a-train

Although I don't possess any current fears of any unified conspired effort on the part of government, national or otherwise, to ultimately usurp all powers and institute martial law over the people, I do recognize that this sort of problem has arisen in the past on almost every portion of the globe. I further agree that the Framers had this, as well as other things, in mind when introducing the right to bear arms. Still, my object in bringing this notion into the discussion about school safety was to say that while law enforcement and security services can be rapidly dispatched, the VT and other examples show vividly that a much more capable first response is required on campuses and everywhere for that matter. I think this line of thinking is what has caused the CCW laws to proliferate across the country in the past decade. I agree with the logic and like the idea of arming law abiding citizens while stripping felons of such rights. Perhaps if every student at this most recent and horrible event were armed and capable, our disturbed perpetrator would have still engaged them knowing he would ultimately die in a messy gun battle and at least take out a few victims on a suicidal mission. His taking of his own life would suggest so. Regardless, I would prefer my own daughter to have something for the guy when he comes into the room rather than be huddling helplessly under a desk. -a-train

I would add this question: Does knowing what year Elvis died and which rapper wrote 'Hit-'em-Up' actually make a person smarter? a. Tu-Pac b. NO c. 1977 -a-train

CCW's GALORE!!!! That's my theory. I can't help but ask: 'Why wasn't one person on that V-Tech campus packing?' While I'm certain carrying concealed weapons on campus is against the rules, I am just as certain that there are plenty of rule breakers on campus both willing and able. Where my gangsters at? Teachers and other faculty should be allowed to pack and if I don't trust an individual to conceal and carry, then I don't trust them to teach my kids either, whatever their age. I personally carry at all times and plan on coming home to my family each day. I have no intention of allowing murderous thugs to deprive my children of their father and make my wife a widow. Armed robbers will get far more than they are looking for from me. My dad was murdered by some fools with a .22 and he had nothing. I learned the hard way from the age of six and up, criminals will gladly take advantage of having a weapon that the victims don't have. We had armed robbers fire at members in the parking lot of our Stake Building in Platte City, MO today. They shot and ran and luckily missed. This is not in the ghetto, this is not in a foreign country. This is at a beautiful Stake Center in a nice new neighborhood in the Midwest. If we don't protect ourselves, we will not be protected. -a-train

God has thousands of prophets today. A prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus and is called to bare it, for the angel told John 'the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.' (Rev. 19:10) Joseph Smith used that same verse to say the same thing I just did. Now does this mean there are prophetesses? OF COURSE! How many sister missionaries are called and appointed to testify of Christ to all the world? How many sisters are prompted to stand as a witness in testimony meetings every month throughout the world? Paul spoke of such meetings as 'when ye come together'...'let the prophets speak two or three'...'for ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.' (1 Cor. 14:26-32) Now some scream fault when they get to verse 34 and 35, which say women are not permitted to speak, but Joseph Smith clarified that those verses say they are not permitted to 'rule' in the Church. So what about Priesthood? That is an entirely different matter. The 'Prophet' who stands at the head of the LDS Church is much more than a prophet. He is the keyholder of the Priesthood. Some say: 'What revelations have been brought forth since the 19th Century? Why is the Doctrine and Covenants not growing? We should be up to 300 sections by now!' But if they knew the workings of the LORD they would not ask this question. For the LORD continually reveals to the First Elder and his Presidency concerning the workings of the Church. When and where to send missionaries, to build temples, to hold meetings, to purchase lands in the building of Zion, and all other workings of the Church are shown to them and to the other various priesthood leaders of the Church including the smallest local quorums. Now this type of work requires an organization of the priesthood, that there be no confusion, 'For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.' (1 Cor. 14:33) No Bishop receives revelation concerning a ward he is not over. No Stake Presidency receives knowledge of a different Stake. Each priesthood position entitles only the keys of knowledge and power associated with such. As for Mother Teresa, she may have indeed been a Prophetess. Furthermore, there is nothing in our doctrine that says she would be forsaken, 'for every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name ’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.' (Matt 19:29) It is she who did the forsaking, and it is she that shall inherit as promised. GOD BLESS -a-train

Lots of good comments here. It sounds as though the Lutheran Trinity is no different from LDS belief. I looked up Trinity in a dictionary and saw something very interesting. Dictionary.com says: 'Trin·i·ty –noun, 1. Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being.' Now look at that! There are TWO distinct definitions listed. The term is officially ambiguous. The one says that three persons are one Godhead, the other says that three personalities exist for One Divine Being. Through the years, different LDS leaders have either liked or disliked the term Trinity, I think for this reason. LDS believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct 'personages' or Beings united in one Godhead. They therefore can collectively be called God in the singular (the term 'God' itself being ambiguous these days). Joseph Smith's use of the word 'personage' rather than 'person' showed a lot of thoughtfulness, as a personage is defined as a person of 'distinct importance'. I think the vast majority of LDS believe that the rest of Chrisitianity outside the LDS Church teaches only the latter notion. We are so worried about pointing out the difference, that we are seen as polytheists. Add to that any notion that the Father has a father or that we 'are gods and children of the Most High' and we are perceived as far into the realm of polytheism. Then add the debate about any distinction between belief in the existance of more than one god and worship of more than one god and what a mess we are in. Also, LDS can and do recognize that the Tetragrammaton can refer to the Father as well as the Son and for that matter the Holy Spirit. However, in order to avoid confusion, 'Jehovah' is used most often in indicating the Son. Joseph Smith pointed out that the Personage of the Godhead who created heaven and earth and spoke to the prophets of old was the Son, and only in extremely special circumstances has the Father been present. Essentially, LDS believe that Christ is doing all the work of this earth under the Father's direction and Authority. Christ is our Creator, Redeemer, and Judge. Now, Dr. T has here made a distintion that only the Saviour Jesus Christ passed through the condition of manhood and the Father did not. Or that the Saviour's doing so did not constitute the Father having done so also. If I understand both of you (Maureen and Dr. T) correctly then, neither believe in multiple personalities for One Divine Being, but in three individual Beings unified in Godhood as God. So if I understand this right, the only portion of LDS belief (with regard to the topic at hand) that would seem supplementary to the both of you is that the Father could have also previously endured the human condition. In other words, you would say that Christ only did so and there is no indication that the Father ever has or ever will. Correct me if I am wrong on anything here. Now, My question: Because the Saviour's Godship was unharmed by his endurance of earthly life, wouldn't that mean that the Father could also do the same without any issue against His Godship? Could the Father have done just as Christ did retaining Godhood and perfection before, throughout, and after human condition? Could the Saviour's example to us portray the Father in this regard? 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.' (John 14:9) Also, my bro. here, Crimson mentioned 'perfect'. Dr. T, haha, a footnote in the LDS edition of the Bible for the word 'perfect' in Matthew 5:48 says: 'GR complete, finished, fully developed' which demonstrates the original Greek meaning. You must be going to Sunday School. This post is getting too long. I'll get back soon. GOD BLESS -a-train

OK, First I love talking to you. You are great! Second, Mormons actually believe God was/is/will be God 'from all eternity to all eternity'. Check what King Benjamin (Book of Mormon) said about 124 BC: 'For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.' (Mosiah 3:5) He went on to state unequivically that the Lord Omnipotent he is talking about shall be called Jesus Christ and His mother will be Mary. Now, Third, LDS believe that Jesus is Jehovah, that the God that spoke to Moses and gave those commandments and so forth was Jesus of Nazereth. The name of the Tetragrammaton which means 'I Am' signifies unchangeable. He bares this name because of all those who would endure human life on this earth He and He alone would do so sinlessly (this is but one of many reasons). As Alma said of Christ: 'he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; therefore, his course is one eternal round.' (Alma 7:20) Now, as you can see, to the LDS, the idea that Christ (who was already God before His birth) came to earth and passed through the womb of a mortal mother and endured the mortal probation of man unto death doesn't harm His Godhood, but manifests it mightily. So my question here is: Does the average Joe Christian think that to say 'God was once a man', or that 'God once endured human life', is blasphemous? That is what I am having trouble understanding here. If Jesus is Diety, then the saying must be true, yes? -a-train

Maureen, I have read it, but perhaps (from the sound of your post) it isn't interpreted as I thought. Don't most of the believers in it take the part about Christ being 'of one Being with the Father' to mean they are the same Being? Or is that just a common misinterpretation? Perhaps this Creed is not so One-in-Three-Three-in-One as I thought? Aren't the Catholics among the most fervid protectors of the notion of the threefold personality of the one Divine Being? What do Lutherans believe? Three Beings? One Being? I've found that the answers to that question seem to be more personal in most Christian Churches, rather than being a matter of authoritative assertion from Church leadership. I was talking about whether Jesus was Jehovah in my shop the other day and one very Christian friend of mine (Baptist) believed that the Trinity is all the same Being so Jehovah can be applied to all Three. Another man in my shop, a non-denominational minister ardently disagreed. While his postion was more difficult to be certain of, he at least didn't like the idea of Christ being Jehovah, but felt that Jehovah was a name for the Father only. Perhaps after all this discussion, it might seem strange to say that Mormons believe in One True God. We simply believe that the One True God is three physically seperate Beings united in one Godhead. I have found many Christians actually agree with that, although that might be unorthodox (whatever that means). Is my thought unreasonable that if the Holy Trinity are only three personalities of a single Divine Being, then Jehovah once suffered the human condition as we are now? What do Lutherans say? -a-train

I am really not a fan of Rosie, but I find this to be a good moment for her. I would agree that democracy is being circumvented in this country at many levels by many parties. I further believe that corporate and even governmental abuses of power designed to magnify the wealth of the debuached upper-class are saturating the globe in violence and misery in the most subtle manner ever. Rosie may be a kook, but like everyone else, she can't be 100% evil. Anyone see Street Fight? This is a great documentary about a corrupt Newark, NJ mayor and a candidate that is seeking to replace him and his tyranny. I can say that my own local government is full of subversive perpetrators who seek to enrich each other by utilizing city planning and developement projects to move business, construction, and land use profits into the hands of the beneficiaries of these not-so clandestine and all-to-often blatant misdeeds against the ever increasingly taxed citizens. Even the tax-cuts and amnesty offerings touted by our politicians are designed to be exlusive to the upper-class. Example: My business partner just bought a $300,000 loft downtown and will pay NOTHING in property taxes for 25 years as part of a re-developement incentive designed to enliven our bloodless downtown. However, if you want to buy the $35,000 wreck of a house a block away and refurbish it, you will pay property taxes through the nose. The poor bare the burdens while the rich reap the benefits. -a-train Tower seven was admittedly brought down with explosives due to excessive damage. I saw television interviews where officials were forthcoming with the fact that they brought the building down due to safety issues. I have heard conspiracy theorists claim that preparations for such would have taken too long and that explosive outfitting would have to have been underway days before 9/11. They point to this as evidence of conspiracy. -a-train

Serg, Boo Hoo. Whether Joseph Smith taught it or not could be debated until the cows come home, but the fact remains that it was reported that he did and the saints believed he did. So whether he did or not, the doctrine is true and we don't even need to prove he taught it to believe it. As man is, Jesus once was. As Jesus is, man may become. If this is not true, then neither is the Bible. Jesus is God. So the above statement could just as easily say: 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.' Now any debate over who is on first should be left to Abbot and his poor funny friend. The Bible is sufficient alone to demonstrate that Christ lived on this earth in every manner of manhood and was subject to all the same trials, temptations, and facets of human condition. If you don't like the saying that Jesus is a man, then you will have to take that up with Paul who said: 'The gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.' (Romans 5:15) It is just as clear also that man's ultimate goal is to stand resurrected at the throne of God, to enter into the joy of the LORD, and to 'rule over many things'. (Matt 25:21) For Jesus told John: 'To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.' (Rev. 3:21) So what about the Father? If the Nicean Creed is right, then Jesus is the Father and the debate was over before it started. If you are LDS and can't handle the idea that the Father could have passed through mortal probation as the Son did, then remember this: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.' (John 5:19) Now if God's passing through manhood in the flesh be blaspheming, then every Christian since Christ himself stands guilty and we need not start lopping heads with Joseph Smith. Now it could be debated to what extent the Saviour does what the Father does, but if it be no blasphemy to say Jesus passed through mortal probation, then let us not cry blasphemy to them that say the Father could have also. GOD BLESS -a-train

Without yet establishing any of the prerequisite as mentioned, your statement in bold is exactly what my question is getting at. I think we now sufficiently understand one another. I think we all believe in a certain omnipotence and an all powerful characteristic of Diety. Ex Nihilo adherents believe God creates everything from nothing as He wishes. Could he not therefore create 'real gods'? We would be extremely narrowly viewing God's creative power to say that He could not. As you stated, it's absurd to think that God is God over nonexistent beings. We say that the Devil is the Father of Lies, is God the God of lies? Well, technically He is the God of all and therefore He is the 'God of lies' because He is the God of the Father of Lies, but He is certainly not a liar. But if I were to ask a Christian: 'Is God the God of Lies? I am certain they would typically answer: 'No, He is the God of Truth, Satan is the Father of Lies.' Just the same, if I came without any context to a Christian and asked: 'Is God the God of 'false gods'? They would typically say 'no' because the question seems to ask if God propigates false gods and we all know His in not an idolator. God is not telling us to worship phony gods, Satan is. Any notion of Jehovah presiding over idols is ridiculous, although his creation provided the useless graven images, they are nothing more. He presides over the universe in which is mankind, a magnificent heavenly host, and innumerable other life-forms. He is the God of the living, and has nothing to do with such 'non-existant beings'. So the statement that God is 'God of gods' gives one the question: 'Who are these gods God presides over? Perhaps many interpret the statement to mean He is 'the only God'. But I don't see how. I think we understand one another. GOD BLESS -a-train

True. True. There is no doubt that only when we obey the precepts we already know can we obtain more wisdom. And in the even that we do not follow what we know, we will lose what understanding we have. At one end of the spectrum there is total confusion and absolute captivity in ignorance, on the other is complete understanding and total freedom. GOD BLESS -a-train

Dr. T, With those verses you gave and the seeming mountain of others that are throughout the scriptures, I can't see how anyone could argue that Jesus was NOT Jehovah. I would ask though, wouldn't Christ automatically be Jehovah in the mind of adherents to the Nicean Creed because He would therefore be Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost? Now bare with me here, but do you see the LDS teaching that God was once a man to be contrary to the truth that He is Eternal, from all eternity to all eternity, I Am, etc.? This is a typical anti-mormon statement on the issue: "The Mormons believe in a god that has a body of flesh and bone who was once a man, but Malachi 3:6 says: 'I am the LORD, I change not' and Psalms 90:1-2 says 'LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Jesus also said 'God is a Spirit' (John 4:24) and 'a spirit hath not flesh and bones; (Luke 24:39). The True God is an Eternal God of Spirit and he was never a man." Now I admit that when Joseph Smith taught that the Father had lived a mortal life and now sits enthroned in yonder heavens an exalted man it was revolutionary even in the minds of the LDS, but had he said that about Jesus only it would have been nothing new at all, for the Bible is more than sufficient to demonstrate that Jehovah was once a man on earth who died and rose again and sits enthroned in heaven as King of kings and Lord of lords. Now the big question mark in my head is: why would this be a leap of logic at all for advocates of the Nicean Creed? If God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are all the same Being, then didn't that Being live on the earth as man, die, rise from the grave, and ascend to heaven to sit enthroned over all? Would they even need a modern revelation to believe such? GOD BLESS -a-train

Dr. T, Your answer is good and no LDS would disagree (including the from eternity to eternity part), my question was bad. I should have asked: 'Is God only the God of 'false gods'? Or, can He be the God of 'false gods', but NOT be the God of any 'real gods'? Do you believe that Jesus is Jehovah? In other words, is Jesus that I Am? Is he Yaweh? Is Jesus the being whose name is the Tetragrammaton? These are all the same question stated differently. Anyone else chime in one this, but doesn't mainstream Christianity or most of Christianity believe that Jesus is Jehovah? Or do they believe, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses, that the Father is Jehovah? -a-train

There are definitely different writing styles in the Book of Mormon. Everyone seems to love Nephi's style. He is easy, direct, and holds the reader's interest. Mormon was much different. A lot of people get sort of bogged down when they hit Alma (which was written by Mormon). He is good, but less excting than Nephi. What is further interesting is that the revelations to Joseph Smith in D&C seem to be very different than the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith's speaches are different still. They contain a smattering of his 19th century boyish personality. He also had a bit of humor and a tinge of street preacher in him. Joseph Smith was 14 when he had his first vision of the Father and Christ. He was socially ostracized as soon as he made this public as a teen. The really violent stuff didn't start until he was in his late twenties and stood as the First Elder in the newly organized Church of Jesus Christ. Oh, I don't think those guys were being rude. They were serious. Their advice is good. Reading the Book of Mormon would answer tons of questions and give you more to inquire of. It can be like wax-on/wax-off training from Mr. Miyagi, you will learn things without even knowing it. GOD BLESS! -a-train

The whole point of our offering of temporal things to God is to remind us where these things come from. The ancient Hebrews not only paid tithes, but offerings also. They also were to observe jubilees and sabbatical years as well. This and tithing was all done away when the new covenant was given. The Primitive Church did NOT pay tithes to the Priests. They lived the higher law, the law of consecration. When the Church was restored, the law of consecration was restored also. Only because we cannot keep that law has it been suspended as in the days of Moses, and we are to again pay tithes in preparation to live the law of consecration wherein we will consecrate all we have. Pay the tithes and the LORD will bless you with an increase, for He is the only provider we have. -a-train

The Book of Mormon challenge is in Moroni (last book of the Book of Mormon) 10:3-5: 'Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.' I can say that personally, I have read the scriptures and prayed and received such a manifestation from the Holy Ghost. -a-train

So does this mean that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, and that this One God is God of 'false gods'? -a-train

I'm claiming Enoch's Zion for the first brick and mortar. With a little math, we can calculate from Genesis chapter five that Adam was alive for five hundred and eight years after Enoch's birth. This is manifested in Enoch's statement to Mahijah concerning the fathers: 'we know them, and cannot deny, and even the first of all we know, even Adam.' (Moses 6:45) Enoch only lived three hundred and sixty five years from his birth until the time that the city of Zion was caught up to God. (Genesis 5:24) So, Zion was contemporary with man's first generation until 'it came to pass that Zion was not, for God received it up into his own bosom; and from thence went forth the saying, ZION IS Fled.' (Moses 7:69) Adam would have lived one hundred and forty three years after this event. Questions could be asked about why Adam and other patriarchs were not caught up with Zion, but let's not get into all that right now. There are many extra-canonical assertions that Enoch's Zion had a temple full of the mysteries of God. Do a google search for 'temple of Enoch' and you'll run into that. In a quick search, I found no modern revelation that expressly denies or confirms the existance of a temple in Enoch's Zion. I'll look more thoroughly later. However, in Revelation 21, John sees the return of Zion, and says: 'I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.' This has a wonderful significance to endowed LDS. ZION in the LORD's presence needs no temple, but typifications and symbolisms shrink into insignificance in the presence of those things which they are designed to direct our minds toward.

You surprize me Crimson. I thought you would be making every effort to confirm the words of our priesthood leaders, not arguing against them. I would warn anyone who challenges the interpretation of scripture by those in authority to promote their personal interpretation is entering hazardous domain. Regardless, you must know that most LDS believe the concept you are here arguing against because it is taught by the Brethren. I won't argue with you, but I'll just give you this one post and let it be. Now, out of context your reading makes sense. But it omitted key points in Elder Condie's citing, (perhaps overlooked). For as Amulek said: 'But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered;' but, he did not stop there. He continued: 'therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.' So what is an 'infinite atonement'? Look at verse 10. Christ's sacrifice was 'not a sacrifice of man'. You mean, a man wasn't punished in another man's stead? No! For Amulek also said: 'it shall not be a human sacrifice'. So what kind of sacrifice are we talking about? Amulek says: 'an infinite and eternal sacrifice.' He also said: 'that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.' (verse 14) So you are correct if you believe it unjust for the innocent man to be punished for the transgressions of the guilty. However the infinite and eternal Son of God through a process unknown and unfathomable to us, took 'upon him the transgressions of his people'. (verse 8) 'The sacrifice of an innocent person who would vicariously suffer the punishment for the sins of others' could not be performed by any man (especially because no man is innocent), only by an infinite and eternal God who has such power. Now you've made excellent points. I like the credit card statement. I fully agree that Jesus didn't receive only the sum of the wages of the sins of all mankind, nor was His anguish limited to the sum of the sins repented of; but His sacrifice was infinite and eternal. So, let the matter rest and the saints believe Alma who asked and answered: 'What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.' (Alma 42:25) And let them cherish the LORD's saying 'For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance'. (D&C 1:31) GOD BLESS Sincerely, -a-train

Just that - god (lower case) not Gods because there aren't any. Just a note, the verses noted concerning 'God of gods' were originally written in hebrew which HAS NO CAPITAL LETTERS. -a-train

Crimson, Tell me about this quote from Elder Spencer J. Condie Of the Seventy: By atoning for our sins as our Father planned, the Savior stands “betwixt” all of us sinners and the demands of justice, “having … taken upon himself [our] iniquity and [our] transgressions” (Mosiah 15:8–9). An atonement which could satisfy justice required the sacrifice of an innocent person who would vicariously suffer the punishment for the sins of others (see Alma 34:8–16). Justice demanded death, and the Redeemer died that he might become the firstfruits of the Resurrection and overcome the bonds of death. (The Fall and Infinite Atonement, Ensign, Jan 1996, 22, emphasis added) Perhaps I don't understand your position, but I am wondering if you believe that part in bold. -a-train

I was there back in 2002 and saw the dudes with megaphones screaming something against a wedding party coming out of the temple. They were trying to disrupt the people taking photos. The families paid no attention and seemed to go on without any notice. They did the right thing. Perhaps the loudmouths will become so numerous that they will begin fighting each other for sidewalk squares. We can only hope. Like those Baptist dudes from my area protesting funerals, the more press given those screamers, the more they will do it. Watching and listening to Conference here in KC, you see nothing of them. I never hear about them from the Church. We should ignore them the same. Still, I think it would be fun to get a bullhorn and mock them right back. I would pretend to be one of them and overdress the part. I'd look as terrible and ridiculous as possible. I would shout nonsense and pretend to be one of them. I would follow up there sayings with statements that would portray just how ridiculous they are. I am going next Conference, this is too much fun to pass up. Seriously though, this is one of the very few things that goes away when totally ignored. So ignore this post too. -a-train

I once knew a new member on my mission who was struggling with her calling. She had been called to play the piano. Her struggle was the fact that she didn't play. Without mentioning this, she accepted the calling. She worked long and hard hours to be able to painstakingly learn each of the upcoming hymns and pulled it off! She taught herself to play. Some would say her calling was an indication that her leaders were un-inspired. But I can see vividly her testimony 'that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.' (1 Nephi 3:7) Just be willing to give of yourself and do whatever the LORD asks and you will be both able to do it and, most of all, happy. God be with you. -a-train

I came across a movie called Latter Days at the video rental the other day. The cover portrayed an Elder with his tag on and a smile. Reading the back cover, I saw that the plot was of an Elder seduced by a man into whom the Elders tracted. The whole movie is a gay fantasy. But that is just what it is... fantasy. 'And the multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel, even all that fight against her and her munition, and that distress her, shall be as a dream of a night vision. It shall even be as when an hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and, behold, he drinketh; but he awaketh, and, behold, he is faint, and his soul hath appetite: so shall the multitude of all the nations be, that fight against mount Zion.' (Isaiah 29:7-8) -a-train

Uhhh.... Perhaps I totally was unclear. My answer was that God is not a God of idols but of gods. Who are these gods He is God of? Us! But, do we worship ourselves? Do we worship each other? No! We have no other gods before Him. We are gods and children of the Most High God and as such we worship the Most High God and none else. -a-train