Maureen

You may have thought you were talking about God's plan Ray but your words didn't convey that. It's not a crime to admit you changed your "thought" in mid thread. No matter how you wish to side-step what your true thoughts were, your words still tell me that you see yourself as practically omniscient concerning God's thoughts and actions. I see you Ray as slightly delusional when it comes to "what you think you know". Just to remind you Ray, it is not you who will be making the decisions on Judgement Day. M.

A quick lesson: To show a quote you do this: [ quote ]This is a test, this is just a test!![ /quote ] - minus the spaces I've added before and after "quote". Hope that helps Dr. T. Any relation to Mr. T? M.

Heh, because it’s a whole lot easier that way.And while you may choose to believe there is a plan of salvation for Maureen and a different plan of salvation for Ray, and a different plan of salvation for Jason, and a different plan of salvation for Ghandi, and a different plan of salvation for Mohammed, and a different plan of salvation for each and every person who has or ever will come to this Earth, I believe and know there is only one plan of salvation, and it is centered in Jesus Christ. Ray - you've just changed the context of what you previously said by adding "plan of salvation". Or in other words, you should have said that at the start, but you didn't. You said: ...I try to be like I know God wants me to be, and I expect other people to be the same way, thinking that they must surely know that there is no better way to be than to be like God, but if other people don’t want to be like God, after I try to help them understand how God is, and how God wants other people to be... God's plan of salvation for mankind is generally the same but how God's wants his creation to be as individuals, as a creation who can glorify, praise and love Him, and also express love to others of God's creation is as individualistic as the fingerprints God gave to each person. I'm not asking God, I'm asking you Ray. Are you scared you may say something blasphemous? M.

But why? Why can't you accept that you know what God wants for you but God's plans for others are unique for them. We aren't robots Ray. I don't believe God created us to be robots. Each person can have their own unique relationship with God. If God created such a diverse creation, why would he want identical plans for that creation? How do you know how God wants other people to be? Are you saying that revelation comes to you from God about mankind in general - like as if you're some kind of prophet. Do you believe you are a prophet Ray for mankind? M.

...Who are also being as God wants us all to be? And is that like you Ray? You are missing out on getting to know some pretty great people out there Ray, and just because they're not like you. Mankind is made up of such wonderful diverseness - it's a shame you can't see that and appreciate that God created that diverseness. M.

You say the same prayer (the same words) week after week when you take sacrament - is that different? A church is a public building - people shouldn't pray in church? I am probably not understanding what you mean by praying in public. M.

I would have to put myself under the "Moderate" category! M.

Pagan The term pagan is from Latin paganus, an adjective originally meaning "rural", "rustic" or "of the country." As a noun, paganus was used to mean "country dweller, villager." From its earliest beginnings, Christianity spread much more quickly in major urban areas (like Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome) than in the countryside, and soon the word for "country dweller" became synonymous with someone who was "not Christian," giving rise to the modern meaning of "pagan."[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism I'm curious Winnie how you are defining pagan here. Are you asking "Do you remember church being this rustic?" or are you asking "Do you remember church being this "not Christian"? And if it's the second one, what felt not Christian about it? They did not mention God or Jesus? Or was it just the ceremony itself that you found different than what you're use to? catholic here with a small "c" means universal, so you can read that as the holy universal Christian church (see dictionary.com) communion with the saints can be read as - fellowship with the body of believers of Christ The wafers are wafers and usually just melt in your mouth, I've never had any problem with them. Many churches now also have a social get-together after the service and they serve coffee. M.

Ray, how else would PC convey to you what he thinks you mean if he doesn't write it out in some type of statement/question? M.

Does that apply to you too Ray? :) M.

I'm missing something Que Sera - this study is not what? M.

Snow, I hope you’re not trying to paint all Mormon priesthood holders as all-righteous and not one has ever succumb to temptation of any kind. Wasn’t there a thread a while back about if the priesthood holder ends up being a “bad-guy”, does that mean his authority was invalid and any ordaining he did also invalid? If I remember correctly it was decided that even though the “bad guy” wasn’t altogether worthy his authority to perform his duties was still intact. So just like PC said, it’s not the messenger that has the authority but his priesthood abilities make his authority credible even though he may not be. Sounds similar to PC’s fellowship in a lot of ways. So even if “chaos” exists in the Mormon church due to unrighteous members, God still sees fit to have everything work for good. M.

Hi Serg, From lds.org there is an article you can read concerning this question of yours: Q. Is it necessary to take the sacrament with one’s right hand? Does it really make any difference which hand is used? Russell M. Nelson, “Questions and Answers,” Tambuli, July 1983, 22 ...Scriptural accounts give some background and insight into the symbolic significance of the right hand—a symbolism that appears in the language and other cultural features of the Jewish and Christian world. In Latin, for example, dexter (right) and sinister (left) not only indicated right and left but became the roots for adjectives carrying favorable and unfavorable connotations. The use of the right hand as a symbolic gesture was in time extended to the administration of government oaths, and to the courtroom, as witnesses were called to testify under oath... ...The word sacrament comes from two Latin stems: sacr meaning “sacred,” and ment meaning “mind.” It implies sacred thoughts of the mind. Even more compelling is the Latin word sacrament, which literally means “oath or solemn obligation.” Partaking of the sacrament might therefore be thought of as a renewal by oath of the covenant previously made in the waters of baptism. It is a sacred mental moment, including (1) a silent oath manifested by the use of one’s hand, symbolic of the individual’s covenant, and (2) the use of bread and water, symbolic of the great atoning sacrifice of the Savior of the world... ...Partaking of the sacrament is a sacred mental process, and as such it becomes a very personal one for me. I think of the covenants being made between me and Deity as the prayers are pronounced. I think of God offering his Only Begotten Son. I think of the atoning sacrifice of my Savior, Jesus Christ. The sacrament was instituted by him. For all mankind, even me, he offered his flesh and blood and designated the bread and the water as symbolic emblems. Because I have a right hand, I offer it in partaking of the sacrament as an oath, that I will always remember his atoning sacrifice, take his name upon me and remember him, and keep the commandments of God. M.

It still does, it just has an additional meaning depending on the context it is used in. gay adj. 1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. 2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry. M.

<div class='quotemain'> I am responding as a woman whose parents feel my husband doesn't provide well enough for our family.... The problem lies in what each person finds acceptable.... It sounds to me like she hasn't quite married you yet. She's still looking back at the lifestyle her parents afforded her and wondering if she made a mistake.... There is a difference between wife and in-laws. I bet informed's wife feels the same way you did 'mom' but it's her parents who see things differently, like your parents. But Informed also sd this: "I guess the problem is what the spouse feels and the fact that she is concerned about what her parents think." If he and his wife are happy with the status quo, they should care less what her parents think. But there is a difference between being concerned with how your parent's judge your spouse and not liking that they seem him in a negative light and agreeing with their judgement. So this statement: It sounds to me like she hasn't quite married you yet. She's still looking back at the lifestyle her parents afforded her and wondering if she made a mistake.... I don't feel fits. Did 'mom' feel this way just because her parents did the same thing? I don't get that impression. There are several times in many people's lives where we are concerned about how others judge us and our family, but that doesn't mean we agree with them. M.

There is a difference between wife and in-laws. I bet informed's wife feels the same way you did 'mom' but it's her parents who see things differently, like your parents. M.

We've been having the most wonderful winter here in Alberta. I think we had about a week of cold in December and since then it's been above normal temperatures, until today. It is -23C, with a 15km/h wind, to make a wind chill of -33C. I'm thinking that this brief cold spell in these here parts has to do with my friend, who just remarried on Valentine's Day. The marriage gods were not happy with this arrangement so they made a deal with the weather gods and voila, a cold snap - some people's kids! M.

A weighty religious issue: LDS heavier By Jeremy Twitchell Deseret Morning News Utah's religious divide appears to have a physical as well as spiritual side — LDS Church members on average weigh 4.6 pounds more than their counterparts in other religions. A recently completed study shows that Utah, and particularly its LDS population — for many years seen as a bastion of health in a nation where fitness is on a steady decline — is slipping, especially around the waistline. The study, involving a cross section of Utah adults from different religions over a nine-year period, also found that LDS Church members are 14 percent more likely (18 percent for males, 9 percent for females) to be obese than their non-LDS counterparts. The study was compiled by BYU health science professor Ray Merrill, who gathered the data from figures obtained in 1996, 2001 and 2003-2004 by the Utah Health Status Survey.... Aldana said the LDS Church is one of the few organizations actively working on the problem by instituting a wellness program for its employees and calling wellness missionaries. But, he said, there is much more to be done. "You still aren't hearing this over the pulpit," he said. A spokesman for the LDS Church declined comment. Aldana said the state has done a good job researching and compiling data that has been useful in studies like Merrill's. But it has done little to reverse the trend. "Daily physical education is not required at any level in Utah," he said. "We don't even have PE teachers, we have PE specialists who get paid $7 an hour to do something with these kids. And we're lacking good parks and trails systems in many of our cities." The concern is not just for obesity, he said, but also for people who may not be overweight but put themselves at risk for cardiovascular disease and other health issues. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...84267%2C00.html I was surprised about Phys. Ed. not being required. I'm pretty sure here in Alberta, that Phys. Ed. is compulsory in elementary, junior high and the first year of high school. What do you guys think of this article? M.

That's interesting - now I'm curious too. M.

I'm just curious lisajo but do you get your husband something for Valentine's Day? M.

To put this in LDS perspective, I would say in LDS church structure all leaders from the President to the Bishops (maybe even the counselors) would be held to a higher standard, then the regular member, since they lead the Church. I’m not going to pretend I under the whole structure, like on the Ward or Stake level but for the most part if you are a regular member with just a regular calling then you wouldn’t be considered a “higher leader” of the Church. Just me 2 cents. M.

Did I say that? That's what I'm asking you. M.

I believe that is true but, I find many people also use Satan as an excuse to avoid accountability for their own actions. You see it all the time, Maureen...unfortunately.... Are you saying Aristotle that people should not take responsibility for their actions but always blame their weaknesses on Satan? M.

I believe that is true but, I find many people also use Satan as an excuse to avoid accountability for their own actions. M.

I definitely believe that a job in a spiritual/religious ministry is a calling. When I was in grade 8 my Lutheran church hired a new pastor. He was in his early 30’s, married with 2 small girls. He was a very active person, liked to hunt and canoe, etc. The youth were extremely fortunate when he came because he got us all involved in many activities. He would take our confirmation class on outings. He would teach us teamwork and made it fun. The Hi-League group was set up to do an activity on Friday nights followed by a bible study afterwards. He also took us camping several times (saw Grey Owl’s cabin) and taught us to canoe. (He also made the best oatmeal without any milk – we Canadians normally like our oatmeal with milk, just in case you didn’t know). When I was in grade 9, the western Canadian Lutheran churches gathered together for a convention called “Grace Day by Day”. It was great, an experience I will never forget. This pastor was called. In my later teens I used to hang out with Pentecostals . The one church I attended (mostly youth activities) had a pastor whose brothers (him included) seemed to have a family tradition of serving in a “ministry” of some sort. IMO, it was a “tradition” because the pastor of this church I attended was NOT called. I can’t imagine why he thought he should be a pastor, because he lacked many of the characteristics mentioned above, like self-control and he did his share quarrelling. He also lacked a sense of humour, which I think should be added to that list. Now this pastor’s brother who had been a missionary in South Africa was definitely called to serve. He was a wonderful man, kind hearted, a good father and husband. The youth pastor of this church was also a great guy with a good heart and a wonderful sense of humour - he was called. In the early years of my marriage I attended a different Pentecostal church that had a great pastor (one of a kind). He had Bible Studies on Wednesday evenings; they were a joy to attend, as well as very interesting. He was the “teaching” type of pastor (as opposed to the preaching type) and he was very knowledgeable and thoughtful in his teaching style – he was definitely called. M.