• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by mrmarklin

  1. Frankly, I'm trying to get away from it. I live and work near Silicon Valley where no one is wearing such attire. I wore suit and tie to work until 2000, when our firm (CPAs) decided not to fight it anymore! Not even our banker wore a tie, and certainly none of our clients. I wear expensive brand casual clothing, and on and off I wear it to work. If I'm not seeing clients, I wear jeans. Gave all my suits away, and had to buy one for my daughter's wedding in October! It will be my last suit. I haven't worn a jacket to chuch in years, and when I'm travelling and visit a ward I never wear a tie, because I don't travel that way anymore. Very close to getting rid of the last vestige of accursed Beau Brummel...the tie!!!!
  2. It's not published anywhere because US churches are exempt from that kind of financial reporting to the IRS. Other tax exempt entities are required to report salaries, etc, BUT all info reported to the IRS is absolutely confidential. Like most churches, I'm sure the Mormon church is a combination of church, other tax exempt entities, and as Hinckley stated, taxable entities.
  3. The general authorities, mission presidents, etc get a living stipend and expenses. Believe me, no one is getting rich. I would assume that some of the more affluent probably forego this stipend.
  4. While food storage is laudable, we need to be sensible about it. For most of us in cities who live in apartments or have homes without basements, having one or two years food supply is just not practical. Simpley no room to store it! In my local area, subject to earthquakes, 72 hour supply is recommended by the church and the authorities. Many of us have more, but I don't know anyone with a two year or even a one year supply. Think about it. If there is a truly national emergency where there is a breakdown of law and order or the national or regional authorities cannot help, you would want to share your excess food with family and friends. The real limiting factor is water supply. Most of us cannot store this, yet one can only live a few days without it. So having a two year supply of food without water is meaningless. Most of us live in large urban areas where water is literally brought in over tens of miles, and sometimes hundreds. So unless you can quickly sink a well on your property and get access to a pump you're done.
  5. Pam, this statement was not directed at you, but at the forum in general. I have no idea what you weigh.:) My whole point is that I've talked to many people over the years that have said "I have this or that imbalance" to try to justify there over weight condition. Never heard one that was credible. I know women on birth control, that are not fat. I have a daughter in law with thyroid--not fat. I could go on. Like I said before, I'm sure that there are some people that can't control their weight, but I have yet to meet them. It's really rare..........
  6. You're absolutely correct. " There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven........................":eek:
  7. Yes, I did. I didn't realize it at first, but in reality it was true. I'll always be diabetic, but through weight loss and eating correctly, it's very much under control. I don't currently take any medication, because my blood sugar is normal.:)
  8. Again, this is so rare as to almost not be worth discussing. I have diabetes. It's adult onset, I was considerably overweight and my mother had diabetes too, so that's another strike. My point is that I got control of my blood sugar by dieting, and losing weight. My weight was causing my diabetes. I chose to be sick. I suppose there is the rare case where diabetes causes weight gain (but I doubt it), the correlation in diabetics is that being fat causes diabetes. There are certain illnesses where excessive water can accumilate in the body etc etc, but that's not true obesity. I have personally never known anyone who was fat because they had some disease. Like I say, it's really rare. Don't try to justify your own fatness by saying you can't help it. I cry Bull:rolleyes:.
  9. No it's not the only cause, but other causes are so seldom as to not be worth considering. They're maybe one in a million. Even less......................
  10. As a former fat person I can say, one does not have to watch them eat to know that they do so to excess. Doesn't really matter whether it's pizzas, hamburgers, burritos or Pate de fois gras. Fat people eat too much.
  11. Your husband is clearly an alcoholic, and if he truly wants to recover, should join a 12 step program. Many are run by the LDS church. BTW, one never leaves these programs. You become a lifer in the recovery of your addiction. You don't say how long you have been married, and whether or not you have children. But if there are children involved you need to act to protect them from the effects of alcoholism in the family. I married a woman from an alcoholic family, and while she is a fine person and has never taken a drink, the effects of alcoholism in her life are negative and real in her personality and behaviors. I knew she came from such a home before I married her, but being young and dumb thought little of it. However it has been an issue in our marraige, and if I had to do it over, I would avoid marrying a person from such a background. I suspect your husband has other negative behaviors that you have not elaborated.
  12. It IS OK to drink Pepsi. I know several people who are totally addicted. They're temple going Mormons too.........
  13. You shouldn't have gone behind his back, that was wrong. But the temper tantrums are certainly not normal, and are unacceptable in an adult. Your problems cut deep, and the only way that this can be resolved is through marraige counseling. If unsolvable, then you'll know to get a divorce.
  14. I think pastorbob is doing a little Trolling.
  15. Thanks for quoting out of context, pastor bob. I'm not sure what your point is, but no one knows the location of Kolob, it has not been revealed AFAIK. BY was offering his opinions as to inhabitants of various locations illustrating the God created them all, and in general trying to show how the world lives in ignorance of many things that are of heaven, demanding proof. He is attempting to tell church members to rid themselves of similar ignorance. It has been postulated by various general authorities that the sun is Kolob, but that is certainly not church doctrine.
  16. The idea that Joseph Smith or any LDS church member is adding to the word of God is quite silly if you stop to think about it. The bible contains all necessary things for our salvation. The "additional" LDS scriptures such as the Book of Mormon etc only add clarification. If you look at the fundamental doctrines between Mormons and Catholics for example you'll find them the same in their essentials. Faith, repentance, etc. etc. Joseph Smith's non acceptance of other religions is bible based. There are many instances of changes made by so called Christian religions to the extent that God rejected them all, and wanted a restoration of all things. Some of the things are only alluded to in the bible. But by and large they are all there. The book of Mormon is a self proclaimed additional testimony of Christ...nothing more or less. It's not changing any fundamental doctrine. The D&C clarifies and codifies certain ordinances, priesthood duties etc.....but all are biblical based. Things for example like the Melchizedek Priesthood are clarified and explained in Mormon theology. But all this is alluded to in the bible. The protestant world is still trying to figure it out, and argues a lot about it, but since they have no modern revelation about what the bible is alluding to they can only speculate.
  17. tubaloth, This is an interesting story, and it was quoted at me by a "born again" evangelical several years ago in another forum. It's interesting, but rests on a couple of false premises that are widely accepted by many in the Christian world. One is that God created everything. We know that this is not so nor can it be so because intelligence has alway existed. Therefore, the student's answer to the original question posed was incorrect, and of course it was then easy to fall into a verbal trap. Then of course the student compounded his error by describing evil as the mere absence of God. Again, as Christians we know this is not so because satan is the active purveyor of evil. He rebelled against the plans of God, and it has been so from the beginning. If there is an absence of God, satan will want to fill that vacuum, but WE are the ones that create God's absence by disobeying His commandments, thereby experiencing spiritual death and inviting satan into our realm.
  18. The idea that Christ is "less" than the Father was imputed into Arianism because of the idea that Christ is a created creature of God. Which is true, but the rest of the world lacks a clear understanding of the benefits of keeping this, our secnd Estate. Church doctrine teaches that Christ is now a God unto himself, and not at all inferior to the Father in any way, having followed all the commandments. We also have this opportunity. Remember during Christ's lifetime, He said be ye therefore perfect even as my Father in heaven is perfect. After His death he said unto the Nephites: "I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father is perfect." In this scripture Christ puts Himself on the same plane as the Father. There is no inequality or Subordination. He is a Co-Equal member of the Godhead.
  19. Pam I wasn't saying you were doing the nitpicking! It's that other guy!!!!
  20. It's safe to say the average US Mormon that I know (and I know a lot) does not eat meat sparingly. Technically, I don't think they are obeying the WoW, but of course I suppose everyone has one's own definition of "sparingly" so who am I to judge?
  21. What nit pickers! Meat IS the flesh of beasts. In many languages it is the same word! ie in Spanish Carne=meat=flesh German: Fleisch=meat=flesh
  22. Cydonia: D&C 89 cannot be taken at face value in the 21st Century because it has been modified by the prophets in later years, namely 1930 when it became a commandment. There are so many general conference sermons (I think you can take them as revelations) about this topic that you can read that it is fatuous to continue your arguments. You also show your ignorance regarding beer as a "mild" drink. Beer as produced around the world has many levels of alcohol content, and even here in the US it is subject to varying controls regulating content from 3.2% on up. In Germany, a country to which I have traveled extensively, it is the national beverage. The alcohol content there is generally higher and the beverage can only have 4 contents to qualify as beer: barley, malt, hops and water. If you have ever been to Germany you will realize that the level of alcohol consumption is much higher than here in the US, and that alcoholism, and related problems are much more evident in public than they are here. I will say that in some ways the German public is more tolerant of certain behaviors than in the US. In toto however, I think it's safe to say that beer is not a "mild" drink.
  23. The WoW was not fully enforced until relatively recently, namely 1930. In 1930, it was decided that ot be temple worthy, the WoW had to be complied with, and it is very specific that the BIG FOUR, namely, Alcohol, Tobacco, Coffee and Tea were the absolute prohibitions. That continuing revelation stuff. That's what we live by today, and is required of us. It is a well known fact that many church leaders did not obey the WoW by those standards prior to 1930, and coffee drinking was extremely common in the church prior to that time. The winter home of Brigham Young in St George Utah is full of wine decanters used by the prophet himself, as an example of the above.
  24. No one is in love in 8 days. Maybe 8 months, and even then......................
  25. At 19 why did you give her anything? She's an adult, and seemingly engaging in adult activities. The idea that her and her sleep over boyfriend are not "doing" it is hopelessly naive. Pull the goodies, there is nothing to lose, and she shouldn't have had them in the first place.