rockwoodchev

Was not aware of the rule about not posting to "anti" sites... I suppose it makes sense, but is there a definition of what is considered to be "anti". There are many sites out there and some that are 100% anti, but many that would be somewhere in the middle. I don't see things in terms of white/black anymore so there are lots of gray and off-white web-sites. How do you distinguish the difference?

This was my least favorite of the 3. Angels and Demons was just awesome. This was good for all the masonic stuff that was in it. Learned a bunch, but of course you never know if it is all true or not. There is a ton of tie-in with King Follet doctrine in the book that I found very cool. Won't go into anything at the end, but it will keep you going.

Good catch...

Papa Married a Mormon is a fantastic story. It has been years since I've read the Great Brain series, but this website has regenerated my interest. Shouldn't take very long to read them all again.

Hi everyone, I'm bumping this thread back up in interest. I just found a really cool website that has a ton of information about Fitzgerald and all the books he has written. Sounds like a group of people has gotten together to re-promote the series. Should be fun to watch. Finding Fitzgerald - Home

This is 100% true. There was no "Lamb to the Slaughter" The death occured based on a lawless mob reacting to the lawless action of Joseph by ordering the destruction of "The Expositor" that was about to expose Joseph's polygamy.

I totally agree 100% He was very angry and not typical friendly Elder Holland at all. He has done such an incredible job of reaching out to all sort of people, of making them feel welcome, and then he comes off with this talk of anger and hatred. I am surprised to have ever heard the words "pathetic", "deranged", "paranoid" spoken at GC and I wonder if the muster of the talk will be carried through to the print version. I think he just solidified justification of the true and 100% believers in the divinity of the BOM, but for those people who are struggling or questioning, he just alienated them. The anger of this talk in the DAMU tonight is extreme.

Told and Reported by Elder Paul H. Dunn

Hi, I'm curious about this topic as it could be one of the reasons I don't feel comfortable most of the time on LDS.NET as a participant. When I read these descriptions this week, I went and listened to the podcast that is mentioned. It seemed to describe for me what is going on. Both sets of these categories tend to thumb their noses at the other group. I think that just happened with the post 2 before this one. The person, I think is describing himself as a chapel Mormon and was clearly thumbing his nose at the Internet Mormon. When I hear many of the Internet Mormons (and I think the apologists fall into this camp) they tend to clearly thumb their noses at the chapel mormons wondering how they can believe some of the silly things they do. I tend to fit into neither camp clearly and get very uncomfortable when anyone gets judgmental of someone else for their beliefs. Anyway.. I hope to discover more about this. I've learned much about the real history of our church and find myself drifting away from either Chapel or Internet Mormonism. Thanks for your opinions. I'm interested to see what you all have to say.

There have been some very interesting articles in the press over the last few days about these two terms. Both here, and here I've never thought about the differences between the two, but after reading the explanations as well as listening to the podcast that is mentioned, I think he is onto something. The one thing that didn't ring true for me was the fact that many "internet mormons" are able to function as a "chapel mormons". However, I don't think it is possible a chapel mormon to function as only a chapel mormon, once they have opened up and dealt with the myriad of topics that come up and become accepted if you send much time on the blogs and forums. What do you think?

Just to clarify there is no such weapon as a Glock 9. Glock makes several models that shoot 9mm rounds, but there is no model 9 from what I've able to find.

Hi everyone, I was involved in this thread at the very beginning, but have been absent for awhile. I wanted to hi-jack this with just a slight twist and possibly open up a different line of thought. I was preparing a seminary lesson last week and ran into another example where IMHO, we as LDS are using a portion of the Bible to prove our point while at the same time skipping over other parts. We tend to pick and choose our Bible quotes. I'm teaching Revelations 14. Here is how it reads for some applicable verses. I'm including all verses in chapter 14 that deal with angels. So... We have a total of 6 angels doing various things here. 1. Fly in the heavens to preach the gospel 2. Warn that Babylon has fallen 3. Warn against following the beast 4. Come out of temple crying in a loud voice 5. Come out of temple with a sickle 6. Come out of the alter. Total of 6 angels and the chapter has a bunch of other stuff as well that is really cool, including some good stuff about the 144,000. Anyway... The lesson material just takes the first angel and declares that this is clearly Moroni and this is why Moroni sits atop almost all the temples we have around the world. John clearly testified that the Gospel would come forth via Moroni. Here is the lesson material. The only other portion that is talked about in chapter 14 is a small piece that talks about resting from our labors following obtaining our reward which takes verses 8-14 as the text.I raised this with my wife during my prep time. She was a bit shocked at this as well. Her first reaction was "What about the poor other 5 angels??? Don't we care about them or what they did?" I thought it was a great reaction. IMHO, this is once again a case where LDS teachings do exactly what we claim others do, which we don't. That is of taking small pieces of the NT and bending them to our beliefs, or taking a section of out context. What caught me off guard was my reaction. I would expect that by this point that these things would no longer get me upset. I was really upset at this and it caused me some anger and angst. Anyway... Thought I'd share.

I think my point is this. There is much literature that has been published by the church, that can be deemed as accurate. There is much literature not published by the church that can be deemed just as accurate. As an example, much of the book of "Mormon Doctrine" has been dissolved and not kept as doctrine as the church anymore. Another example: The book Rough Stone Rolling was not published by the church but is accurate history of the church that contains things that no one really knows anymore. It is, in my opinion, that people know some of the important history and early church doctrines that still affect us today.

I have run into other areas where the two can sometime clash. It is evident in the NT when there are some really interesting doctrine contained in the text, but in the CES material, they will just skip that section. I have not kept track of them, but it isn't very hard to figure them out. It is really weird when there will be 2-3 chapters, lets say on the doctrine of Grace. There is 4 pages of NT verse about how grace will be the only thing we need to save us. The CES material for the exact same section will have a small 2-3 paragraphs talking about Grace, and then launch into modern day prophets talking about Works, Obedience, Sacrifice, and such. It really is clear that there is a difference between the two "doctrines". By reading the NT, I would say it is split in teaching about Grace vs. Works at a split about 90-10 between the two. LDS teaching is mostly about Works, and a minor bit about Grace. This debate between the two becomes very evident when teaching on a daily basis the NT over a 9 month period. Only 3 more weeks on the year to go... I love it! Can't wait to get into Revelations. This is my 2nd time to do it. Yup. This is my 5th year of doing early morning....

Help me out here. I'm not sure what you mean here. Paul wrote several letters. I agree 100% that he was writing a letter to the people in Galatia and warning them not to go back to the former law. I don't get this above section. Please help clarify. Thanks I agree with you. It was the old way they have moved away from, and Christ that they were moving to. So... I struggle a bit this this. You take material that was written to the Romans and combine it with material written to another group and combine it to make your point. While I agree that this is the only tool that we have to work with, it is in a sense putting our will onto Paul's works and words. I like the way you've explained it though. Nicely done. Sorry, you didn't clear this up in my mind. The CES manual says Don't believe in the old way, but believe in Christ and His way. Elder Packer says "The LDS Church is the only true church and Paul agrees with me" That... I don't get and don't agree with. Paul didn't even know about multiple Christian Churches. He certainly didn't know about some of the points made in Elder Packers talk. We have simply taken a section of the Bible and bent it to our own needs.

I had a girlfriend prior to my mission. We left on very good terms, but I didn't tell her that I wanted her to put herself on a shelf. I was going to be out having new experiences, so should she. Also, when I suggested that not date, she just got this weird look on her face and said "Yeah.... Right...." She dated a whole ton while I was gone. I got letters from her for a while, then it died off, then picked up again. It cycled like this a few times. We saw each other a couple of times after I go back. Just seeing each other as friends to see if we liked each other. Then we saw each other a couple more times. Then a couple more times. Then I proposed, she said yes, and we went to the temple together. So..... did she wait???? Depends on your point of view. I think you should DATE YOUR SOCKS OFF!!! Have fun, have a blast. Meet lots of people. Grow as much as he will whereever he is. He is going to grow from experiences. How impressed with you will he be if he comes home to the same girl as he left. You need to fly around a bit to learn. Good luck. Kiss him goodbye and tell him to have fun, cause you'll be having fun while he is gone.

I guess I tend to disagree with the previous poster. It feels that there are only 2 types of information about the church in his opinion. That which is true, and favorable to the church and that which is false and unfavorable to the church. In other words, if it is not favorable, it must be put in terms of "Anti" I would pose that there is a 3rd and possibly a 4th type of information. This would include things that are accurate, true, and provable, but are tend to cause feeling in the learning of confusion and doubt. I would propose that these feelings in this case are not "evil" but simple ones of confusion. There are many aspects of church history, past and present which are troubling. There are aspects of church doctrine, past and present which are troubling. I only suggest that someone who is getting into the church should understand some of the big historical and doctrinal confusing topics. I'm not talking about deep mysteries here such as "Did Adam have a bellybutton", or something like "Were the Abrahamic covenants a prototype of the current Priesthood". I'm simply saying that people should study and be aware of things that are true, known, accurate--but cause one to be confused, have doubts and question. Many of our church leaders over the last century have admonished us to question, research, and understand. This information is readily available on the web, and in my research I've found very little that is truly "anti". You can quickly tell if it is in my opinion. If you start reading and realize the author, or the site has very little good to say about the church, they are probably much to one-sided. If the information tends be sound "angry" or tries to make the point that the church is evil and everyone one associated with it, then it is probably "anti". However, the converse is also true. If you are being encouraged to "just get baptized, quickly" or "Anything against the church is anti", or "Only read positive things about the church", I tend not to trust those sites either. If you are shopping for a car, read reviews from people who have loved the car, as well as those who got rid of it after many repairs. You want a varied viewpoint. Just my advice, Free.. so take it as you like. Have a great adventure!

JPL1234 was asking for things that we thought would be important steps for working up to baptism. I get the feeling you are mocking my advice to her when it is simply that, advice to a potential new member. Is this an indication of the church she is joining, mocking others for giving advice to an investigator? She didn't indicate a question about the pre-baptism interview, but simply some of the steps that a person would follow. I was simply adding one more suggested step.

I would also encourage you to study the history and doctrines of the church. Also find out more about the temple through study and prayer. There seem to be many people leaving the church these days based on things in the church's history. I would suggest learning about these things so that you'll know about these things that you'll be asked to commit to as the process rolls out. It isn't hard to find out the "deeper" topics and they arn't things that you won't understand. They are things that you should know prior to signing on the dotted line. Kinda like understanding the contract of the house purchase, prior to putting your money down. It is the same way in the church. "Some" members, not all, get involved in the church and then a year or so later run across a policy, doctrine, or historical point and are blown away by the information. My suggestion is that you find out about these before you join to make sure you want to stay involved. The LDS Church is truly a wonderful place to be. It has so many of the answers that other faiths are lacking. It is wonderful place to be a youth and to raise children. The sense of community and belonging is wonderful. You are in front of a wonderful journey. However, I do encourage you to go in with your eyes wide open so that later you don't question the decision you made. Good luck in your journey.

I've never heard this before? Are you serious that it is better to repent by decisions than to be compelled to repent. Most of the stories of the BOM are about whole groups of people who were "brought to repentance". Since when is there conditions put on how you repent? Wow... I'm truly blown away by this. Deeply offended.

I would like to contribute to the OP and use the exact quotes in Galations that he mentions. I recently taught this exact section in Seminary and used the CES material. After teaching that section, using only the CES material, I think I can clearly say that using that one scripture, that LDS doctrine does indeed contradict the teachings in the New Testament. I have an example here where using the lesson material exactly as provided, it contradicts not only the NT, but actually contradicts itself. I will try to articulate this as best as I can. I'm sorry I can't direct link to the CES material, but it is behind a username/password combination at ldsces.org that I'm sure I'd get in trouble for if I posted the passwords here. Here is what occurs in the lesson manual for Galations. All the following quote sections are directly out of the seminary manual. What follows is some material in the book of Galatians. The opening page of the lesson material contains this quote: This is followed in the material by this: This is from the KVJ, where the OP used the NIV, but the concept is the same. Then, in the actual text of Galatians are the following versus: So... In my opinion, it is fairly easy to understand this. Paul had done a mission to these people and converted them from Judaism to Christianity. After he left them, many of the people were reverting to the teaching of the Law of Moses as the "other gospel". At this time, there were clearly 2 gospels (or churches in today's terms). Ok. Everything fine so far, right. No controversy. I just don't see at all that Paul understood that there was one true gospel with all the teachings. He was NOT talking about a Christian church with certain teachings, ordinances, and covenants.... he was talking about CHRIST!!! Simple as that. IMHO, and I fully admit that I may be off, but I don't think that Paul was implying in any way, shape, or form that there was one true Christian church and that church was the one with . He was saying, as taught in the material that there were the belief and understandings of the Jews and their traditional religion, or the new concepts and doctrines of Christ. This is clearly a place where LDS doctrine is changing the words of an ancient prophet to serve our own church. Not something that I think was intended.Now... I need to say also, that the Christian churches that claim that the LDS church is "adding" to the doctrines don't really have it right as well. Paul was teaching "Christ". Simple as that. Teach and believe in Christ and you are following these verses that Paul wrote. Also, I don't think that Elder Packer gave a very good analogy. Packer's analogy is a strawman. You could easily use the same analogy to support the idea he's opposing. For example, not all college departments teach exactly the same information, in the same way, test the same way, nor require all the same classes, and yet you can still get your medical degree, law degree, etc...and be considered quite competent and pass the boards or whatever. If you make the example ridiculous, yes, then it's easy to see how stupid the idea of "parallel paths" is. But that's not really what Christians, I imagine, think.

For those that pay on gross earnings. Do you also pay on the insurance program that the company pays for? Lets say you have to pay $300 each pay check for health insurance, but the company pays $400 during the same period. Do you increase you tithing by $40 each check to pay for the insurance? It is increase and should be included as part of your gross calculation. For those that pay on gross earnings. Do you pay on the amount of company match to your 401K? At my company, they match me dollar for dollar for the first 6%. So if I pay $500 each pay check, they match me with an additional $500. This increase of $500 should result in an increase tithing amount of $50. For those that pay on gross earnings. Do you pay on the amount of training that you receive as part of your position. What about tuition reimbursement? What if you suffered a medical condition that cost many thousands of dollars to pay for. Your insurance paid for it, and you had an increase that came directly in your benefit from the insurance company. Do you pay for that? Just some things that folks don't tend to consider when paying tithing. I once calculated my real increase at the gross rate. It ended up being about 35% higher than what actually showed up on my pay check as increase. All the other company paid amounts ends up being quite high. If someone earns $100K per year and pays $10K in tithing. I suspect they are robbing the Lord. I would think the proper amount is more like $14K they should have paid.

I was required to take in a sample after getting snipped. Not only did I have to "clean out the pipes", but they needed a sample within 30 minutes. That was a bit of a bother trying to time that whole thing out. The wife and I worked things out to make things work. To be honest, I don't get the whole "sinning" thing here. Why would anything a doctor told you to do as part of a medical procedure be considered or even need to come to a forum for advice. Do the thing. We are advised not to do drugs, but how many of us take drugs when prescribed by a doctor? Also, when did this thing become a sin in the first place. There is PLENTY of evidence to point to that the church has backed off the "little factory" view of 20 years ago. I don't think there is any recent material out from church leadership to indicate anything about sinning.

When is it not going to be behind a password? Why only for members and will it be public eventually?

Hi, I see both these sites out there. One appears to be for everyone to use, and the "new" appears for only members. But the logon screen has only appeared in the last few days. I don't know anything about these sites. I'm not into genealogy at all, but would like to know what the difference is. Thanks