Carl62

First off, just what is considered long hair? Half way down the ears, or half way down the back? Even half way down the ears will get you hauled into an office at BYU and reprimanded (I know, because it's happened to me:D). Also, what about different hair styles that are short? Are mohawks out? That's short hair. What about short hair that's dyed pink, or blue, or green? I wear my hair shoulder length and nobody seems to have any problems with me, especially since I'm in the capacity of being a teacher. As long as my family, my close friends and my girlfriend are all O.K. with it, then I could really give a rat's behind what anybody else happens to think. If people, whether they're members of the church or not, are going to judge me strictly on my appearance (which I consider very neat and well groomed) and not on the basis of how I treat them, then I really don't care to associate with them whatsoever. After all, why would anyone want to have superficial people as friends? I only hope that we're not all working to be just one big cookie cutter image of each other. If that's what conformity is, then you can have it.

As somebody who has met both Gene Simmons (2x, nice guy both times) and Tommy Shaw (really cool guy!) just a few years ago at a music convention in L.A., I can assure you that it's Gene who looks like he's in his 80's and not Tommy! (let's just say that make-up is covering a LOT on his 'Family Jewels" show). Tommy is actually 3 years younger than Gene and I can only hope that I look as good as Tommy when I'm in my late 50's.

If a lot of people are so against doing anything cosmetic for vanity reasons, then why do parents get braces for theirs kids? or even for themselves? What's the difference there? I don't care how you slice or dice it, it's all about looking better to make yourself feel better, whether it's a new hair cut or new set of boobs. While some things may have more risks than others and may require a few more zeros when writing the check, the outcome is still for the same reason. Is one form of vanity o.k. and another not? I'll admit I'm vain and I'll bet 99% of the people on here are as well, right down to what they choose to wear to work for that day. This is one subject I will definitely put the stones down on.

If this new parachurch didn't contain any and all of the 13 Articles of Faith as the foundation, then it would be a dealbreaker for me.

Hmmm? Does this mean then that he would start with the people that help organize any branch activities where there's music being played?

How far does everyone want to go with this. Is everyone aware that music that is played at a church dance or a wedding is also illegal because you're playing music in a public setting without the artist getting any compensation for it? We had an issue with this at the music store that I work at where some music was being played over a PA before a music clinician came on and the store manager told us that the music being played was illegal for the reasons I mentioned. Never knew that until then. Live and learn.

Tizzyk, I really hope you do get the chance to go because your heart really does seem to be in the right place. Isn't it ironic that someone who really does have the desire to go may very well end up getting rejected as opposed to some of those who are accepted and are going only because mommy and daddy agreed to buy them a new car or pay for their college.

What I don't understand is that if it's all about having faith and works are secondary, then why did Jesus say to the rich man that the way to heaven was all about obedience to the ten commandments? (Luke 18: 18-20) He didn't answer by saying that it was just about accepting Him and that the commandments weren't important, or that his works would come later as a result of his belief in Him. He clearly said that it was about obedience to his commandments FIRST, yet we as LDS are told that we're "wrong" in thinking this? It seems like our thinking is more aligned with what the Saviour taught as opposed to the 'saved' denominations who seem to base their whole entire belief on eternal salvation on one or two verses from the apostle Paul. Even the apostle James seems to side more with what Jesus taught over what Paul says. (James 2:14-17) Nothing against what the apostle Paul wrote, but if I have to choose between what Paul wrote and what Jesus spoke, then for me it would be a no-brainer that I would go with what the Saviour taught.

The line that really stands out for me is when you said that you "truly felt His love and His acceptance". If you really, truly felt His love and acceptance, then what more do you need? If you feel like God has truly forgiven you of this and that you have his complete acceptance, then why worry about anybody else and what they think? Nobody is going to be judging you on the day of judgement but God and God only, so if you feel that the Spirit is sincerely telling you that everything is O.K. between you and Him, then I'd rest assure that everything will be O.K. for you on that final day. It's like it says in the Bible that once He forgives you of your sins, "He remembers them no more". Without knowing what the question was and not knowing what it is you would be saying 'no' to, it sounds like you now have everything resolved and no longer have anything to feel guilty about anymore. Don't worry, be happy.:)

If you look at her then look at him, I think the only thing she fancied and made a connection with was his bank account. Sorry to be so direct about it but I'm just calling it like I see it.

It would be nice and living in a perfect world if we could know for certain that nobody will find out but unfortunately, in more cases than not, all it takes is for just one gossipy person (and I don't care what anybody says because yes every ward usually has one) in the ward to find out and blow the lid off the whole thing. Heck, just from people talking in casual conversation and without my even inquiring, I've found out disciplinary things that have happened to people that I knew from other wards and even other stakes. Sad but true.

Aren't teachers in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society notified of the ex-communication on account of making sure that they don't ask the person to pray? This is what I was told.

Wow!! All this over a seven word statement that I made?! I think some people put waaaay to much mental energy into things that are absolutely nothing.

Oh, so South Park is just a comedy and therefore people don't take it seriously? Hmm, somebody needs to tell the Muslims this then since Trey Parker and Matt Stone are now receiving death threats from some Muslims all because of a recently aired episode depicting the image of the prophet Mohammed as a stick figure. Yeah right, nobody takes South Park seriously.

In a spin-off of the 'spanking' thread, I was wondering what everybody thought of other forms of physical discipline that are used on kids such as hair pulling, face slapping, ear grabbing, etc. and if you used any other form of physical discipline on your kids other than spankings.

It would just seem that South Park could do more damage with showing their one half hour episode on the Mormons with 1-3 million people watching at any given time than Decker could do with the Godmakers in five to ten years worth of church viewers.

If one is quitting the church and doesn't acknowledge it as true anymore, then why would one be required to answer any personal or intimate questions from somebody who they now look on as having about as much authority over them as a janitor in a department store? To that person who is being asked the questions from a bishop who they no longer acknowledge would be like having a Jehovah's Witness interviewing you about intimate details of your life. You would tell them where to shove it.

Honestly, I'd MUCH rather have it be Ed Decker than Parker and Stone. The only people who really pay any remote attention to Decker are religious-oriented people who are vented against the church anyway. Parker and Stone seem to be capable of getting to a lot bigger outlet of mainstream people than Decker can, and in a lot shorter period of time also.

You then obviously haven't heard of the movie "Orgazmo" which was created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone (South Park creators). It's about two Mormon missionaries who make money for their missions by doing porn. Hardly in a good light there. Or the South Park episode that tells the story about the Mormon church where the backing musical track has the words "dumb, dumb, dumb,..." all the way through it. Not in a good light either.

And he really thought he was going to get a first date out of this? If this is idea of having "fun", then I wonder what he'd be like if he was having a bad day.

Umm. Most women have issues, period.

Agree! It's funny how we'd expect our children to just "suck it up" when something like this is said in a serious context, yet if this happened to us as adults, would we be so fast to merely let it go? I highly doubt it.

Even though I'm a serious Beatles fan, I must admit that Joe Cocker's version of "With a Little Help From My Friends" beats Ringo's anytime. I also like The Foo Fighters version of "Baker Street" better than Gerry Rafferty's. Also, Cheap Trick's version of "Ain't That A Shame" is better than Pat Boone's.

And that's the question that never seems to get answered. What are those "certain activities" where wearing garments is not necessary? Again, what about tennis? Do you really need to take them off when going to the gym? If taking them off at the gym is about sweating, then what about jobs where people sweat profusely? Again, I'm just trying to understand where the line is drawn on all of this.

So if doing activities that are merely deemed as "fun" is an excuse for taking off our garments, then why wouldn't other fun activities qualify also?