Jason

One might say that there was great diversity of practice and doctrine in the early church, even during the lives of the Apostles. One might also say that it was just as diverse then as it is today, and that all forms of Christianity are equally valid.

You're right. But it's still pretty funny.

Microsoft pokes fun at the iPhone with the "oPhone".

Let's be honest here, politics aside, they should make a "little plane" for Bush to ride in. I'm actually embarrased when he opens his mouth. He stutters and stumbles over words like no man in his position ever has before. You would think that English was his second language the way he speaks. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would re-elect him if they've ever heard him speak. The stupidity meter goes through the roof when he's around. I'd rather have Herr Cheney as president, at least he doesn't sound like a complete idiot.

I actually do believe him sibeluver03. I too tend to listen to the melody and bass more than lyrics in music. Especially in alternative rock. Have him look into the bands "Skillet" and "Red". They were originally Christian Rock bands who have moved mainstream, yet retain clean lyrics. I think you'll like them too! (and there's not a word mentioned of "god" or "Jesus". )

Depending on what religion your husband's parents were in before their conversion to Mormonism, it may have been common to ask for forgiveness in prayers. All Apostolic Churches have prayers of forgiveness included as part of the liturgy. For example, in my church we pray every time: "May the Lord bless us and forgive us of our sins, and may his peace rest on us this day, and evermore, Amen."

Emma, I'm very disappointed in your last post. Not something I would expect from a woman who pretends to be such a grand intellectual. I suppose you are showing us your true colors. Pity. Now in spite of your rant, let me take you down the path again, correcting the record once and for all, and show you that it can be done without a such a gross display of insecurity. You don't like that I asked for a better reference than "read this book". Recommending a book is not a reference. If you tell us that Juanita Brooks, or Will Bagley, or even Gene Sessions should be read, that's a recommendation, not a reference. There is a fundamental difference between a recommendation and a reference. One supports your position, the other does not. If you have misplaced your text that shows you how to cite a source (and having owned a publication company for 15 years, I cannot understand how you could forget!), you can provide us a with a hotlink as in the case of Gene Sessions talk at FAIR, or give us the page number of your quote along with your text name and author. Nobody here is requiring you to provide publisher and date of publication. We would appreciate you telling us enough information that for those of us who own the text, we can validate your reference. You mentioned "blood atonement" in post 15. Great. But you didn't explain what it even was. That was me who did that. I gave a source (JoD vol. 4) and then, realizing that might not be enough, found Grant's sermon and quoted it in full (with reference provided at the top of the post.) So while you casually mentioned the words "blood atonement" it was left to me to explain what that meant and reference it. After accusing you of making statements without references, you finally provided one in posts 159 &160. You were more careful after that, and I thank you. Now on to the remainder of your complaint: You have no quotations in post 159 to show what was a quote, and what are your own words. Surely someone who graduated "cum laude" and "owned a publishing company for fifteen years" understands the importance of quotation marks! As you should know, without proper quotation marks, one cannot differentiate between the author of the text, and the person quoting the author. So if anyone is to blame my dear, it is you. Again, a recommendation and an actual reference are quite different. After I pointed out your error, you corrected the situation and began giving references. Thank you for that. I hope you now understand the difference. Indeed, you said the words: "...blood atonement..." in post 15, but did not define what that even meant. I then asked if anyone knew what it was in post 30, gave a rough definition of it in post 32, gave a reference in post 34 to back up what I said in post 32, and gave an actual full sermon quote of it in post 39. Now who owes whom an apology?

Even a complete moron like Bush couldn't lose a lake. Well, maybe, but it would be hard even for him! Fly'in your true colors eh? I believe that Bush is the worst President since Harrison. And will likely be noted as being one of the worst (and definitely not the brightest) Presidents in US history.

Even a complete moron like Bush couldn't lose a lake. Well, maybe, but it would be hard even for him!

I KNEW it!!!!!!! Could you PLEASE explain to me what the heck you were talking about when you wrote about the beast with 7 heads and 10 horns? No, but that's when I came out with the word of wisdom. B)

Nah, but I am John the Beloved.

We are talking about the account of receiving the book of lehi, not the book's contents.

Maybe one of those lost Nephite cities is below that lake, and it's been buried there since the "great destruction" 2000 years ago. Someone better call BYU!

It didn't seem similar at all CK. Where are the similarities you are pointing out?

Yeah, reminds me of what a 15yr old wrote about seeing god. Pretty funny stuff, huh?

You'll need four years, and wait until I get my new bookshelves this fall. That's what they said about Joseph Smith. That's also what they say about Art Bulla, and the Parawan Prophet guy. (That last guy is my favorite psuedo-Mormon!)

Well I've read the Book of Lehi. Have you? http://www.thesealedportion.com/tsp/tspindex.htm

Thanks Michelle. Actually the Liberal Catholic Church began in England a hundred years ago with the reorganization of the Old Catholic Church of Britain. And sorry I don't have the links working. I'll try to get them up tonight so you don't have to copy and paste into your browser.

Thanks Ben. I agree. (Im haven't learned how to create hot links with website tonight software yet. Im working on it.) And Shan, you said it better than I could have. Thanks!

Rosie and Tim, Fantastic advice.

Well that's the interesting thing about the LCCI. You can interpret it any way you want. Nor must you accept it at all. So basically it doesn't matter. How's that for fun? Sounds GREAT!!!! don't have to have any standards...just do whatever...and god somebody or other will be glad to have welcome you into paridise....cool!!!!!... but why bother going to church at all? Just go fishing...God loves you anyway... I think you've mis-understood. We don't tell you what "standards" to hold. We trust that as you seek out what is true, we will all eventually end up in the same place. For some, that will happen in this life. For others, it may take many lives.

Well that's the interesting thing about the LCCI. You can interpret it any way you want. Nor must you accept it at all. So basically it doesn't matter. How's that for fun?

Well hey Doc, Im not opposed to discussing what's on the site. I was initially just looking for feedback on it's appearance, but Im ready to talk if you are. So, what is truth?

ha ha!

Uh oh. I've got a 19'' Wide LCD. I didn't think about you guys with a smaller screen. Hmm... It's not me on the flash page. That's just some generic "family" Im using. They look nice though, eh?