hordak

JAG i think you missed my post in Mormon musics thread about how picking apart a post losses the meaning. We can debate the history of the American communist movement til we are blue in the face but that isn't the point of my response. The point is that Prophets are subject to there own opinions (as Daniel2020 pointed out) there opinions are not always accurate, and most importantly the idea that the members whom don't share them are less then "real" latter day saints (I.E. "so called") is derisive and insulting.

Or could it be that those whom find him(or some of his views) controversial understand that a Prophet is subject to his own opinions, that just because it was said doesn't make it true, and that history shows us this. Men don't live on the moon Death is not the on the spot punishment for mixing races and The civil rights/ women rights moments didn't lead to a communist takeover. Just this "so-called Latter day Saints Opinion"

Excluding a few "key players" i don't buy the idea that the premarital existence played/plays a part a part in this lifes birthing conditions. Every time i have heard the idea it has either been used to support the priesthood ban (I.E. "fence sitter doctrine") which has been reputed by newer Prophets or it is in a backwards way IMO "I was so good i was born LDS" which doesn't make sense if God wants all his children to return. I don't think he would give a "leg up" the best while making it harder on the others. Besides if we had that much choice i would be Hordak William Gates Jr;)

I counter your anecdotal evidence with my own. Carolyn Hax - TELL ME ABOUT IT ® - washingtonpost.com

I think it is a nice idea, and i'm sure they wash it before sending it just saying i wouldn't do it because they couldn't keep it sterile between calling back patients. But at least it's a tie off quilt and their not doing needle point:eek:

Because my goal, when at the hospital, is to touch the least amount of items as possible. A big, non sanitizeable sneeze and cough catcher in the center of the room touched by hundreds of sick patients is not on my list of things to touch.

What no link so we can watch the fallout:D;)

Yes you did Salt Lake City high rise is ready for occupancy on Main | Deseret News Not quite 4 billion but much more then 4 million.

saw that coming. Though i was surprised you were first

I would agree tone plays a big part and a point by point doesn't necessarily always = anger but i see a correlation. My bigest complant about the point by point is people missing the point. This is a message board and not a one on one conversation so the points can get picked up by another and lost allong the way EX. Lets take a sensitive topic like interracial dating Taken as a whole you see i believe preserving culture is a common problem in interracial relationships, That i would not seek them out but that i don't look down on those who find love outside their race/culture Taken point by point... KEY: Their response in bold, my problem/ response in italics It become far more diluted when a 3rd person picks up on their post individually as well Then the forth chimes in Etc Etc, and this goes on until we are discussing Korean architecture and legal policy or John Doe comes and puts the smack down and locks the thread because along the way, most likely while off topic someone went too far. I hope you can make sense of that jumble:)

I agree. I don't wish to call anyone out but look at the threads. When someone is just giving advice to the OP on a topic (unless the op is argumentative ) you will see a well thought out monologue, skip a page or 2 and that same posters style has changed into a point by point debate if they disagree with a previous post. The more "heated" a discussion the quote boxes you will see per post. I think in a face to face interaction it would be the equivalent of constantly interrupting the other person. I don't like the tearing apart of post because it's to easy to miss the forrest for the trees. I

Heck yeah, I'm going to buy punctuation ^ Don't need the sarc mark after all:D

While it might be church policy now to be married legally at the time of the sealing (or concurantly with the sealing for us in the USA) i fail to see how it would be a violation of the law of chastity. If legal recognition was required for a sealing to be chaste then there is a whole generation of members, including our early prophets, in a heap of trouble.

I'm tempted to hit number 10,000 with the form of a statement:evilsmile:

Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United States - Posts: 17,220 Yeah cuz you need more posts;)

Ah i see. The non member resident atheist was looking at it from a religious standpoint while the member was looking at it from a more secular view. At least we know the ability to see things from the other side is not lost based on church membership ,or lack there of.

But that's where i'm missing you. Life long worthy members and RMs Brother Smith and Sister Jones after dating for 2 year decide at the age of 28. Even though they were born in the church thier parents are convert so a temple wedding would exclude numerous uncles and aunts plus great grandma Sue who isn't expected to live out the rest of the year. Given the circumstances they decide to wed civil first, because the church will not hold a wedding for them afterword. Now without knowing the story the church says 1 year wait. Converts of 2 years Bro BoB and Sis Sue, after meeting in the singles ward and dating for 2 months decide they wish to be married. They go to the temple and get sealed no questions asked. Who would you think needs a feel for marriage?

Wouldn't it be better then going through an ordnance you're not ready for? Isn't that how everything else works? (or is supposed to)

IIRC the church discourages civil weddings after word ( ring exchanges ok but real ceremony I.E. vows frowned upon)

That seems like more reason for the church to encourage a civil marriage first. (Which it obviously doesn't) You don't say "In a year i might not wish to spend eternity together, so lets hurry and get it done" anymore then you would say "I might regret this tattoo when i sober up (assuming you found a tattoo artist who would give you one drunk) so let's do it now":D I see what you mean but they don't make non married couples wait a year so essentially( the only bigger step from civil marriage to eternal is from nothing to eternal) they are assuming either civil married couples have doubts In either case i think a bishops/SP interview could determine a couples readiness to accept this as they determine the readiness of going on missions, callings, endowments, and going to the temple in general.

Half on topic. This illustrates one of my pet peeves when it comes to these sorts of issues of eroding freedom (in the public sphere) No one cares until it is their pet issue. Government says smoking is bad, sorry RJ Renolds, but you must get rid of your cartoon add man as it might attract kids. No one bats an eye. Governments says fast food is bad, sorry MCDonalds but you must get rid of your toys as they attract kids and suddenly everyone is up in arms about the government overstepping it's bounds:huh: If we want to protect our freedoms we need to protect the freedom itself, not just the issues we agree with.

Catholics view the Pope as infallible but non members claim he is Mormon view the Prophet as fallible but non members claim he isn't. In other words if the Pope messes up ("The world is flat") the naysayer don't care they expect it (even though he is supposed to be perfect.) If the Prophet messes up ("insert "favorite" off color Spencer W Kimble quote) the naysayers are ecstatic he messed up ( even though he is not supposed to be perfect) It's a bit ironic that those whom expect perfection from the Prophet are those whom "have it out" for the church

The advantage of a unpaid ministry:D. No i get what you are saying. Personally i have no issue with Catholic Pharmacist being forced to give out birth control because it is his job in the public sphere. I think in most cases the situation could be resolved in house (depending on the size of the pharmacy) but it is in public application of his job that he cannot discriminate. (Same way a member of the creativity movement, a racist religious group, cannot refuses to help a black person at work, even if it is against their religious beliefs) If it is his own private business it becomes more complicated , but if was working for someone else... The Catholic charities as i understand it had to make that choice because they take money from the government, and are subject the the government regs,The LDS adoption service, self funded have had no problems. The E harmony thing was crap. Not only because it went against the owners beliefs but the service not being offered doesn't equal discrimination. It would be like walking into pizza hut and demanding a burger.IMO. They feed people who like pizza, i like burgers and they don't have them so clearly their discriminating against me:rolleyes: I don't think the church hires non member, don't know for sure. Has there been a case In the USA, where a church was forced to change it's hiring practices based on protected status? I imagine it happened with the Civil rights act of 1964 but think most would think that is a good thing. Now i do agree with the general premise that these things evolve and wear resistance down over time, in the secular world, but see no evidence to support that of intruding on a churches (not individual members) right to preach how they see fit.

There is no precedent. Our societies changing views on everything from premarital sex, masturbation, adultery (which are more accepted today) to protected classes, women and blacks for example has not affected the churches application of it's standards on these issues. Why would you expect the church to be forced to baptize a practicing gay, because society is becoming more accepting when they don't have to give the the priesthood to women, who have been accepted and protected as equals for decades? Besides in the US there is no indication (that i have seen) of the government eroding religious rights of free speech (e.g. westboro baptist church picketing funerals of government workers with no issue )

I don't know for sure but iirc westboro baptist church protested President Hinkleys funeral for being a being too soft on gays and the other false prophet allegations. If that's not an indication free speech is alive and well (and often used in bad taste) i don't know what is. Doubt it. Your speaking of a government regulation in the public sphere as an indication of a upcoming intrusion in the private sphere. Gender and race are protected statuses and have been for decades, yet they have made no intrusion on how the church applies it's rules. Amen