Maxel

Uhh... No.BYU is a university funded by the Church. If you show me that Jeffrey Nielson also received Church discipline (disfellowship, excommunication, etc.) then you'll have more of a case. However, it still won't be very good because Nielson pusblished his writings in a magazine. As I said, there's a difference between merely voicing one's opinion and proselyting it. If you can't already see that, I don't know how I can help you see it. I don't think the "fact" that the Church Welfare system isn't Christian enough is obvious to any of the faithful. What you state isn't obvious truths but twisted opinions. So you can't, in actuality, back up your claims. Furthermore, if you could find such a passage it would support my own contention: that one cannot proselyte (i.e., "spread") heterodox views at Church- nothing against merely saying "this is my opinion".Not surprising. There's a fine line between voicing opinions (as in, "this is my opinion" or "this is my understanding") and trying to proselyte (as in, "this is why I'm right" and/or consistently bringing up the heterodox views in conversation and/or classes). Your original wording is ambiguous enough to assume either meaning- but your intended meaning is clear by the rest of what you wrote and your history on this forum. If I told the bishop I didn't think Joseph Smith wasn't visited by the Angel Moroni, he'd probably want to talk with me and figure out what's up. If there were further cause for me to have my recommend taken away, the issue would be preserved. You again use the double definition of "expressing those views" here, when your original intent was perfectly obvious. Now you're in denial of your own words.I say you're in denial; you say I am- I'm willing to let God be the judge and leave it at that. I can feel this conversation will bear no fruit and don't want to waste my time further on it.

Talisyn- You can find the speech online if you want your daughter to see it. My little sister didn't see the speech either- she says no one in her school really cared about watching the speech; only a few classes watched it.

Tell us how you really feel. I'm not quite grasping the point you're trying to make.

Bigotry isn't confined to Muslims- although bigotry aimed at Muslims seems to be more prevalent than bigotry aimed at other religions right now.There's also the fact that all of America's recent troubles with groups out to destroy us are with militant, fundamentalist Muslims. This is an undeniable fact. While the huge majority of Muslims are peaceful, for one reason or another the religion lends itself more to offensive militantism than other religions (probably has to do with the command to 'make war with the unbelievers' found a few times in the Quran and a lot to do with the history of the region). While fairness and respect is crucial, we cannot look past the fact that one of the biggest threats to America right now is militant Islam. There's a reason that Yale didn't print the pictures with the book: fanatical men will strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people for offenses against Islam! Maybe I just haven't heard about it as much, but I can't recall the last time a Christian fundamentalist did the same thing (maybe Timothy McVeigh...). It's a real danger that exists in the world.

I was speaking of 'can you prove that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses'. Did you catch that, and are saying you cannot prove Moses didn't write the books traditionally credited to him?(I'm not being sarcastic; I fear I wasn't sufficiently clear in my comment)

Grandmakabipbip- I'm sorry if you felt I condemned you; such was not my intention. I haven't seen any references you've backed up your statements with- perhaps I missed them? If you mean your own personal accounts- I'm not inclined to disbelieve them, but I personally have to weigh anecdotal evidence in my mind for a time and let the Lord have a say in the matter before I accept/reject them. The idea that Satan could enter the temple- that he could bring his spiritual body into the consecrated grounds of the temple- is quite a stretch for me. From experience, I know that new concepts that stretch my understanding aren't always false. Do you have any scriptures you could point to that might support what you're saying? I've been thinking of Moses, when Satan appeared to him. Judging by the narrative in Moses 1, he saw the Lord and Satan in the same general area- but it wasn't in a temple, it was atop a high mountain.

I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it could be the publishers at Yale genuinely trying to respect the Muslim faith. The reality is that, in recent history, religious terrorists have been mainly of the Muslim religion. It wouldn't take much for one of them to target a university in a nation of infidels.

It's Jones' strategy of dropping the radical pose to achieve radical ends. That is, put on the facade of a non-radical (like Obama being a centrist) until you're in power, then work like mad behind the scenes to change things in a shady manner so that the public doesn't see. In response to yourpost, Stallion: One major component of accomplishing that goal (of achieving radical change from the inside) is to silence the media. It's no real surprise that Van Jones' resignation came on a vacation weekend after midnight on Sunday morning. Instead of answering the basic questions about 'how come the White House didn't know about Jones' views', they simply let him resign. The mainstream media outlets are ideologically in line with Obama, however much they don't want to admit it. They're conspiring to hide the facts and let the public yell at each other over Obama's speech to K-12 graders. I fear that the government and its traditional watchdog- the free press- have jumped in bed together and are working together to overthrow the freedom of this country and its people. The more I learn about these recent events, the more I fear for the future of America.

Nope, unfortunately. I guess I'll leave this to others. Your weariness is good: it's against site rules to talk about the things that happen in the temple. So, good luck with your discussion!

Can you?

I'm confused as to what, exactly, you're looking for. I guess the LAW of the Gospel is obedience to Christ in all things, times, and places. However, that law is only as good as the person who if following it (if one doesn't know Christ's laws, then one cannot follow them). Perhaps you could provide more information on what you're looking for?

I love Neal A. Maxwell's one, too. I've always loved his use of alliteration, and the overbearing alliteration used for his PB cup entry was comedic genius. Did you write these, Ben?

Grandmakabipbip- So... You were allowed to hear the voice of Satan to see if you would respond to his call...? I could accept such an account (after all it happened to Moses)- but I'm weary that you're sharing this very personal experience on an internet forum. Also, what's the difference between being tested and being tempted? You've piqued my curiosity.

Grandmakabipbip: So... The Lord allows Satan to tempt one who is worthy to hear Christ's voice when said person is inside the temple walls? I thought temples were bastions of spiritual safety for the righteous; being dedicated houses of the Lord.

gwen: You're right about women also being abusers in bad relationships. I'm not so concerned about being politically correct; all of the cases of justified divorce I have personally seen are cases in which the man neglects his role as husband/father. Thank you for pointing that out.

Does anyone else think this is a logical progression? Global currency --> Major problems with regulation --> International commitee to regulate the global economy --> Commitee doesn't have enough power to enforce regulations because of national sovereignties --> Global government. Last time I read my Bible, the appearance of a global government is a bad sign. Whatever the apparent benefits to a global economy may be, I think it's safe to say it will ultimately be a step in the worst of directions.

Yes- Jones, the self-avowed revolutionary Communist who has publicly stated that he's refining his revolutionary tactics and plannin to work from the inside out- only holds 'offbeat' beliefs. Just slightly out of the ordinary. Jus a tad to the left of center. Just a liiiiiiiiiiiiitle out there- not be much.The other czars, however, are perfectly normal in their ideologies and beliefs. I haven't met a person yet who doesn't think animals should be able to sue in court, or that it can be mathematically proven that the lives of the elderly are worth less then the lives of the younger generations, or that it's the role of the government to regulate population growth- even if it means putting sterilants in the water. These are all right-leaning ideas compared to the 'slightly offbeat beliefs' of Van Jones. By the way- what was Jones' job? Anyone know? What does it mean to be a 'Special Advisor' to the President?

Didn't the pope just call for a universal currency, too? Signs of the times... Thanks for the insights, FunkyTown.

talisyn: I know how hard it can be, especially in the cases of some children (case in point: I was addicted to video games my entire childhood. It was a coping mechanism.). However, the parent is the one responsible for setting the high goals, inspiring, etc. Relegating them to cold regulators is bad policy, IMO.

I think in today's world we'll see an increase of justified divorces as well as unjustified divorces. As men leave their families and mistreat their wives in greater numbers, so too will the numbers of wives seeking refuge from that abuse and abandonment seeking legal means of protection increase. Off thet top of my head, I can think of 3 different women who I feel are justified in their divorce because of abuse suffered at the hands of their husbands. And that's not even trying.

I've always thought using any term to refer to the Lord is only to be used in seriousness and reverence. Personally, I try to refrain from referencing the Lord more than is needed. I know some active members who also use the Lord's name in vain. Being an active member doesn't mean one follows the spirit of the law all the time. Many are like Glenn Beck- only converted in their hearts after some blasphemous patterns were established (if you think Beck is bad now, you should have heard him before he converted to Mormonism).

You're right, Stallion. I think part of the reason there was no outrage over Jones' appointment was that so few people knew of his views! It took Glenn Beck digging into his past to expose his views. And after Beck started doing that, there was a massive cleansing of Jones' figure- people making him seem like a true-blue capitalist. Ultimately, it's two (relatively) piddling things that make him resign (at least, that's what the official story is).

Grandmakabipbip- I think you're guess about which rule Palerider is talking about is correct. While I can't say anything to your comments about your acquantinces, I can offer an opinion on the underlying principle (that there are prophets, but not all are called to leadership positions). I think Samuel the Lamanite was one such prophet. We have no record of him being a leader in the Church, yet he was called of God to preach repentance unto the wicked Nephites. Also, we are told that all men may receive visions and revelations from God, according to their needs and stewardship- one definition of the term 'prophet' is one who testifies of Christ. In that regard, we all can be prophets in that we testify of Him and come to know Him through revelation and the Atonement- but we cannot take upon ourselves positions of leadership, which is what the LDS Church's use of the word 'prophet' usually implies.

I believe you're talking about Margaret Tuscano (I may have the spelling wrong). IIRC, she was going about teaching it as doctrine and trying to convince people she was right. There's a difference between believing something personally and preaching it to others. If I'm thinking of the right woman, I clearly remember her saying she attempted to defend her beliefs to the disciplinary council- completely missing the entire reason she was there (I saw this in the PBS documentary about Mormons).------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or we could use reason in the matter?BYU does not equal the Church. Being released as a part-time instructor by department heads does not, in any way shape or form, amount to Church discipline. Furthermore, being released for violating university rules really isn't a surprising event. Break the rules, and punishments follow (Nielson wrote an op-ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune criticizing the First Presidency's stance concerning same-sex marriage. It is, apparantely, against the rules of employment for BYU professors to publicly criticize the First Presidency.). Your implication that Nielson received Church discipline because he merely 'spoke his mind' is blatantly false. You constantly complain about the Church. My invitation to leave was hyperbole making a point: stop complaining or do something about it. I would prefer you not leave the Church. Moksha, whenever I directly confront you about your attacks against the Church (or any other groundless assertions you make), you suddenly stop posting on the thread. Why should I assume it would be different in this case? You run when outmaneuvered, then patronize those who are refraining from bringing to light your insidious remarks? Where is the logic in your actions, Moksha?For the record: I know we "are indeed allowed to openly air non-correlated ideas at Church". I know this because I have done so in the recent past and have received no disciplinary action. Then again, I only talked about it to a few friends when the Branch President was listening- I didn't print my views or proselyte them. Since you want me to respond to your original remarks I will do so. I will give you the courtesy of plain speaking. Where to begin?"the message at Church is quite clear, that we the members are welcome to have our own thoughts and opinions but must not voice those countervailing thoughts or opinions at Church"- from whence does this message come? Who is saying this? Who is saying that members can't voice their thoughts and opinions? I haven't heard anyone saying that- except those with a standing (and public) grudge against the Church. You must mean, then, that the 'message' is the 'reason' those who receive Church discipline are disciplined in the first place: for holding heterodoxical views. I challenge you to produce one example in Church history where someone was punished for their belief (and being punished for proselyting said beliefs does not count; believing something does not equate to preaching it). I guarantee you that if I went to my bishop and told him I believed the Adam-God doctrine was true, or that Joseph Smith was visited by a pink unicorn and not Angel Moroni, I would not receive disciplinary action. If I tried to convince others of my own views and did not cease when asked to by my leaders, I guarantee you I would receive disciplinary action. "For some, this silence is acceptable - sometimes with acquiescence and sometimes with a wince. For others, it becomes overwhelming and they leave." We've already determined that there is no Church discipline against those holding out-of-the-mainstream views, or even views directly opposed to the First Presidency's stance. Your phrase "sometimes with acquiescence and sometimes with a wince" is a beautiful example of groundless appeal to emotion. These poor souls who can't speak out are being terribly oppressed! Your phrase "for others, it becomes overwhelming and they leave" puts the burden of members' choice to leave the Church on the Church itself and it's implied-yet-nonexistent practice of punishing those with non-orthodox views and opinions. When we sum it up, you have- in only 3 sentences- falsely accused the Church of ideologically oppressing its members, made your readers to feel sympathy for the nonexistent plight of the oppressed, and blamed the Church itself for its members' decisions to leave! That's quite an accomplishment, Moksha- a perfect example of that 'spin' we discussed on another thread recently. I feel obligated to admit that there are probably those who fear they will receive discipline if they let others know they have heterodox views. However, such fears are groundless and often fed by those such as yourself who perpetuate the myth. If there are any who are feeling oppressed, who's creating that feeling of oppression? Not the Church; not by any action of its own.

Yes- rightfully so. Exposing Van Jones' radical views became a major issue for Beck- there's plenty of reason to suspect the advertiser boycott was started because of Beck's airing of Jones' Marxist ideals, and the two major controversial points- Jones calling Republicans a-holes and Jones signing the 9/11truthers petition- were both brought to light by Beck. Glenn Beck is also one of the biggest Fox News personalities; the resignation of Jones is a major triumph for the network (and all the freedom-loving people in the USA).Of course, no one is as concerned that Jones is an avowed Communist- but attack the Republicans and George Bush and it's game-over. Partisan politics makes me sick... By the way, Van Jones got close to Obama because Obama appointed him to the spot. The president's czars (technically called 'special advisors') aren't vetted by the FBI. I think it's safe to say that the reason Jones got so close to the president is because the president agrees with Jones' governmental ideology.