Jamie123

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).

Well he still plays for England - or at least he did until quite recently.

I thought she was talking about David Beckham!

I like treacle tarts. I'd eat them all day if they didn't make you fat. Wait a minute - I *AM* already fat!!

I think my main problem is the assumption that it ALL necessarily took place in Central America, and that's the only place you would ever find archeological remains. (America is a pretty enormous land mass!) It also assumes that the shape of the lands was the same in 600BC as it is now (though of course I'm no expert on geology).

I'm a little disappointed to see that the thread on the "Bible vs. Book of Mormon" video has been deleted. I understand that this isn't the place for posting anti-Mormon material, but I was looking forward to seeing a reasoned LDS response to the claims made in the video. I'm sure there are answers out there. If it were so obvious that the LDS religion was false, it would have ceased to exist long ago. P.S. In case you're wondering, I was not the original poster of that thread. P.P.S. Having thought about it a little more, I think the moderator probably was justified in deleting the thread. Rather than posting a link to the video (which does contain anti-Mormon rhetoric), the the OP should probably have summarized the more objective parts of its argument and called for opinions.)

I totally believe you!

Definitely there are! They're called BMW drivers!

I've often wondered what Mormons do about the Bible in non English-speaking countries. If independent non-English translations are allowed, why are the LDS so against using other English translations (RSV, NIV, Good News etc.)? Biblical scholarship has moved on since 1611. Many older and more reliable manuscripts have come to light since then, and these have been available to the more recent translators.(Of course you may take the view that the Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus contain Satanic alterations, and though older are less reliable than the MSS available in 1611, but I've never heard any Mormon say this.)

I remember seeing the complete Temple Endowment ceremony (an old and a new versions) posted on the Web about 10 years ago. I've no idea if it is still there. (Of course it might not have been genuine. It would be difficult for a non-Mormon like me to find out either way, as no faithful Mormon would be allowed to talk about it.)

...their religion...Now write that out out five hundred times! Yours pedantically - Jamie

LOL - It's a new version of a very old joke: Mother: Get out of bed, it's time to go to school. Son: I'm not going to school. Mother: Give me one good reason why not? Son: I'll give you four: 1. I don't like the students. 2. The students don't like me. 3. I don't like the teachers. 4. The teachers don't like me! Mother: Well I'll give you one good reason why you do have to go: You're the school principal!