Jason

Tex, You traveled east?

No. I do not discuss degree work with the uninitiated.

No. Never heard of it outside of the Old Testament tale. Rainbow Girls is one of two auxiliaries for young women. They have to have a male relative who is a Master Mason to join. Like the girl scouts, without the cookies.

Hi Who knows what is "Freemasonary" and where you have heard of this word before? Allah bless you I am a Freemason. The word implies a man who works in Masonry (typically stone), and who is free born. Freemasons today are speculative, not operative. Anything else?

Hey Chap, while we're way off subject, have you read Schillebeeckx "Ministry". I'm currently going through it and wondered what you thought.

Intriguing. The Jesuits are the brainiacs of the faith, from my understanding. What led to your disaffection with Catholicism (or was it simply that the LDS gospel overwhelmed it)? Maybe he wasn't cut out for the Jesuits. Mormonism seems like a worthy second choice.

He had to go to Cuba? I assume this is tongue in cheek, but for those who don't "get it", a Dominican Monk is what I meant.

I thought he was training to be a Dominican?

Douglas, I'm not Roman Catholic. My beliefs differ widely from that denomination.

Would we be teaching LDS doctrine or Catholic doctrine Jason? I could do it with only LDS doctrine. But tis not to be.

How original. Perhaps, but I'm new here and that's something I wanted to know. Should I take your answer as a "yes" or a "no"? I usually reply to that question with my own: "Why is it when someone joins the church, they can't leave the rest of us alone?"

No really. I think I could improve the general spirituality of the Missionaries, and improve their effectiveness at teaching and conversions were I put in.

I think I should be put in. I'd do a heck of a job with the Missionary program.

Does anyone actually watch the entire thing anymore? What do you take to stay awake?

How original.

I agree. My first pick would be Elder Holland, then Elder Oaks. And I want to see another foreign born apostle that would be cool. Because I believe in intellectual freedom, I would hope they choose anyone but Oaks. And it would be nice to see a Black man in the Quorum, but the odds seem to be somewhere between fat chance and never.

That's a great story Isaac. God bless you and your wife!

I'm not telling you what to believe, or that you can't believe it. I'm telling you that to assert your private interpretation upon everyone else is "not cool". Too insult your MIL because she interprets those passages differently is "not cool". Furthermore, when scholars across a broad religious and scholastic spectrum come to a concensus, and you decide to believe otherwise, that's one thing. But to assert that the historical understanding of a text isn't as good as your own makes you, the_jason, into a hypocrite by your own account.

No. I'm right about the exegesis issue on the Decalogue, and you're wrong. Rather than admit it, you pulled out the "morality card" and I called your bluff. I'm gonna give you some overdue advice kid: When you dig yourself into a hole....stop digging.

So why did your wife kick you out of the house again? Must be because you're such a morally upright person, huh?

I'm not the one who had an affair.

What's not to understand? Let me try saying it with seven different words: The Endowment and Sealings are not essential.

Sure. And you probably think the Inspired Version of the Bible is more accurate than the dead sea scrolls. But that just tells us more about you than anything.

Jason, The Church Handbook of Instructions is a copyrighted publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to publish any part of it on the internet without specific permission from the Church is a violation of that copyright. With that knowledge, I hope that all who post here will try to respect that right. The Church copyrighted this text so that nobody could read it. That's just dumb. Besides, US Copyright laws don't apply in the Netherlands.

Your interpretation is irrelevant. For that matter, so is mine. But you should know that what the text actually means is quite different from your "interpretation". So who determines what the text actually means? You? Apparently you didn't actually read what I wrote. Let me say it again: "Your interpretation is irrelevant. For that matter, so is mine." (Emphasis added just for you.) Jewish and Christian scholars (as well as agnostics) determine what the text meant in it's original context, not in light of later developments. Maybe a course in exegesis would prove enlightening for you. Or you could just keep your head buried in the sand. Whatever works best.