Snow

That's just nonsense. Your implicit definition of "virtue" here is: not ever having sexual encounters outside of marriage... but that's not a real definition, it's just something you are making up. The real definition is something along the lines of: a : conformity to a standard of right : morality b : a particular moral excellence Virtue - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Someone who has repented properly of their sins is just as virtuous as someone who has sinned sexually to begin with.

Now I'm beginning to wonder if you are for real of if you just trying to say the goofiest thing you can think of in order to get a reaction. 1. The reason that Mormon Doctrine doesn't have a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint "logo" is because it was published by Bookcraft and not by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. 2. You obviously don't know what a logo is.

Can you give me a few examples of Brigham Young University acting like a jealous pubescent when Utah joined the PAC?

So who do you think is more "worthy," not temple worthy, but in a general sense... some one who doesn't smoke or drink coffee or alcohol but is out of shape, obese, eats beyond moderation, has high cholesterol and diabetes... or who exercises, eats healthy, doesn't eat much meat but has an occasional beer with dinner?

Sorry - I don't agree to disagree. You are simply wrong. You, or someone who told you, are making something up that is untrue. It seems like you genuinely believe it and that you intentions are good but it just plain wrong. Assuredly, the Church tries hard to not publish things that are untrue or incorrect, non-logo name of the Church in the Scripture of manuals, etc (Published by The Church...) is exactly what it says it is - a statement about who publishes it. If it meant something else, it wouldn't be in secret code, it would say what it meant. Has it dawned on you that the reason you have zero evidence to back up your view is because there is no such evidence?

Do you own scriptures? Have you looked at them? The scriptures say Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - in a normal font - just like others things that are published by Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It not a logo and it doesn't mean that the Church approves of it's accuracy - it's a statement of who published it. Again I ask - why do you suppose the Church would have this secret technique of yours and then try so hard to keep it secret?

No, they cannot co-exist so I say we rise up and get those Celestialites before they get us.

Thanks for this weeks study notes. I read your paper in preparation for my lesson again and appreciate your insights.

Any examples? You made the claim. You ought to back up your own claim. Let me ask you a question - why do you suppose that the Church would have the practice of placing a logo on publications that it approved of as accurate but then not tell anybody what the logo placement meant? The problem wasn't that some things were a little too forward - the problem was that some things were erroneous and offensive, By the way, my set of new scriptures does not bear any logo of the Church. Do you suppose that means the Church doesn't officially approve them as being accurate?

I say that is untrue.

They're also equal opportunity haters. He also lambast Catholics, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Adventists, liberal Protestants and each other.

Protestantism is too broad - you generally don't see much such criticism from Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, half the Lutherans, etc.

The book you are talking about is, I think, The Ten Most Important Things You Can Say to a Mormon and the sentence you reference is simply from a review of a reader who thought the book was idiotic. On the face of it, the author's intent is to educate evangelicals about The Church of Jesus Christ so that they are prepared to engage with Mormons intelligently and in a way will help Mormon to see their folly. In reality, like with most anti-Mormon diatribes, that's all a bunch of malarky. It's called "boundary maintenance" and the primary intent is to make readers feel better about their own beliefs by dumping on the beliefs of others. The author and reader may not be fully aware of what their motivations and results are but this stuff is well known to physiologists and those who study such things. You don't see Mormons, these days, write anti-evangelical books. Why? Besides having class, Mormons don't base their self worth off how they stack up to others. There are, however, many others in other faiths, who are immature in their faith and need to denigrate others to build up themselves.

So when Jesus returns, first he'll kill off all the prophets? Peter James and John were prophets? John the Baptist wasn't a prophet?

For me - it's wasn't a matte of enjoying it or not - though I didn't particularly enjoy it. Rather, it was a matte of it being unhelpful. So a person, like me in that instance, recognizes the significance of sin and wants to do something about it. Though the book talks about many many things, I found the most significant thrust to be on guilt, highlighting it, calling attention to it, grinding on it, making you feel all beat up about it. If you want to feel sorrow or feel beat up - that the book to do it, but it didn't really help me change into the kind of person I wanted to. It wasn't until my bishop told me this (see below) that I found a formula that didn't wallow in the sin but did help me to come unto Christ and start to become a better person: "True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. Preoccupation with unworthy behavior can lead to unworthy behavior. That is why we stress so forcefully the study of the doctrines of the gospel." Little Children - Ensign Nov. 1986 - ensign ... as it so happens I forgot that he said doctrine and instead started studying LDS history but, mostly through the early days of LDStalk.com (this website) but the net effect was the same.

I just don't know how to respond to that. I can't bring myself to attaching preferences to my children's deaths.

You understand the reasoning behind a preference that your children die, rather than repent like the rest of us? I'm not the most reasonable person in the world but the reason in that escapes me entirely... me, being a parent.

Missionaries die in accidents and are murdered occasionally. When it happens, my conclusion is not that God wanted the missionary in heaven so he hired an assassin.

Yep - everybody is sure theirs is the real prophet who really speaks for God. Bless the stars that you are right and the rest of humanity is wrong.

And how would one follow Christ, short of following the prophets? It's not like Christ speaks to anyone, writes books, broadcasts on PBS? The only think people know about Christ is from what they've read about him by people claiming to be prophets or apostles, or anonymous authors... or from others that have read what those people have written. It's not that people follow God. they follow the words of people who claim to speak for God.

I recall reading, in The Miracle of Forgiveness, something to the effect that... we'd rather our youth came back from their missions (or somewhere) on a bier (coffin) rather than be sullied by the stain of sexual immorality. I thought is was a horrible horrible thought.

How many Cardinals do you suppose have left the Roman Catholic Church and recanted their beliefs of their own free volition. If it is a small number to you agree that it makes a strong statement of the truthfulness of their church? ps... why do people after 1900 matter but people before that don't?

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts FunkyTown.

No, you didn't answer the question. Since you have no idea how "Satan disguise(s) himself as one thoughts, why do you think that he does. Have you have nabbed the devil red-handed rooting around in your brain?

I'll try again... how, specifically does the devil do it.