Jamie123

I think Willo meant we should be careful not to discuss unscriptural things as though they were scriptural. (Which is easier trap to fall into than you might think.)

Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control!

Well done, O Knight of Darkness, Centurion of Evil!

Couldn't have put it better myself! In FOOTball you kick the ball with your FOOT!!! You don't pick it up with your hands unless you're the goalie!

Actually I was talking about people being found guilty of murder when they were actually innocent. But I take your point - none of it would have happened at all if someone else hadn't murdered the girl. Yes - I think Just-a-Guy just came up with a better answer.

I agree, but of course not all "bad things" are the results of improperly-used agency. There are the victims of disease, freak accidents and natural disasters. Even Sean Hodgson was a victim of circumstance and imprecise information - not of any any malice of the people who imprisoned him. That's very interesting - presumably church leaders at the time did not yet know that the Nazis were evil, and were not totally beyond worldly deception.

That makes a lot of sense, but I can't help thinking about John D. Lee who was already dead when he was reinstated.

Your assumption is that God would never allow an innocent man to be excommunicated. As a non-Mormon who doesn't believe in the inerrancy of church leaders (including those of my own church) it's something I find difficult to internalize. I've always accepted that God does (for whatever reason) allow bad things to happen, including bad ecclesiastical decisions. I'm not criticizing or saying you're wrong. We just have a difference of world-views.

THIS MEANS WAR!!!!!

Yep - pointless speculation is one of my many vices. Gotta stay focused and do some work!

I'm talking about "proper" football - what you Americans call "soccer" - not that game of rugby where all the players wear motorcycle helmets!

Thanks - my understanding is that the church automatically excommunicates murderers, but what you say suggests that in matters of guilt and innocence, it doesn't always take the same line as the civil authorities. (I know this isn't a question which impacts on many of us - it's just something I was wondering about.)

Earlier this week, a man was released from prison, after serving 27 years of a life sentence for murdering a barmaid in 1979. DNA evidence, not available at the time of his trial has proved that he could not have possibly been the murderer. (Sean Hodgson murder conviction overturned after 27 years due to DNA evidence - Telegraph.) But this set me thinking: If this man had been a member of the LDS church - and had been excommunicated following his conviction - what would be happening now? Would he be immediately reinstated in the church, and if so, would the church admit that it had been wrong to excommunicate him? If not, what would be the justification for not readmitting him, considering that his innocence has been proved beyond doubt? I don't know if there are any precedents: The closest I can think of was John D. Lee, but he was never (as far as I know) formally acquitted of murder, and had been dead for nearly a century before his reinstatement. (P.S. I should probably have posted this under General Discussion - sorry)

I feel so terrible for Liam Neeson, and all Natasha's family. It must have been a terrible shock for them all to have her torn away so unexpectedly. I'm sure the prayers of all of us are with them.

LOL - neither really. I eventually went back to the Anglican church where I had originally been baptized. But I'm still very fond of the Mormons, and have a lot of respect for them. :) Not many traditional Christians can hold a candle to them in terms of their commitment to what they believe!

That's interesting. I was a long-standing investigator myself a few years back, but I got the impression that the missionaries (and several more senior members) considered it an embarrassment that I wasn't baptized. They kept bugging me about it anyway. I guess different wards have their different characteristics. I do have some happy memories of those times. There were a great many people there who were just friendly and nice, without being pushy.

LOL I definitely wouldn't like to meet them down a dark alley!

First Man: Fairer than.... Fairer than th.... .Fffff... .Fairer than thhhhh.... Second man: You can't say fairer than that! A man walks into a bar. And says "ouch". (It was an iron bar.)

This is a much-debated point amongst Christians. To put it simplistically, Christians are divided into two camps: Calvinists, who believe in "Limited Atonement" (i.e. that Christ died for a select few, "The Elect", whom God chose by decree before time began) and Arminians who believe in "General Atonement" (i.e. that Christ died for all). Some churches are divided through the middle on this question: For instance, some Methodists are Calvinists while others are Arminian. This division goes back to the very beginning of Methodism, when it was still part of the Anglican Church: George Whitfield was a Calvinist while John Wesley was an Arminian. The argument for Limited Atonement runs something like this: "If Christ died for everyone, then He must have died for any randomly selected person X. If X does not accept the Gospel and is not saved, then Christ's atonement for that person would have been a failure. Christ is perfect, and is therefore incapable of failure. Ergo, He did not die for everyone. Ergo Limited Atonement" Please do NOT think I am advocating this line of thought. I am not. I am merely trying to explain the reasoning. Some would argue that Limited Atonement is a relatively new concept. It was first explicitly stated in 1619 in the Canons of Dort, and has become the "L" in the famous "TULIP" acrostic for the "Five Points of Calvinism". (John Calvin - the nominal founder of Calvinism - never mentioned anything about Limited Atonement.) Of course, not everyone agrees: The American Baptist theologian James White argues forcibly that Limited Atonement is implicit in Pauline doctrines (e.g. Romans 8:29) However, another well known Baptist preacher Gerry Falwell (founder of Liberty University) referred to Limited Atonement as "heresy".

An Englishman, and Irishman and a Scotsman were standing together under an umbrella. Which one got the most wet? None of them. It wasn't raining.

Why didn't worms go into the Ark in apples? Because they had to go in pairs! (Pears...get it?. Ducks to avoid the rotten tomatoes.) The Lone Ranger is riding across the desert when he sees Tonto coming in the other direction, with several large bags of rubbish tied to his horse. He says "Where are you going, Tonto?" And Tonto replies: "To the dump to the dump to the dump dump dump to the dump to the dump to the dump dump dump...etc." (You have to sing the last bit to make it work, and that reminds me of another....) What's the definition of an intellectual? Someone who can listen to the William Tell overture without thinking about the Lone Ranger!

What do you call a man with a car on his head? Jack What do you call a man with a seagull on his head? Cliff What do you call a woman with one long leg and one short leg? Eileen What do you call....can't think of any more of those. OK..."mommy, mommy" jokes: Mommy, mommy! Daddy's going out? Well put some more gasoline on him then! Mommy, mommy! I don't like Grandma? Well leave it at the side of your plate! Ummm....does cannibalism count as "clean humor"? OK....I'll thing of something else...Ah, I know.... What do you call a German barber? Herr Cutt! 2 women talking.... 1st. Woman: I'm so depressed... 2nd. Woman: Whenever I'm down in the dumps, I get myself a new hat! 1st. Woman: I wondered where you got them from.

You were going to respond to who? Are you sure you posted this message in the right thread? P.S. Maybe you're confusing me with MichaelJ.

I was referring to the assumptions made in the video, not to assumptions made by Mormons (though I've seen several (unofficial) maps on the Internet placing the Nephite and Lamanite kingdoms in Central America).