Jenda

I don't believe that women were ordained to priesthood roles. They were only ordained to psuedo-priesthood roles (the same roles they had performed prior to ordination). And they were only ordained because many of them came out of pagan religions that had women priestesses, etc., and were raising a stink. And they did not get ordained into the priesthood in any role till 100-200 AD. Long after Christ set up the church.

1. On a standard traffic light, is the green on the top or bottom? bottom 2. How many states are there in the USA? (Don't laugh, some people don't know) 50 states (4 are commonwealths, but are considered states) 3. In which hand is the Statue of Liberty's torch? right 4. What six colors are on the classic Campbell's soup label? red, white, gold, black, blue, yellow 5. What two numbers on the telephone dial don't have letters by them? 1 and 0 6. When you walk does your left arm swing with your right or left leg? left 7. How many matches are in a standard pack? 8. On the United States flag is the top stripe red or white? red 9. What is the lowest number on the FM dial? 10. Which way does water go down the drain, counter or clockwise? clockwise 11. Which way does a "no smoking" sign's slash run? top right to bottom left 12. How many channels on a VHF TV dial? 13. On which side of a women's blouse are the buttons? left 14. Which way do fans rotate? 15. What is on the back of a Canadian dime? 16. How many sides does a stop sign have? 8 17. Do books have even-numbered pages on the, right or left side? left 18. How many lug nuts are on a standard car wheel? 5 19. How many sides are there on a standard pencil? 6 20. Sleepy, Happy, Sneezy, Grumpy, Dopey, Doc. who's missing? Bashful 21. How many hot dog buns are in a standard package? 8 22. On which playing card is the card maker's trademark? 23. On which side of a Venetian blind is the cord that adjusts the opening between the slats? right 24. On the back of a Canadian $1 coin, what is in the centre? 25. There are 12 buttons on a touch one phone. What 2 symbols bear no digits? * and # 26. How many curves are there in the standard paper clip? 3 27. Does a merry-go-round turn counter or clockwise? counter-clockwise

Strawberry, Please explain the precedence that is being set. PD already explained that precident.

That is a blatantly false accusation whose only purpose is to cast doubt on the persons taking the opposite POV.It's one thing to be righteously indignant, it is another thing to try to strip away the integrity of another person just because you are losing the discussion.

YOu completely misread the meaning of what I said about HOW some parents justify hitting their kids. My point was that parents sometimes THINK they are doing their kids a favor by hitting them, when what the parent is REALLY doing is simply venting their own frustration, which does no good for the child, and simply relieves the parent of their frustration. The parent is doing it for HIS/HER benefit, not the benefit of the child. Which is a reason NOT to hit the kid---it harms the kid. How can I be any clearer. Now, would you please stop misrepresenting my position on things. I am just trying to understand you logic in light of other threads. If a parent was born with an orientation of child beating why should we try to change their orientation? Child beating is nothing more that a cognitive function. Why treat this cognitive function any different that other cognitive functions? I think there are primitive societies that beat children and have survived. My friend Cal – you need to expand your “little world”. Sorry that you do not get my sarcasm. Have a nice day – and I hope you can feel good because that’s what’s important – Right – that is making everybody feel good about their cognitive orentition activities? The Traveler I think he is trying to equate spanking a child with homosexuality.

What good is someone being sealed to you if one of you ends up in a different glory?

I doubt that they will appreciate anyone interfering, but I will keep you in my prayers. (And maybe you can get your parents to read that post. B) )

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best? What justifies beating Children? The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing. The Traveler This post seems kind of harsh in light of the OP. No one, not even Cal, has advocated beating children. What do you mean "not EVEN" Cal? I thought I was the one most adamantly AGAINST any kind of physical punishment? Has my pacifist position been usurped? I only said "...........not even Cal..........." because he was quoting you as the OP, not for any other reason. I understood that your stance is that spanking a child should never be done. Maybe I should have said, "especially not Cal".

Are you kidding? A REAL antimormon doesn't care about such technicalities. A real antimormon is free to confuse doctrines of any church ever associated with mormonism into one big, horrifying, satanic cult to be feared by real Christians... And my mission (should I choose to accept it) is to make sure everyone knows that we are different. That we are neither Mormon nor Christian. That we are the ONE TRUE CHURCH! Think they'll go for it? Have I got you convinced???

I assume you mean within Christianity. Long before the Romans were clean shaven, the Egyptians were clean shaven. I'm talking no hair at all! Bald as a billiard ball--body and soul! (of course theirs was more related to a distaste for lice than anything else.) At least, that's what Cecil B. DeMille wants us to think.

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best? What justifies beating Children? The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing. The Traveler This post seems kind of harsh in light of the OP. No one, not even Cal, has advocated beating children.

Just out of curiosity, why should they visit cofchrist.org? We are about as far away from mormonism as you can get (and still believe in the BoM.)

I know that this is the youth board, but I gotta say this...................... My daughter (15) does goth, and when she first started doing it, I was appalled. She seemed so depressed most of the time, and stuff. We have talked about it quite a few times, and come to an understanding. I know that as long as she is studying hard (and she is in AP classes at school), and she is interested in pursuing her cello (hardly a favorite among drug addicts ), then it is OK. Now we even go shopping together and I buy her spiky leather chokers, etc. LOL.

I was questioning about the almond being related to a peach.

In my church, for several years, we had an early(er) service in addition to our regular service. The earlier one was put together by members, and they found something that brought the meaning of Easter home to them, and presented it to the congregation. It ranged from scriptures to readings, to poetry, to making cookies with their kids (the kind where each of the ingredients describe a portion of the crucifixion and burial of Christ), to music, etc. The regular service was a traditional preaching service. Except one year, we bloomed a cross. One year, instead of an early Easter service, we had a Good Friday Tenebrae service. That was an awesome service. Very much like "The Passion". (sort of) This year, we are not doing anything special. Just a traditional preaching service.

You are right, Snow, as you are 100% of the time. I don't know why I didn't see it before.

Jenda, It's not a precedent. This has been going on all across American for years. Their have been thousands and thousands of cases I myself faced my first case 12 years ago. The wife of an elderly gentleman had been in the same state as Terri Schiavo for 20 years. She had zero quality of life. It had taken every single penny the man had, every single penny and now he had nothing. He and her physician decided what they wanted to do and then asked to have the tube pulled. Undoubtedly it has happened a number of times since this thread was opened. What's different about this case is that the media, religious interventionists have made it a cause celeb and an Evangelical Governor has decides (unconstitutionally as decided by the court of appeals) to ram his personal morality down the necks of the Schiavos. And Jenda, she is on life support. Her life is being supported via a feeding tube. Remove that support and stop force feeding her (in as much as her proxy speaks for her legally, we know that she is being forced) and she dies. You don't have to see it as a good thing. Just allow her (by proxy) to live and die according to the dictates of her own consciousness. I am a nurse, and know what "life support" is. It is not a feeding tube, any more than eating by mouth is life support for you. I worked with children in PVS, and know what that is, also, and it is not what Terri is described as. There is no response of any kind. They lie there like a rag doll, their eyes do not open, there is not even reflexive movement. There are no voluntary respirations because that is a reflexive action. They must be on a ventilator. So, please don't presume to instruct me in what it is I am talking about. It is not the stopping of life support that would set the precident, Snow (I have been there and done that, too), it is the government stepping in and making the decision that her life is valueless because she has brain damage. You should re-read PD's post.

Very good post, hwood.

Winnie, I am so terribly sad to read your story, but I know you are a good friend for her. God works through us in situations like this. I hope she puts her trust in Him, and I hope you and she will continue to be good friends, she will need one for quite a while.

Randy, you have to understand that what we now have as the canon of scripture was developed by what became the RCC. It is what they accepted to support their belief. That left a lot of stuff out, reduced to "non-scripture" standing. That is why what you read in the Bible minimizes James contribution. It is spelled out clearly in the articles I posted.

Excellent moral of the story. B)

IMO, it goes deeper than just letting one woman die. It is setting a precedent for any other person in the country who is a custodian for someone in a similar state. I have read other articles about people who were in comas for years, who woke up and went on to normal, healthy lives. What if the plug had been pulled on them? And we are not even talking about a plug. She is not on life support. There is no proof that she said anything to anyone about wanting to die. I do find it all suspect, but I am more worried what this will do to America. What happened to the millions who spoke out against Dr. Kevorkian, who euthanized a few adults in their right mind who wanted to die instead of remain in the state they were in? Why do people want it both ways? I just don't see this as a good thing.

Dawn, On the other board you said that this notion of "James, the brother of Jesus" being President of the Church after Christ died is a "foundation of the Restoration". Show me where....anywhere, that the Prophet Joseph..either in his writings, or the Lord in the D&C has taught that doctrine. It is NOT a foundation of the Restoration. You yourself said in effect...that this idea has just fairly recently evolved. randy No, I didn't say it just evolved. We have always believed it. At least, I was taught that years ago when I was but a wee lassie. It is a newer concept in the rest of Christianity, but even with that, I don't think new means just a couple of years old, maybe 20-30 years, or so. I don't know. A lot of it came with the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so that is probably when it started. But just because the concept was recently discovered doesn't mean it wasn't true all along. It just meant that there was no way to find out that information prior to 40 or 50 years ago, but it was true, never-the-less. Truth is truth. Maybe God revealed the truth to Joseph Smith, and the LDS chose not to embrace it because it did not fit the design they chose for themselves. I don't know. I just know that it has been around in our church a lot longer than it has been in mainstream Christianity. Let me ask you a question. Why don't you ask these questions on the other board where there are much more studied people than I?

They also approach the subject with a built-in bias.

Randy, it is all beside the point. You are really questioning what the Lord gave as His will in at least 2 sections of the D&C (as well as everything He did in the OT)(and NT). I am not the right person to answer your questions. Ask Him. Ask God why he gave the instructions He did in Section 43. Ask Him why he said that through his seed, Joseph Smith would bless the earth in the same ways Abraham did.