Amillia

An assumption is not a conviction. Talk to PD about this... Another dodge?

You replied: Now while that type of answer might work on a 10 year old sunday school class, it's hardly convincing to anyone who's educated beyond the 8th grade. I can only assume that you don't have anything to back up your statement. So a simple retraction will do. Well I can just assume you are jumping ship cause you are guilty.

You're just copying what I said Amillia; you need to be more original. Now either you are saying that you are threatened when someone speaks the truth because you are a sinner or, you are being self-righteous and excluding yourself from being a sinner while judging everyone else - which is it Amillia? M. YOu want me to make up stuff and say you said it? Why would it offend you to have your words put back in your face if they were so wonderful to start with??? I am now having you put words in my mouth ! I would rather you just put my words back in their right order!

Frankly, I wouldn't give a dang. If the proxy-baptizing religion were not true, it would have no effect on me. If it were, then I'd be grateful they did the work. As for whether I would have any concern, while living, that someone might proxy-baptize me after I'm dead -- again, why should I care? It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, as Thomas Jefferson put it. The closest legal parallel I can think of to this situation is the "appropriation of likeness" branch of privacy law, which is used by celebrities to keep people from exploiting their (famous) personae without compensating them. After they're dead, the heirs of the celebrities can retain some of the rights to use their images commercially, but those rights are essentially there to protect the heirs, not the deceased himself. And those rights don't last forever. Nobody minds when an actor dressed as Abraham Lincoln is used in a used-car commercial. Why should I care if my name gets recited in some obscure religious ceremony sometime in the future? Presumably, we have a clearer understanding of things in the eternities than we do on the earth. Who's to say that a person who stated a desire, while living, not to be baptized, might not change his mind in the eternities? I agree, I don't care what they do with my name after I am dead. The Jews could do all sorts of rituals with my name and if it wasn't true or valid, what's the problem ! LOL

No, you said: Now you're changing your mind and saying that the sins of someone else could cause one to leave? Which is it then? As for me, you're wrong. My dad could have screwed every woman in town, and it would not have affected my views of Mormonism. He was disfellowshiped for 3 years because of his actions. The Church knew, and the church disciplined. If you want to be specific on a single issue that finally pushed me out, it was when I was working on the blacks and the priesthood revelation/doctrine/policy/opinion/theory/false doctrine. It can be both.

Typical response by someone who is threatened by someone else's doubts. Here's where that simple thing called "free agency" comes into effect. CG has the right to choose what he believes and why. If for whatever reason, especially doubt in LDS doctrine and history, he chooses to change his mind and make a reasonable choice by not believing anymore - who are you to say he can't make that choice. Why would you Setheus be so threatened by someone else's loss of testimony? M. No one's threatened on the Lord's side. Are you feeling threatened? Cause your response is typical if ever there was one. Assuming one is threatened when speaking the truth that hurts the sinners. :)

Could it be as simple as they didn't think the church was true anymore? Or is that a simple fact that is too simple to consider? Simple minded ~ or blinded simple.

Based on what studies done by which universities or organizations do you base your assumption that leaving Mormonism is the result of one's inability to pay 10% of income, keep one's horse in the barn, or avoid intoxicating beverages? BASED ON SIN~ any kind

Amillia, you wrote Bono acknowledged he made up a story earlier this week about the finger coming from a dead aunt because the family was being hounded by reporters. I guess he just made it up that it came from an aunt then? I heard this on our channel 5 news with the woman being on film while they made the statement that it was a possibility that the finger came from one of her dead relatives. Then I read the article from which I quoted some and it stated that the Wendy's company, and all of their affiliates and producers (meat etc) could not find anyone who had lost a finger, or who could be responsibly for the finger ~ They honestly don't believe the finger came from their people or stores ~ So someone out there knows something they are not giving up ~ and someone is missing a finger!!! dead or a live. Anyway, they said that this has really hurt their business, but I drive past Wendy's several times a day taking kids to school, work, and to shop, and the line is always there as usual.

Only a shallow, narrow-minded person would assume such a thing. I don't find it narrow-minded at all and definitely not shallow. It is a fact ~

Amillia - do you have a name for this so-called woman that rankled the Jewish community and any documentation of this rankling? This is pure speculation on your part; to assume the Jewish community view these proxy baptisms as significant. For all you know, they could view these activities as just plain rude. M. This woman was on the news at 5 yesterday. Names I don't ever remember ~ not even my kids ~ just ask them. And I don't think it speculation at all. If I believed in Voodoo, I would resent someone making a little doll that looked like me and sticking pins in it ~ But I don't ~ and so if they do make the doll and stick pins in it ~ I say~ have at it !!!

I consider my husband an anti-mormon and so does he but I must say he is quite an intelligent man and very educated. Depravity in spirituality? I don't think so; I would say it is his right to practice his free agency - which the LDS church preaches about. In my husband's case he is married to a very light-hearted wonderful woman and is truly happy. How could he not be: he has two lovely kids, two of the sweetest cats you could ever meet (if any two cats could convert curvette into being a cat lover they could, really! ) And in addition to all this, we also get to spend time with our crazy 19 year old neice who keeps us thinking and laughing. Actually, my husband's obsession is with paintball but occasionally he likes to stir the pot - just ask said niece. From a recent article "a member of the church's high-ranking Presidency of the Seventy" says that: <span style='color:blue'>"We've always been able to talk candidly," Christofferson said. "The trust that's been there has been there since the beginning." Elcott said the two faiths share a history of persecution for their beliefs. "That was incredibly important to our conversations. We understand each other in a fundamental way." http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2651844 I think it behooves the LDS church to respect the Jewish community's view on these proxy baptisms in regards to their own members. It appears that the LDS church agrees. Why preach "free agency" if you're not willing to practice it? (just so you know Amillia, this is a rhetorical question) M. To answer all of the things you have brought up ~ You husband is your husband and you (the very light-hearted wonderful woman) ~ so of course you are prejudice. Yes they always have, but they were really rankled when this woman told them our church had crossed them. The fact is, the church always has respected the Jewish faith, and they didn't think they were causing any problems for the Jews in baptising their dead, as they figure if they didn't believe in Baptism for the dead, it was of non-consequence. But apparently they do believe it has some signigicance ~ or they wouldn't say anything. :)

Hey did you all hear that the woman who supposedly found that finger ~ put it there herself ~???????????????????? She did! He used the finger from a dead relative when no one was looking ~ LOL...or so says the neighbor! LOL "The simple fact of the matter is that the finger came from somebody. Where's that person at?" said Sgt. Nick Muyo, a spokesman for the San Jose Police Department. Investigators would not say what they were looking for in the search of Ayala's house. Ken Bono, a family friend who lives at the home, said officers searched freezers, a picnic cooler in the backyard and the belongings of an aunt who used to live at the house. Bono acknowledged he made up a story earlier this week about the finger coming from a dead aunt because the family was being hounded by reporters. "It's kind of messed up, but that's true though," he said.

Dale,You sound like a very wise man! Too many run away when they get the tuff questions ~ and they turn in to hard core anti's ~ They don't realized how uneducated they actually sound. I have been studying these issues indepth for decades and the answers don't come easy because the anti's have twisted and turned a lot of the stuff they put out, to accomadate their own depravity in spirituality. Misery loves company and I have yet to find a truly happy anti! They spend most of their time trying to destroy other's testimonies. What kind of life is that? There was just an incident on the news yesterday about a women who left the church and she was spending all of her time trying to dig up crap on the church. She had found that several Jewish holocaust survivors had had their temple work done after the church set up a policy for it not to be done due to complaints from the Jewish community. Well several Jewish people came over to climb down the necks of the church leadership because of this woman.... Guess what though? This woman's work was for not, because the Lord turned it around and the Jewish people have even a better opinion of our church than they did before ~ One on the demons side cannot thwart the work of the Lord....

I have been reading in Alma 40-42 and the phrase I think struck me most in context was this: Alma 40: 23 23 The soul shall be restored to the cbody, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame. As I read this, I felt that even virtue or sexual purity would be restored again. In this light, I agree, that all those who repent completely and live righteously the rest of their lives, will be given all that the Father hast...

Show us where it says that a repentant teenager who fornicated loses the opportunity for eventual exhaltation (please.) NT commentary ~ parable of the prodical son ~ comments made by JFSmith and others. Amillia, Since you used the NT commentary...I will make the assumption that I can use another of Elder McConkies's commentary. Speaking on the Atonement of Christ...he says: "Because of the Atonement and by obedience to gospel law men have power to become the son's of God in that they are spiritually begotten of God and adopted as members of his family. They become the sons of God and JOINT-HEIRS (restored inheritance, you cant be an heir without an inheritance!) with Christ of the FULLNESS OF THE FATHER'S KINGDOM...in other words they receive their Exaltation! See D&C 39:1-6; 76:54-60; Rom 8:14-17; Gal. 3:1-7; 1John 3:1-4; Rev. 21:7 By coming unto the Lord through faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and receiving all the Temple ordinances....that RESTORES our inheritance!! That is the wonderful love and grace of our Savior in action! It is the inheritence of the Celestial kingdom then, not exaltation or Godhood. I am joint heirs with my brother's and sisters from our parents estate, but we didn't all get the same inheritence. We were all in the will and joint heirs though. I think you assume too much. To be equal with Christ is not possible. Joint doesn't mean equal.

Show us where it says that a repentant teenager who fornicated loses the opportunity for eventual exhaltation (please.) NT commentary ~ parable of the prodical son ~ comments made by JFSmith and others. Amillia, I just read in McConkie's NT commentary of the parable of the Prodigal Son and the additional commentary by JF Smith from "The Way to Perfection". Again, you have misunderstood. First, JF Smith made reference to "riotess living" then coming back into activity into the church. Did the prodigal son end up going to the Temple? Did he end up marrying his sweetheart for time and eternity and be promised the specific blessing found in that order of the PH? We do not know! JF Smith is not saying that a "repentant" new convert who has lived an unrighteous life up until they accept Christ, exercise faith in him and come unto him through all the gospel ordinances will be exempt from obtaining their exaltation if they endure to the end in righteousness. I mean think about for just a second Amillia. Basically, what you are saying is that every adult convert to the church will never obtain Eternal Life..which is Exaltation, because the odds are they have committed these sins which you allude to. I would have to ask you the question then....if what you say is true....why have converts go to the Temple at all and be sealed as families? According to you...it would be a waste of time because they have already squandered away their "inheritance". This notion is completely contrary to the scriptures...the Atonement of Christ, the Temple ordinances...everything that we teach. It really is. Just reread Elder Oaks comments. Ponder them and dont be to proud to acknowledge the fact that you are beyond the "fringes of orthodoxy" with the "Kingdom to Kingdom" progression and "if you have sinned a great sin, that accepting Christ and coming unto him through faith, repentance, baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, receiving ones endowement and entering into an Eternal Marriage and then enduring to the end in righteousness...is not sufficient for one to return back to the presence of the Father and to be a "joint heir with Christ" and to receive "all that the Father hath". IF that is what you are saying.... then you and I are in deep trouble. Because guess what? I hate to be the bearer of bad news...but you have sinned...I have sinned. So..using your logic you and I have both "squandered our inheritance"!! You and I have NO HOPE of Exaltation! I dont believe that for a moment! In order to sin, you must have knowledge. Those who were not in the church or raised righteously, have an excuse and a chance to have what you had before you chose to sin. I know you are taking this personally, and I don't want any pain caused by this, but I stand by what I have stated. Sin is sin. It does matter which kinds of sins we choose to commit. We must expect some long term consequences for those sins, if they were mentioned as more grievious than others. I don't think anything is permenant. I do believe the closer to the top one reaches through righteousness and repentence, the easier it will be to finally be with the Lord and our families. If you are anxcious about not becoming a God, then maybe you might think about this ~ would you want to think of your God as one who was sexually impure at one time? Even if I think about it real hard, I can't think about my God ever having done that, repentant or not....

Please show the quote from the parable of the prodigal son that shows virginity at marriage is a requirement for exhaltation. Why would you ask for something you know isn't there. Doctrinally, show me where it states that one has their virginity returned to them. It isn't. I grew up with GAs teaching that once virginity was lost, once chastity was lost ~ it wasn't ever going to be brought back, though the sin be taken away ~ your virginity wouldn't be brought back. One GA actually stated that for women, the hymen would never be put back in place and that the Lord created our bodies with this specific thing in mind. It was a sign to the man that he was getting a virtuous woman. Why else would there even be a hymen? I'm not talking about today's society and what it accepts etc. ~ I am talking about how God created women and why.

Show us where it says that a repentant teenager who fornicated loses the opportunity for eventual exhaltation (please.) NT commentary ~ parable of the prodical son ~ comments made by JFSmith and others.

The only flaw is yours.

Heck yes! The old testiment is full of criptic responses, coded messages, and stuff like that! God hasn't changed his MO just for JS haters. I remember getting a very unspectic answer myself on two occassions. I share one ~ I was sitting on my livingroom couch feeling very intune with the Spirit, praying that I could be more like Christ when my neighbors did things to hurt me intentionally. I prayed that I would be able to say, sincerely, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." My answer: "Don't ask for more than you can bear." What was that supposed to mean? I came up with three separate things it could mean ~ But am I sure which is right? Not yet. It has been years and the longer I live the more these this statement seems to relate to. But my first at the moment was that Christ was telling me that He already did all the work to be all forgiving, and I wasn't that great, and if I tried to be Him, I would fail because it was more than I could do. I thought it would have been better if He has given me an answer like, 'I can give you strength according to your faith, to forgive anyone.' That is what I have experienced ~ added strength and serentity in times of stress~ But to tell me not to ask for more than I can bear, when we are told to pray for strength ~ seemed totally incongruent at the time. Since then, I have seen that it was a principle He was giving me ~ a principle which is taught in many places and many ways in the scriptures. Don't run faster than you have strength ~

In giving an answer, Smith makes God out to be a liar. Smith's so-called revelation in this case is a scandal. I was chatting with my bishop the other day and we were discussing how and why apostates and sinners saw the exact same things in such a different light from the active faithful members.We came to the conclusion that is was where they stood, (on one side or the other of sin) which gave different light and different views. Perspectives are reality to everyone...what makes that perspective what it is, has everything to do with where one is standing. I don't find it really successful to argue perspectives when everyone is going to stick to what their reality is ... The elephant and the 7 blind men come to mind, but doesn't totally cover it ~ I think blacks who have been raised in a community like is found in MIssissippi are going to have a totally different out look than those who are raised in congenially and well ajusted integrated societies. I have friends in both of these catagories and they don't react to things the same way at all. The one from MIssissippi is alway looking for a fight, and feeling totally paranoid of any prejudice, existent or not ~ The one I grew up with in SLC is very calm about the whole thing and has many many white friends and even married a white girl in the temple. These two friends of mine will never see eye to eye. Which one is wrong? I think the guy from Mississippi is because I haven't a prejudicial bone in my body when it comes to the blacks, yet I will say something and he will take offense to it.

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.

I remember that one well. I also remember when the General Young women's president asked all Young Women's presidents to stop teaching it. I heard that analogy just this year in a Gospel Doctrine Class. Amillia, You simply deny the Atonement of Christ. You are putting forth things that are false....thats it in a nutshell. Let's not quibble with words....you just got through saying "this is something they do not like to disclose because of the far reaching issues"....but if we are to believe you...you have sat down in your living room with the Prophets and Apostles and had lengthy discussions about this and other mysteries of the Gospel. I honestly do not believe for a moment that that is the case. Sorry. Nope...when I come across situations like these....I just have to wonder how in the world this happens. But, like I said at the beginning of this thread....you better be careful...because you are walking down a dangerous path. Amillia, I believe in the scriptures. I cannot accept any "doctrine" that is not in harmony with what has been revealed. Yes, I do believe you got it wrong, that you misunderstood what your SP said to you. I got a hint of what you tend to do when you "cut and pasted" Elder Talmages comments to make it appear that he supported this notion of "Kingdom to Kingdom" progression..which he did not. But, you chose to do that in order to give your position some credibility. I am thinking you do that alot. Just be careful. Again ~ where have I denied the atonement? ~ I want references!!! I have said what the scriptures say. The atonement takes away sins. Show me a scripture where it states Christ gives back all you have taken from yourself in sin. Show me where it says a fornicator will be a virgin again. Show me where the prodical son was given another inheritence. show me anything of authority ~ as I have documented everything I have stated, you have documented nothing. GIVE ME REFERENCES OR SHUT UP!

I was wondering if anyone knew the skinny on nicatine ~ I know it is adictive, but what else does it do or not do, cause or not cause?