Saguaro

So the only reason people stop going to church is because they sin? No one is perfect, we all sin from time to time, that's why we have forgiveness and the atonement. Sinners go to church, and people who don't sin don't go to church. It's very presumptuous to assume sin is the only reason. Just from the answers so far on this thread there are many reasons why people stop going and they don't all have to do with sin. I'll add one, sometimes people just stop believing. There may be an event in their lives or they learn something that changes the way they believe, and they lose their testimony, possibly even to the point they don't believe in God anymore.

I love the Beatles, some of John's work after the Beatles I like, some I don't. Overall I think he was great artist but certainly not without his flaws. He messed up with his first wife and Julian, but near the end he was trying to be a good husband and father to Sean. The night he was killed he and Yoko were returning from a recording session, Yoko suggested they stop and have dinnner on the way but John wanted to get home to see Sean before he went to bed, I guess he didn't get that chance.

As others have mentioned, Rough Stone Rolling fits that bill. If you're interested, the author, Richard Bushman, has done podcast interviews for Mormon Stories and FAIR.If you want something more modern, try Amazon.com: David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (9780874808223): Gregory A Prince, Wm Robert Wright: Books. It's not just about DOM, but about the church's growth (and growing pains) as it became a more modern church during the 50s and 60s.

If you like him and think there's a potential for a relationship, then go for it. What a shame it would be if you missed out on a great opportunity, possibly even finding your future husband, but were scared away just because he was your home teacher. If it gets awkward just talk to the EQP or HPGL and ask for a change.

I don't have a problem trick or treating on Sunday. This year was actually a nice experience. My older kids were off on their own, so it was just me and my six year old son, he is mildly autistic so it is often a challenge just to get him outside and interacting with people. At first he didn't want to go, because he remembered a house from last year that was particularly scary, but as the day approached he decided to go after all. We ended up having a great time together. As he approached each house he would almost yell "trick or treat" and take the people by surprise with his enthusiasm. They would ask him if he was a ninja and he would quickly explain that he was a jedi, so they would ask if he was Luke Skywalker so he had to further explain that he was Mace Windu, "See the purple light saber?" It was great to see him out and talking to people and making them smile with his innocence and excitement. Good times, good memories, that I would not have if we had stayed home. I can't imagine the Lord would be displeased.

I thought this article was pretty good, it gives a good background history on plural marriage in the church and how the fundamentalists evolved. "Sister Wives" explained: A fundamentalist Mormon polygamy primer – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Is there a schedule of where and when the remaining firesides will be in Utah and Arizona?

From: Newsroom - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I understand your concerns, and yes, it's been discussed her ad nauseum. I'll just say that at least the edited version was an improvement. Let's face it, Pres Packer is getting old, so is Pres Monson. When President Monson ad libs or goes off script he seems to be a little unfocused and rambles. Maybe Pres Packer went off script a little bit in his talk, I don't know. I think Packer's and Monson's days of giving GC talks are numbered. We went many years without hearing or even seeing Pres Benson at conference as he aged. We got spoiled with Hinckley, he remained very healthy and mentally sharp almost to the end of his life.

I guess I'm thinking of the last chapter of the 2006 handbook on church policies. It seems there are things in there that people should be able to make their own decisions about without the church telling them what its policy is. One example I can think of is organ donation and transplants. I just don't understand why the church would be involved in that kind of a decision.

The last time Halloween fell on a Sunday we didn't go trick or treating but we did give out candy to those who came to our home. My attitude toward trick or treating on Sunday has evolved since then, I won't have any issues letting my kids go out this year. It's a family activity that will get us out and interacting with our neighbors who we may not otherwise see and could lead to missionary opportunities, we don't live in an area of high Mormon concentration. I don't see why Heavenly Father would have a problem with that.

Our bishop said he received the new books but will not distribute them until the appropriate date. I've heard rumors that the handbook will be smaller and less detailed. I'm hoping it has fewer, or less detailed policies. We shouldn't have to be commanded in all things.

Do you have first hand knowledge that that's how it works? The talks word for word are sent to the Ensign and any changes can be chalked up to ad libbing? When the senior Apostle speaks at general conference isn't that talk basically considered scripture? So which version are we to stick with, the spoken version, or the written version? Again I ask the question, is the proclamation to the family a revelation or a guide? Obviously a revelation carries more weight, so why was that emphasis downplayed in the text version?

Also, referring to the proclamation on the family, the word "revelation" was changed to "guide". So what is it? Is the proclomation a revelation or a guide? There's a website (mormonsformarriage) that has a transcript of the original talk with the edits that are in the text version. I won't link directly to it becuase I'm afraid the mods will consider that website anti-Mormon.

That's a ridiculous argument, comparing a sealing between a parent and child is not the same as that between two adults within a marriage relationship.

Let's go back to Wingnut's original statement, "women have never been permitted more than one husband". Let's assume for the sake of argument that they were sealed, and not necessarily married. If a woman is sealed to a man, does that not make him her husband? If not, then what is he? What other term would you use to describe him? I can't think of any other. The fact is there are women who were sealed to their husband and Joseph Smith at the same time. We could argue the semantics of "marriage" vs "sealing" all day. Sorry for veering away from the original post, which if I remember correctly was about a TV show.

In this context I think marriage and sealing can be used interchangeably. I you want to say they were "just sealed" then doesn't that imply they were married? When I went to the temple I wasn't "just sealed" to my wife, we were also married in the same ceremony. Joseph Smith may not have cohabitated with his wives (though there are those who argue he did) but the fact is he was married/sealed to women who were already married to their husbands.

Bejeweled on Facebook. I'm addicted.

Not entirely accurate. Of the 30 or so women that Joseph Smith married in his life time, 11 were already married, therefore women were at one time permitted more than one husband. I watched just a few minutes of the beginning of the show, it looked kind of interesting and would probably have watched more but my wife can't stand to watch that kind of thing. I thought it was interesting that they called themselves fundamentalist Mormons yet they looked like regular people, no long dresses and long braided hair like you see the Utah/Arizona/Texas fundamentalists wear.

Thanks for trying to get us back on track. As I said in the original post I wanted this thread to be about the letter to the editor and its subsquent yanking, not about prop 8, homosexuality, or gay marriage. But hey, it's a free country, threads seem to take a life of their own.

You're all a couple of days late, 8.9.10 means September 8 in Europe where the article originated. If you interpreted it as August 9 you're more than a month late.

Change of plans thanks goodness. Florida pastor calls off burning of Qurans - CNN.com

Yesterday on the Daily Universe web site (the BYU student newspaper) the below letter appeared. However, sometime during the day is was pulled from the website. (I've removed the submitter's name, however copies of the letter are out in cyberspace and a simple google search would easily find it, but I don't feel I should include the name here without the author's permission.) I don't want to start yet another debate on prop 8 or homosexuality, but why do you think the university pulled this letter? Was it too inflamatory? He actually makes the argument the reason most LDS supported Prop 8 was because the Prophet told us to. For many Mormons that's good enough reason.

I think what he means is that they will organize protests or demonstrations against the temple. Last year when they were going through the steps to get the land rezoned they occasionally would stand on the sidewalk in front of the site with posters and make a scene for the news cameras. I'm not sure what more protests would do at this point, I guess they think it could create some bad publicity for the church, but I think they also end up looking bad themselves as many people don't understanding why they would protest a place of worship that is allowed under current zoning laws. Regarding the redesign, they didn't have to, but they avoided a voter referendum by doing so. Last year after negotiations with the opposition and the city the Church got approval from the city council for a specific type of rezoning which allowed for a two story building plus a spire (spire height is not regulated by law) but the opposition got enough signatures to put the new zoning to a general vote. To avoid the vote the church withdrew its rezoning application, so they redesigned the building to fit the existing zoning which only allows a one story building.

To get back on topic.... It looks like the neighbors are far from pleased. I'm not sure what legal challenges they're referring to, the new design falls under the current zoning laws. Redesign of proposed Phoenix Temple not enough to quiet neighbors