Suzie

How? It has been proven that we do not "need" meat. We can find protein in so many other foods.

Its interesting the "comma" issue on that reply (the fact that according to that answer the comma did not appear in the original version of the Doctrine and Covenants) because it goes against a whole bunch of statements from Brigham Young to others talking specifically about the use of meat.

I think he was just debating (and its okay in my opinion) to debate strongly in a point without name calling.

I see. Well I am not a vegetarian and I think thats a personal choice however eating meat sparingly does not equal (in my view) eating it every single day which I personally find most people do. The scripture is clear to me I'm not sure what is the issue at hand really.

Thats because is a touchy subject. I think we boast ourselves in not drinking coffee, tea, smoke or do drugs or hey no coke but we shovel down our throats a t-bone steak or lamb leg daily with apple pie for dessert.

Rydney the topic is very touchy within the church membership because as it was pointed out, a lot of our members of the Church love to eat meat and some of them do it in excess (every single day). I agree with your points.

That's my issue right there. How do we know that? If the Church claims NOT to have a position on the matter (they could have perfectly said it is not so) how do we go about saying he was NOT conceived in the same manner than everybody else?

I think the church leaves the window open to interpretation when they said: So I think is also a lot of conjecture to say it is not doctrinal when the present church clearly has no position.

Just curious what's your basis for this?

What I was getting at is that just because your boss may think it is okay, may not necessarily be your view. I know people who do not surf even though they have permission to do so just because they do not feel it is appropriate to do so during work hours. No, it depends. I do not know what kind of job do you do. If your job requires you to use Facebook or Twitter I would assume it is for WORK related purposes. I doubt very much the boss wants you to access it to put in your status that you want to go to the beach next Saturday.

Cool so is it a form of stealing if someone surfs the internet without their boss knowing?

Erik, unfortunately I think a lot of my LDS brothers and sisters are a bit too sensitive when dealing with doctrine and what they may (erroneously or not) perceive to be attacks. I think it makes more harm than good however I think is easy (if both parties are MATURE) to contend earnestly. We do not have to pull each other's hair to do so though.

What about if you do not have permission from your boss? Basically, the net is there. He never said you could, he never said you could not.

Well I was not speaking about myself. I am not at work :) but I wonder for those who are in a 8 to 5 job right now and use the internet at work for other purposes. And I was not referring to your break but during normal work hours. However, the drinking fountain is placed there to satisfy your thirst (basic need) and the internet for WORK purposes (unless a boss is sooo soooo sooo nice that thinks it would be good to put the net for his employees so they can use facebook :) )

I think he was right in pointing out it's a personal decision between you and your husband, however I don't think it may have been wise to say that it would have no bearing on your "eternal" salvation (did he use those words??) How does he know that? (NOT with this topic only eh but with anything else as well). I think only Heavenly Father can assure those things IMHO.

If you have internet access at your job and you use it for other purposes besides work such as post here or facebook, etc. Do you think it's a form of stealing since you're supposed to be working? (regardless of what your boss said or may have not said).

Wow excellent post CrimsonKairos.

That's my whole point from the start.

There are dozens and dozens of quotes by early leaders condemning any sort of birth control. So yes, it changed in the last few generations.

Folks, we already established that those who have health related issues cannot have children. Nobody is "judging" anyone. The comment of replacing children for dogs is common knowledge in today's world (or are we saying that's a fallacy?) and further brought up by an Apostle. What I am arguing is the point that bearing children (IF you are able to do so and you're healthy to do so) is a COMMANDMENT. Full stop. If anyone disagrees, I would like some debate on that particular point. So the comment of someone not "wanting" to have any children at all (even though they ARE able to do so) goes against Lord's commandments. Simple as that.

If God is all powerful he will stop people from killing... If God is all powerful he will make drugs disappear... If God is all powerful he will..... The reasoning doesn't hold.

A scratching ticket they usually give you FOR FREE to win burgers or fries is gambling? Nonsense. I think sometimes like Pharisees we focus so much on the outside but our inside are rottening. "Oh no, I don't drink Coke or use a scratch ticket to win a free burger, those things are very wrong!" "But hey, I haven't done my Home Teaching for the past two years". So silly.

I don't know, why would I know? I don't go around asking couples why they have/don't have children. The point I was making of children being replaced by dogs was an example I heard in General Conference by Elder Oaks but I suppose you see him as "judging" as well?: Unselfish Service

That's why I mentioned the reasons why some people have a dog over a child. I am aware that not everyone gets a pet for the same reasons. I miss your point. What judging has to do with anything? We're merely pointing out a commandment, we discussed the reasons why someone cannot/should not have a child, etc and at the end we're discussing the fact that those who do not have health issues, who understand the plan of salvation and that by choice decide not to have children are going against God's will. That's not my opinion or conclusion or being judgmental, it's a fact.

Yes, adopting pets is a good thing but using them as a replacement for children because they dont talk back, you don't have to change their diapers or take them to school is not a good thing (again, taking into consideration they're members of the church who understand the plan of salvation and the purpose of families).