Leah

Why would you not believe that Heavenly Father can change someone's life?

So....abuse would not be a reason? Would a wife be counseled to stay with a husband who was abusing her...or her children? What about in situations where one spouse is an alcoholic or drug addict who makes no effort to get clean and sober?

I am still not convinced that you are nothing more than a silly troll. God's plan IS working. For you to think that any idea that you have is better than our Heavenly Father's......is either one of arrogance, delusion, evil...or - again - just a silly little troll here to try to have their pathetic version of "fun". You would force sterilization on people "no matter the cost"? The cost to you will be horrific. It might be a curiousity to be on hand on Judgment day, when you are explaining to Heavenly Father why you think your ideas - and you - are superior to him.

No, no it is not. No one's "idea" is better than Heavenly Father's plan.

The question is.....'just' creepy...or a creepy troll...hmmm.....

If someone is convinced that not including tea or coffee or alcohol in an experience is going to somehow lessen the experience, then chances are pretty good that is exactly the experience they will have. It sounds as if you don't want to entertain the idea - or even believe others - that life doesn't have to lose an ounce of 'fun' simply because one gives up these substances. It's all in the attitude. If you have convinced yourself that you can't have fun without them, you won't. If you want to discared WoW in favor of 'fun', that's certainly your choice. But it's never been an either/or situation. But I don't think the point of WoW had anything to do with 'fun'.

Are you saying that without that pot of tea, the day would not have held any 'fun'? That the gardens, your family, the rain-storm...all of that would not have been 'fun' without the tea? I cannot think of one single way in which giving up coffee, tea, or alchohol when I joined the church has prevented me from having fun. It's not the tea or the coffee or the booze that makes something 'fun' or not. It's your attitude. And if one cannot have fun without those substances...well...gosh...maybe there is some wisdom in the Word of Wisdom in cautioning against addictive substances.

This accurately reflects what I was taught. It comes straight from the Church's own website. Yet you are saying that the people who taught me - who taught me exactly this - taught me wrong and that I am lying in saying that this is what I was taught? Really? I was taught exactly what the Church says, yet I was taught wrong. Wow. ■ “The sacrament is for the Saints, for those who have actually made covenants at the waters of baptism. . . . “If a person, not a member of the Church, is in the congregation, we do not forbid him partaking of it, but would properly advise that the sacrament is for the renewing of covenants. And, since he has not made the true covenant of baptism or temple covenant, he is exempt. However, his partaking of the sacrament if he is clean and worthy and devout would not bring upon him any condemnation as it would for those who have made solemn covenants and then have ignored or defied them” (Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 226–27) It's a darn good thing my testimony is so strong, otherwise being treated thusly would have me wanting to stay far away from the Church.

I NEVER said that I want the policy to be that non-members are to be prevented from partaking of the sacrament. Don't attribute words to me that I NEVER said, in order to maintain your holier-than-thou attitude. I also simply asked you what question it was that you asked me that you want answered, as I did not remember you specifically answering a question. Sheesh. Are you that harsh and rigid with people in real life? It's nothing more than saying "What was the question? I missed it". Instead of being a decent guy and repeating the question (that I apparently missed), you launch into your "straw-man" nonsense. Instead of letting me know what your question was, you continue your idiotic attack. The people who taught me did NOT act against Church policy. The people who taught me would NEVER do that. You are deliberately mis-reading what I said because you apparently suffer from I'm-always-right-syndrome. You know, I was wondering the other day why - when there are millions of Mormons in the U.S., a great many of whom are active online - only a small handful of people post here on a regular basis. The actions and attacks of several people on this thread are an excellent example of why the membership here is so tiny. If this were the kind of people I encountered in my ward or when I was investigating the church, I doubt I would have felt too kindly towards the church. I was taught that the sacrament is a renewal of baptismal covenants and that generally people who have not made that covenant do not participate in the sacrament. I was NEVER told that I couldn't partake. I was told that was my own choice, but here is what the sacrament is about and what is usually practiced. You call me a liar. You attack me. I ask what question you want answered, so that I answer it, you attack me. And that wasn't even the point of my original post. I was expressing astonishment at someone who would walk away from the church simply over not getting their own way. If - as you seem to believe, but which isn't true - I HAD been told "Don't take the sacrament", there was no way I would have gone storming out of sacrament meeting with my knickers in a knot, walking away from the church forever. How strong a testimony is that? Whether or not it is the actual practice wasn't the point. The point was someone having a hissy fit and walking away if they don't get their way. But you are too busy being "right" to understand that. I find it interesting that other members of this site have posted outright falsehoods and they are treated with welcoming posts, I post an opinion and I am called a liar and you also attack a bishop, missionaries and others you don't even know or have the facts straight about. Disagree with me all you want, but you are completely out of line in calling me a liar. Say it all you want, but it won't make it true. Apparently you get some satisfaction out of it and I find that sad. I still don't know what you think I lied about and you'd rather play "I'm always right" than answer a question. But it doesn't matter. I have told no lies here. The only lie here is your statement that I "made something up". I did not.

Well, you know what they say about people who assume. What question do you want answered? I'd be delighted to oblige. What it is exactly that I made up/lied about? Where do you get the right to make such an accusation? Your position on the board or is this coming from just how you are in general? If anyone else on this board were to accuse someone of making something up, they would get their hand slapped for it? I am very curious as to what it is that you think I lied about. I take that accusation rather seriously, as I am someone who does not lie. It was my personal creed before I joined the Church and I am a member who takes the commandments seriously, as well as all of the teachings of the Church. The wonderful brother who first stepped forward to share the Gospel with me is someone who can be counted on never to lie, is a daily inspiration in maintaining that standard in my own life. For you to accuse me of lying is offensive. And wrong. And rather sad. It is interesting how my opinion that someone walking away from the Church just because she doesn't get her own way is something I don't approve of, turned into a firestorm and a personal attack.

Lots of convoluting going on here today! I didn't use the word "worthily". I guess I screwed up big time by following the advice I was given that taking the sacrament was renewing the baptismal covenant and that it was best to wait until I had actually entered the covenant, huh? And whoever said that children cannot be saved without baptism? Sheesh!

Way to convolute!

What church law would prevent you from simply being on the Temple grounds? You don't have to have a recommend to be on the grounds. You don't even have to be LDS to be on the grounds, so there is something I am missing here.

Even if you don't currently hold a recommend, I would advise to go and walk the grounds or sit in the waiting area where anyone can sit. (Our Temple also has an atrium open to anyone). I can guarantee that you will feel better.

But that doesn't necessarily extend an open invitation to non-members to participate. It simply means that if someone - non-member, excommunicated member, whoever - chooses to participate, no one is going to actually stop them. Of course, everyone has the agency to make their own choices. But the way some people talk here, there is no connection here between the sacrament and covenants. Everyone who taught me about the sacrament...the bishop, the missionaries, etc. - also told me that no one would stop me if I did choose to take the bread and water prior to baptism. But according to you, they were actually going against church policy in LOVINGLY explaining to me why participating in the sacrament would not be appropriate? Does actually entering the baptismal covenant have no connection to the sacrament? I am glad that I had the instruction that I did. When I first took the sacrament, it had great meaning to me, because I HAD MADE that covenant. Taking the sacrament prior to that would have just been eating a little bread and drinking a little water, as there was not yet a covenant to renew. So we're not to "judge" (have an opinion) about taking the sacrament before entering into the covenant it represents, but there is sure a lot of judging going on of those who waited until they actually entered the covenant.

So, your reaction to anyone disagreeing with you or not letting you have your way is to walk off in a huff? You would have have walked away from the Church if you hadn't been able to do things exactly the way you wanted to the first time you went, and now because others have different opinions here, you want to walk to storm away here? You rant about others judging, but weren't you judging when you decided that YOUR way was more 'right' than the teaching of the Church or the advice of others? Children growing up in the Church eating the bread and drinking the water at sacrament meeting is a very different situation than an adult participating in the sacrament. Just because the Church has advised the bishopric (and others) not to embarass anyone by physically preventing them from taking the sacrament does not necessarily extend an invitation to anyone and everyone who wants to take it (regardless the reason) to do so. I did not find it the least bit offensive..judgmental...however you want to label it.....when I was advised to not take the sacrament until after baptism. It made perfect sense to me...how could I renew a covenant I had not yet made? (and even if I didn't understand it, I would be respectful and do as I was advised). I don't see anything difficult, offensive or "bigoted" about that. I was always taught to respect the "rules of the home (or place)". This included participating in religous services. If I were to go to an Orthodox synagogue where men and women sit separately, it would be disrespectful (not to mention arrogant) for me to insist that I sit with the men. Just as it would be in the Temple. If I were to go to a Catholic Mass, it would be disrespectful of me to insist on taking communion. Their house, their rules. I am completely baffled that someone would threaten to walk away from the church just because it is not the norm for non-members to participate in this sacred practice. It is not about YOU, it is about the sacrament and the meaning behind it.

If I had had such a harsh, judgmental attitude, I would have missed out on the best thing that has ever happened to me. I was living church standards before the first time I attended sacrament meeting. However, it had been graciously and caringly explained to me that taking the sacrament was a renewal of baptismal covenants. Having not yet been baptized, there were no covenants to renew. Seems pretty straightforward and logical. It seemd entirely appropriate to me that I NOT take the sacrament. Out of respect for those teachings, and that covenant which I did not yet share, I didn't take the sacrament until after my baptism, when I actually had a covenent to renew. I felt very blessed. I do not understand the disrespect of going to a church (or synagogue or mosque) for the first time and having the attitude of "If you don't let me do it my way, I am not coming back!". Had I taken that attitude, I would have missed out on the very covenant that the sacrament is meant to renew!

The Catholic Church compiled their version of the Bible. It differs from the Protestant version. The Catholic Bible has seven books and parts of two others in the Old Testament that are not found in Protestant Bibles. So the understanding you have is of your version of the Bible, not of 'the' Bible.

Lizzy, I think I understand where you are coming from. Yes, pedophiles and sexual predators of all sorts often seem 'normal' and even 'nice'. That's part of what helps some people to deny the reality of what goes on. And, yes, people are often different than what they seem. But I wouldn't use the word 'never'. There are good people who are exactly what they seem - good people. I have had to work hard on regaining my trust in people because of things that happened in my life. But I know without a doubt that there are still people in this world who 'seem' good....and truly are.

Molesting multiple children is not a "mistake". A mistake is when you put sugar in a recipe when you meant to put in salt. Molesting children is a choice.

Getting one's ears pierced hurts. Why anyone would want to inflict pain on an infant (or child) for some unnecessary bit of 'fashion' that is to satisfy the desire of the parent is beyond me. This is a human being - your child - not a dress-up doll. I will always vote for waiting and letting her make her own decision.

I don't underestimate the wickedness of the world at all. At the same time, I don't believe that the majority of people in this world are "horrible vile people". What boggles MY mind is that you are looking to blame everything BUT the person who makes the choice to commit the sin. You clearly do not understand what rape is about - or perhaps you don't WANT to understand it. You continue to blame the victim, instead of putting the blame where it belongs...with the rapist. You seem to be unnaturally obsessed with how women dress and with the subject of rape. And seem to be looking for justification for men to rape and behave in other abominable ways. SO WHAT if Satan temps us daily, as you assert. Everyone has free agency. Everyone CAN resist temptation. It is a matter of choice. We are not helpless before Satan. We are as strong as we want to be. The facts are that the vast majority of men do not rape, nor are they even remotely tempted to do so. And those that do, do so out of choice. It is a choice they make. They are not helpless before some mystical unseen force. It has nothing whatsoever to do with other people's actions, including how any one woman dresses. Here's a thought...if you think a woman is dressed like a "hooker", don't look at her!

But Satan didn't force them to do anything. They CHOSE to do it. YOU are responsible for your actions. Only you. If I handle cash every day at my job, am I to blame the cash if I steal it, because it was there 'tempting' me every day? Or should I blame my employer for putting temptation in my way? Because - according to your logic - if the temptation is there, it's the temptation's fault how I act, I bear no responsibility. Fortunately, the truth is that the vast majority of men on this planet are NOT going to rape simply because they are exposed to scantily clad women. It boggles the mind that you would think that to be a normal and expected response.

I haven't seen anyone here being "unsympathetic" to those with disabilities. Not in the least.

Any fool can have an opinion. That doesn't mean they get to decide another person's feelings. That is also disrespect.