Daybreak79

Not exactly, no more than (for example) a physical copy of the Bible is a physical representation of faith. Temple garments are worn by adult members of the Church who have made sacred promises of fidelity to God’s commandments and the gospel of Jesus Christ in temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To Church members, the modest temple garment, worn under normal clothing, along with the symbolic vestments worn during temple worship, represent the sacred and personal aspect of their relationship with God and their commitment to live good, honorable lives.
 
Some people incorrectly refer to temple garments as magical or “magic underwear.” These words are not only inaccurate but also offensive to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is nothing magical or mystical about temple garments, and Church members ask for the same degree of respect and sensitivity that would be afforded to any other faith by people of goodwill.
 
For more information, see http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/temple-garments.

Evidence of what? I have read both. They teach the same gospel. Do you want me to go through picking verses to demonstrate that? That would prove nothing. You would have to read the Book of Mormon yourself and find points that you feel conflict with the Bible, and ask clarifying questions for there to be any headway made into this discussion.
I invite you to do so Bryon, if all you want is to understand our belief it is enough for me to provide the assertion that we believe they teach the same Gospel of Christ. If you want to decide that for yourself then I invite you to read the Book of Mormon, pray to God for His spirit, and discuss any conflicts you feel rise up.

Are you asking us to prove to you that one anthology (The Book of Mormon) teaches the same Gospel as an anthology of works assembled several hundred years after Christ's death (The Holy Bible)?

I am not about to play that game. I am not trying to convert you to the Gospel of Christ. PrisonChaplain had a great suggestion, if there is something we teach rooted solely in the Book of Mormon that you feel conflicts with Christ's Gospel by all means we can discuss those points. I'm not sure this thing exists. Granted my scriptural prowess isn't what I'd like it to be at but as a general rule our doctrines are rooted in both books.
The Book of Mormon is a collection of works which was abridged, edited, and hidden by the prophet Mormon. It is the record of a group of Jews which fled Jerusalem prior to it's destruction and came into a promised land. It teaches of Christ's Gospel. Why is one anthology so suspect but the other not? I suspect your issue is not with it's teachings but with it's origin and the man who translated it.

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!"
 
My understanding of your reading of these verses means that if another gospel shows up - even if it professes to be Christ's gospel, even if the message and teachings therein match the message and teachings of canonized biblical gospels - then that gospel is a cursed book!
 
I hope you can see that this is not what Paul was saying, because by including himself as a possible source (the "we" emphasized above), he has removed Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews - half the New Testament!
 
Can you clarify what would make a book qualify as "another gospel"?

None of this has to be complicated.  First, it is possible, but unlikely that Paul is referring to the four gospels in the NT canon, which would make the BOM "another gospel."  However, given that the NT was not yet canonized, it is more likely that Paul was referring to different gospel teaching--teaching opposed to that of the Apostles.  Paul's letters offer a few examples of such--pre-Gnostic teachings, Judaizers, etc.  So, in order to accuse the BoM of being counter to the gospel taught by the apostles one would have to address specific teachings.  That would be a difficult discussion to have, without violating TOS.  It might be wiser to choose an LDS doctrine, rooted in the BoM, that raises questions...and simply ask those questions, to seek clarification. 

This is false. JAG neither agreed with your gloss of the Galatians verse under inspection nor agreed that your gloss of the verse referred to the Book of Mormon.
 
If you want us to take you seriously, you must speak in good faith and avoid such wild mischaracterizations as you present above. We might assume (for a while) that you're merely misguided or excitable, but after a while we will lose confidence that you are sincere. Please give us reason to consider you a friend and brother and not a troll.

I don't see how the Book of Mormon's preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ makes it subject to Paul's cursing.
Also, please note that I did *not* "agree that the BOM is indeed the 'cursed' book mentioned in Galatians". Please be very, very careful about putting words in our mouths; your doing so--even inadvertently--may incline most of your Mormon audience to assume you are part of that class of critics who are more about "gotcha!" moments than sincere dialogue. :)

I think you implied your own right answer.
$20 is not worth stressing over.
dc

The temple endowment is sweeping in its scope and application, and its covenants boil down to a solemn promise to live a consecrated life in every particular.  That is not something one does lightly. 
 
When doing a standard temple recommend interview, there are certain boundaries beyond which a priesthood leader isn't authorized to enquire.  However, I believe bishops and stake presidents have a lot more discretion in deciding whether to issue a "own-ordinance" recommend. 
 
Certainly a "please help me to understand how this information helps us to move forward" attitude can be very productive, but beware of crossing over into the "Bishop, this is none of your business--now, give me my recommend!" realm.

One argument I've heard that came to light again in recent weeks is that it's so unfair that we can't communicate with Heavenly Mother and this is because our leaders have made it so.  Some have used this as part of their excuse to leave the church. Well...I just wonder where they will find a church that "allows" more access to Heavenly Mother.   
 
 I really believe with all my heart that despite the subtle murmurings all the way to angry shouts by the detractors
at how unfair and biased our church is toward women, (the priesthood issue, women "disappear" with in the church- said by my own niece, the "outdate" patriarchal order of things, etc, etc, blah blah)  that we actually have a church that simply would fall apart without all the fabulous work done by the women. If I sit back and take stock, the cumulative good stuff done by women in the church is staggering. Can you imagine the church being staffed and run by men only??  Oh dear.  I love my husband and my male leaders, but without the women leadership and teachers and volunteers, things would come to a crawling halt. Or at best limp along in semi-chaos.   Like Elder Nelson said in his conf. talk, the church is in need of organized women who know how to get things done!

I wonder if these 2 new essays will be as problematic and controversial as the past ones. As far as I can tell by reading either one of them, there's really nothing new there. But usually, amazingly, there still always seems to be a way that someone will interpret something in one of them that somehow causes some level of madness to ensue.

I doubt you are the only one who has had to go through this and I'm sorry for your pain.
Church policy is that elective transsexual operations are grounds for church discipline, and a member who has undergone such an operation may not receive a temple recommend.  Investigators who have had an operation like that need clearance from the First Presidency to get baptized.  Homosexual activity is breaking the law of chastity and I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter how you are dressing at the time.  If he is just dressing like a woman and taking hormones I don't think the church would take formal discipline but the Bishop should be aware I think and I encourage you to see your Bishop as the others have suggested.
 

I am so sorry, PP. That is tragic. I hope that story ultimately has a happy ending.

I agree with you.
My wife has pointed out many times that she doesn't get to call it quits at 6:00 pm. I see nothing wrong with a wife expecting that her husband will come home and help her shoulder the burden of the home.
Now, if she spends her day futzing around wasting time, watching TV, surfing the interwebs, gabbing on the phone, or whatever, then I have little sympathy for her. But assuming she's working as much as he is, it seems only reasonable that he help out when he gets home.

I think the General Authorities are always old, and have been for most of the Church's history. And I think I won't listen to an excommunicated member to find revealed truth.

Eminem and you'll never DJ again :)

The first is better, in my judgment, but neither is quite good.
 
This isn't really a matter of grammar, but of structure. "The belief" and "the freedom" are parallel; you are trying to say "[subject A] has engrained both B [with modifiers] and C [with modifiers]." So try this:
 
Today's democracy has engrained into people both the belief that they must have an opinion about everything and the freedom to do so without all the facts.
 
Note the lack of comma. I would probably replace "Today's" with "Modern", though of course that would depend on the context of the preceding and following writing.

Wow.
I can't find polite or ladylike words to express what I think about these husbands.
Wow.

That makes a lot of sense Windseeker, and I can very much see through your daughter's eyes.  She needs a lot of love.
 
There are support groups for parents of sexually assaulted children, because it shatters the parent's world too-- at the time, and with the difficulties afterwards.  Have you tried checking one of them out?

I have no wisdom to offer you, Windseeker, but you have my sympathy and best hopes.

I thought we were watching him have an on-air stroke or something. I was quite concerned. That, apparently, was not the case, as he was fine, standing during the congregational song, etc.

Let's think about it.  He's 88 years old.  This week he has had Elder Scott's funeral, he has had to call 3 new apostles, in addition to all of the speaking he has had to do this week.  I can imagine the spiritual strength it has taken to do all of this let alone the physical strength.  
 
I think when people say he is doing okay, he is doing okay taking into consideration his age and his responsibilities.

I think he's doing fine, perhaps even better than I had previously thought. He gave a long and powerful talk last night in the Priesthood session. Clearly, he is not as young as he once was, and I don't expect he will return to that younger state. His wife's death seemed to age him. He did appear to be nearly unable to complete his address this morning, but one incident does not reveal the whole story. President Monson will continue to lead the Church exactly as long as the Lord wills.

It wasn't my own kid, but my toddler sister. I don't recall the details. I was 12-13ish and I was sent to take my sister out into the foyer -- might have been assigned to change her diaper, cannot recall for certain. She "escaped" and started running around the halls of the church bottomless. I was just plain mortified. As I recall, she thought it was great fun.

I have told this before , but I will tell it again. Years ago when I was 32 I was just called as the Bishop of our ward. A few Sunday's later my wife was sitting with our 4 kids. Our son who was 6 at the time found a stick pin. He decided it would be fun to poke his younger sister in the leg with it. She was around 4 yrs old. When he stuck her ....her leg went up in the air and she started crying instantly. As her leg went up in the air the Water was being passed and she connected with that water tray and it went flying. The Deacon was laughing and looked up at me and my wife got up with our daughter under one arm and she was trying to grab our son by anything she could get her hands on. She was going to take him out and kill him. Later after I got home I got into trouble ....for not getting up and helping her.