endure because I have nowhere else to turn, unless I wanted to be out on the streets homeless. I'm trying to be a good Mormon by accepting this new calling and attending regularly, counseling with my Bishop, etc., but as the saying goes, "It's hard to soar with the eagles when you're surrounded by turkeys." This might be awfully harsh, but it's the God's truth: If I had it all to do again, I wouldn't. Not with him.

Great post! What you are talking about is one's ability to spiritual discern. This dilemma is spoken of many times in the scriptures. I like Zechariah's words about it, chapter 11; " 17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened." The "right eye" is symbolic of one's ability to discern spiritual things. The "right arm" is symbolic of one's ability to carry out spiritual things. Just like we have a right eye and a left eye and a right arm and left arm we are dual beings. It is said more clearly from modern day prophets and apostles like David O Mckay and Elder Bednar that we are both physical and spirit beings. Elder Holland made it clear that the "mind" can have ailments as in depression etc. that are physical in nature, the physical mind or in other words the brain. Those being different from the thoughts that are generated by the "mind" of the spirit. Our ability to differentiate the source of those thoughts, passions, feelings etc is called spiritual discernment or metaphorically represented by the "right" side of the body, on the right hand or the right eye, etc. We want to find ourselves on the right side of Christ in the end. That is the test of this life - do we pay attention to the right side or the left side or like Zechariah so poetically said when one's faith is "shaken" what happens is the right eye becomes darkened. In other words, spiritual discernment is more difficult. The whole focus then is to keep our "right eye" clear. That is the purpose and effect of the gospel, to enhance our spiritual discernment. Without it, the natural man takes over, the "left" side of the body, or the physical or carnal man takes over and then we don't see things spiritually as well. Maybe this is why I spend so much time talking about what is physical vs what is spiritual, to discern the two can be difficult but that is the test. Elder Bednar; "The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ." Like you stated, the conundrum exists because we are dual beings, everything has to be processed through the natural man brain. Even if the spirit is the source of the message it still has to be processed through the brain. So, the best way to help (but not totally do away with the conundrum) is to do everything we can to distinguish what is from "natural man" the physical brain vs what is from the spirit (the way the Holy Spirit communicates is directly to our spirit). We "put off" the natural man to tune into the spirit or to improve our spiritual discernment. You are describing THE test as Elder Bednar says - which inclination do we respond to - natural man vs spirit, right eye vs left eye.

News flash: Even Christians -- even Evangalicals -- are allowed to base their opinions and reactions on actual reality rather than on how some population segment feels about things.

You may be having a problem repenting because you haven't committed a sin. Ahh..everyone will take exception to my statement...ahh. You are sweating the small stuff. Your heart appears to be in the right place. You are not swearing because you are rebel hell-bent on fighting society. You're just human.

There is great wisdom in trusting in The Lord *first and foremost* and withholding judgement and resisting the temptation to feel we're duty-bound to reach the same conclusion that somebody else reached. We may greatly respect them, love them, trust them, find their reasoning highly compelling, logical, believable, etc. But despite all of that, we need to receive our own witness. And we need to hold to the witnesses that we've already received. As TFP points out, what about archeological evidence or lack of "sufficient" evidence, what about "proof" ..? How often do we hear somebody saying they've proven a point and so the only intelligent, logical, reasonable thing for us to do is to accept their argument.. and their conclusion.. As though a cunning and/or a well-crafted argument is enough to establish truth. Truth is independent of arguments and logic. Truth is not established by our limited understanding of it. If we truly believe that our Father is the embodiment and source of all truth then it is essential that we learn to completely trust Him and believe that he has the ability to help us reach the *right* conclusions .. despite our weakness, limited understanding, and impatience. It's ok to admit, as Nephi, that you don't "know the meaning of all things." All things will be revealed in time. Hold fast to the good and take Pres. Uchtdorf's advice to first "doubt your doubts."

The older I get, and the pains of just getting out of bed, make me wonder why at times I am not more profane. :)

Isn't that kinda like claiming, "Weight loss is beyond our control. If you doubt this try this experiment, become 25 lbs lighter for the next five minutes and then revert back to 25 lbs heavier. If you succeed I stand refuted." Your quip makes a nice rhetorical flair but it's not really a considered experiment.

Graduated in 1977.... When I heard the announcement never gave it another thought. I was 18yrs old and did not care about very much at that time.

"Where were you ... when the ban was lifted" _____________________________________ What? Was I banned? Gosh, gee whillikers, I've only been at this web site a couple of days, and they banned me already? Why? What did I do to deserve that?

I was a firefighter on duty in the firehouse at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. Realizing what a historic occasion it was, I was very excited, but some of the other LDS firefighters did not appear to be so pleased.

Why is this such a common comment members make about other members? M.

1 Nephi 8, is the greatest chapter for shaken faith.

Ahhh...so you would be a pagan.