Leaderboard

I think it reflects wonderfully on the members and on the leadership alike. I sincerely hope that this is not only the first, but more importantly the very last, time you ever feel shame as a member of the Lord's kingdom. As for non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, and anti-Mormons: Those in the great and spacious building will mock and point their fingers. Nephi has showed us the appropriate response: We pay them no heed. We need not concern ourselves with trying to make people like us. Christ's sheep hear his voice; we need only concern ourselves with opening our mouths so they can hear that voice and come unto Christ. Did Adam follow "blindly" when he was commanded to sacrifice, and did so for many years without knowing why? When the angel asked him why he sacrificed, Adam's only response was, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me." And what was the angel's response to Adam? To decry him for being a "sheeple"? To mock and criticize his "following blindly"? No. His response was to give Adam further light and knowledge. That is the way we do things in the Lord's kingdom. It certainly does to me. Then put aside your "heartbroken" feelings and take heart, SF. The Lord is faithful and the Church is true. Homosexuality is a grievous sin that will inevitably result in the destruction of the soul of those who practice it and do not repent; this policy is intended to help people reject that path. In the meantime, the homosexual is still loved of God, and is welcome to come to meetings and begin repenting with the rest of us. Compassion is not telling the girl who keeps cutting herself that there is nothing wrong with her, and by the way, those sure are pretty scars she has carved into her arms. Of course you do. And I sincerely hope you also have compassion for those who are sexually attracted to children. But I bet you don't condone their behavior or wish the Church would receive a revelation on how they should be allowed to sate their carnal appetites. What are you talking about, SF? When and in what way as the "height of the bar" been "lessened"? That is a misapplication of the history. Jesus was standing with a large group of hypocrites who themselves were guilty of the very sin they sought to destroy the woman for. They didn't care a whit about the woman; they were willing to kill her just to get at Jesus. Christ refused at that moment to condemn her, instead telling her what he tells us: Go and sin no more. But this hardly means that Jesus didn't teach against fornication or adultery, or made sure his doctrine was "inclusive" enough so that adulterers and fornicators felt right at home. That is not and never has been the purpose of the gospel. See those last two words quote above? This man left his wife to satisfy his carnal lust. There is nothing honorable about that. If he loved her enough to marry her and to impregnate her twice, then he should have loved her enough to keep Little Charlie out of another man's bodily orifices. How compassionate for his woeful situation would you have been if his new "soul mate" had been a beautiful 18-year-old girl with a 36DD bra? Is he to get a pass because his lusts took him to a man instead of another woman? The Church does not exist to show love and tolerance to "communities", especially when those "communities" define themselves in opposition to God's commandments. How much "love" or "tolerance" do you think the Church should show toward the drug gang community, or the forced prostitution community, or the abortion-on-demand community? The Church exists to show individuals how to feel the Spirit, come to know God, and return to their Father in heaven. In so doing, it provides the community for its members.

Being on the forums here has taught me a lot. I have learned that I better know how to back up any statements I make. I remember in one of my very early posts I had mentioned something that I believed was church doctrine, and I was immediately asked where I had heard this, and would I please show documentation or references. I was completely at a loss. It was just something I had assumed and had heard somewhere. It's been good for me to research and find answers. And, I have actually learned that Classylady doesn't know everything about the Church, there's a lot out there I can learn, and there are people on these forums that I have learned a lot from. Thank you, all.

Does the bishop in a ward tell each and every other potential candidate for any ward callings why they were rejected in favor of another candidate? I don't see why a bishop being called would be any different. Yes it would be interesting, but I don't think it is really practical or relevant, especially because it opens the door to contempt where often no harm is intended.

Forums are how I found the site. Tend to heavily prefer forums for the interactions and honestly tend to ignore articles since they are static.

I listened to Dune by Frank Herbert on Audible and I really enjoyed it.

I would ask him if Nephi had to go alone into Jerusalem after the plates because Laman and Lemuel rigged the die.

Yes, you're right, of course. "Humble" means "lowly". The word "humility" comes from the same root, so has the same idea of lowness. The word can be construed to mean any number of things, such as "mean", "nether", or "abased", all of which have the same root idea as "humble". Other ancillary shades of meaning can be understood, such as "unworthy" or "super-righteous". My point was not that these other meanings don't exist, but that with respect to our religion, the important element of meaning in "humility" has to do with lowliness of heart and the subsequent willingness to be taught.

Finding your status with the Lord generally does not involve your leaders telling you why they make decisions as they do.

I read the one on Charles Schulz.(Oct 29, LDS Living).

Just for the record, I'm the only one who can "bull"y on this site. I am the resident cow (I have horns, so many mistake me for a bull).

Hi, Brother___. How are you today? Thanks for your talk. I appreciated your comment on x.

How does anyone know who has been recommended and rejected? Seriously, how does that get around? It means someone is gossiping and that someone is at a high level. So, yeah, I supported the SP to do a smack down. Unless it is the SP, then I would expect the Area Authority to do the smack down.

Byron makes unwarranted assumptions about several things in this topic. First, he apparently assumes that "Gospel" means only the four Gospels: Matthew through John. The context of the very passage he cites makes that assertion false. Paul is speaking of the Gospel he preached. Others have shown that the Gospels, as texts, had not all been written when he penned Galatians. Even had they, he did not preach the texts of the Gospels. This fact is attested by the rest of the first chapter and, indeed, the whole epistle. Part of his argument is that the Greek word euangelikos means "good news" (in Old English, "gut speil", whence "gospel"). So? Rather than support it, this undermines his position, since "good news" is hardly limited to the first four books of the New Testament. We can examine what Paul meant by "gospel" in 1 Cor 15. The first few verses define the Gospel: it is the good news that responds to Job's question in Job 14:14a: "If a man die, shall he live again?" and his assertion that, though worms destroy this body, yet in [his] flesh, shall he see God. (The passage is not clear. In some translations, it says the opposite: he will see God without his body. My Hebrew is not up to translating this, so we'll use scholars who have worked on it for centuries -- but this is where having a iving prophet is helpful.) The answer to Job's query is "YES!!! And therein lies the nugget that helps us understand why Byron is wrong in his implications. Second, he assumes that we know today what Paul taught the Galatians. In this, he is right, to a point, but only to that point. The particulars of his teaching in Galatia are shouded in silence, but we can deduce that, at least, he taught what he'd preached elsewhere. Knowing what that was is critical to discussing his point in the first few verses of Galatians. Third, he assumes that he was writing about us, but Paul was writing to and about the Galatian saints. This is not to say that we cannot apply it to others, but those "others" must be in the same condition the Galatians were in when Paul chastized them for their apostasy. The Galatians, like many of the early converts to the Church were of two types: Jews who accepted Jesus of Nazareth as their Redeemer and God, and gentiles who had also accepted Christ. Both groups shared the world with the Romans and the Greeks. The Greek philosophers were wise in many things, but they were wrong to the extreme when they hypothesized that matter was evil, and that God, god, or gods must be immaterial while still existing, because He, it, or they were not evil or corruptable. Thus, the apostates of the I & II repeatedly had to be reminded of the central fact of the Gospel: Jesus Christ rose from the dead with a resurrected body, and each of us will be similarly resurrected, as well. That is the good news. In chapter 3, Paul calls his converts foolish. Why? Because they had rejected the true Gospel, the Gospel he had preached, and started following "another gospel: which is not another". Or, in other words, they had become apostates, preferring a false "gospel" to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How shall we apply this scripture to our day? Who follows a false gospel, and who follows the true? Who accepts the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ? Who accepts the literal physical resurrection of all mankind, as Paul, as Peter, as Jesus Himself, taught? Who denies former, who the latter? Who denies both? Answer this question, and we see to whom Paul was writing in our time. I know that we Latter-day Saints accept the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. We know that He sits in yonder heaven in His physical, His resurrected body of flesh and bones. We know that one day, all, from Adam to the last babe to be born in the Millennium of our Lord's reign, will likewise be resurrected. When accusing us of false doctrine, our critics must assure themselves that they are not the apostates. Lest their arguments turn again and rend them. Lehi

For me the Fifth Article of Faith would be the answer to why I was not called (or called even if that ever turns out to be the case) 5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. Its all right there... As for people who for some reason snicker at a man that got turned down and simply showing off their own sins. Anyone that makes it pass their Stake President to have their names be submitted has got to be doing lots of things right. No their not perfect, but at that level it more about being the right person at the right time, (aka who God wills) then some personal imperfection or transgression.

If my name is ever turned in to serve as a Bishop and was turned down for whatever reason .....I don't want to know and wouldn't care one way or the other as to why.

I think telling them is a horrible idea. Precisely because people will interpret it as "you're not good enough for this", when frequently with callings it's simply this person was not the match for this job at this time.

I have heard some say this will cause a mass exodus from the church? I would think that any that left were searching for a reason already. I am thankful for many things in life, among those is that I do not have same sex attraction. I think President Kimball was absolutely correct when he stated that it could only be overcome by a "deep and abiding repentance." I do have empathy for those who are afflicted with it and truly are in a battle to overcome it. But, while I have empathy, I also have resolve to sustain our Living Prophet and am thankful for clarity in a world of moral relativism. Who is on the Lord's side? I am..... Who's on the Lord's side? Who?Now is the time to show.We ask it fearlessly:Who's on the Lord's side? Who?We wage no common war,Cope with no common foe.The enemy's awake;Who's on the Lord's side? Who?

Speaking of making assumptions... First let me be clear that I couldn't possibly care less whether or not anyone agrees with me, nor do I have a "distaste" for anyone who does. I am in agreement with the Brethren; if anyone disagrees with me they should take it up with them. As for my observations, they are just that---observations. Assumptions and prejudice aside, I believe they accurately portray the situation. "Squealing" is an apt description of how most of the detractors responded to the policy announcement. Rather than wait for an explanation or clarification from official channels, they immediately threw a conniption fit and began name calling. "Bigoted", "Hateful", "Abhorrent", "Despicable", "Disgusting", "Spiteful", and "Vile" were just a few of the adjectives used by Mormons (the faithful kind I suppose) and non-Mormons alike in the news articles and videos which I have read and seen. So there are a lot of people who are genuinely concerned because it does effect them or someone they love personally. I acknowledged in my post that there may be some who are genuinely concerned for the children. But I maintain that the vast majority of detractors are only using the kids as sympathetic props. What they are really concerned about is that the Church has upset the LGBT crusade; a crusade that demands acceptance and tolerates no dissent. Why didn't anyone make a fuss about this policy for polygamist children? Easy, because polygamists have their own church and have no desire to attend our "fallen" meetings anyway. Just an assumption on your part. I personally know of a case where a woman left a polygamous marriage and took her children with her. She moved into the home of her sister who was an active member of the Church, and she began regular attendance. After a long court battle her husband was awarded joint custody, and despite the fact that the children (by that time) wanted to be baptized they were not allowed to do so until they turned 18. No doubt there have been similar cases elsewhere. Further we all know members of this forum who have children who are gay. What if they have children? The concern for these members is genuine and born of love not rebellion. Repudiating a unanimous decision by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is a decision born of rebellion not love. I believe the Lord would want us to put a loving arm around (figuratively) around those who are struggling with this and try to help them. I'm not opposed to helping those who are "struggling" with the decision. But I haven't been talking about those who are "struggling". My comments have been directed towards those who have come out in open rebellion. And I have little regard for them.

Some people just look for a good protest. It's what the cool kids do.

With all due respect, StrawberryFields--isn't this precisely the kind of selective outrage I was describing? This man--this father--had a good (maybe not perfect, but good) relationship with his children's mother, who he did indeed "love" at one point. But he dissolved his family for the most execrable of reasons--to go (literally) whoring off after a relationship that he thought would be more sexually satisfying to him. There are reams of academic research papers about how, even under the best of circumstances, divorce is intensely traumatic for children; and that where adultery/abuse/addiction/inordinately high conflict are not issues, it's better for the children if the parents stay together. On that point, the science (to coin a phrase) is settled. This "father" you learned about has damaged his children in a way that will come back to haunt them for their entire lives, and he gets a pass. But, the church steps in and says "you know what? We're not going to put that guy's kid in a covenant relationship that will necessarily damage the parent-child relationship further", and it's the church--not this lecherous lout or his home-wrecking boytoy--that we condemn for not knowing what love is, for destroying harmony, and for being dismissive of a child's best interests.

In Lehi's vision of the tree of life he saw many who had grasped the iron rod and partaken of the fruit... Then they look around and see the great and spacious building. They see the people of that building laughing, at them mocking them, scorning them, and they feel ashamed that they grasped the rod and partook of the fruit... and they fall away and are lost. Predictions of a mass exodus from the church over this action might turn out to be true or they might not be. But wither people leave or not has no standing on if the Church is being lead by God or not. At some point the church will be sifted. The wheat and the tares will be separated that could very well take the shape of a mass exodus.. It is my opinion that what we end up being (wheat or tare) is directly related to how firm we are in holding on to the rod (aka the word of God)

Um...that is not the nature of a discussion list, Annie. If you want to have a private conversation with JAG, then you can boardmail him. If you post it in a public thread, then it's a public discussion.

Annie, we all know that all these perversions have been around as long as mankind itself has existed. The point is not that the so-called Sexual Revolution caused these perversions. The point is that it made them much more common, by fragmenting the family, making unmarried parenthood a common reality, making divorced and "blended" families typical rather than atypical. If, as JAG has suggested, such "step" relations are more commonly the abusers, then increasing the number of such families inevitably increases that type of abuse. If Agent X increases the prevalence of a certain disease that causes acne, then it is a fair statement that the increased use of Agent X is very likley to increase how much acne people have. That doesn't mean that Agent X invented acne, or even that Agent X itself necessarily causes acne. It's a simple recognition that one of the fallouts of using Agent X is that people will have more acne. Similarly, part of the fallout of the so-called "Sexual Revolution" is the splintering of families and the concomitant rise in various forms of sexual abuse and perversion.

'In The Fen Country'

According to this website http://www.googolplexian.com/ the largest number with a name is a "googolplexian". To explain: a "googol" is 10^100, or 1 with 100 zeros: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (I may have missed the odd zero - or added 1 too many - but if you're planning to count them to make sure then you're as sad as I am! Having said that, anyone who thinks numbers of that size have no practical purpose needs to read up about RSA.) A "googolplex" is 10^(1 googol), or 10^10^100 or 1 and a googol zeros. (And if you watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos back in the 1980s you'll know that is unwriteoutable. Sagan ran around Trinity College Cambridge with rolls and rolls of paper with zeros on, but eventually admitted that the paper needed couldn't be stuffed into the known universe.) A "googolplexian" is 10^(1 googolplex), or 10^10^10^100 or 1 and a googolplex zeros. (Don't even think about it.) OK.....so I'm now going to make history.... A "googolplexiantantiddlyupmumpum" is 10^(1 googolplexian), or 10^10^10^10^100 or 1 and a googolplexian zeros. Time to re-write the maths books!

All your puny numbers pale in comparison to mine!

Since I got into a discussion with the OP, I have refrained from responding. I have mixed it up with most posters at one point in time or another. Things get heated at times on both ends. Sometimes the heat is real-other times it is misinterpreted. But at the same time while I've gotten into lots of discussions, I have learned a lot from other posters and their viewpoints and I hope they have learned a lot from mine. IMO that's okay, we're human and as long as nobody is slinging insults around like "you're a horrible person" it will be alright-things will calm down. To expect a forum to be 100% peace, love, and happiness-while a very laudable goal-is IMO unrealistic even on an LDS forum. IMO, compared to other LDS forums and most forums in general it's pretty chill here. And the vast majority of forums are very topic focus. There an ubuntu forum so individuals of very like minds can get together and the conversation doesn't (generally) branch into so many fields. Even there heated discussions break out. Most forums do not encompass such a wide area of topics as does here-it's one of the things I like about this forum. Even though we are mostly members, when we socialize as members together in the real world we generally don't talk about so many diverse topics. If we do-it will be amongst friends who are more likely than not very similarly minded to us. I think we need to be very cautious about labels or pointing fingers. Simply because we disagree with someone, got into a heated discussion does not make either person a bully, a jerk, or whatever other name someone wants to call them. The following isn't in reference to anyone in particular just an observation. I know it's become America's favorite pastime these days to label anyone who doesn't take the "right" stance a bully, jerk, bigoted, racists, or any other number of epithets. But I urge extreme caution; the mob mentality can be very, very strong. The ridiculousness of recent news events (resigning of a university president because he didn't "do enough") demonstrates as much. I will use an insult here-America is becoming a nation of spoiled brats-if someone disagrees with them, they call them names, stomp their feet, hold their breath until someone takes action. All the while claiming that their actions are moral, charitable, just, Christlike. In the last days, good will be called evil and evil will be called good.

I believe the Godmakers had those characteristics as a production as well. Man! I went there again! Sheesh. I am on one today. Every time I make that little banana dude dance I imagine this annoying little "doom dappa doom pa doom dappa doom doom" sort of rhythmic beat behind it, which I believe is quite important in conveying the depth of my cheek. It's too bad it doesn't come with the sound I have in my head.

apparently I need the learn mormonese, and I'm a mormon...

I highly recommend this version - http://www.audible.com/pd/Sci-Fi-Fantasy/Dune-Audiobook/B002V1OF70 It's beyond a narration, as part of it is narrated and part is theatrical. It switches throughout and might be confusing but I think anyone of average intelligence can easily follow along. The narrated and theatrical elements combine together nicely to make this one of my top audio books so far. I will definitely listen to this again. It's the Lord of the Rings of SciFi. I'm working my way through this one now and enjoy it so far. http://www.audible.com/pd/Fiction/The-Golem-and-the-Jinni-Audiobook/B00BU8KV2S

Did you know that "emacs" can be rearranged to spell "acmes"? Or "maces"? Or "e-scam"? Just saying.

I don't think the letter suggestion you outlined answers many questions though. Why weren't they inspired though? Were they inspired not to call you because you weren't worthy? Righteous enough? If we believe that they were inspired by the Holy Ghost as is expected, the question and the answer should probably come from the Lord, asked by you. I am not sure how a letter such as this would help anyone feel comforted in not being called. And perhaps if you knew they did feel inspired not to call you and you prayed about it, you may just get the same confirmation by the Holy Ghost that it wasn't to be. Me personally, I don't even want to know all of the positions I have been considered for. I have a feeling that there may be many people out there that would feel rejected if they knew. We look at the current climate of some members and the social attitude we have about everything. I can imagine the uproar when someone goes to the web about why they weren't called as Bishop. There are those that would welcome it, but many that would not I suppose. I understand that your main question was with callings such as SP and Bishops, I wonder if callings up the ladder (so to speak) are even more personal. I mean, what if you are called to be a Seventy? Or one of the Twelve?

Put yourself in our shoes for a bit. We have never heard of pre-mortal existence. There is nothing in our scriptures about it. No minister or Sunday School teacher has ever even speculated about such. We come to Genesis 1 and it says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Why would we imagine anything other than creation out of nothing. In the beginning GOD. Then He started making stuff. I'm not asking you to agree with me. At least consider the reasonableness of our assumption--given the knowledge we have. I'd humbly suggest that creation-out-of-nothing is "common sense." In return for that consideration, I would grant that common sense is often wrong. Further, the debate over whether or not matter is eternal remains a hotly contested one.

The one on Schultz's daughter was very interesting.

I agree. Not selected isn't the same as rejected. And not being selected isn't the same as not being worthy.

There is another aspect to the Mormon position. If you believe God is all knowing, and he knew what the Intelligence of what now know as Satan, would do and become. Then the only way a Just and Merciful God, could give Satan that chance is even his eventual fallen state he was better off, then before God acted. And that really says something about what our state must have been before.

Yes, of course a child feeling punished does not mean they actually are being punished. But in the mind of the child, it makes no difference. One example - as a child I liked to walk to the local Catholic church and sit at the back during Mass - I loved the ritual and most especially the images of the passion of Christ that adorned the walls. I had friends the same age who took their First Communion and when I asked if I could do that, I was told that because I wasn't born a Catholic, I couldn't take communion at all. Now whether this really was a true policy, I have no idea, but at the time I felt very much ostracised from participating in something I perceived to be very beautiful and comforting, and for many years the feeling of not being quite worthy enough stuck with me. That was my own thinking in reaction to the situation. I do believe that children of gay couples who are denied baptism may have similar feelings, if they are exposed to the teachings of the church through extended family members (active grandparents come to mind, who may take the children to church with parental permission). I agree that it's unlikely a 'practicing homosexual' is doing their best to stay active. I was thinking more along the lines of a couple who have split, or someone who has been on their own and has been trying to repent and become active with children who were born while the relationship was intact.

Remember lewy when you were growing up, and how you got into that fight that one time? Remember how you said some pretty bad things if you ever saw him when he was grown? Remember how lewy always said he'd grow up to be a spy one day?

And BTW, vim is superior to emacs.

The nature of God, the nature of humanity, and then, to a lesser extent, the canon of scripture--yes, these stand as three big distinctives.

I don't remember, or wasn't involved in the initial spat whatever it was. But I was taken a bit aback when I noticed a poster weaving in an insult to this forum in general in nearly every post made. I know some of our discussions can become intense, and some of us have sharper edges than others but lds.net I've felt has been a great forum. I've learned a lot here, and as I became more familiar with each posters style I learned to recognize that in nearly every instance when we choose to ask clarifying questions and seek to understand instead of to take offense we can have some great intense discussions. I've learned so much about other faiths here, and I've learned how to defend and more eloquently express ours. I've never felt personally attacked here and I think I've disagreed with just about everyone at one point or another.

For years, I've wondered if there would ever be a short phrase that would cause me to dump my current sig. This is by far the best contender. At the very least, it deserves to be made into a t-shirt or a bumper sticker.

This makes me feel warm and fuzzy insides. Thank you Lonetree.

It's easy to call those you disagree with bullies. It ends up amounting to the same thing you're accusing them of however.

I think it interesting to note this verse in our Doctrine and Covenants 1: 16, "They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall." Elder M. Russell Ballard confirmed in our past regional stake conference that the brethren, all 15 of them, are united with regards to what policies are given in the Handbook of Instruction. Verse 14 of Doctrine and Covenants section 1 further declares, "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people." We are also given truth that whether by God's voice, or by the voice of his servants it is the same. The united efforts of the prophet and apostles are the Lord's words; this is the Lord's voice to his people. When serving a mission, and after, I have heard many times, "I can not in good conscience accept the Word of Wisdom for it is man's doctrine." In other words, they are unwilling to accept the Lord's counsel and commandments as given by his servants. The irony is when members say the same thing when the prophets and apostles declare something new, or provide additional guidance. We aren't rejecting the prophets and apostles, we are rejecting the Lord's words. This is the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood. We accept the Lord's servants, which is as sign we accept the Lord, and by accepting the Lord we give a sign we accept the Father, who then in turn gives all the hath. Laman and Lemuel couldn't accept their father was inspired, when their will was pitted against Lehi's. The people in Jerusalem were good people (our father isn't loving), he is a simpleton a visionary man who thinks he is following God. What is heart breaking is members of the Church who reject our Lord's will as given by his servants the prophets. However, the only scenario that I have heard that offers compassion (Christ like compassion) is the active father or mother whose spouse decides to become openly gay. That father, that mother have my compassion, and I assume as this continues other policies in light of this will be given, in the Lord's due time. At this moment, this is the Lord's will. I have no problem accepting in good conscience, and love, and charity that the Lord speaks through his prophets and I know they are inspired and lead by God.

No more meaning. Disobedience and flaunting the keys and authority of the priesthood to do something that hasn't been authorized has no validity whatsoever. None.

I think it would have more meaning than that, wouldn't it? Maybe it depends on the attitude: a) "The Bishop can't give me permission to give my grandchild a name and a blessing, but I'll show him and the Church and do it anyway". The attitude is more about rebellion and showing the Church that you are bigger than it is. b) "The Bishop can't give me permission to give my grandchild a name and a blessing. Even though it will not be recorded, I can give my grandchild a priesthood blessing (of the regular kind) that will have meaning for me, the parents, and the child (even if the child is barely even aware that something is happening)." The attitude is williing to accept the Church's authority to restrict certain ordinances, while still acknowledging the proper ways that priesthood can be used to serve in this situation.

The ironic thing is that just a couple of weeks ago, a certain bloggernacle site had a post about some Sister Wives character who wanted to be baptized LDS but was being refused because she wouldn't renounce her parents' polygamous lifestyle; and the consensus amongst those enlightened thinkers was that the policy was antiquated, counterproductive, had to go, and surely would be relegated to the dustbin of history now that the dastardly Boyd Packer was cold in his grave. And here we are, not even a month later and with three new apostles on the quorum and--woops!--the policy has been broadened. Incidentally--just how many gay parents were about to let their kids get baptized into the Mormon church, anyways? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Hi Byron, I get it- I really do. I've spent years at countercult reachout boards and Catholic Answers Forums trying to be a good guest while still wanting to interact and get my points across. I've often struggled and failed to be charitable and full of Christlike love (although my best successes in those places have come when I have managed it.) That said, I still want to know something. Ok, fine. Let me be as civilly direct and plain as I can be. * Where did you first encounter the notion of 1 Galatians 6-9 as a criticism of the BoM? * Where did you first encounter the notion of Joseph Smith plagarizing various sources when writing the BoM? * Where did you first encounter the heresay that Mormons believe Lucifer is Jesus' brother? * Where did you first encounter the notion that Mormons couldn't drink caffeine? * Where did you first encounter the notion of Mormons believing God living on a distant planet? * Where did you first encounter the notion of Mormons believing God had sex with Mary? * Where did you first encounter the notion of Mormon beliefs about our garments? As those of us who have spent years interacting with critics of my faith can attest, these are a handful of common criticisms, spread through pamphlet, critical book, guest speaker at someone's church, symposiums on mormons given by nonmormons, critical website, and such places. Please forgive me in advance if I'm off base here, but you seem to have hinted at the notion that you've just come up with these questions on your own, in your passing interest in things LDS. Charitably put, Byron, we know that isn't the case. I am asking you to be as plain in your answer as I've been in my questions. Where did you hear all this stuff? It's ok to cite a book, author, website, series of emails, guest speaker, or whatever it is. When you cite your source you don't lose credibility. You may even find you gain some. God bless you, and looking forward to hearing your answer, NT

Indeed you gave a personal experience as evidence or in support of your opinion. If your personal experience had not been so personally horrible you would have had no problem with your personal experience shot down by those that oppose you. (Just like you had no problem shutting down JAG's personal experience as a Family Lawyer who deals with 100's of cases of family disintegration in favor of your personal experiences). Just because a person's personal experience is horrible does not change how discussions go when we are trying to discuss issues.