john doe

You're painting yourself into a corner here. Do you really want to be in the corner? Moses was a man. How do you know he didn't misunderstand what God told him to write? How do you know that the men who translated his writings, and those of the other prophets in other languages, did so with perfect clarity into each language? You are aware that many times languages don't exactly match up word for word, don't you? Meanings get lost or scrambled. Claiming inerrancy in the processes over 6,000 years is more than just a little silly. Let me ask you this: did Elijah misunderstand the scriptures? How did the people of his time know that he was speaking God's truths? Did everyone believe him? Did everyone believe Moses or Abraham? Why not? How do you know they completely understood what God told them? How do you know? I prefer to say that I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. I know and accept that there are errors in it, they have crept into it over thousands of years. That does not mean I have to throw it out wholesale. As we study it and employ the aid of translators who have read the early transcripts to gain a better insight of the early intents of the meanings of the writings, we gain a better understanding of the whole of it, and we gain a better sense of the original intent of the authors.

As the OP is banned, this thread has become a false-starter.

Living Prophets who receive revelation directly from God and Jesus Christ. Those are huge advantages for us. You should try it sometime.

I think we need to back up in this conversation. You seem to have swallowed the elephant whole, but are straining at the gnats. We should bring the conversation back to asking ourselves who wrote the Bible. Did God write it, or did men, inspired of God write it? Since the time of the original writings, how many times have the manuscripts been edited, transcribed, or translated? You say you use the NIV version, but how do you reconcile the differences, not only in words but also in meaning, between that version and other versions which are widely accepted by various Christian churches? Which one is most accurate, and how do you know that? If they are all true, and the Word of God, why are they different? They can't all be 100% accurate since they contain differences. I will be gone for a day or so, but you can feel free to address these questions and I'm sure others will join the discussion.

It was also blocked on my browser as an attack site. I assume that means it launches viruses or trojans onto your computer. I am deleting the link to avoid having our members have problems with it.

Plausible deniability? Did anyone from the church use that phrase? More likely they were encouraging others, real people to get involved. They knew that for the vote to pass, they would have to involve real people who could vote. They wanted the people to get involved, not push themselves to the forefront of the action.

Warning! Warning! Warning! This should be your wake up call. Walk away from people who need to be 'fixed'. It rarely, if ever, works. If you want to remain strong in the church, and he doesn't, chances are greater that you will compromise before he will. And he will always dislike the fact that you thought you could change him when he is happy being just the way he is.

What's an anti-choice march? Is that liberalspeak for Democrat Convention?

I'm guessing the booing was for the fact that Obama couldn't find the time to go 40 miles and deliver the address in person. Especially in light of the fact that he is the first president in a long time to skip out on them. In fact, I believe one of the attendees was quoted somewhere saying something to that effect.

Just concentrate on putting one foot in front of the other, step by step.

I don't recall that part either. Maybe it's only included in the super-secret ceremonies in the basement?

You're talking, of course, about the LDS Church's humanitarian efforts. I agree, a lot of Baptists probably hate us for that. Oh, and gays too.

I'm not a statistician, but I wonder about the accuracy or representation sample of all Americans when you only poll 1,000 of them out of a population of 300+ million. It seems to me you would need a larger sampling to make sweeping claims such as he has. Maybe one of you math guys can enlighten me on that if you're bored enough to use small words and short sentences.

Fixed it for you.

What facts does he think would convince him of truth? Does he mean he needs physical evidence of the truthfulness of the gospel? What proof would he need to convince himself? Does he think there is a church out there that can provide him with facts? Would he accept video evidence of a talking donkey? How about if someone found the Ark of the Covenant, would that convince him of anything? How about an actual burning bush that was never consumed, would that be enough? At what point will he take a leap of faith, or does he need absolute scientific proof and confirmation of God's existence to believe anything?

I hope you repented enough to honestly earn your man card.

You left out elitist and cliquish, or are those traits of those on the other side of the aisle?

As has been pointed out many times before, if you think a post breaks site rules, click on the red-outlines triangle in the upper right corner of that post and the moderators will take a look at it in context. And yes, whining about moderators publicly is a violation of site rules. You can contact moderators individually and privately through PM.

Speaking of casting judgemental statements on peoples' words, I'm just going to leave this here. And with that, I'll bow out of the conversation.

Since this has become an issue, I have taken the liberty of rechecking the definition of vanity. Alternate definitions #6-9 probably don't apply to this situation. I would add that my thoughts are that vanity would apply to outward appearances or an attempt to make others think certain things about you, but are not limited to the visual.

As has been pointed out, you can be vain and not have a perfect figure. And I think you're being overly dramatic and sensitive. There is absolutely nothing wrong with adopting an existing child in need of a loving home.

Yeah, well, if it makes you feel any better, guys have other problems that can be just as difficult for them to deal with as women do. And while those problems may be different, they deal with the powers of procreation too, which need to be used properly and in God's appointed ways.

I believe it has something to do with the idea of deliberately choosing to bring a child into the world without a father being present. A single woman adopting or rescuing a child who is already born is a much different proposition than purposely flaunting God's ordained family unit of both a father and a mother. Personally, I think that when a single woman chooses artificial insemination rather than adoption, she usually does so more out of vanity rather than out of a sense of wanting to help a disadvantaged child who needs a loving parent. One is charity, based in love, the other is vanity, based in selfishness. But that's just my opinion.

Again, what specifically is said on their news programs that is wrong and bad? Just because 'The Scream' Dean and Kieth Olberman say something does not make it so.

LOLOLOL! That was a good one............ Or were you being serious?