mordorbund

Not just LDS, Joseph is building on past prophets. Isaiah 63:1-2:
 
 
Revelation 19:13-15:

Not just LDS, Joseph is building on past prophets. Isaiah 63:1-2:
 
 
Revelation 19:13-15:

Not just LDS, Joseph is building on past prophets. Isaiah 63:1-2:
 
 
Revelation 19:13-15:

Why is that a problem in the context of this thread? The question is, "explain what you believe". Well, we believe because we  have revelation stating as much. Here it is.
 
 
On a more general note, the Gospel Principles lesson referenced in the OP even included some related scriptures for this particular topic. D&C 132:20–23:
 
 
That's the scriptural definition of 'gods' in the sense that Mormons use the term. For more, you can find additional scriptures like D&C 76:59–70:
 

Right; with the caveat that the process of the couple "mak[ing] that judgment for themselves" is supposed to be done prayerfully, and with God's input.  The overarching principle is that we should have as many children as we feel we can handle.  Within those parameters, though, contraception is like a prescription narcotic--it's not (in Mormon thought) a per se sin to use it; but depending on what you do with it--your pattern of use could constitute a sin.
 
 
I may be misreading you; but this seems to suggest that a fetus conceived by rape is less of a "human soul" than any other fetus at the same gestational age.  I'm not familiar with any Mormon teaching that would substantiate this perception.  My own personal interpretation of the justification for the rape/incest/life-of-mother loopholes (which admittedly has, probably, no more official imprimatur than your view; but maybe this will at least illustrate the diversity of Mormon thought on the topic) is that it boils down to a self-defense analysis.  No one would blame a Mormon woman who shot and killed a man who attempted to rape her, even though the rapist was very much a human and even though the primary harm the woman was facing could well have been psychological, not physical.  Similarly, I would submit that the Church permits abortion on a self-defense analysis when there is a severe threat to the mother's life or physical health (physical pregnancy complications) or emotional/psychological health (carrying to term and giving birth to a child conceived involuntarily).
 
It's also worth noting that per Church policy, these "loopholes" are not automatic outs--there's supposed to be counseling with the ecclesiastical leader, and it's very possible that a leader might advise a pregnant woman to carry the child to term even though it was conceived involuntarily.

Agreed; but please note that we didn't invent that metaphor--Paul did--and the hole you cite is a problem with pretty much any interpretation of his verbiage.  If a metaphor were absolutely perfect in all its applications, it wouldn't be a metaphor--it would be a literalism. 
 
 
I fully agree with you on this--with the caveat that the infant does grow up.  Offspring can become "equal" with a parent only in the sense that they can at some point attain the same sort of abilities, experiences and wisdom as the parent now possesses--but the roles of parent and child and the obligations of filial devotion remain eternally.

Bini, the website you want to go to is www.mormonfundamentalism.com.  It's run by an LDS member (Brian Hales, who's done so much excellent research on Joseph Smith's polygamy) who is an anesthesiologist by profession, but became interested in early LDS history after some extended family members of his were recruited by the FLDS.
 
Going from memory:  Basically, in the 1920s a guy named Woolley comes forward and claims that before John Taylor's death Taylor gathered some close associates and set up a "Council of Seven Friends".  The council was supposed to continue the practice of polygamy no matter what the mainstream LDS Church did.  Woolley was an LDS patriarch, as I recall, and he wrote about a "patriarchal order" of priesthood that functioned independently of the Salt Lake leadership.  By the time Woolley starts writing down his claims, he's the only one remaining alive of the people he claims were at this meeting with John Taylor; and as I recall he really didn't publicize his claims very aggressively--it was his son who sort of took the whole thing and ran with it, reconstituted the Council of Seven Friends, etc.  I don't think there was a formal schism or Conference session devoted to Woolley's claims--he and his successors just quietly tried to recruit members from the mainline LDS Church. 
 
The impression I get is that pretty much every time their leader dies, they have a fight over who should be the next leader and therefore split again--thus you have the LeBarons, the Allredites/AUB, the FLDS, the Centennial Park set, the Bountiful communities, Tom Green, the Kingstons . . . all technically independent of each other, but all pretty much tracing their doctrinal and authoritative claims back to Woolley, and from him back to Taylor and into the same prophetic line that we LDS recognize.

If these questions are doctrinal, then I'd say I was created out of nothing, and plan to spend eternity in the Heavenly Kingdom, ruling and reigning with Jesus, judging angels, worshipping, etc.  My desire is to offer to the LORD a 100-fold harvest, or a 5-talent return, and then to receive ever greater responsiblities.
 
If the questions are more pedestrian, I was born in Minneapolis, MN, raised in Seattle, and currently live in Federal Way, WA (a southern suburb of Seattle).  Again, I'm going to heaven after my season on this sod.
 
If the questions are financial, I'm somewhere in the American middle class, and would be most satisfied to simply maintain that.
 
If the questions are vocational, I will go where God sends me.  For now, that is continued service to "the least of these"--prisoners that God wants "set free"--at least in their relations with Him.
 
If the meanings are something else, I'm open to elaboration.
 
 

What? Do you people SERIOUSLY wear red? Filthy apostates!
 
Haven't you ever heard "Red worn around means Satan abounds"?
 

I appreciate your discussion and Claireifications :). Let me respond to just one thing.
 
 
On the contrary, the title "father" intrinsically implies sameness. Like begets like. If your father is a goat, you will be a goat. If your father is a man, you will be a man (in the sense of a human). If your father is the king, you will (or may) become a king. If your father is the devil, you will be a devil. And if your father is God...
 
What you seem rather to be suggesting is that you accept a highly figurative usage of "Father" with respect to God, and so therefore you don't feel much compulsion to believe that we are actually supposed to become as he is. (Though even here, you would grant that we are indeed supposed to adopt many of his attributes -- which ultimately is really all the LDS doctrine teaches.) And that's fine; you aren't required to believe LDS doctrine, seeing as how you're Catholic and all.
 
But the point is, the term "father" very much DOES imply sameness and the possibility of becoming that very same type of being. You are not required to accept that interpretation, but the implication is starkly obvious, and not one invented by Mormons.

Other important questions:
Where does prison chaplain come from? Where will prison chaplain go when this life is over?

Be careful in attributing such inaction to deafness or malice or lack of caring. Having been involved in leadership positions where we made such assignments, I can tell you that there is an awful lot of thought that goes into such assignments, and all sorts of variables that must be taken into account that most people have no idea about.

Wow. I can't imagine knitting, much less doing crafts, in church. Why don't I just sit there with my iPod and listen to music? I'll only use 1 ear bud, so I'll pretty much catch what the speakers are saying, right? Like others, I've been to churches of many denominations, I have yet to see anyone knitting during services. I suspect in some of the hard core black evangelical churches, one of those church ladies dressed in white would come and snatch that stuff out of your hands. And how distracting for the people sitting next to you! Too rude.
 
I have to restrain myself from asking people to leave RS with their mewling kids when I'm speaking. Though I understand why the babies are there, that doesn't stop me from finding ti quite rude that people don't quiet their kids or that they walk around the room with a noisy baby while I'm speaking (and that goes for anyone else giving the lesson, I'm an equal opportunity curmudgeon).  

Broken structure sentence is.

I liked Romney for the very reason he was lambasted early on: do you really want a vulture capitalist running the country?
 
YES!!
 
Hack the programs! Even the ones I like! Get us running in the black again! Make the unpopular decisions to instill some fiscal responsibility!
 
Can't say that I cared for much else.

Indeed; thanks.
 
I keep hearing about how Parker & Stone are positive towards Mormonism, and how The Book of Mormon Musical is actually a love letter to Mormons.
 
I'm skeptical.  The fact is that Broadway has in fact written a bona fide love letter to a religious group.  It was entitled Fiddler on the Roof, and it was nothing like The Book of Mormon Musical.
 
It strikes me that Parker and Stone are out for nothing so much as cheap laughs--and while they build to a warm-fuzzy ending, the fact is that they've spent the preceding two hours laughing at us; not with us.

Valid post

BY FAITH YOUR FACE WAS CREATED.
<--- checks to make sure his statement is factually correct and, satisfied, leaves it there.

And if you do that then neither this Mormon boy nor that Catholic girl learn how to talk to each other... We instead are force to rely on a third party with out learning why.

Not sure if this point has been brought up, but light apparently does not experience time the way we do. If we could travel arbitrarily close to the speed of light, we could cover any distance in an arbitrarily short amount of time, in our own reference frame (not when viewed from other frames). This suggests that light, which of course travels at the speed of light, covers any and all distances instantaneously, in its own reference frame. For example, light from the sun's surface takes about 8 minutes 20 seconds to reach us, in our measurement of time. But in the individual photon's measurement, it takes zero time; the trip is instantaneous.
 
I don't know that this has anything to do with the religious connotation of light. Just found it interesting.

BTW, it is my concern when they watch my daughter, who is 3. I didn't know their guns were not properly stored. They are also the ones who will care for my daughter until she's 18 if my husband and I die. So yeh, it does concern me.

Perhaps additional funding should be spent - not on police forces, but on civilians. That way we know how to stand our ground without escalating the situation.
 
Some examples in play:
 
New High School Course: How to Deal With Cops
Arizona Activist Undergoes Use of Force Scenarios

heterological  

There is a great deal of speculation. I agree. What is not speculation is that God knows everything, sees everything, the beginning from the end, and is not learning/deciding as He goes.
 
It is worth pondering. But it is worth pondering with a proper basic understanding of God, rather than a supposition that He's still not sure how He's gonna play all this out moving forward. Concerning the primary question:
 
 
God's plan is based on a perfect foreknowledge. The question seems to imply that God may not have a perfect foreknowledge. He does. And that is the simple answer to the question. But I agree there is potential use in having an expanded discussion, but not if that expanded discussion has false premises at it's core.

Possibly... I have never claimed to know anything about the Catholic mind-set...  But the OP is here asking for the LDS mind-set which I do know something about.   She can ask further questions if she needs them rather then limiting the people answering to only former Catholics