hordak

I acctually have a different take on this. We are told we will be perfect and not even one hair on our head will be lost. "When i had kids my drinking habit was not lost." Many could read this and think, "he didn't stop drinking when he had kids" but what i actually mean is that when i stopped drinking for my kids i didn't loose out on anything. That missing part of my life is not relevant anymore. I believe we will have a sort of "eternal beer goggles" so to speak and will see all as perfect, not that all will be perfect (in an earthly standard) As Gwen pointed out there is no universal standard, we all see beauty differently. I do believe things that hinder you ( a missing limb) will be restored

I would agree with that. When i was married (By the JOP) my wife and i made vows. I believe these vows are what make marriage sacred and we take them very seriously. (still waiting on the "for richer" part:D) AFAIK a common law marriage has no such thing. It is simply meeting certain requirements by the state.

I'm not speaking of SSM but of God accepting civil marriage but not baptism. Let me give you another analogy:D I tell my kids that in order to have their friends over (exaltation) they must clean their room (marriage) . My son goes to town and puts his clothes away, toys away, breaks out the vacuum etc. (Temple marriage) so i accept this. My daughter decides to ball everything up and put it in the corner and under the bed.(civil marriage) It isn't what i wanted per say but will keep her and her friends from getting hurt on the toys (adultery). And latter i will give her the chance to clean it right (temple work for the dead) since she had a lesser understanding of what clean her room is.(Non LDS) I decide if my kids eat dinner they get to go outside and play. Dinner comes and my son eats everything (LDS Baptism) as such i know he is nourished and will have what he needs. My daughter decides half is enough for her(other baptism) but i know she will not have what she needs. Therefor i do not recognize her half eaten plate and will not let her go outside until she finishes it. Even if i have to put it in the fridge and let her eat it for breakfast(spirit prison) As far as you response i half agree.. I TOO have no reason to believe that YOU will be worse off in the next life if YOU marry YOUR partner than YOU would be if YOU don't.(not yelling just emphasizing the change) Some might call it a mockery, but i think it would fall under the "other baptism" category. While it will not be accepted (per current doctrine) There's no reason to believe you are mocking God, anymore then Mother Teressa was mocking God by doing all her missionary work for the Catholics as opposed to for the LDS church. Look at PC, he does a lot of good even though he is not "authorized" (from an LDS stand point) but we wouldn't call his teaching mockery . This depends on your views. If you don't think SSM is a sin, i can see how you would believe that. In conclusion i don't think your desire to have SSM is a mockery of real marriage anymore then my Catholic neighbors communion is a mockery of LDS sacrament.(i don't see them as mockery at all) However as per Doctrine i don't think SSM would give you a "leg up" on the other side anymore then Baptist Baptize (neither are considered valid) and my point was just to show how civil marriage can be legit while other baptism is not

http://thm-a01.yimg.com/nimage/6e092dabbf170a90http://thm-a03.yimg.com/nimage/7cea90380e5e3938 You can even add more bread and it's still a sandwich.

Perhaps it is based on the earthly consequence? Kind of like "Higher law, lesser law"? I'm baptized LDS, my neighbor is not, but it has little importance in this life for them (I have my sins washed away and make a covenant that makes me more accountable, they are still in the "same place" and will given the opportunity for an LDS baptism later. Marriage on the other hand affect this life more. Adultery is adultery is adultery. For example Thou shalt not steal has great effect on not only the next life but on this life as well. Because of this it is taught to all (pretty much)and i believe God sees it valid anywhere it is taught. Since adultery has huge consequence for this life as well God has taught this law to all and gives a way to avoid the sin (by recognizing civil marriage) Tithing on the other hand, while it does have some earthy affect, doesn't carry the same earthy consequence. If a Protestant doesn't follow it it will not affect his community/ others in the way theft would. Tithing is only valid ( if i told the Bishop i gave my 10% to the red cross it wouldn't count) in the church so that the funds are used for the right thing. Baptism is only valid in the the church so the right covenants are made. Just a thought.

Wow i "picked a fight" with the wrong Christian denomination;) So in other words it's like the WoW among Mormons or Birth control among Catholics ( and i would imagine other verses are treated the same) in that fact that is taught but you will run across the occasional member who doesn't follow it/ sees it as less important. I agree. Thanks for the clarification.

Now we know how to "slip one" past the watchful eyes of Pam. Bore her with a wall of copied text, then put it in:evilbanana:

I'm not referring to Leviticus. Though that is where wingnut took it. I understand it is a "hebrew thing" But how does a Christian determine what is applicable today. (and not just talking about homosexuality.) For example another moral principal Jesus taught in matt 5 and 19 Divorce and remarriage save for adultery, is adultery. The verses before and after it in the sermon are taught as "doctrine" among other faiths, as fair as i can tell. But this is not. So what gives a church/preacher /Christian etc. the right (i don't mean it in the forceful tone the words convey) to ignore this teaching while teaching the rest of the sermon as doctrine. Why is lust a sin (Because Jesus said so) but remarriage is not (even though Jesus said so in the same sermon)?

The LDS church takes some heat from having teaching that are contrary to the bible. However these "discrepancies" can be explained with a belief in modern/continuing revelation and other scriptures. We have the ability to "pick and choose" so to speak because of this. I'm curios how other Christians determine what rules are valid (especial pertaining to social values)? Example. Paul condemns Homosexuality (in practice) in the NT , Many Christians take this as scripture, but ignore the teaching on divorce delivered by Jesus. For LDS it's ok because the Prophets have expounded on the law. Since non LDS don't have Prophets how do they determine Pauls words are binding, but Jesus's are not?

Location: United Kingdom Why do the English (though i thought you are a Scott?) have such a bad grasp of their native/namesake language?

Bingo Stop the presses. My brother must be hitting puberty, at the age of 30 ,because he has developed breast.

Ok stupid:p;). I believe he is referring to polygamy

I would point out that some temples have the pentagrams and the Hindus and Indians have used the swastika for centuries. While symbols may have historical "deeper meaning" they do not necessarily carry that same mean today.

Is that the same group where women only wear dresses?

Is there a reason they can't? My wife is required to keep her hair up (can't touch collar) for work and has long hair. Again I'm not one to judge on looks. In fact I'm taking a year off shaving and haircuts , (Think i will make one of those take a pic every day youtube vids) but trying to determine if women take the same flak for short hair, that men do for long.

Combining 2 threads here, the one on men with long hair, and the one about how much women spend on their hair got me wondering. Are there any women here who have short hair? Do you (they) "take heat" (from certain members) in the same way that some men with long hair do? Seems like verse 14 is emphasized, while 15 is forgotten. Anyone who knows me knows i wouldn't judge anyone (man or women for their hair) just wondering if the same "standard" is shared.

Personally i think the Ouija board is bunk. When tested with scientific controls in place, blindfolded players, it ends up with jibberish or asking a verifiable question neither players know the answer to (3rd party picks number between 1 and 100 puts in sealed envelope) the "spirits" end up as accurate as your average guesser. Even my Wiccan neighbor , who believes in and contacts different spirits and gods as part of her religious beliefs says they are bunk as mass produced toys do not equal authentic divining tools. In a Christian context it would be like considering the often used curse ,G darn it, (cleaned up for the board) a legitimate prayer with actual consequences. That being said i could see the problem with them as far as "taking control" of you life. Like in the old twilight zone episode The nick of time. Basically fortune telling machine gets a few question rights and William Shatner "gets hooked" letting it make all his choices. He wises up and leave while another couple gets sucked into it. Do do do do do do do do do do do do

I always thought the purpose to the Ouija board was to keep 14 yearold girls entertained at sleep overs.

only thing i can think of is the book Mormon doctrine, which of course is not actually Mormon doctrine

Ya know that's a good point. No one seems to take issue with cosmetic dentistry. I didn't have dental insurance growing up. So while many of my peers (church member included) were getting braces so they could fit into a society that values straight teeth, i was left with what i got. Luckily i have good genetics as it pertains to teeth, and they are straight but i do have a face like a bull dog http://thm-a01.yimg.com/nimage/1bb688f97582ab2a(underbite) If i were to go out and get a risky surgery to correct the issue would it be my choice/fault? Or would the blame lay with those superficial parents and kids who fell into societies view that nice teeth look better and modeled this behavior by selfishly getting their kids braces, retainers etc without once thinking that someone like myself might buy into this idea as well and see part of my self worth based on teeth alignment? I'm thinking it's the first 1.

Yeah i think fans of the book will be disappointed. There is no way they can cover every story and i can't think of any worth skipping. On top of that i think they have some back stories/ stories in stories to cover. I.E. I want to see Sister Montoya(?)(at least in a montosh (cant spell it) protect her Sunday school with a candle stick not just hear the soldier mention it. But i figure most who see it will have never read the book and like it.

Read the book at least 5 times now. Every time i go to look into how the movie is coming along i get sad it will not be for a while and just reread the book Love zombie flicks

Yes because there are so many herpetologists on the board:)

boas is my first instinct but i always mix them up so i will go with pythons. Probably ball

Just a quick note. Laws protect rights, not individual pet issues. The laws that protect the LDS church in their right to encourage members to financial support the opposition to gay marriage and retain tax exempt status protects ALL churches of all Political opinions and sides of this issue. In other word, if your angry that the church "got involved" with politics you should be out picketing the "black churches" that told their members to vote for Obama. You should condemn all those Universilist churches and their preachers who would asked members to support SSM. The silence on this issue is deafening. Problem is most people aren't mad that the church got involved , but that the church got involved and "won"