Cal

I have no doubt you are bright enough to find them yourself

Best wishes for Setheus, and hope he recovers soon and well.

And don't forget, without going to church it would be hard for the Church to collect the tithing it needs to build the buildings we need to go to church in so that the church can collect tithing to build all the buildings that we need to go to church in so the church can collect tithing to build all the buildings we need to go to church in so the chuch can..........is anyone getting dizzy?

Winnie,How come Brigham Young down to Bruce R. McConkey didnt' think the "Priesthood for the African Americans" WOULDN'T change until the millenium, unless you think the millenium started in the late 1970's? The problem with all these changes is that it make the Church leaders look less than inspired when they said that these ordinances and doctrines came straight from God, and especially when we claim that the need for a Restoration was based on the claim that the original chruch was lost from the earth for changing the doctrines and orginial practices. What good are doctrines and orginal practices if they are constantly changing? It's like God has an evolving set of standards for people to get into Heaven.

The problem with the BoM isn't the things it got right, which I beg to differ, isn't much, but with what it got WRONG. It was supposed to be the most correct book ever written, but the list of stuff that is wrong is extensive.

THIS IS A QUOTE FROM YOUR POSTING: Linking porn to rape is based on the idea that viewing porn leads to sexual thoughts and sexual thoughts lead to rape. You have to be criminally unstable to make that leap. The idea that ‘normal’ people view porn, get sexually frustrated and then rape goes against everything we know about human nature and the mentality of rapists. Rape is a crime rooted in anger, hate and power. Most rapes are not a sex crime, just a crime in which sex is committed. Studies like ‘Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan’ show that a rise in the availability of porn coincides with a decrease in the rate of sex crimes. Dis--you made an error in logic here---notice that in the first part of this section you make the argument that there is no link between rape and pornography, then you site the Japanese as showing a decrease in rape with an increase in pornography, thereby proving that there IS a link--albeit a negative one--thereby logically contradiction yourself. You can't have it both ways, either there is a link or there isn't. Perhaps you chose only to emphasize the negative link, but then your credibility is on thin ice, because your original hypothesis is that there is NO link. Other than that, much of what you have said has some merit ---- though I find porn taudry and in bad taste, it probably isn't as harmful as the avid opponents would have us think.

My experience is that the LDS Church leaders don't really care what you believe as long as you don't preach it from the pupit or local newspapers, and that you pay your tithing, of course. When the Church wants to avoid controversy, it can just ignore the issue. Haven't you noticed. You also might have noticed that in recent years the TV adds have changed from emphasizing the BoM to emphasizing the Bible. A blatant announcement that the BoM is no longer considered a literal history of the ancient native americans would be to big a pill for most members to swallow. Better to just subtly deemphasize it, at least publically.

So, we know there was an apostacy and therefore loss of priesthood because the ordinances changed, and the ordinances changed because there was a loss of priesthood. I smell a tautology.

Cuz we wanted to. What's the problem? JS clearly had an evolving understanding of the gospel. If he was capable of progressing in light and understanding, why should it be any different for his successors. If there is some core aspect of an ordinance that for some reason must remain constant, who's to say that said ordinance might not also contain other non-core aspects that could potentially be changed without affecting the core essentiality? Personally I don't get how a physical act - completion of an ordinance - affects one's salvation or exaltation. I don't know what the eternal mechanics are but I think of such ordinance as a reflection of a life dedicated to Christ and though said reflections are mandatory, they are not the key drivers of salvation - the key drivers being faith and obedience and progression in light and knowledge... I can't really disagree with this. However, we can't very well use the argument that there had to be a restoration of the "true" ordinances since the Catholic church changed them all, when we're doing the same thing again that apparently happened in the ancient church.

An ordinance is a formalized act or set of acts (either verbal or physical) designed to symbolize some kind of commitment the fulfillment of which gives the participant some expectation of reward. Mormons are told that ordinances, such as baptizm, and temple rites are revealed from God as the "way" to qualify for some special blessing or reward.

Do you have an answer or response that addresses the issue?

In noticing the changes in temple ordinances over the years, the thought came to me: Isn't that what the apostacy, in part a least, was supposed to have been all about in the first place? We explain that a restoration of the true gospel was needed, partly, at least, because the early church began to change the ordinances and doctrines that were part of the "true" church. JS, supposedly, restored the true methodology of these ordinances. For example, baptism, was supposed to be done by emersion, not sprinking. This change was, supposedly, one of the great abomination of the apostacy. But, how is changing the ordinances in the temple any different? If we were to say, well, some people in the church are uncomfortable with getting dunked under water, does that justify changing the ordinance so that people feel better about it. We have been judgemental of the Catholic church for changing the baptismal ordinance to make it more convenient and less objectionable to the masses. But what have we been doing to our own ordinances.....same thing?

Tell your friend that there are a lot of true nut cases out their and to NEVER talk to anyone on line that you don't know, especially when they reveal their craziness in such and obvious way. Teenagers are especially naive and need to be warned about the dangers of interacting with people on the internet. Tell your friend to be especially careful not to reveal ANYTHING that could be used to identify her or anyone she knows--like telling what school she goes to, what city she lives in, her real name, phone number or even email address.Also, tell her that the LDS church does not emphasize the reality or unreality of demonic possession, and there are a lot of good LDS that don't even believe in that mumbo jumbo. Modern brain science can account for a lot of what people USED to think was demonic possession. There are a host of brain diseases that can account for the stuff you read about in the bible or other historical texts. This is the realm of brain science, not ghosts, goblins and demons. You can forgive the ancients for not understanding the human brain, and using the idea of demonic possession to explain it. There is no justification for that stuff today.

Trav,Just remember, that innocent person could be you (or I). Once a society adopts the policy that it will tolerate the conviction of the innocent in order to make sure 100% of the guilty are punished, then we all come one step closer to living under and oppresive system that cares more about crowd control than it does the individual rights of citizens. Regarding "religious" murder, my position is: Religion, any religion, can be true enough to justify doing any good you can in its name, but NOT true enough to justify doing evil in its name.

Day's and Hour's are divided up so that we may determine Time. You're just reaching now.... It is very specific when the Lord says day, He means day, when he says hour, he means hour. Time is general and non-specific. He said He would rise in three days ~ he didn't mean hours or time. I can just imagine how it would mean nothing to the people if he stated that he would rise in time. Now Amillia, you could be painting yourself into a logical corner by saying that "when the Lord means a day he means a day". If you use the same definition of a day in Genesis, then, you are requiring the Lord to have created the world and rest of the universe for that matter, in a literal 24 hour day, which is, of course, absurd.

I too find that I just can't be all that active in Church otherwise they start trying to be me so involved that I have no time to think of anything else, and it starts being a real burden to me. Unlike yourself, I was raised in Mormonism and took it the whole way in my early years, but at some point, instead of feeling up lifted, I started feeling really burdened. It was to the point that I had to lighten up or get ulcers. At first I thought that if I didn't attend church every sunday, I was going to feel terrible, but he opposite happened--I felt like a burden had been lifted, and I can to accept myself just for being ME, as an individual, and not some extention of a big organization. I now recognize that Mormonism has much to offer many, and it does a lot of good for a lot of people. I still like attending church (at least sacrament meeeting), but I can't let it consume me, or I start losing my identity (I guess that is the result of being mormon as a child---I must have lost my own sense of who I was somewhere in the mantra of "follow the prophet, follow the prophet.........." At this point I now realize, "follow your good sense and independent thinking" is what God REALLY wants from me, and I feel a lot better for it. Still believe in the same God that has always been in my heart--even though I have often argued against the logic that some people put forward to try to prove His existance.

Egads Cal, don't destroy my faith in you! Don't worry, Snow, I'm sure I'll find something to annoy you with before too long!

Pardon me for not remembering if you have already told us, but were you ever a Mormon? If so, how did you come to leave mormonism? Cal, I think I first saw you on the message boards a long time after I told my story. I just wrote out my updated story on this post, but decided it was too long, so I moved it...It is now posted on my new website: I hope that answers your question. :) Tao--thank you for your posting on the website--it was quite open of you to share your thoughts this way, and I can understand your thought process better, and respect what you have gone through. You sound like a very good person--one, who like the rest of us in one way or another, has struggled with the ambiquities of life, and have had the courage to face up to them. Keep on keepin on, Bro.

Pardon me for not remembering if you have already told us, but were you ever a Mormon? If so, how did you come to leave mormonism? Cal, I think I first saw you on the message boards a long time after I told my story. I just wrote out my updated story on this post, but decided it was too long, so I moved it...It is now posted on my new website: I hope that answers your question. :) Tao--when I click on the website statement, my computer just goes "boink"--is there some reason you can think of why it won't connect to your website?

Paraphrasing the Apostle Paul: Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good (true?) and reject that which is bad (untrue?). If Paul thinks that one should look for at least SOME proof of things, why don't you, Amillia? And no, I don't think that Paul was only refering to subjective feelings of inspiration---by itself, it's too unreliable--people get inspired feelings of truth of too many things that are mutually exclusive-- For example, good Catholics get inspiration that THEIRS is the only true church. So who is right--inspiration ALONE doesn't cut it, you need rational analysis as well.

Curvy,I completely agree with you. These off-base type analogies regarding repentance seem rampant in the Church. The other one I heard is the "nail" analogy--you can remove the nail, but he hole remains--this is supposed to represent repentence. I think these kind of things are invented by people who want to appear more rightous than the repentant by putting themselves a little above the repented sinner. The scriptures clearly say that "I, the Lord, remember them no more"--refering to our repented sins. Amillia---if God "remembers them no more", then who are you to insist He does. And if He "remembers them no more", why should we? And where did Jesus EVER say that the repented sinner is less than those "white-beaners" like you. No offense intended.

The promise is what good it is. There is a future even in Heaven. You know that an eternity is only 5 billion years or so, right? Well, there are keys given in the temple which give the power to move from one kingdom to the next as you progress ~ because there is progression even after this life, for everyone. The punishment for those who don't do what they should according to the knowledge given them is: They will be lagging a bit behind ~ and just as your married children aren't under your roof here, (hopefully) they won't be there either ~ if you are in a higher kingdom you will be able to visit them as often as you like ~ They just won't be able to pop in on you ~ :) Amillia, With all due repect, this is all speculation, even in the Mormon church. There is no church doctrine as to what exactly goes on in the hereafter with regard to each of these kingdoms. You hear so much contradictory stuff, even from GA's that there is no way to nail it down in terms of actual doctrine, so it is important, especially when talking to non-mormons to preface such remarks with "Now this is just my opinion, and not church doctrine".

Yes, it is for life. And, yes, theoretically it could be stripped away if he were to commit some really grevious sin, like adultery, murder. Priesthood holders, even apostles, have been excommunicated for such (NOt murder, as far as I know, but adultery, yes).

Oh come now RJordan, surely there must be some things that are further from the truth. How bout this: Adolf Hitler survived WW2 and is secretly shacking up with Sandra Bullock and there love child is destined to be elected the next pope. Surely that is a bit further from the truth, or maybe this: Your post was intelligent and convincing. Lest you misunderstand me let me go on record by saying that it is not just your idiotic hyperbole that makes your post stupid. No, your post is stupid in it's entirety including its utter lack of reasoning. Let me explain. That's okay with you RJordan isn't it? That I explain? Good Here your argument in outline form: Conclusion: The WoW is false. Evidence 1: George Cannon thinks soup is verboten. Evidence 2: Jerald and Sandra Tanner (notoriously poor and untrained historians and rabid anti-Mormons) claim that Leonard Arrington (impecible historian) says that Dean McBrien and Whitney Cross think that the WoW grew out of the temperance movement. Okay RJordan, that's prima facie moronic... but for the sake of the kiddies let's discuss why. First, that Elder Cannon thinks something or does not think something about what is to be included in the WoW no more affects the validity of the WoW than your opinion of it make is any more or less valid. Only a child or small dog would think so. Second, commonality is not a proof. If it were then we could safely assume that the Rhythm and Blues music genre was invented by space aliens because looking up at the sky from the earth towards outerspace we notice that the sky is blue. Hence Leadbelly and Blind Lemon Jefferson were space aliens. Now Snow, to be fair, the connection between the temperance movement and the WoW is a little better than that. Nevertheless, simultaneous occurance doesn't prove causation--I'm too lazy to look up the latin legal translation for the intellectually more impressive rendition.

I must be getting low blood sugar from not having had lunch yet, but for some reason I found that line fall-off-my-chair funny. PD,Do you go on line from work? If so, does your boss give you any trouble---I'm off today, so the school district can't monitor me! My computer at work won't go on Chat rooms or message boards anyway.