HEthePrimate

All kidding aside, annewandering, you're right that sometimes we fall into arguing for the sake of arguing. (It's not just guys that do it, though.)

For the record, let it be known that on this I AGREE WITH VORT! What (I believe) he meant, that is, not actually, literally said. The world would indeed be a boring place if only one brand of art were allowed.

Posterior? Um, I think you meant the other side...

Suggest away! It makes no difference as to whether or not they actually are in good standing. I know active, temple recommend-holding members who believe all kinds of stuff! I think the Church leaders are more interested in orthopraxy than strict orthodoxy.

Is Caribbean medicine different than our medicine? Congratulations on getting your endowments! Take a temple prep class. Read the scriptures. Remember what you've learned in Church until now. My first time I was not really surprised. The covenants are nothing new--standard LDS fare, pretty much. The temple clothing is a bit funky, and some of the signs and tokens, too. But I had already seen temple clothing when I went to the temple twice as a kid for when my adopted sister and brother were sealed to us, and of course at funerals. The people preparing me to go to the temple sounded a bit worried that I'd freak out, so perhaps I was "overprepared" and expecting something much weirder than it actually was. Anyway, yes, it can seem weird to first-timers. That's okay. If you have questions, or something bothers you, feel free to talk about it with someone, rather than suffering in silence. And if you keep attending to do work for the dead, you'll quickly grow accustomed to it. Peace, HEP

Why would anyone hate you for that? I think that's one of the problems in today's world, people feel the need to hate those they disagree with.Anyway, I can see where you're coming from, but I would take even that on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the men and women involved, two men might be better than two women, in some cases.

Not mine (I was BIC). But I do know one Jewish lady to converted to Mormonism, and her family basically disowned her and would no longer talk to her. This lasted for years, until they realized that after converting to Mormonism, she actually became more interested in her Jewish heritage than she had previously been! Then they warmed up to her again, and it was okay. :)

I suspect we were posting about the same time, and missed each other's posts.I said nothing about a "moral imperative," silly! If you don't like Harlequin romances, then you shouldn't read them because it'll be a waste of time for you and perhaps a source of frustration. If you don't like Mormon Doctrine, then don't read it. Mormon Doctrine is not scripture. Deal with it.

Baloney. We don't have to accept anything, unless you signed up for Satan's plan. The prophets themselves say we should pray to find out if what they're saying is true. Why don't you believe the prophets?

Baloney. I personally know people who continue studying the scriptures, including the BoM, after they go inactive or leave the Church. Studying something =/= agreeing with it. In fact, one fellow I know still reads the lesson manuals, follows Church news, and the Conference Reports, which is better than probably 90% of the people who attend meetings. He doesn't agree with everything, but he likes to keep up-to-date on what's going on, especially because members of his family are still active.My advice for dealing with someone who has doubts about the Church is to not assume that they are doing anything wrong (like sinning, or whatever), but to just be Christlike and be their friends. If you suddenly stop associating with them because they no longer believe, that will only serve as evidence to them that there is something wrong with the Church. People can, and do, leave the Church because of honest disagreements about doctrine, or because they are troubled about events in LDS history. Take their questions seriously, and if you don't have the answers, admit it, but explain why you remain in the Church even though you don't have all the answers. You can also direct them to people who might be more educated about the questions they have, and see if they can help. Peace, HEP

Vort, apparently you didn't read the post I made shortly thereafter, in which I already made a clarification. I'm not going to bother clarifying again. Besides, we are under no obligation to read Mormon Doctrine. It's not to everybody's taste, and if they don't like it, they shouldn't read it.

Because, unlike you, most people are incredibly stupid.Sarcasm aside, what's obvious to one person is not necessarily obvious to another. While it is obvious to you that Heavenly Father is the father of our spirits from the pre-existence, and as we make a covenant with Jesus, he becomes our spiritual father, to other people it is equally obvious that people only have one father. Some people would say it's also possible that at the time Joseph Smith wrote the BoM, his thinking was more Trinitarian, in keeping with what he had been taught as a child, and that as time went on, he developed the concept of a Godhead with three distinct personages. BTW, if your theory is true, does that mean Heavenly Father is both our father and our grandfather?

Okaaay... way to misinterpret! I merely assert that prophets and apostles are merely human, like the rest of us, and we are not obliged to agree with everything they say. They themselves would say the same thing.Of course it behooves us to pay attention to what they say, and to pray and ask God if it's right.

I should clarify. I am not opposed to reading Mormon Doctrine, really, just as long as we remember that it's not scripture, just the opinion of a man. McConkie's thoughts can be helpful at times, but it's also okay to disagree with them.

+1Never mind Vort, MoE. He sometimes has difficulty disagreeing without being unpleasant. Or, perhaps (to give him the benefit of the doubt), the unpleasantness is a result of the medium of the Internet, which does not allow us to share body language and facial expressions. He could be playfully kidding you.

The Mennonites in my area must be of a more conservative bent, as they dress like what you describe. The women seem to favor pastels, which I assume means they want to look pretty, while at the same time wearing plain and modest clothing. The men are typical men and don't seem to give a hoot about color. I wonder if one reason Mennonite and Amish style dress is discouraged by McConkie is because some people think Mormons and Mennonites are "of an ilk." Presumably we want to project a more modern and mainstream image to the world, while still being modest. And then we make a big fuss celebrating Pioneer Day and going on Treks dressed in 19th century clothing... Personally, I'd rather go on this type of Trek:

I'll go out on a limb and hazard that ALL were deceased or currently living.

It's all a matter of definition, I suppose. The important thing, anyway, is not whether or not races exist, but what significance we attach to them. A Japanese man may be of a different race than I am, but we are still from the same species, Homo sapiens, and all of us are children of God. I can recognize differences between people, but not let those differences fool me into thinking that I am somehow "better" or "worse" than people who are different than I. And if there are no races, well, same thing. There are still differences among us, but we're all people, and more alike than different. And now I'll go all feminist on you and say that sex and gender are not always cut-and-dried concepts. Obviously there are differences between men and women, but we are still more alike than different.

That's a very good point. A person's belief system evolves over time. It's fine for adults to teach religion to kids, but it seems unfair to punish kids for having doubts, and not allow them to ask some very important questions.

(sorry--mistaken post)

Well, Wiccans do believe in deities, so they shouldn't have a problem. As a private organization, the BSA does have the right to pick its own leaders. The petition, however, does not force the BSA to do anything--it's basically just a way of exercising peer pressure. I might sign the petition to express to them that I disagree with their current policies and want them to change. Whether or not they actually do is up to them, but I have the right and freedom to express my opinion to them and try to persuade and pressure them to change. I may disagree with some of their policies, but I am not against the BSA at all. I am an Eagle Scout and had valuable experiences as a boy in the Scouting program. I would like for gay and atheist boys to be able to enjoy those experiences as well. It's all well and fine to say "start your own program," and maybe that will be necessary, but it makes sense from a practical point of view to first try a well-established program that already exists.

You are probably right that that is the main reason the BSA prohibits homosexuals from serving in the Scouting program.However, that does not mean that what I said is just "noise." The safety of their children is a very real concern for parents, and unfortunately there are ignorant people who think that homosexuals are, or are more likely to be, child molestors. Equating homosexuals with child molestors, however false that may be, gives people another reason to fear and hate homosexuals unfairly.

Just that if we're worried about sexual dalliance between adult leaders and boy scouts, remove any adult leaders who are attracted to males from the equation. Neither heterosexual men nor homosexual women are attracted to males, and so would presumably be safe with the boys.I was being a bit facetious, but in my opinion, if it's a matter of the boys' safety, the important thing to consider is not whether or not adult leaders are homosexual or heterosexual, but if they're child molestors. homosexual =/= (does NOT equal) child molestor

By that logic, the BSA should be extremely careful of heterosexual women being den mothers to young heterosexual boys, lest they seduce them. To be completely safe, only heterosexual men and lesbian women should be Cub or Boy Scout leaders, right, because then there would be no temptation for any of the adults involved, right?

I don't think homosexuals can help being homosexual any more than I can help being heterosexual. However, I do think that people can exercise self-control. I like women. I was born that way. I don't think that'll ever change. But I do not have sexual relations with every woman I see, either. I think that's what the Church means when it says homosexuals are welcome in our midst, but are expected to follow Church standards. Maybe you can't help being attracted to certain people, but that's different than actually doing inappropriate things with them.