Aesa

Why aren't they allowed to pray for others?

You mean the videos on the channel have accumulated a total of over 2,000,000 views. The actual channel page itself has had over half a million views. Still a great starting achievement. Why doesn't the Church have a channel for it's general conference?

Sad thing is, Jamie, that they'd probably fall hook-line-and-sinker for the joke. And that could be even worse.

What?A dis-fellowshipped member is not allowed to pray to god?

I'm pretty sure Cola IS out. At least by the words of Hinckley. I remember in one of his interviews, the interviewer is going through a list of things forbidden by the WoW "no alcohol, no tobacco, no coffee, no tea, not even caffienated soft drinks?" to which Hinckley replies "Right. It's wonderful!"

I really dislike the term magic in this context, because it's so open to interpretation. It makes me picture someone walking around in these giant purple underwear that repels all that is bad. It just over-emphasises what they're all about, or at least, what I understand they're all about.

I heard you have to devour a giant toffee apple. No hands.

Never thought of it that way sensibility.

Well then in that case tell them that you're not interested in discussing it with them unless they're serious about it? Perhaps you just need a little conviction?

Just correct their misconception and tell them what they're really about, and your belief behind them. Or if they you feel uncomfortable with that, why not direct them to an article about it on LDS.org or something? Or, a polite "Why don't you find out for yourself?"

Because it seems like a deviation of what Joseph set forth beforehand.

No, I don't. It's the environment at large that shapes our behaviour. One example does not refute the general occurance. I do agree with you in some way, though, in that I am not speaking in a one case fits all type of thing. Your boys may very well maintain a voice that is reflective of what you'd consider 'normal' for a male. However, you have to remember that I also stated that not all gay men speak in lisp. I can't claim to know your environment, but evidence all over the world would suggest that human behaviour is determined by the environment (so, my conclusion is that all people pick up who they are, from some source). Can you provide some peer-reviewed papers on this? I'm just going to dismiss this until you do. I personally prefer to take the side that a humans behaviour is environmental, and therefore can be altered.I personally believe that most of you believe that behaviour comes from the environment. If you have an alcoholic husband, you don't help them overcome that by keeping their favourite wine or beer in the home: you alter the environment. If you don't want your girls dressing like tarts, you moderate the media influences they're exposed to and any other area you may deem harmful (hanging around with the wrong people, etc,.) If you have a selfish child that thinks only for themself then perhaps you'll take them to a place where they can witness those going without and experience it intimately. If you have a friend with a sex addiction, you try and identify what (environment) is causing it. Genetics may play a role, but I refuse to accept the ridiculous notion that our genetics control us totally. We have agency, and if we have that then genetics cannot be the total controllers of our behaviour because that implies that all our actions are pre-defined and we're about as free as a computer (which can only respond in a systematic way) and notions of agency just go out the window. And what about when they had that Homosexuality story-book for kids in a school (California?) - people didn't want that in their children's environment? Why? Because it would give them a view that the parents didn't hold or consider appropriate. To over emphasise genetics is as bad as the philosophically motivated geneticists who are looking for the "smoking gene" or the "gay gene" or the "republican gene" or the "musician gene." Such things do not exist, and that is why they haven't been found. (And I realise this is off topic, so please ignore this or we'll move it to another thread) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm actually surprised that the LDS church isn't providing for the needs of gay people morseo? I remember an interview with Hinckley saying "...We're reaching out to these people and trying to work with them..." Is the Church, or isn't it?

If I were to be a Mormon (I'm not anything descriptive in terms of spirituality at this point in my life) I'd follow the Word of Wisdom very rigidly, and I know I'd love it. Essentially, in it's most complete interpretation the Word of Wisdom entails what I think most nutritionists would call an optimum diet if there ever was one. Especially: Personally I'd probably go Vegetarian / Vegan because that'd allow me to contribute to humanitarian efforts, the Church, and so forth because those diets are way cheaper. If I didn't know better I'd think God knew that people were going to become much more health conscious in this age, and wanted to make sure people were clear on what being healthy is all about. I mean, how many people got lots of exercise in the 1800's? This is just based on an assumption, but I'm assuming that there were not many people into an evening run back then (correct me if I'm wrong). That certainly makes parts such as: "...shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint."

Well, I hope you're not saying I'm bringing up this topic to 'incite' something. Because that certainly is not the case. If it was, I'd be straight up about it.

Calling someone naive without knowing their inner thoughts intimately is an ad-hom attack, that is the implication of the word. Oh? OH!? The lying corporate media that's going broke because the alternative media is exploding? No thanks, I'll stick with the indie media. I have to read enough newspaper nonsense at school.Ofcourse what these people do is bad, there's horrible things going on everywhere. Our world is absolutely terrible when you think about the destruction we've done to ourselves. I mean this is worthy of endless tears. Just think of some examples: the Soviet murder of over 20,000,000 of it's own men, women and children; the Holodomor and the Holocaust; WWII; Crusades; Chinese Communism in general; North Korea... I'm sorry that my posts seem to have an anti-US (specifically) flavour. I'm entirely against just about every destructive action on this earth. The question I think we need to ask is: Why do these terrorists do that? I can answer from what I consider a psychological perspective, but I'd love to hear what you all think.

I feel this is going to far, but anyway...#1 - Yes, they did invade. But it was allowed or ignored, is my point. #2 - Yes, they had, and who payed for it? #3 - They are, to a very twisted extent. I'll continue to reiterate this every time: freedoms are protected by protecting your homeland, not bombing people into democracy. #4 - I care because I care for humanity on a holistic, as opposed to nationalistic level. God is not American; nor is he a Jew; nor is he British and he certainly isn't Australian. You're quite right, in Australia we don't appreciate war at all and I think the population is quickly getting dissatisfied with Rudd as well because he hasn't delivered on too much of his rhetoric (but that's another discussion altogether which probably requires a separate thread). If you'd like to continue this discussion it might be more appropriate to move it to private message or another thread. I think this one has become hijacked at this stage.

I'm sorry that I'm coming across as entirely rejective of our government and our system (on the whole) that's not my intention, but we wont proceed in a respectful discussion if it's going to be based on ad-hom attacks from me our yourself (as your post, though respectfully honest, essentially was) or me. If you want to challenge my knowledge on geopolitics or world history, you'll have to be defined and specific. Because to say it like that is to imply that a person needs to know a certain amount (and that measurement would almost definitively have to be subjective) before they can be listened to. There are plenty of great things about our culture, and I don't deny that and I never will. But money and war (as examples) are not responsible for those, science and technology is. The wealth of western society, is it's knowledge and it's application of it. "have done even less to change the "systems of government" that you so much despise..." I'm doing everything I can, at all times. But I don't think that's really relevant to the discussion, unless you care to expand. I thank pam for allowing this discussion, however, I wouldn't really call this thread saintly. I mean, the first post is about punching some guy out because he challenged God. Granted, it has some spiritual relevance but I think it's kind of distasteful. Thank-you for your criticality, but we need to proceed without attacking one another.

Where is the laugh button?

Haha, I agree with you on our failed civil rights (as much as just about every other countries' failing in that area in the modern era) the point of this post was to see if the timeline was accurate or not, via the comments of others.

They didn't invade our lands. They were allowed to. I fail to believe (I assume you're referring to 9/11?) that the best air security on the planet was infiltrated by some Arab men from caves in the deep Middle-East. And even if they did invade first, that doesn't mean anything. That's like a kid saying, after punching someone "He started it!" How primitive and immature is that? When the human body is invaded with a virus it does not 'send out' it's own anti-bodies to fight off more of the disease once it's cleaned itself up - it builds up it's own immune system. This what we should be doing. They are not protecting our freedom but an established system, the big business of war. If we actually considered ourselves threatened by another nation or ideology we'd build up our own security at home. We don't need to murder civilians to protect ourselves. An invasive foreign policy is what destroyed the Roman Empire. How interesting that the American Empire should make the same mistake. And I agree with you about universities. They're all too often cookie cutter systems in much the same way as churches; political ideologies; banks and the military are. There is little distinction there.

Kind of like civilians?There is no difference. Mass killing is mass killing. I also think it's unfair to call a civil war a war. It's an uprising of the people to force social change. Liberty vs. tyranny.

I know I might be taking your words out of context, but in any case it'll make a relevant point. That is nonsense. People arrive at feelings of homosexuality in the same way they arrive at feelings of heterosexuality: their environment. It could be something as little as witnessing homosexual behaviour when young, or being called 'gay' as an insult constantly in the school-yard, talking to a gay person on instant messenger at a young age, etc,. Everything is influence.Granted, heterosexuality is more prevalent because it brings more prosperity to the tribe (i.e., breeding).

Me too. It's interesting how many who would support the effort of war which kills unborn babies and adults alike, would on the same note not support abortion.Can we have a 'show of hands' for who thinks war is okay, yet doesn't support abortion? Because war is abortion of everything.

Yes, they are brainwashed if they think they are doing a great good for the world and I have every respect for those soldiers because it's not their fault for what they've become (I know this through speaking to many of them from different backgrounds). Just not the manipulative establishment that puts them there, that's what I do not and will not respect. Universally, if people were not manipulated into joining armies there would be no war. It isn't hard to do. There's a difference between defending one's homeland ON one's homeland, and an invasive foreign policy. The only reason we have armies on a real level is because we have self-preserving institutions. It takes young people and says "This is the greatest country in the world! And God is on our side!" Every country in the world does that to it's people, so you've got a bunch of pinheads allover of the world responding to the same mechanisms of control. Patriotism and the Military are two the of the ultimate divide and conquers. The military, though, was great. It just all went wrong when we started believing that we needed to invade other countries and fight wars internationally, that certainly was not the intention of your founding fathers. In-fact they never wanted an army at all. They wanted a militant citizenry, in other words everyone has a gun and knows how to use it, that could respond socially to any threats from abroad. What we have now is very dangerous.

Personally I think if you know this to be true you should be bringing the Gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue as commanded. Otherwise I'd have to 'lump' you in with those who just go to church every sunday and don't breach the gospel at all, those people in my opinion, must really hate their fellow human beings to let them go on perishing. As the scripture says 'woe is me, if i preach not the gospel.' Sorry, but if it's controversial maybe you're doing something right.