Moksha

One is a consideration based on someone you have a political disagreement with and the other is religious. In my experience, people usually put greater passion into politics. Of course, it is always the other guy who is wrong.

I am certain we will all have something to look forward to in that upcoming post.

I suppose they couldn't get Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson. I would have thought that a member of the Quorum of the Twelve could have laid a blessing on UVSC* for less money than Sean Hannity, and been less offensive to boot! * not that I really think the spirit of free inquiry should be erased from these students lives, but this is Utah County we are talking about.

Elf, did you see this one? What a difference a few years of war makes in terms of perception. Folks now would shake their heads in agreement with Micheal Moore. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29vHG0CRP-M&NR=1 This came up right after your link.

Your words Doctor... It is good to see you here as well.

That was great. I suspect Larry H. Miller would book it for his theaters.

This sounds really good Dr. Steuss, could you expound on this further?

What lost treasure will the be searching for this time? Considering the passage of time, the Fountain of Youth might be a reasonable quest. Unrelated comment - why are the emoticons not appearing in the posts on my screen. All that html code looks disconcerting.

When I read the title of a Tom DeLay Money Quote, I thought it would be of him asking for the payoff to be in hundreds and twenties.

Good for you fending off mean spiritedness with humor. Anyway, a big cyber-hug to you. Heavy people and allergies??? Yikes!

Elphaba, I have got a true mokism for you: "The bigger your waistline, the more holiness it can contain"* *with a tip of the hat to Khalil Gibran

My feeling is that Murphy's Law of things going wrong also affect us Mormons. At various points in the past, somebody decided to give a more inspiring account of what happened. When this occurs enough times, you have created legends that are at odds with actual history. It really doesn't mean things were all that wrong to begin with or that we needed to be ashamed of the absolute truth. Once fibs are made, someone has to emerge to correct them. Hopefully, in this will come to pass. I have always thought that it was wrong for members to need to turn to the Tanner's website for accurate information. The Tanner's also have an ax to grind as well.

I think President Hinckley has tried to deemphasize some speculation passing as doctrine when he announced on national TV such things as "We don't know much about that" or "I don't know that we teach that". I applaud President Hinckley for taking this approach in handling both the media on these speculative subjects, and laying the ground work to eventually take them out of LDS circulation as well.

Fleetwood Mac's Tusk, Juice Newton's Queen of Hearts and Blondies The Tide is High were good.

Yes, I can see the connection between the wholesale genocide perpetrated by the Nazis and the request to keep decorative jewelry simple. Actually, I think the issue is one of following other's personal preferences in the name of a higher purpose. The thread originally brought into question whether Church leaders are infallible. These simple examples of preferring less jewelry or white shirts and laying the foundation for members to feel guilty if they do not comply with their Church leaders personal preferences is a case in point. Should we obey for obedience sake? Sometimes an acquiescence to authority does not hurt. Sometimes it may run contrary to the promptings of the Spirit. Thank goodness that none of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve have ever expressed a preference for Ipana toothpaste. There would be a flood of requests tomorrow for this product which ceased production fifty years ago. Member would want the most reverential teeth possible.

Cults of nationalism are rather scary, are they not? Especially in a country with nuclear missles and biological weaponry.

I don't understand this practice of interfering in personal fashion preferences, therefore creating even more unnecessary "rules" that can be broken, and making the members feel guilty if they don't oblige. I just don't get this. I'm talking about benign issues like shaving a mustache off, not the obvious such as dressing immodestly. It just seems like its creating problems where there isn't one. Shaving your mustache is not going to cause you to apostasize. I see the problem as being one of tying the personal preference for no mustaches into some type of holiness dictum. Brother Dorsey was right in that regard. The second problem was for him to have to justify someone else's personal preference, with a sequential thought that it was somehow designed to keep him from rebelling against the Church. In reality, God loves him with or without facial hair. Does it indeed make us better people to not question the unreasonable? The Nuremberg Trials, have taught us that we must ultimately take responsibility for our own thoughts and that we should eschew blind obedience. As Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott of the USS Enterprise once said, "Use your head man".

I have always assumed that the ultimate in Conservative fantasies would be a return to the good ol' days of feudalism, but instead of a monarch, things would be run by the Church.

I was just thinking about the interface and possible interchangeability between Theology and Speculation. What are your thoughts?

Using a name other than your own is wise beyond mention for safety reasons. Too many nuts want retribution for things they don't like. Sometimes I have suspected the coward brand was proffered simply to goad those whom they disagree with into disclosing their identity so they could initiate their retribution. From a liability standpoint, boards should caution their members against revealing any personal data.

We teach that too, and we teach it first. Our church is founded upon Christ. It is best to keep your eye on the Christian message the Church presents. Unfortunately Yediyd, there are those on the internet who are clamoring to present you with unflattering information about the LDS Church because they perceive that you are vulnerable. Shame on them. Take things at your own speed regarding any troubling information.

This is my first post to this board and what better place to make it than on a thread named introductions. I am LDS.

Yediyd, I am glad that the fellowshipping helped you. The internet is an excellent source for knowledge and friendship for those homebound or mobile. Sharing good feelings and spiritual nourishment together is always helpful. Two additional sources are the Fellowship Board at Mormon Apologetics and Discussion, and the Mormon Boards: Learn About Mormonism, Mormon Fellowship and Mormon Issues at Beliefnet. http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/discussion...sp?boardID=4512 http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/discussion...p?boardID=22134

Did anyone mention the importance of a good internet forum?