Snow

I haven't posted, except for a popover recipe, since a half dozen posts of mine got deleted; not because there were in poor taste or contra las reglas but because there were geographically proximate to some that were. It bugs me that someone other than the ultimate reader decides which of my post deserve to be read and which don't, (I have precious little readership without the middleman as it is). Not that I am mad, just unmotivated to post. I missed the popover recipe. My late great-aunt used to make really good ones, but I've never been able to make her recipe work in a gas oven. (Hers was electric.) Maybe a re-posting is in order? BTW, I know the feeling of low readership. My weblog has attracted a grand total of something like 70 page views in its eight-month history, most of them by me. (It doesn't help that I only post on it once every blue moon.) A Google search for "The Proud Duck" (using quotes) turns up a grand total of eight hits, of which I'm next to last, right below some lesbian porn site. What ducks, proud or humble, have to do with that sort of thing, I'm not really sure I want to know. You have switched forums. You used to post exclusively in the general forum. Now you only post in the gospel forum. Did you notice? Or, are geographics more important than topic in as much as the gospel forum is now on top. I will google your weblog. You always have something enlightening to say, but please, tell us more about this lesbian porn site of yours... Here is the link to the recipe: http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?ac...f=7&t=2387&st=0 simple and a great FHE.

I haven't posted, except for a popover recipe, since a half dozen posts of mine got deleted; not because there were in poor taste or contra las reglas but because there were geographically proximate to some that were. It bugs me that someone other than the ultimate reader decides which of my post deserve to be read and which don't, (I have precious little readership without the middleman as it is). Not that I am mad, just unmotivated to post.

No Trident. I do have a reason and the reason is that I believe in a God that is ALL-GOOD and ALL-KIND, and ALL-JUST. I do do not believe that such a God orders that children be innocently butchered; that would make him un-kind and un-just, and unmerciful.Your bit about believing in a God that conforms to my image of Him is correct though, I believe that God is this or God is that... according to how I beliefs. That is exactly what you do. You believe that God is according to your beliefs. Thats the definition of belief isn't it? You don't believe in a God that is different than the way you believe him to be, do you? That makes no sense. (btw - thank heaven for law enforcement, but that's a different deal than sheding innocent blood on purpose.)

Do you have any reasons to think that? Scratching my head wondering if the questioner understands the question....maybe because we believe in a god that is all-kind and all-just and a god who orders the death of innocent children seems just a teensy bit less that just and not so nice? I dunno, I'm just throwing it out there. Hello.

Seems you missed it but wiggins is a setup. I'm not even paying attention and I can spot half sober.

Well, first, I disagree and second, you missed the point. If the Church, meaning the Brethren, decide that the saint should do this thing, or stop doing that thing, they may or may not be communicating the will of the Lord. We all know numerous examples. If a saint, on the other hand, understands the will of the Lord by virtue of the Holy Ghost and it is different than the counsel of the Brethren, then personally, I'll take my chances following the dictates of my own conscious rather than the dictates of someone else's. I am just as, or more, entittled to recieve revelation for my own benefit as is someone else. Next, I am asking about how control and power are wielded inside the corridors of power. Does the prophet dictate and the brethren follow or do they vote or what?

Geeze, Am I going to have to tell you or are ya'll going to participate?

In the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the Church functioned as the prophet said it should. He/they said it and that's the way it was. Basically is was a charismatic dictatorship. They ruled by the force of their personal power and appeal. Once they spoke on a topic and proclaimed their position, the matter was decided. All new movements generally start that way. How is the Church run now. Can a prophet/president simply declare, and make it so? Is their a vote taken and majority rules?

That argument won't work with AS (nor should it) he believe neither. Where's Stephen or Doug when we need them?