Jason

Maybe, but certainly not in my fav five. B) I would say he taught partial truth, but might argue that he "restored" very little, as much of it has always been around (in one religion or another). Nope. If they were worn out, they wouldn't be so effective today. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I personally like to play strip poker. Berry, you want to play? B)

I'd only "chat" with you babe.

So it seems a non-poster named "cutie" want's to invite members of the board to IM her Yahoo account. I was a bit quick on the delete button, but maybe someone can get the IP and ban this troll?

My wife spend a night in my apartment before we were married. It was a few weeks before our wedding day, and she was helping me clean our future apartment, and moved some things in. We both slept in the same bed, and did nothing more than cuddle. Two weeks later, we were sealed in the Temple. Now, I can tell you that if we "lived" together for any length of time, I am fairly confident that sexual intercourse would have happened. So if there's any type of intimate connection between a man and a woman, and they don't want to have sex, they probably shouldn't live together.

Don't feed the Trolls. :)

Does this list include members who have had their names removed from Church records?

You can call it a "friendly get-together" but that doesn't change what it is.

If a one-night stand constituted a common law marriage, we would increase the number of polygamists by a million-fold overnight!

Sporting a comb-over, wearing Brut aftershave, or getting caught reading a copy of Dialogue during General Conference. B)

I wouldn't be surprised that your toddler doesn't appreciate the scars from your taming attempts. Free Willey!

That's an interesting thought. What if this is hell, and we're the 1/3 who followed Satan, and Jesus came here to show us the way out?

First of all, HOOTERS is nothing to lose a recommend over. I've been twice, and was utterly disssapointed both times. In fact, if you're in Utah, even the so-called strip clubs are nothing to lose your recommend over. The girls are covered in all the right places....just like any given beach in the state. As for the number of temples...methinks it's an artificial demand. I'm sure someone here can provide numbers either way, but even when I was still LDS, I thought they were just trying to make it more convenient for the handful of members who actually wanted to go. (Could be wrong here though.) As for defacing and stuff....that's just plain ignorant. But will the barcodes really make a difference? Won't ignorant people still deface?

Honestly it seems pretty silly. Really, who's beating down the doors to get in? You can't get your members to go, let alone the rest of us.

I can see the fundies now: "They have the mark of the BEAST!" "You won't be able to buy food in Utah without the card/mark!"

Jason H is actually a real poster. I know him from another board.

I am not the fool who presumptuously proclaimed the belief of another...only to be wrong. Often? Care to back that up with some numbers? Considering just how little I do post here now-a-days, I only comment on threads that are worthwhile. Traveler, bless him, thinks more in ten minutes than you probably do all day. Your contributions to this thread are absolutely nill. I don't remember insinuating that I wanted you to care about anything I believe. What on earth gave you that idea? Again you presume I did not think about his post before offering a short side-comment about Universal Salvation. Are you somehow capable of reading my thoughts and determining just how much time I spend reading a given thread or post? Pray tell, what mysterious powers of omniscience do you possess?

Does not equate with what I thought. Making an assumption on my comment is narrow-minded. My comment was meant as an extension of Traveler's concerns, not as a "fight" against what, in other instances, I would contend is an obviously flawed doctrine. I know, I've heard you say this before. Can't help it. That's how I was trained in all those fast and testimony meetings. I am not claiming to be agnostic. I am claiming that it is not true. Very different approaches. Please remember that. (edited by CK to remove Lord whatever's comments)

Ogre, I don't believe the theological implications of Universalism are "trite".

I don't believe in hell, period. Much less an everlasting punishment.

WB Michelle!

Cool. In the process of this discussion, I've learned quite a bit. So I appreciate it! Thanks.

Again CK, it's not about winning an argument, it's about showing you an alternative point of view that could be just as valid. I hope I've done that much.

I believe the Bishops exercise the same function. The only distinction between an Apostle and a Bishop is that an Apostle was a disciple of Jesus in his earthly Mission, or is a Bishop who has seen a vision of Christ. The Keys and Authority of loosing and binding are the same. Obviously, nobody will say a vision of Jesus alone grants one authority. It may make you an Apostle, but it does not make you a Bishop with the Keys of the Priesthood.

In my copy of the Jerome Bible Commentary, it says that Peter and James won two debates, and that Paul was a leading advocate. Yet history also tells us that it was James who was both the Bishop of Jerusalem, as well as being an Apostle. Yes, anything previous to Moses and his laws. Yet I still don't know what evidence you have that would suggest a "hierarchy" at this time, or that Abraham was anything other than a simple priest? ---- When I asked: "Why is a "central authority" really necessary?" you replied: Ok, but you seem to assume here that Bishops cannot be led by the Lord as well as Apostles? Is God limited to giving His unfailing guidance to only 15 men, instead of hundreds? Further, have you forgotten about the era of Judges before King Saul was put on the throne? God's kingdom was supposed to be a Democracy, remember? Sure, but the new Bishops were selected by surrounding Bishops in the Early Church. They were then approved by local congregations, and everyone moved on. In case you aren't aware, the "central authority" on any questionable matter was a Synod. Groups of Bishops across a given region would meet together and ask for the Holy Ghost's guidance in prayer as they discussed the problems on a given matter. The outcome was voted on (just as in your church) and the Lord's will was revealed. I suppose we differ on how big a "central authority" God can have for His Church? I'm suggesting that the Patriarch Priesthood (which is not generally understood by LDS) was originally designed to place each Man at the head of his family, eliminating the need of the Church entirely, except as a tool to bring in new converts. (Or that it will be so in the Millenium.)