Maureen

PantherMan - Have you lost your marbles? About the only thing that's true in this paragraph is: the RLDS faith is now known as the Community of Christ. M. That is true, Maureen, but there is another side of the story. The CoC has downplayed the role the BoM plays in the church, and it has forced out a lot of the traditional members, that along with a lot of changes in doctrine. The CoC is becoming more liberal protestant than anything else, IMO. It is the Restorationists (those who stopped attending the RLDS in 1984) that hold more true to the BoM and the restoration gospel. Hey Jenda - I think I understand the differences between CofC and the Restorationists but PantherMan's strange information has me shaking my head. I think PantherMan should come back and explain his comments: and took the Book of Mormon out from among their Church all because of their lack of funding and that they Government wouldnt give them ANY funding unless they denouced the Book of Mormon as part of their faith. What does he mean lack of funding and what Government is he talking about. Sounds like a Suspense thriller to me and nothing I've read about concerning the CofC. The CofC website says this: Scripture The scriptures provide divine guidance and inspired insight for life when responsibly interpreted and faithfully applied. With other Christians, we affirm the Bible as scripture for the church. In our tradition, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants are additional scriptural witnesses of God’s love and Christ’s ministry. AEY - If I were you, I would check the CofC's website: http://www.cofchrist.org/ M.

PantherMan - Have you lost your marbles? About the only thing that's true in this paragraph is:the RLDS faith is now known as the Community of Christ. M.

Under the picture it says this:This 1879 duplication was done with film and equipment that by today's standards would seem quite primitive. It has been retouched around the hair, coat, on the cravat-or necktie-and the vest. Joseph's pompadour hairstyle, considered fashionable at the time , has been poorly frisked or masked along the outline. This retouching has caused the loss of softer, finer, transitional hair between the parted sections. Joseph's face seems free of any artistic retouching, but there is an overall "grainy" quality that causes the image to be less than one might expect from a photograph. This "graininess" is probably due to the gross enlargement from the original daguerreotype, however there is a startling photographic quality to the eyes. http://www.comevisit.com/lds/js3photo.htm M.

I've always thought that this comparison between the photograph and death mask was quite interesting. M.

I don't actually celebrate in a church sense, just an awareness that the day is set aside to remember the Reformation - and yes I am Lutheran. It is celebrated (or observed) the last Sunday in October.M.

Which was one of Martin Luther's pet peeves. It's probably a good thing that the Roman Catholic church wasn't perfect; else mankind would have missed out on experiencing that wonderful Reformation. By the way, what day is the Reformation celebrate on? (I actually know, I'm just wondering if any body else does) M.

Wow!!!! It's gorgeous!!! Nice to have you back bat (although you may have already been back and I didn't know it). It's nice that you're back as bat. :) M.

If I had to choose between Ed Decker's sensationalistic style research or the Tanner's personal style; I choose the Tanners. I find the Tanners credible, while I find Ed Decker questionable. I see Mr. Hinckley as a business man not a pedophile. He may have been duplicitous with how he portrays his dealings and thoughts within Mormon circles verses outside the Mormon family (ie Mark Hofmann, interviews-Larry King, etc.) but I can't imagine him a pervert.M.

Practices or beliefs? Both. First there is a belief in the doctrine and it's followed through by practicing what is believed. I'm certain Blood Atonement (especially through the eyes of BY) was taken seriously that it was actually practiced. M.

I find it difficult to believe that these accusations against GBH are true. Even the Tanners find them difficult to accept:Ed Decker and others who have brought accusations of immorality against President Gordon B. Hinckley claim that they have hard evidence to support the charges. Our examination of that evidence, however, raises many questions with regard to its validity. While we cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no truth in the accusations, on the basis of the evidence that we have examined, we find the charges difficult to accept. In fact, we find it hard to believe that they wouId be made public without some confirming evidence from more reliable sources. Lest the reader should misunderstand our position, we do not wish to be considered apologists for President Hinckley or the Mormon Church. In fact, in the last issue of our newsletter we severely criticized Hinckley and other church authorities for suppressing the McLellin Collection from prosecutors in the Mark Hofmann case. Nevertheless, we feel that it is our duty to present our readers with well-balanced research on this issue. We are deeply concerned about such serious charges being made on evidence that seems questionable. We are very sensitive to this issue because we ourselves have been the target of very malicious stories circulated by members of the Mormon Church. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no84.htm (April 1993) M.

I recommend reading:The Mormon Hierachy: Origins of Power and The Mormon Hierachy: Extensions of Power by D. Michael Quinn to answer that statement. The LDS church has had it's own mess too. Maybe not to scale with the Catholics but the LDS church has lived through: Polygamy, MMM, Blood Atonement practices, etc. Again the LDS church has had it share of problems in this field also; certainly not to the same scale (as far as I know) but they have existed and still do exist. The LDS church also has had a history of financial problems; but thanks to N. Eldon Tanner in the early '60's the LDS church recovered, see: Deficit Spending and Modern Financing from The Mormon Hierachy: Extensions of Power by D. Michael Quinn At the end of 1962 the church was deficit-spending $32 million annually. New York financiers had to advise against the First Presidency's proposal "to finance such spending by selling Church securities for the next fifty years."132 The new year looked no better. By the end of February there was already a $5 million shortfall, and 1963 threatened to equal or exceed the spending deficit of 1962.133 Then in 1963 N. Eldon Tanner entered the First Presidency as the church was struggling to avoid the worst financial crisis of its history. By then, his biographer notes, the building program "had so drained Church reserves that at one point financial officers wondered if they would be able to meet the payroll" for church employees.134 Known as the church's modern financial wizard, President Tanner's legacy is an extraordinary success story which deserves separate discussion not possible here. In brief, he responded to Mormonism's financial crisis of 1963 by declaring "a moratorium" on the LDS building program and by halting investments "until a buffer reserve could be built up." Five years of deficit spending had wiped out the church's reserve fund, yet under Tanner's careful stewardship, "step by step the Church was introduced to corporate financing."135The task of rebuilding church finances was so daunting that not until 1966 did church administrators conclude that "the finances of the Church are now in a little better shape."136 Once church finances were comfortably in the black again, there was no incentive to resume the detailed annual reports to general conference. http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/hie...er2.htm#deficit No organization run by man is squeaky clean. M.

I think it's a matter of perspective, familiarity and comfort. Being brought up Lutheran, the LDS doctrines of eternal progression, pre-existence, Heavenly Mother, Temple endowments, etc. are very strange and confusing. I embrace traditional Christianity because I understand it, I accept it, it is familiar to me because I was raised with those beliefs. Anything contrary with what I was first taught seems odd to me.M.

And before that he was with The Guess Who (a Canadian group)!!!!It looks like Tal's father has accepted his son's choice. Hopefully his wife will be able to do the same. M.

Setheus - Notice the wittiness of PD's alliteration examples in bold. Now I'm not familiar with Elder Maxwell's speaking style but I'm guessing he was well practiced in alliteration. M.

I've never really studied really early Church history but this small essay I found to be quite interesting: http://www.roshpinah.org/articles/Judaism_...mple_%20era.htm It is titled: Judaism and the Post-Temple Era A brief overview of a critical era in Messianic Jewish history By Michael Weygant an excerpt: By the time Ignatius5 became bishop in Antioch in 69 C.E., a rightist theology involving a Messianic belief system still deeply impregnated with the old leaven of Judaism had already been deemed undesirable by some. It should be noted at this juncture that Ignatius had assumed the Antioch bishopric upon the death of Euodius his predecessor. In turn Euodius had been the first to hold such a venerated and influential spiritual office after Shimon bar-Yonah (the apostle Peter) himself. M.

And almost 1700 years later, there is still agreement:Before any and all creation, God was completely self-sufficient and all-inclusive. All that existed was God. There was nothing that was not God.4 Without beginning, the Supreme Being is infinite in each of his many characteristics. Yet rather than contain all opposites, God eternally chooses to be himself, and his choosing is forever expressive of his nature. God’s attributes are not contradictory but rather entirely consistent with one another, for God is simple and God is one. http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/proper/...anworldview.htm M.

How was I acting superior? I'm just speculating why porter is not on his mission yet, since he has conveyed to this board before that he desires to go on one (and tried to go). My speculation is based on porter's rudeness and arrogance towards others not of his faith. I don't see how my speculation means that I am acting superior toward porter.M.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like a smart-a##. I thought you meant to include a link to another page, and forgot to include it. Glad you got the sign you were looking for. shanstress - I don't think you sound like a smart-######. I was thinking the same thing as you, but also, Nicodemus hasn't really said what his testimony is regarding this unknown sign the Holy Spirit sent him. He never actually said it is a positive testimony toward the BofM. His statement is somewhat ambiguous. Nicodemus, please expound. M.

I know how the LDS church sees it; I was just curious about porter's view. Thanks anyway!M.

So you actually believe porter that your attitude (whether it's cockiness, arrogance or rudeness) has no effect on your physical or mental health. It appears the MTC sees it differently.M.

porter - Do you view abortion as black and white - all abortions are murder? Or do you see some leeway in certain cases, such as if the mother’s life is in danger. I'm just curious.M.

While I don't neccessarily agree w/ porter's post..I think yours is a bit judgemental...unless porter has come on here and explained his innermost personal life regarding going on a mission, it's not our place to say why he's not on a mission... porter has informed us before regarding his mission desires, and his non-mission situation at the present. I think I'm anaylizing his situation through biology. You know that the head bone is connected to the foot bone. Well I think that applies to porter's situation. Maybe his health issues are a direct result of his bad attitude; I can only speculate. M.

You know, with an attitude like that, I'm sure everyone is jumping at the bit to be your best friend! That's a great post! I also noticed the rudeness of porter's post. I even notified the mods because of certain offensive statements, IMO. I wonder if he's been sent to the corner yet. I wonder also, if that's why porter's not been sent on a mission yet. His leaders see his bad attitude towards others not of his faith. Not the best quality for a missionary. M.

WTF is talking to you? Ewwwww, naughty acronym. :) M.

You know Porter Rockwell was only 30 or 31 in 1844.M.