omegaseamaster75

Yeah...I'll be skipping lunch today..

the link shows the interview, i didn't watch it all.

For starters 4 years...that's gross. but like others have said, you can't relate American sizes to sizes in Latin america, a womens 22 is a tent.... Look on the conversion chart and get one size smaller...

Yes it's OK to sing the songs.....they are just songs. I am real sorry that little johnny feels bad because his daddy never comes home, but if we start catering to the minority we will run out of primary songs to sing.

I'm calling you out on this, I have never been in a ward and I have been in many wards where mothers specifically were singled out, as previously posted ALL women over the age of 18 are asked to stand and get a small token or gift. Your heightened sense of self pity however probably only allows you to see what you want to see.

This is ridiculous, are you that close to your aunts and uncles? who you probably see 2-3x a year? really? are you that tight with ALL of those cousins? Unlikely. It's ego and not wanting to hurt feelings of people who feel entitled, or want the outward display of righteousness. You said you haven't heard a single response that makes sense as to why they don't have bigger sealing rooms....your post answers your own question. People get small and petty when it comes to this stuff. "my uncle almost defected from my festivities because my cousin wasn't invited to the temple" with that attitude your uncle shouldn't have been invited to the temple....... Please stop it have some eternal perspective on the sacredness of the ordinance.

THAT'S WHAT i SAID....

I think you may have misunderstood, or I didn't express myself well. All of the things you have outlined bring condemnation on us. More so as members of the church because we know better. I suspect that if I indulge in some of the things mentioned I will be judged more harshly than a non member because I have made commitments and covenants that the non member has not. A non member will not be judged by the same measuring stick that you or I will be. Or do you disagree? Isn't condemnation for being kicked out of the church bad enough? the covenant has been broken, so will the excommunicated member be judged more harshly if he engages in other sinful behavior? I don't know......

Only if you want to come back I suppose....then yes of course we require this of all new members. Now do you bring extra condemnation on yourself if you are excommunicated and then disregard the WOW and LOC etc with no intention of ever returning to church........I want to say not likely. A covenant no longer exists. The excommunicated person has broken his side thereby nullifying any previous commitment

Your temple blessings are removed if you are an endowed excommunicated member. Members Who Were Previously Endowed. From the time of their baptism and confirmation until their blessings are restored (see 6.15), these members may participate in any Church activity that is permissible for an unendowed member who does not hold the priesthood. However, they may not wear temple garments, receive a temple recommend, or participate in vicarious baptisms for the dead until their blessings are restored. 6.15 Restoration of BlessingsEndowed persons who were excommunicated and later readmitted by baptism and confirmation can receive their priesthood and temple blessings only through the ordinance of restoration of blessings. Such persons are not ordained to priesthood offices or endowed again, since all priesthood and temple blessings held at the time of excommunication are restored through the ordinance. Brethren are restored to their former priesthood office, except the office of seventy, bishop, or patriarch.

Our Jesus is not their Jesus that is why they think that we are not Christians, we are polytheists for starters, and the list can go on and on.

Now that more details have come out we can clearly see that this is the case....obviously

I'm not so sure about that.....If I find nothing wrong with drinking coffee can I be brought before a disciplinary council? Let's assume I keep my beliefs to myself and the only one complaining is my wife. I do not advocate the drinking of coffee to others, nor do I discuss it openly with other church members, but for me it's OK.... I'm going to say no....it's between me and the Lord, now expand that to pornography....

Not allowed to come back to church at all? This is his parents restricting him right? not his priesthood leaders I hope

To my knowledge you cannot be brought before a disciplinary council for a porn addiction, someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

So we will disregard everything that you post going forward, we will just assume that you always have PMS and cannot possibly by in your right mind

You suggested it!!!!! that's were this is coming from.......

I am responding to your reply to the OP...

What if he stops paying the bills for a few weeks....if we want to go the tit for tat route....

Shame on you, how can you compare a family necessity ie moving to another state for example to willfully withholding sex in order to get your mate to comply with your whims.....

I don't think Duff is anti Mormon, and neither am I. All history is hearsay to one degree or another.

Fundamentally i agree, accusations of sexual misconduct, blood atonement, so on and so forth cannot be substantiated to the point of empirical fact. Fact of the matter is though that you cannot prove that they didn't happen either. Why because they are all dead. One however can look at patterns of behavior and draw conclusions. I might suggest that accusations be held at bay, because of the lack of definitive proof. Clearly this is not the forum that wants to entertain such ideas at any rate.

I am actually OK with most of this, and I to am still a believer. sorry guys some of the history of the church is "shocking" This does not make the church untrue. Why is it that if we do anything other than paint our past leaders with a broad brush of sainthood are we are called apostates? None of us were there, even authorized church history has a slant on it a positive one...I stated this earlier in another thread to the victor go the spoils. The church has the big stick to write its history how it wants and say everything else is hearsay or false because they won, the church survived its infancy and has grown into the church that we now know and love.

call a lawyer, plan your exit.

notquiteperfect don't presume that I don't know what I'm talking about here.