Cal

I disagree. Satan does make people gay. Everything that is good comes from Christ. Everything that is evil comes from Satan. That is scriptural. Have you considered fasting and praying and have the demons cast out? Satan makes people gay? Now I have heard everything! I have to write that again--just to make sure it sinks in........Satan makes people gay!!!! I didn't know he had that kind of power---now he can engage in the creation process? Quite a guy, that Satan I wonder if he has a degree in genetic engineering, since biology and genetics studies has shown quite clearly that homosexuality has a genetic component.

Unfortunately, as much as we may like to say the Church doesn't reform anything, an overview of the LDS Church since 1830 will reveal plenty of reforms over time.

Using "Occum's razor" to make sense of the original BoM text and the "Kirkland" edition, it becomes pretty clear that as JS's theology of the Godhead evolved, the trinitarian view clearly espoused in the BoM was at odds with the "new view" of the Godhead, so the church had to try to make the two theologies mesh--they had to change the BoM in several places, which as been pointed out.

Being conceived in sin only means being conceived into corruption or the physical world. Now you are distorting the meaning of the word sin. You are making it mean whatever you want it to mean so that the scripture doesn't sound stupid. Sin is the act of offending God. If it means everything else too, including simply existing in the physical world, then how do we "repent" of our sins? Are you seriously suggesting we repent of being physically present in the world? Because that is the logical consequence of defining sin the way you are. The world is sinful just because we are going to die--that is we live in a world where everybody dies, and that is sinful?

Although being intimate with your spouse is ordained of God and commanded in order to multiply and replenish the earth, when conception occurs, that conemption then becomes suseptable to death. That is mortality. Mortality make us an enemy to God because we are sinful. So the potential to sin comes at conception. Since when did a newborn have the potential to sin? You don't get the potential to sin until you can make a rational decision. The issue was how is it possible to be concieved in sin, not whether we acquire the ability to sin, later--there is no question about that, is there? So again, how can anyone be "concieved in sin", if there is nothing sinful about legitimate conception? Where is the sin in it? The idea that our mortality makes us an enemy to God begs the question. First, just how does our mortality, in and of itself, do that? It's not that we are going to die, which is the definition of mortality, that offends God; it is that when we are old enough to understand the nature and quality of our actions, we can make mistakes or sin. But, we're not even BORN into that, we can't sin until later, so how are we BORN or CONCIEVED in sin?

Same deal in Iraq. Saddam violated the 1991 cease fire (see UN Resolution 1441). Time in. Were you calling for President Clinton's impeachment when he invaded the Serbian province of Kosovo without so much as a by-your-leave either from Slobo or the UN? There was even less of an immediate threat to us from the Serbs than from Iraq, whose dictator was our acknowledged enemy. My thinking is that after 9/11, any regime that supported any anti-American terrorist group (as did Iraq; see Salman Pak) had better get on the side of the angels toute de suite. The idea that fighting terrorists creates more terrorists has always struck me as remarkably like the attitude of a victim of abuse: Don't fight back; it'll just make the bully madder. If masses of Arabs are so barbaric so as to be turned to bona fide terrorism (referring to killing civilians, not soldiers) by the Iraq campaign, then better that they be pushed over the edge sooner rather than later, so they can be identified and chewed up. Bottom line is, as long as we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq, insurgents or other radical Muslims will have an excuse to terrorize us along with the other innocent "stand bys". At some point, we are going to have to find a good excuse to get out. Look at it this way, if we had an arab armed force occupying this country, don't you think every red neck, shot gun-toting, pickup truck driving Bubba would be taking pot shots at them everytime they got the chance. (I might even buy a pickup!)Well, the insurgents are the Iraq version of Bubba!

commies? How about terrorists? Come up to the 21st century. LOL Try to see things in context---the idea that spongebob is a homosexual dates back to the kind of thinking that gave rize to the Joe McCarthy's era--learn from our mistakes or we are doomed to repeat them---maybe you don't know much about the early '50's in this country. That history has some powerful lessons.

Not just because somebody dreams about it.Unless Bush and his gang start getting their priorities straight on homeland security, it is almost inevitable---my suggestion, more resources into monitoring world nuclear stock piles and radiation detection at our ports.

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory." I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists. The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history. I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When was the last time you saw an attempt by an atheist group try to have science books say specifically, that evolution offers evidence against the existence of God, or even that ANY science textbook writer suggested that it should? It is a non-issue. You may find authors or commentators making such a claim, but I have NEVER heard it even suggested. I would guess that most opponents of religion tend to be scientific minded as it is, and understand the nature of science better than your run of the mill creationist. It's not the texts, it's the lectures. Richard Dawkins is a prime example. The issue is textbooks, that kids read....the kids who the Supremes consider most vulnerable the States attempts to promote religion----lots of people lecture, like Dawkins--it has little to do with the issue of promoting religion in science classes in public schools. I've never heard a public school science teacher even mention his name in a Biology class. His name is not in Biology textbooks, at least at the K-12 level. What is wrong with a broad understanding of all that is spinning in this world? I allow my children, who clearly believe in God, to study a teaching which totally does not allow for God in it, why must it be so one sided? Why can it be more open. The very fact that they are scared our children might hear the word God in the public school system speaks volumes about how narrow and closed minded they are. The Christian/God believers are so much more open and tolerant than these freaks of Godlessness. Amillia--its a little thing called separation of church and state. Evolution is scientific, not religious--creationism and the idea of God is a religious doctrine. Public schools, being an agency of government is not permited to promote or endorse religion over non-religion. It's not a matter of equal time--religion gets NO time in science classes, and shouldn't. High school science classes are about teaching science, not religion. Nor are science classes about about teaching AGAINST religion---religion is simply not an issue. Science teachers teach what the scientific method allows--hypothesis that are testable using the scientific method---religion and God are not, therefore they don't belong in public school classrooms---at least not to the extent that they promote a religious view over a scientific one. It's not like creationism and evolution are both on equal footing scientifically. Creationism has virtually no place in science since no one has yet devise and experiment that can either verify or disprove the existance of God or a divine creation. Where as, there are lots of scientific observations and experiments that can test the hypotheses of evolution.

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory." I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists. The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history. I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When was the last time you saw an attempt by an atheist group try to have science books say specifically, that evolution offers evidence against the existence of God, or even that ANY science textbook writer suggested that it should? It is a non-issue. You may find authors or commentators making such a claim, but I have NEVER heard it even suggested. I would guess that most opponents of religion tend to be scientific minded as it is, and understand the nature of science better than your run of the mill creationist. It's not the texts, it's the lectures. Richard Dawkins is a prime example. The issue is textbooks, that kids read....the kids who the Supremes consider most vulnerable the States attempts to promote religion----lots of people lecture, like Dawkins--it has little to do with the issue of promoting religion in science classes in public schools. I've never heard a public school science teacher even mention his name in a Biology class. His name is not in Biology textbooks, at least at the K-12 level.

Mark---ditto to what pushka said. You MUST clear up your thinking on this subject. Can you honestly say that you CHOSE to be gay? Don't you feel you were pretty much born that way? If so, what control did you have over your own birth circumstances? Don't you see what a malicious God it would be for Him to blame you for your gayness or to condemn you for it? Is the God you worship really that cold and cruel? The one Joseph Smith preached said man is to have joy. What joy could you possibly have if God created you gay, and then condemned you for it? It would be a contradiction. NO God like that exists. Take my word for it.You can get FREE help from county health services if your income is low. But GET HELP, you don't deserve to be so despondent over who you are. Again, you can't love anyone else until you love yourself--and that means as you ARE, because you can't change your basic self, no matter how much the self-rightous religious know-it-alls preach it. If you are going to change anything, only God can change it, and he's not going to change your sexual preferences, those are inborn. Science has already settled that issue.

I agree the world is full of jerks. That doesn't really change my position, with which you don't totally disagree, so perhaps that is a good place to move on to other things.

Cal, That doesn't jive with the way you represent yourself to think. Now you are trying to tell us that the reason you supported (or accepted) the Iraq invasion was cuz Bush said their were WMDs. Pardon me but since when did you depend upon an appeal to authority to decide what to believe. Personally I kinda like Bush but my support of the invasion had not so much to do with Bush's belief that there were WMDs and more to do with what I know about Iraq from having read the news and commentaries over the past 10 years. I don't recall appealing to any authority as to MY beliefs. My post simply pointed out that a lot of people relied on Bush's representation that Iraq posed an immediate threat due to WMD's. None of us common folk, you included I would guess, was in any position to know whether Saddam did or didn't have WMD's. We had to rely on reports we got from the president and his cronies, and the media--actually, if we had simply believed the word of the inspectors on the ground in Iraq, we would have known the truth. Bush's analysis of the data turned out to be faulty, and there is decent evidence that he knew it or should have know it. Sure, IF Saddam had massive suppies of WMD's, that would have made a huge difference as to the immediacy of our committing troops to do something about it. Now what we have is nothing but an interference with the internal affairs of a nation that needs to solve its own problems---and we seem to be doing nothing more than stirring up a hornets nest of anti-american sentiment. At least in Vietnam, we were enforcing a treaty we had agreed to. However, we made the same mistake in Vietnam that we are making in Iraq. We went in before we really understood the nature of the threat. Shame on us. Before I knew there were no serious WMD's in Iraq, my position was....Saddam is not presently threatening to use them on us, lets continue to use diplomatic pressure and military containment, and see if we can't either help topple his regime from within or wait him out until he either dies, or his own people do away with him.....in any case, there was NO reason for us to proceed on the timeline we did... and without the lies told by Bush about WMD's, the american people would likely not supported an invasion on Bush's timeline. It is almost unprecedented on our part, as a matter of national values and priorities to invade a country that 1) has not ASKED us to invade and 2) poses no immediate threat to us. Bush has betrayed those values, and should be IMPEACHED for it, not re-elected....unfortunately, he is STILL a good liar, and managed to swing that undecided 5% to his side....mainly by snowing the american people into thinking that he could protect us against terrorism better than Kerry. The real joke being that he has probably created more terrorists than ever existed before.... it remains to be seen whether that will translate into more terrorism OUTSIDE Iraq.

Thank you---I hope you continue to find your way through the minefield of religious philosophy.

I would say yes -- because you don't really "give" the money that goes through the government. You don't have any choice in the matter. And coupled with the Democratic support for progressive taxation (a good thing, up to a point), the government approach doesn't even involve a person giving his own money through the government to help the poor. It involves a person getting to feel charitable because he supports giving another (richer) person's money to help the poor. As to choice, well, yes we ultimately do. We vote for the legislators that write the tax code....se the people, decide how we will be taxed and how the tax money will be used. It seems a blit less voluntary, but if we look at it as a democracy, together, we decide how we will deal with the porr and needy. It is similar in the church, yes, you don't have to pay your tithing, but try getting a temple recommend with out it---not so voluntary afterall---especially if you believe that the non-tithe payers are going to burn in hell---that is pretty coercive don't you think?Also, when you give tithing it goes through church bureacracy, and individually we dont control how it is spent either. Now, fast offereings are supposed to go more directly to the needy, but even there, it is the Bishop that decides how it is going to be used, not the individual members. As to the fact that the rich will give more, that is the "priviledge" you get for being able to take advantange of the opportunities created by our system and government. Personally, I don't feel charitable just because I advocate the rich giving more, I feel logical. I see it this way: The success of capitalism requires that certain parts of the society, no matter how hard they work, earn LESS than the part that owns the means of production. Without that arrangement, those that own the means of production couldn't possibly become rich---they would have to pay too much for labor. Therefore, for the system to work, some people have to accept less pay, for equal or more work. The pact THIS country has made with its workers, to get them to accept this arrangement is to 1) at least pay them a wage good enough to survive and 2) to use SOME of the money earned by those that profit most from the system to give those who have yet to be able to benefit, at least the CHANCE for them or their children to SOMEDAY benefit---through educational opportunities and health care for their children. I don't think that is too much to ask from the "haves"--and if the "haves" would quit complaining about it, I would have one less issue to post about.

So which parts are the fulness of the true gospel and which are merely cultural baggage? What are those core principles that cannot change? According to the Prophet Joseph Smith, those core principles include the covenants he revealed. Do you agree? The Prophet of the Restoration also taught that polygamy was one of those eternal, core principles of the gospel. Do you agree? So why were they ever necessary, or were they? Nearly every covenant and ordinance in the temple has undergone some change since Joseph Smith first revealed them in their "perfect form" so what's left of core substance after all the changes? Suppose the church conducts a survey of eight year-olds and recent converts and finds that a majority of them don't like being baptized by immersion. Suppose based on that survey, the church changes the ordinance to a sprinkling of water. Should we accept that change? Rodan--what you don't seem to realize, at least by your response, is that if PD couldn't take that position, it would be really hard for him to maintain a belief in the church. He is a rational person, who needs for the church to make sense. This is the only way it can, and still allow him to ramain a faithful member.PD--I don't mean to speak for you, but your response resonates with me, because it is also the only way I maintain any kind of loyalty to the Church. Rodan--your position is the one that takes people out of the church. It has a certain logic and is a rational position---but if one wants to stay in the church, he must find a rational way of accounting for the changes and the ambiguities. PD's is the one that makes most sense to me--if anyone has a better one than that, I'ld like to hear it. (Ok, Snow does it with comedy, wit and irony--it works for him)

Excelletn response!

Not that your high isn't significant to you...I'm not questioning that. But to say that it wasn't "emotional" is to deny the obvious. Clearly you were motivated--the emotion was strong---strong enough to be remembered years later, but that doesn't mean it wasn't emotional, and therefore distinguished only in intensity rather than in kind.

I agree completely! Why do people think they need God to give them "highs"? Where does it say in the scriptures to seek after a "high"? How does seeking after a high differ from simply seeking after any other selfish pursuit? I though Jesus taught us to be engaged in doing good works, caring for the sick and needy, and doing postive unselfish acts. Where does seeking after a "high" come in? I don't think people "seek" for highs, God gives them to us without our seeking them. And, yes we get good feelings from helping others and following God's commandments, but that is not a "spiritual" feeling. It is a feeling (or attitude) we create in ourselves when we do what God asks of us. Neither is wrong, so why are you making a big deal of it? I think the question in the OP was just an attempt at an intellectual discussion about something that is not intellectual. You don't think people seek for highs? Read some of the posts on his thread again. I think one of the questions some people here have is how to achieve it? How is that NOT seeking for a high?

Thank you--I do mess that up at times.

Mark---I'm 57 years old and have had plenty of life experience in dealing with people in pain. One thing I have not had is the experience of being gay. But I have known several gay people and heard their stories, and have read extensively the scientific literature about gayness.The first thing you MUST do is start accepting WHO you are. Gayness is not a condition you CHOSE or need to feel guilty about. It is how God created you, if God created genes, and God cannot reject what HE, HIMSELF, created. It is not reasonable for anyone to expect you to live the life of a heterosexual if you don't FEEL it. Unfortunately, the LDS people, in general, are not very good at dealing with your problems. As long as you have to deny who you really are, you will continue to suffer from the depression you describe. You MUST get professional help in dealing with your conflicts. Blaming people with views different than yours (liberals etc) is not the solution--you are simply avoiding the issues. Liberal believe they are good people too. There are lots of opposing political and social views that have merit. None have a monopoly on truth. Find a good "gay issues" counselor--you may have to look around quite a bit until you find someone who "hears" you and can ease your pain, and get you going in the right direction. Until you do that, you will continue to have depression and internal conflict. One thing is sure, the LDS church is not going to cure you of being gay. It's not a disease, nor is it a sin. It is who you are inside--accept, give your self permission to love yourself---and then take joy in your fine accademic achievements, and use them to enrich the lives of others--then you will find joy---the joy of knowning that you are using your energy to develop your talents in the direction of serving others. If you can find a woman who can accept you AS YOU ARE, and doesn't expect a lot of hetero sex, great. But, that could be very difficult--especially in LDS circles. It would need to be a girl who has a pretty LIBERAL view of life and people. She would have to be accepting of the fact that people can be "different" and still be acceptable to God. She would have to accept that God created you that way, and doesn't want you to change---but just wants you to be productive, develop and appreciate yourself for the talents he has given you. and..... for God's sake, stop worrying about what you AREN'T and what you don't have---we all fall short of the "glory". The focus should be..."Who am I? what talents do I have? How can I best use my talents to make the most of myself and make those talents work for others? Once you accept yourself, just as you are, you will have place the burden on Jesus to carry your "yoke"--that's what he said he would do---he wants us to "unload" the burden of our imperfections on HIM. That was his WHOLE message. When we don't do it, and continue to condemn ourselves for what we AREN'T and don't have, then HIS mission is thwarted. He wants us to accept ourselves in all our imperfections because he knows 1) we can't completely overcome them and 2) he wants us to be happy INSPITE of them. We can only do that if we accept ourselves just as we are....stop worrying about falling short, and focus on acheivement and service to others, and THEN the falling short stuff will take care of itself. If I have a testimony of anything, it is of what I just told you.

Take it from one who knows--the kid is just as likely to hate you as like you. Be very, very careful of taking the kids of some unwed or single mother. Get to know her situation AND her kids extremely well before committing to anything---a lot of those single mothers are DESPERATE to get some schmuck to start paying the bills and will say and do anything to "hook" you. Go with them a LONG time before you commit to marriage---that way you can see who they really are. Remember, no matter how compatible you are with the girl, if her kids are psycho cases, your life will be hell, no matter how much you like the girl.

Oh. I thought maybe you were going to post a REAL controversial topic. Everyone knows the RLDS is the true church. That is why Satan is fighting so hard against it. Next! Why would Satan need to fight so hard against it? It's numbers don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the Salt Lake Church? Seems like a wasted effort on Satan's part.

Moses 6: 55 says: And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good. My question relates the first part of this statement. Are we suppose to believe that children are conceived in sin? Is there anything sinful about legitimate conception? What is sinful about a child? Where does this sin come from? I thought mormons didn't subscribe to the old "original sin" theory.

Yes, I am LDS--but you will notice, I ask some awfully "suspicious" questions and at times sound like something of an atheist. I'm not, though, I can seen their point of view and it has some merit. I would classify myselft as a born-again mormon-humanist-see-lots-of-good-and-bad-in-all-religions.My avatar is just some guitar guy as far as I know--I've been a week end guitar hero since I first heard Duane Eddy Twang that thang. Currently I'm doing a weekend guitar duo gig at a local seafood restaurant.