Anddenex

This is clearly a stretch. This is speaking of the replacement of Judas, who was never a Bishop, or in a Bishoprick. This is clearly not the same as an Apostolic reference now being conferred on a Bishop. This scripture is solely emphasizing the responsibilities of Judas will now be upon Matthias, ordained as an Apostle. As pertaining to the biased statement "by necessity", not really. It verifies a line of authority, that without Apostles the church crumbles, as would the LDS church if we were to loose all of the Apostles and Prophets.

Keyword in this statement "I". Fortunately, the Lord doesn't work from StephenVH reasoning, or mental ability to arrive at a specific conclusion. You mention two specific items for one to become an Apostle. These two reasons must have pertained solely to those who were to replace Judas. Most people see Paul as an Apostle, yet he would not have fit within those two items. The conclusion you provide, as others have said, are only from your frame of reference, and assumes you are the top tier for knowledge, understanding, and coming to the truth. And if anybody disagrees with your reasoning, they must be wrong or inept. Why would Apostles give their authority to Bishops? Where in scripture do you see Bishops given an Apostolic calling?

My argument didn't imply anything, save it be that the Catholic Church employed these methods. You are reading into my comment to much. As I mentioned in my original post, and in my response to you, "playing devil's advocate" should be your focus.

What is the guild name? Did you have an LDS guild with GW?

If you have ever done genealogy work, then you know quite well how nice it is when you come across a marriage record that has both parents (i.e. "Father" and "Mother") mentioned. Yes, very appropriate for the "Mother" and "Father" to be recognized.

In California, when I was 17, the summer of my 18th birthday I went on splits with the missionaries. I was only a Priest at this time, and this is one of the reasons that helped me to decide to serve a mission.

I second Vort's response.

"he gives" or "he allows"? I don't think God gives anyone these trials. Now, I am curious, regarding Elder Packer's words in GA regarding how a loving father would not give this trial to anybody. Now Packer's words are paraphrased, but he said something to this nature.

The issue is "attraction", and whether or not a person is "born as pedophila" or not. I agree that Spencer is feeling these attractions. I disagree that he was born that way. I don't think it would be correct to label a man/woman a pedophile until they have actually committed the crime, or attempted to and were unsuccessful (dang it couldn't think of the right word, other than successful) At least this has been what has stemmed my argument with this article. If I remember the article correctly, Spencer acted out, and thus deserves the connotations the society he lives in correlates with such activities. Or, was Spencer, the member someone brought up in this thread? Either way, both acted on their temptations.

As is my natural attraction toward other women, however, this temptation must be subdued, immediately, and without excuse, otherwise...well we all know someone who has experienced a husband who has succumbed.

Thank you for clarification, and that is what I thought you meant. Your last question will sum things up. Yes, minor-attracted people have succumbed to the temptation. Naturally we all are prone to attractions. We think women are beautiful, there are some men who are attractive. We think children are attractive also. A man that looks at a child and thinks, oh she/he is pretty/handsome. Nothing wrong. The men/women then that is tempted beyond that natural attraction, must rid himself/herself of the temptation quickly. Thus, my question, are they born this way, or is it a temptation they have fully given into? I am more to believe this attraction is a by-product of nurture verses nature.

Yes, opening up a debate about pedophila as an "attraction" and "born this way" leads to other argumentation. The article may condemn it. This doesn't mean others will not use this article as a springboard to other avenues. Thus, a slippery slope. I simply don't agree that these people are born this way. Some men are more inclined to commit adultery. Is this a result of being born this way? Or a result of them given into the adversaries temptations of a natural attraction?

I agree jerome, however, just because it is a stirring you have never felt does not mean they were born this way, or born with this attraction.

Great question. I will refer you back to my previous statement: Anatess provides a good answer also. Even a publication printed by the LDS church may have the prophets and apostles opinions intertwined with doctrine. General Conference is definitely a good source. However, only within the Prophets words. Even Apostles and Seventies will at times share their opinions. The core doctrine within the standard works, unless an official declaration is given, like "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" is given.

Not shameful, not ridiculous, as I mentioned "playing the devil's advocate", just history. You can find these yourself. However, here is some I have found, just by a simple search: "Pope Innocent VIII - probably the most evil of all the Popes, in the number of innocent men, women and children killed because of his words. Read his moronic declaration against witches in 1484. Essentially, because the causes of disease, bad weather, and other problems were not known in those dark times, their causes were attributed to imaginary witches who must be hidden in the populace." Rudolph J. Rummel estimates that the Inquisition butchered 350,000 innocent men, women and children. The Spanish Inquisition. The Crusades. Rudolph J. Rummel estimates the Crusades killed 1 million innocent civilian men, women and children (not in combat). Found this on wiki, "Charlemagne allegedly ordered the beheading of 4,500 Saxons who had been caught practicing their native paganism after conversion to Christianity, known as the Massacre of Verden." You may want to read a little more into Joseph III. If Emma would have went with the LDS to Utah, this wouldn't have happened.

This is where my debate comes in PC. We all have temptations to bare, and are these people truly "born this way" or is it merely a temptation they have succumbed to? Is it a temptation we all have received, except, we have officially and outright when the first temptation came, ignored?

I don't remember ever saying this "excuses" pedophilia. I simple said it leads to a slippery slope. Are they really "born this way"? Or are they born the same way any other male/female has been born with attractions? I, personally, have never read any good evidence to say people are "born" a certain way, when it comes to attraction, or their sexual preference. Nothing convincing, at least to me.

I have always loved Joseph Smith's words when he said, paraphrased "A prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such." In other words, when a prophet is not acting in the office of his calling he has a mind of his own. His own interpretations. His own opinions. His own thoughts. He is free to express his personal thoughts as any other member of the Church. A great book, but not doctrine, although aspects of doctrine is taught, is Elder David Bednar's book, "Increase in Learning". The leaders now publicly address when their books are not doctrinal and their personal opinion on the subject matter. This is one example. LDS Cannon, is the best source for our doctrine. These are our Standard Works (Holy Bible, KJV; BoM, PoGP, D&C). Note, not the interpretation by a non-LDS member of our cannon.

I am not seeing the difference between the two. Both are able to represent an attraction, or an attraction that has been acted upon, toward children. You will have to help me understand your frame of reference in dividing the two. In addition to attraction, is a man considered an adulterer if he is attracted to other women besides his wife? This is my problem, to root an argument upon attraction, verses acting on the attraction, I would agree are two different scenarios. However, it will be really hard to convince me, that an attraction, automatically assumes one is born as a pedophila, zoophila, or homophila (is that the correct workd), etc... If I based, being born a certain way by "attraction", then why are some men more easily to decline the attraction and shrug it off, where others give in? I think this type of article leads to slippery slopes.

Agreed.

Wonderful. Just don't hate me because I have a different opinion then you.

I am going to focus on this statement, "some people are born as pedophiles." Notice it does not say they are born with attractions, they are born as pedophiles. Thus I reiterate my last comment, are they really born this way, or is it when the assumed attraction comes (an enticement), which could logically be an enticement from the adversary, they have just dwelled on the attraction more than you or I? If attraction is the basis, or premise, then a man who loves animals, not his/her fault either? They are just born zoophilias?

Yes. Are they denying certain teachings, or is it they themselves have not read them? It is similar when an atheist asks a believer, who they themselves, have never read the old testament, and then are told something and they deny it, not because they are being deceitful, but because they themselves have never heard it before, or have not read it? I would be curious as to what you think is published by the LDS Church. The Adam-God Theory is not published by the Church, nor is the Blood-Atonement. If you are trying to say this is "meat" of the LDS faith, then you are looking for trouble, and not being a sincere friend, who wants to have an open discussion. This is a very interesting statement, because those in the New Testament who crucified their Lord, were the ones that were supposed to be the most studied, and yet when the "meat" of the whole gospel stood before them, they slapped him, spit upon him, and crucified him, calling him a blasphemer. What questions do you consider milk? What questions do you consider meat? Whenever I have entered into a conversation with a person claiming to be non-judgmental it is really easy to tell if they are sincere or not. If you are sincere, and non-judgmental, loving as you say, then no member will have any trouble with your conversations. It is the people that pretend to be such that frustrates a number of us, especially when they try to say we believe in things that we don't, or that certain principles taught by past prophets are doctrines of the church, when they are not. EDIT: If you want to have a perfect example of a non-LDS member who is open to conversation, friendly, and easily to speak with, though we disagree on doctrinal standpoints, then please get to know PrisonChaplain (PC), on this site.

I think the statement is coincides with another statement, I believe on page 2, which the author says something like, "People are just born that way." Yes, I didn't get any inclination from the article that the action wasn't condemned. As pertaining to your last question, Yes. This question reminds me of the article I read about a man who is in love with his two dogs. His premise, he can't help himself, he was born attracted to dogs. In connection to your question, I would ask, are they born this way, or is their attraction no different than yours or mine, except when the attraction first came upon them (an enticement), they dwelled upon the attraction more than you or I?

This type of statement from articles really disturbs me, They didn't choose it, really?? As long as we give excuses for controllable behaviors, then the behavior will never end. Whenever I hear a statement like this in defense of these decisions, I always think of a marriage who is dealing with an adulterous relationship. It is very natural for a man to commit adultery, however, to say they didn't choose it, and had no choice in the decision... yet it could be equally said, it isn't his fault, it is just in his nature to not be faithful.