Maxel

Modesty will never be out of style among the people of God! Modest girls are the hottes girls! (Really, that's true- it's not just a dumb statement.) Okay, I think that covers all that I have to contribute to this thread...

I don't know much about pagan symbols, but I do know that we shouldn't be suprised about similarities between the various religions in the world. Evey religious system extant draws its inspiration (whether known or not) from the Gospl of Christ. Take the pure Gospel, add some worldly influence and individiaual apostasy, let settle for a few generations, and bingo! Instant paganism (or whatever religion is in question). It's interesting to study, but can lead one to believe (falsely) that Christianity is another form of paganism.

I can't answer for john doe, but the simple matter is: yes. Your eternal progression will be forever damned if you never accept the Gospel of Christ in its fullness- which includes baptism by proper Priesthood authority and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands.That is, of course, assuming that Mormonism is, in fact, correct. I can't answer for Dove, but I believe Christ was serious when He charged His people to preach His Gospel to all the world. Most Christian churches believe He was serious about that.So I do butt in, as time and occassion and tact permit, to testify of Christ. I do intrude upon others' belief systems to lovingly share my own belief- because I've received witnesses of its truth. I also allow others to share what they believe with me, beacause I find the experience edifying, and I can look for places where we both agree about God and the nature of things. Rider, I get the feeling that you want us to say that we believe nobody else can be a real Christian. To be truthful, you come across as a cunning deceiver who is trying to trip us up in our own words. The Bible condemns such practices.

David... Bednar?!So, when Elder Bednar becomes the prophet, the Millennium is nigh.

Aaaaahh JAG, that little bit of reality is harmful to the progression of social justice. Wouldn't it be better just to sweep that under the rug so that everyone can have their liestyle vaidated by society? You heartless right-winger you!

To win the Nobel Prize (ALL categories), I will: -Create a machine that takes all toxins out of the air and is a source of unlimited energy. -Create a human supergene that makes humans immune to all disease and pain. This gene will also erase all need to eat or drink- but humans will still be able to eat and drink for pleasure. This supergene will be be transmitted through the air, and every human on the planet will receive it within a week of its release. -Devise a 12-step program to overcome all human weaknesses and failings that will always work and will always be implemented. This program will work to solve all nations' problems, both within themselves and with other countries. I think that covers it all. Where's my prize and money?

Welcome back! Missed your posting. How's your wife doing?

You missed changed's point.You said you liked Buddhist philosophy, the idea of "being at one with each other and the universe, of living in harmony and helping each other". changed quoted LDS scripture saying roughly the same thing- that all things will be compounded in one (Christ). Also, Hemi, would you mind answering my earlier question? I'd really like to have some clarification on the matter. Thanks.

I agree that they shouldn't, but that the ability to do so still needs to be preserved. That's why protesters (supposedly) get permission from the city to assemble and protest, and can't go onto private property without consent from the owner- to protect the rights and safety of those not involved in the protest.

Well... I agree that people shouldn't protest the temple or outside of it. However, I'd hate to revoke the right to peacefully assemble. As long as protesters stay off the private temple grounds, their right to protest needs to be preserved for all our sakes...

My mistake. I thought you were LDS- hence my quoting of lds.org.

Here's what lds.org has to say about abortions when the life of the mother and/or baby is in jeopardy: Abortion at lds.orgSome women, in some situations (besides just this example of a life-or-death-situation) would be justified in an abortion. That's the Church's official policy on the matter.

We don't have "Flu Clinics" or "Broken Arm" clinics. I'm assuming performing abortions doesn't require much (or any) specialized training by doctors (maybe a seminar or two...). Clinics devoted entirely to abortions are guaranteed to increase elective abortions- if women didn't have elective abortions, there wouldn't be enough business to keep an abortion clinic operating. I'm tired of the argument that goes like this: "A" is, rarely, justifiable. Therefore all access to "A" is not by nature immoral. Therefore, organizations promoting "A" are not inherently bad. When common sense and reality is applied, the argument collapses into dust...

It all boils down to whether the LDS Church is true or not (as do most things of this nature).If it is true, then the prophets are required to preach the Gospel of repentance to all- including those who have chosen to reject the word. Throughout the Book of Mormon, efforts were made to reclaim the wayward- a combination of testifying of their wickedness (to humble those who would be humbled) and then preaching the redemptive power of the Atonement was what was usually used. To an ex-Mormon who had softened their heart and humbled themselves (or were compelled to be humbled) who heard this talk may very well be struck because of the "harshness" of the talk- because the wicked take the truth to be hard. If, in their pain, they turn to the Lord their God, they will return to the strait and narrow path. However, I don't see this as an attempt at reclamation as much as a testament to all- the faithful and the unfaithful- about the truth of the matter. Having that reminder of things as they really are is helpful to the members. Of course, there are always those who find fault with the manner in which the Lord works. It's not a coincidence that many who are most vocal about their opinions have left the Church. I find it interesting that many ex-Mormons who claim to have "moved on" still hold some sort of contacts with the LDS church. To this day, I've yet to hear about a "recovery group" for ex-Catholics, ex-Muslims, ex-Buddhists, or ex-[Enter any religion except Mormonism here]. There might be some out there, but I've yet to hear about them. (That's not to say that you claim to have severed all ties with the Church, Godless- your comments merely reminded me of the fact)

Could you point to an area where official LDS doctrine (not policy, but official doctrine) has changed over the years?

Some doctrines unique to (OR clarified in) the Book of Mormon (off the top of my head): -Sometimes it's okay to take another person's life. This includes soldiers killing enemy combatants in wartime and when the Lord Himself commands it. -The Lord does not forget anyone who exercises faith in His name, and has had dispensations on the earth that aren't recorded anywhere else. -The state of the soul of a man after he dies (what happens to it). Also, John the Beloved and the Three Nephites are still on the earth, and will be until the Second Coming. They are working to bring souls to Christ. -The tactics employed by anti-Christs and enemies of law and order- including the reality of secret combinations and how the operate. -Numerous historical accounts not recorded anywhere else (Lehi's exodus to the Americas, the existence of the Mulekites, Jared and his brother crossing the sea after the fall of the Tower of Babel, Christ's appearance to the Nephites, etc.). All these are basic doctrines. Much more is gained by delving and searching the Book of Mormon. Also, part of the reason the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion is its nature and origin. It simultaneously declares to the world that God is not dead nor silent, and that Joseph Smith was Christ's chosen prophet to bring forth His word in the latter days. The numerous miraculous events surrounding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon are all testaments to God's existence and nature. I highly suggest you pick up the Book of Mormon again, hordak! If 2 Nephi is giving you problems, skip the Isaiah chapters (or the whole thing, if you must) and read on from there. In these last days, "treasuring up the word of the Lord" will be crucial to surviving the spiritual crises and cataclysms that are sure to come.

Apostates are already in serious spiritual jeopardy, according to LDS theology.Elder Holland was speaking the truth to counteract a lot of falsehoods spreading. The simple fact is that, if someone wants to leave the Church and thereby personally declare it untrue, then that person has to grapple with the question of the Book of Mormon's veracity. I loved this talk (though I only saw the first half and the last two minutes). There was a LOT of truth conveyed in it. I think its purpose is partially a rebuke of those who have left the Church and attack the Book of Mormon, and partially to fulfill Holland's role as an apostle of Christ: to proclaim the truth of the Gospel. There are times when straight forward truth is preferred to sugar-coated situations- this was one of them. There's also the fact that members who view the Book of Mormon as mostly or completely allegorical and deny its historicity are growing in number. This talk speaks to them, too. I'm really not surprised there are apostates who are "having a field day" with this- the wicked take the truth to be hard. Those who left the Church with an adequate understanding of the Book of Mormon can't hear their actions rebuked by a prophet without getting riled up or becoming uneasy.

Dunno about that... Seems that the "2/3" might come from the 2/3 that stayed with Christ in the preexistence. From my personal observations, I don't think that 2/3 of the world's population are living celestial lives... But my viewpoint is pathetically skewed, horribly misinformed, and infinitesimal.

Correct. For instance, my Patriarchal Blessing admonishes me to remember that all blessings are contingent upon me following the Father's commandments- meaning that if I don't live the commandments, I won't receive the promised blessings (including the blessings included in my Patriarchal Blessing). I think that some people have designated "soul mates" pre-ordained and chosen by God. However, I think those are very, very rare cases. I think it was President Kimball that said the idea that every person has a predestined soul mate is of the devil (I heard a recorded talk of his... A search on lds.org doesn't bring the talk up, so I'm going off of memory here). Do you have your Patriarchal Blessing yet? Your use of "IF" confuses me- I thought you had it.To be honest- I'm sure your husband is great, but you could also have developed a strong relationship with another, active member and felt just as strongly about him had you not made the mistakes you mention. However, as others have mentioned current inactivity doesn't mean that he won't repent and come back to the fold in the future. Faith, sister! If you repent and humble yourself before God, you'll receive the blessings you seek- with your current husband, if he lives worthily, or with another if he doesn't.

Do you mean that less than 1% will inherit anything less than the third degree of the Celestial Kingdom (meaning over 99% of God's children will inherit full celestial glory)? Or did I read that wrong?

Nah, man... The evil rich make too much money already; just tax them more to make up the difference. It's all good. Populist power!

I like C.S. Lewis' description of the interplay between faith and works: "Arguing about which is more important- faith or works- is like arguing about which blade on a pair of scissors is more important."

The beauty of Christ's parables is that there are many meanings to them- they just have to be understood properly. Yes, the parable of the prodigal son can be viewed (rightfully so, I think) as a condemnation of hypocrisy among those who call themselves Christ's anointed ones- however, it's not the "real" meaning of the parable, as the story encompasses too much to have hypocrisy's ugliness as its root meaning.His remarks remind me of Talmage's in Jesus the Christ, where he says that the faithful son's reaction shouldn't lead one to construe that sinning and then repenting is preferable to not sinning and, therefore, not needing to repent. The faithful son sinned in his actions, yes- but he can also repent. The faithful son's life will be much easier because of his actions, and he'll have less to repent and make restitution for.

One story I heard (it teaches through allegory, so I don't think it requires a source...): A little blind girl was on her father's lap on a long train ride. The father engaged in discussion with a stranger, which lasted for a few hours. In time, the father needed to readjust his things, so he let the stranger hold his daughter for a minute or two. When asked if she was concerned or frightened that she was being held by a man she didn't know and couldn't see, she said "My daddy knows who he is and trust him, so it's safe". I think that level of trust in God- that everything will work out all right because God is good, God loves us, and all things that we experience are for our good- coupled with continually humbling ourselves in His sight leads to pure, childlike faith. As for putting off childish things- I think the things of this earth and man's fallen nature that aren't in line with the Gospel are the "things of a child" that we need to put off. Such things as impatience, doubt, anger, murmuring, and other failings that children often have need to be put off through strengthening our spirit.

Is this Communism tangent too political, or can we discuss it as long as we leave living political figures out of the discussion? Because I have a point I want to make- but not if it goes against current forum policy.