bytebear

Yeah, watching commentary by some guy isn't going to teach you about the church. If the guy in the video were honest about his conclusions about Mormonism, he would have known that there are tons of contradictory ideas about such topics. The idea simply is that because life isn't fair, certain people are born into situations that are better or worse than other people. Maybe you are born to loving parents. Maybe you are born in a free, stable country, and maybe you are born with white skin, all giving you certain monetary and social advantages. So, you must have been more worthy of such blessings in the pre-existence. That is a common idea, not just among Mormons. And there is some Biblical examples of when God tells a prophet that he has been chosen before he was born to be a great man. But the problem is, it isn't LDS doctrine. In fact, it is discounted by the current leadership of the church as pure speculation, and even dangerous, because it then makes some people feel justified for treating other people badly, or prejudging them based on their socio-economic status. So, in short, ignore the conclusions of enemies of the church as they will never give you the truth. Oh, and don't seek out signs, but if you run into the missionaries, stop and make an appointment with them. Maybe it's not a sign, but an opportunity.

My MIL who is Catholic was recently told by a co-worker that Mormons aren't Christians. She said after several trips to SLC, and visiting Temple Square that the LDS Church is entirely centered on Jesus Christ. That made me so proud of her.

Nope, that is completely cultural. Nothing doctrinal or official about disdaining the cross. Funny how something becomes so common people think it's official. But it's not. The closest thing is the prophet saying that we don't use crosses on our buildings is because we choose to remember the living Christ and have a steeple representing the assention into heaven, prayers and generally looking toward God, and the Moroni on some (but not all) temples, to remember the ushering in the restoration, and the angel trumpeting the eventual return of Christ. But nothing about condemning others for using it, and no one loses their temple recommend for having a cross in their house, or on their neck.

Jesus Christ was divine and without sin, and he was God, but he was not complete. He still needed to receive a body, and be resurrected, then he became "perfect" which is to say complete, as the Father is.

I am hoping to do the same. Maybe we will run into each other. :) Here is a link to the zoning documentation. It is very detailed, and you can get an idea of what a temple looks like on the inside, at least in blueprint form. http://langley.ihostez.com/content/pdfstorage/B671F9E88C334463A5590DD11E0597DC-07-79%20Rezoning%20Application%20100276%20The%20Ch.pdf (oh, don't worry about secrecy, this link is on the official LDS Temple page)

This is a very common defensive reaction by many Mormons. I say defensive because Mormons are often accused of not worshiping Jesus Christ because we do not use the cross in our architecture. So, there is a justification for not using it, and I think that justification is true. You do not need to have a cross to worship Jesus Christ. But, there is no discussion whatsoever by the leadership of the church on wearing crosses or having them in your home. None whatsoever.

A friend gave really good advice for that kind of situation. You don't have to reveal your beliefs, but you can simply say in all sincerity and concern, "I would be careful when speaking poorly of others. You may not know you might be listening." Then just move on.

The "through obedience" part is a stickler. We just don't know how God got into that eternal circle, but he is there, and since the ring has no beginning and no end, He is eternal, he is without beginning and without end. That's the point Joseph Smith was making. If you have no end, then you can have no beginning. But we are linear thinkers, so we put human restrictions and "musts" and "cannots" into the realm of God, but I don't think God thinks like us.

1 = all abortions are bad, regardless of circumstances 10 = all abortions are good, including late term elective abortions. Right now, the church stands at a 2 or 3 while the laws currently stand at around 8 or 9. I prefer the laws be changed to match the church.

I think the legal contract that defines coupling should be severed from the ritual of marriage, just as they are with godparenting. If you want to have a marriage ceremony in your basement with 12 other spouses, more power to you, and right now, that is what any gay couple can do. They can have a ritual, and present to the community their commitment, but I think the legal aspects should be separate. I think it should be the same for straight couples too. If they want legal ramifications, then define them, outside the marriage. Anyway, I am off to lunch. Have a great day everyone.

Yes, if we put those on a scale, the meter tips far more to the latter than the former.

No, I agree exactly with your reasons why it should be legal, but that's not the line drawn right now. Do you want elective abortions made illegal?

No, both are binding, but only one has a religious ceremony (whether it is considered as such or not) tied to the legal form. The other, both the act and form are separate, and therefor, you can be a godparent without any legal binding, and you can be a legal guardian without being a godparent, but you cannot be married without being legally bonded as well. That's the difference.

Statistically speaking, you are representing a very small fraction of abortions. But the vast majority of abortions are selfish.

Can I change my mind.

Well, godparents is a concept, just as marriage is a concept. It's just that marriage is controlled by the government, whereas godparents are not. But they are still essentially the same, rules and titles given to people with certain responsibilities.

Sorry, no.

I realize a lot of individuals feel as you do, but the movement, and the leadership of it have a very different agenda than the average person. Find me something from an official source, although I do appreciate your opinion. If any legislation is presented to restrict any aspect of abortions, the pro-choice movement will be out in force to fight it, no matter how minor the issue.

Where is "here?" All marriage does is automatically establish contractual inheritance law. Without a marriage license, you can still create contracts that define inheritance and custody. That is what "godparents" are. It is a legal contract that defines who takes care of children in the event of the death of the parents. But it isn't a marriage, and there is no legal ceremony for godparents, but the legal capabilities do exist.

I would agree with you, except that in your first example, that's exactly what pro-choice people are fighting for. In fact they are fighting for 3rd trimester elective abortions on healthy babies. If they actually fought for restrictive medical necessary abortions only, I would have sympathy, but all I hear from the pro-choice side is "I am totally against killing babies, but I want any and all forms of abortion legal" Find me one pro-choice stance anywhere that argues for limited abortion rights, and I will eat my hat. I will also point out that the church isn't represented in either example

But by defining the contract as a marriage, it steps on the toes of religion. Have the two be separate. Have contracts for partnerships, but don't call them marriage. That was essentially the argument of prop 8, since domestic partnerships already existed in California and afforded "all the rights of marraige", so from a legal standpoint, no rights were gained or lost at all with prop 8. Only the terms were different. But, it does go deeper than that. The reason marriage existed was to encourage fidelity, not legally, but socially. By having a public sign of union, the tribe knew who was with who, and you reduced issues with people fighting over a mate. Today the wedding ring is often the outward token of such unions, and it lets you know who you should and should not pursue. After a while, legal issues were raised, and so the government kept records of who was married to who. It helped settle issues with an authority other than the tribe. It also helped determine who got property after the death of a spouse. But, you could override the legal contract with any other contract (i.e. a will) that redefined the laws of inheritance. And, now we have government and business perks like retirement and social security, and those are also automatically afforded to spouses, but they are restricted because they are future property, and as such, you cannot forward them to anyone other than your spouse or legal children. Ah, children. This is the biggest issue with gay marriage. By encouraging hetero marriage, we are really encouraging people to define a stable family before children are produced. We have a definite problem with illegitimacy and single parent homes, and as such, we need to do more encouraging people to become a stable couple before they decide to have kids. That is what marriage does. Gays don't have that same concern. If they decide to have children, they must in some way or another include a tangential third person, whether it be a sperm donor, an adoption agency, a surrogate, or whatever. That third person makes the issue of marriage less critical, because they have to make very complex decisions in order to produce children. Straight people just have to have a single night of passion. That is why I think gay marriage should be seen more than just a civil rights issue, and decide what marriage really means to our society, and what benefits it really gives, other than inheritance rights, which are legal in all states, regardless of relationship (with the exception of Social Security, which is another argument, or business pensions, which is up to the individual company).

Well, it is a frightening time. A medical procedure that destroys life has now become an elective procedure. That to many, including myself, is evil.

And that's essentially the church's position as well - except that it is currently legal for any reason, not just special circumstances.

That depends on how you define eternity. If eternity is timeless, with no beginning and no end (as Joseph Smith described it in the same speech) then God has always been, regardless of our limited understanding, and limitations living with the restrictions of time. This is a lesser quoted part of the King Follett sermon, which if the sermon were canonized would also be considered true: "I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man - the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. AS THE LORD LIVETH, IF IT HAD A BEGINNING, IT WILL HAVE AN END. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say the spirit of man had a beginning, PROVE that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true."

Not to butt in, but that's a strawman argument. If you can prove that the majority (and not the very tiny minority) of reasons for abortion, then I will agree, but very few abortions are due to such circumstances. And shouldn't this be a separate thread anyway?