JohnsonJones

One other interesting item I found in regards to the patriarchal order/priesthood.

I would hope that those I've had trouble seeing are not because I'm a jerk. Normally they tend to be ones who no longer live at the address, or are inactive and also don't want missionaries, bishopric, and others visiting. However, it could be just me...though I hope not.

Patriarchal priesthood is a higher manifestation of the Melchizedek Priesthood from one viewpoint. Someone who has the Patriarchal Priesthood is basically a part of the Patriarchal order. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/02/what-every-elder-should-know-and-every-sister-as-well-a-primer-on-principles-of-priesthood-government?lang=eng

(This statement was in good fun, hopefully it is taken that way). Is that 20% cooler, or 20% more meta-nerdy? Of course, if you want nerdy you'd still have a LOOOONG way to go to match up to us historians who are constantly reading books on various aspects of historical information that no one else is interested in. I think that's still considered ultra nerdy in these days and times.

I'm one of those weird ones that only do sealings with my spouse. Unfortunately, my spouse goes to the temple FAR less than I do.

Well, since this thread started on something related to the Temple, maybe I can refocus it on the Temple and something that has caused me to go less and less. Hopefully we can talk about it (or around it) here. Point blank, I actively dislike the new Temple films. Some parts of them make me feel very uncomfortable. Hence, the solution, view them less. Don't know a solution to my problem in this arena.

Home Teaching is a two way street. One way, the Home Teachers must be willing to do Home Teaching. The Other way, the family MUSTS be willing to work with the Home Teacher to be home taught. When one of those is not there, there is no home teaching. A Large part of the problem with getting home teaching done (and I suppose it could also be visiting teaching) is that there are many families that simply don't want to have the Home Teachers there. This is a continual problem I've had (and it seems I constantly get many who are not even at their addresses again, not sure why they assign me to find people who obviously no one has seen for months or years, and then only after I hunt them down to see who actually lives there do they finally realize that member is no longer at that home). Other times, that family is just really busy. I try to get my home teaching done early, so if there are problems I have the rest of the month to try to work through it, but getting home teaching done can be very difficult when there is no time to see a family.

As man have pointed out, the two ideas are not exclusive. As an extreme (meaning this is an extreme, there are many levels far less extreme, it is extreme just as an example) In the US, you can teach your children that drinking alcohol is not a good thing (and not just because of the Word of Wisdom). You can teach them that it has bad effects. That is very different than exposing them by giving beer or whiskey them at breakfast, lunch and dinner and letting them drink it whenever they want as a drink in the fridge (and in some places, not only is that bad, but illegal enough that you can go to jail for it). There is a HUGE difference between educating your kids, and saying you are not going to restrict (or censor) their activities. You can do both, because doing both is sometimes necessary (Especially if you don't want to go to jail or prison in many instances).

I am a historian, and understandably NOT a scientist in this understanding...soooo...my thoughts. What IS time? That's the first thing that we have to define if we are going to use it. It seems people are using a definition in science, but is that what time is. Perhaps, as some have suggested, there are several definitions of time. In basics...time is a measurement. Just like 2d is measured in height and length, and in 3d we add width, time is yet another measurement. This measurement has changed. Long ago, it was measured in one way, later it became seconds, minutes, hours, days as per the measurements of the sun. Now we measure time in caesium standard time, or the frequency of a caesium 133 atoms. In that measurement we can see as the universe changes, so time is merely a measurement of the changes of our universe. Saying something exist outside of time in that context is simply stating something exists outside our universe, or at least outside our measurement of the changes of our universe. In that light, time would truly be one eternal round if you believe in the expansion and contraction theories of the universe. It has a big bang, expands, then contracts and then everything happens all over again. Over...and over...and over...for ever. But does that define TIME for us? I would say for an eternal being, it does not. Time can also be a measurement of progress, or our changes within ourselves. In that light, we could have our own measurement by what we experience. If that were one eternal round, that would mean that even if we obtain the eternal salvation, we will once again lose it, become intelligences, and have to earn it all over again. It kind of negates the entire idea of eternity and eternal salvation or punishment. Sure, you may go to outer darkness, but it's only until the round begins again. When it says time is one eternal round, I think it is referring to our mortal perceptions and the way we measure the universe around us. It is in reference to OUR time measurements, but not to eternity. I think the Lord is outside that and beyond that. I say that there is still something that is comparable to it, or a different type of time measured in experiences and advancements, but not necessarily how WE view time in our universe with seconds, hours, and such in the hereafter. I'd say that time is suspect, that there are different definitions of time, and when speaking of time, one would need to identify which type of time they are identifying with. For our universe, it would normally be the time we measure the universal changes by, which we know many things, even in this universe, are not affected by and live outside or beyond time. In regards to our experiences and measurement of time in that manner, it would differ from soul to soul and spirit to spirit. It could be that the Lord lives outside our universal laws of time that we use to measure time, and hence can see the results of what may happen, but also has his own increase and advancement due to his own time, or growth and change. Something even more revolutionary, what if WE, as his children, before we came, ALSO knew all that would occur in our time? Why would many of us choose to come here if we were not going to receive exaltation? I think this is actually a very high possibility...that we knew what we were going to do with our lives, or at least for the most part. My answer for why we came then...we may not have known for ourselves whether what we could achieve and needed to know for ourselves. Even if we did know the end result (and we may not have), we came because what we gain is more than what we would have if we did not. Even those who go to perdition are said to be greater than ANY of those others who are there (think about that a little, Cain and any son of perdition is greater than ANY of the third host of heaven and their leader in the hereafter in the great judgement). We came here to gain experience for ourselves, but also because even those who end up the worse of us, end up in the sum of parts, greater than they were before. We came because it is to our benefit to come to this life.

Some excellent statements have been posted above me. I don't have a ton to add to it. I would state that from what I believe, it wasn't just them falling away, it was a war. It is a war that is STILL going on. Normally, when people are on one side or another, they do not feel that they are going to lose. They are fighting to win. There is a possibility that they might think there is a chance to win at this war, or at least win something (that something being more souls, such as yours, mine, or others). This war isn't over till they are cast out and we are free from them. At the beginning they may have truly thought that they had a good chance of being victorious. Even now, lets say that they know they are going to lose, and it's basically set in stone...they already chose their side and they are probably out to do as much damage as they can before that occurs. That side, just like opposing sides in many wars, probably hates us and those who serve the Lord with everything they can feel. Even if given the opportunity to change sides at this point, it is likely many or most of them have enough hate for our side, or the Lords side, that they would never even consider it and would do all in their power to cause us pain, hurt, or even doom.

The following is MY opinion and only my opinion based on the aforementioned King Follet, other items by Brigham Young and other Latter-Day Prophets. IF (and that is an IF) you attain Exaltation, the spirit children will be YOURs. That is what it means to have eternal increase. https://www.lds.org/topics/kingdoms-of-glory?lang=eng&old=true There are three degrees of glory. The Telestial for those who did all sorts of sin in this life, but did not commit the unpardonable sin, who, after suffering and finally accepting the Lord, will attain a degree of glory. The differences in the Telestial kingdom are as varied as the stars in the sky. If I had guesses, my guess is that this glory will be a place without disease, hunger, age, or other fallibilities of this fallen world. It will be like a garden of eternal glory. The Second is the Terrestrial Kingdom. Here we have men that may have had the truth but were not valiant in it, or that are honorable men but were blinded by the craftiness of men. If I were to guess, this is where many of those who are of another religion, faith, or idea and, with full knowledge of the truth, have chosen to reject the truth due to being blinded by the world. These are also those who are members of the church, and failing to have other ways of salvation, have accepted Baptism, but not striven to go beyond that or fallen back into the ways of the world, but committed no sin so terrible as to warrant a place in the Telestial Kingdom. This is probably more like the heaven that people imagine. Just as many religions preach, people will be able to be with the creator of this world (the Lord) and speak with him at times, but will not be able to be in the presence of the Father of us all (of whom they do not acknowledge any beyond the Savior so I suppose they get what they desire in this life?) The Highest degree of Glory is the Celestial Kingdom. This is beyond any description, being greater than the other two just as much as the Sun is greater than the Moon or stars in glory in the Earthly skies. This kingdom is ALSO divided into three degrees, though this is even MORE my opinion. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/faithful-parents-and-wayward-children-sustaining-hope-while-overcoming-misunderstanding?lang=eng Parents who are sealed in the temple and then have children that fall away from the church may have the children in the Celestial Kingdom. The sealing bonds of eternity are that strong. However, this does NOT negate the results of the children's choices. If their are punishments they must endure, they must endure these still and whether in this life or the next, repent of those sins. After this has occurred, those children can be saved in the Celestial Kingdom with their families. HOWEVER, they do NOT attain a Celestial Glory. They have earned another glory, and thus, even though in the Celestial Kingdom, their glory is the lowest and hence would be in the lowest of the three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom. They have the powers and abilities granted to them from whatever they have gained from their time on earth, but not that of those who were more worthy. Above them are those who are not married. These can not have eternal increase. They have no way to have that increase of children. They are of the second degree of the Celestial Kingdom. They have the powers of creation in regards to the command of elements, worlds, and laws, but not the practicality to utilize those powers for they have no one to serve to put those powers to use of their own accord. In that light, they may be servants of others of the highest degree. Those in the Highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom are those who are sealed as King and Queen and have endured to the end. These shall have eternal increase and they shall serve their children (what, you thought being a King and Queen meant you rule...maybe, but more importantly it means that you, just like you are a mother and father on earth and serve your children, you will also do that in heaven, basically the higher you go the more serving you do). They have the means to have children and thus populate worlds and creation. This is the purpose of existence, and their purpose is to increase which increases not just their glory, but also that of their father. So yes, those children are YOURS, just like the children that you have on earth are your physical children. Those children you have on this earth had an existence prior to this as spirit children of our Father (and they are STILL his spirit children) but, as far as their physical bodies go, if you are sealed to them, they will also always be your children for their physical bodies (and our Fathers Great great...etc...children in physical form as well as he was the Father of Adam). Even in the next life, if you have exaltation, though you will have spirit children, they will also have had a prior existence as intelligences. In that way, this life in many ways is also representative of the life we had before, if one can see it. And now you know one of the mysteries of heaven in regards to the degrees of glory and the various degrees found in the Celestial Kingdom itself. Once again, this is in my opinion, so if you disagree, be free to be happy and do so. However, this is my thoughts and ideas. If you have further questions on this and want to expand in regards to ideas on this, reading in Joseph Fielding Smiths Doctrines of Salvation Vol. II and III, the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as well as Bruce R. Mckonkies the Promised Messiah and the Millenial Messiah are good resources.

I strongly agree with this idea. I think that we had some very major decisions in the pre-existence which affect what and where we are here in this life. I think one of the ways the Lord knows who would have accepted the gospel in this life, even if they did not have the opportunity to, is due to what they decided in the pre-existence. Those who were born into the covenant, I think chose for that. Those who chose to be born to wealth and power in this life, but to not have the opportunities to be associated with the church or to reject it, I think made a lot of that decision in the pre-existence as well. In fact, I think much of this life is simply to see whether we will choose good when given the choices between good and evil, and that a LOT of the other implications and effects on our lives were already decided by us before we ever came here.

I don't think I've ever used ignore. Of course, I'm relatively new, so can never predict the future. I don't expect I'll use it though.

Good luck and hope you get into a good new line of work soon.

If I understand right, no one believes in Darwin's theory of evolution anymore. His theory was one that had things being only a few million years old. The current models of evolution are different than that. That is one reason among many that I said I do not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, because the current theories (or even the ones that came out less than 20 years after his death for that matter) are different. That said, I do not Ascribe to the Leakey theories or any in that manner, but for different reasons. PS: Of course, I'm a historian, not a scientist, so, I normally don't have to deal with such things anyways, and of course my opinion is not what one would call super informed because of education or anything like that.

I think the number one item I am opposed to in the ACA is taxing someone simply for being alive (aka, the individual mandate). Men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness. NO ONE should be taxed simply for the privilege to life, or to be alive. I feel that is wrong. Other than that, I think there are many things in the ACA that are commendable. The problem is finding a way to fund those items. I think a major problem with it is relying on the virtue of people and thinking that for profit companies are going to be the solution. Unless we start treating healthcare differently, there is no way to ensure good treatment for everyone while keeping the costs lower. AS long as politicians are in the pockets of the drug companies and the medical community, healthcare costs will remain high while healthcare in the US continues to fall in how useful it is to anyone who is not made of money.

I believe the people creating the live action Beauty and the Beast confirmed that the character is Gay and there is a scene specifically celebrating that fact. This is why some are boycotting the movie. I see the movie as partly targeting children. Just like I would not allow them to see a movie that I thought was pushing people having premarital or extramarital relationships, I'm not going to allow them to see this movie when it is released based upon what I've heard of it. I MIGHT go preview it, and if the scene is not inappropriate, then I may allow them to see it, but until I know what is in the movie, they probably will not see it. This is not unusual as I do this for other movies (in fact, my older kids did not see Revenge of the Sith when if first came out for a similar reason...except it was due to graphic violence rather than anything related to the law of chastity difficulties, and though I've let them see it mostly, it is only when we are in the room and can edit certain portions of the movie). Does that make me hardline...maybe. I do not view being homosexual as a sin. I view homosexual ACTS as sins, just like any other sin against the law of chastity. I think there IS an agenda by some out there to try to have it normalized in society. There are very clear reasons for some to do this, and much of it is VERY VERY anti-Christ. There's a LOT I could say on the entire homosexual agenda as well as homosexuality itself. I'll try to be somewhat brief and abridge myself. I am uncertain whether homosexuality is genetic, one is born with it, or not. There is evidence in my family that there is homosexuality that is prominent in my father's side. It is a curse I hope never comes to any of my children. I was raised by some individuals, one that was a closet homosexual, and one that was openly about it. While I am not going to expose the one in the closet, I will speak about the one that was not. My cousin was quite a bit older than I, and was one of those who was in charge of me when I spent summers at my Grandmother's house. He was gay. He did not want to be gay. He went through a LOT of horrible things in his attempt to stop being gay. He did electro-shock treatment (this is pretty much a torture to an individual), rehab and treatment facilities (just like a drug addict or otherwise), therapy, and anything he could to try to change his SSA. It did not work. It never worked. He remained alone and died alone. Just because you are homosexual does NOT mean you cannot keep the law of chastity (He was not LDS, he did smoke and drink coffee). Just because you are heterosexual does NOT mean you cannot keep the law of chastity either (and if you view the world today, this is probably just as big a problem in movies and our culture). In some ways his story is extremely sad, but in others, you could see it as a triumph (afterall, he helped raise 10 kids at various points). I saw homosexual culture to a degree, but not as much from him, but other activities. The other one who was gay got married, and also partly raised me. One of the activities they felt was important was culture and art, and as part of that, I was one of the few that was in Ballet classes from very young until I was older and decided Ballet was NOT for me. With my training, and the rarity of it at the time, it is very possible if I had wanted to, I could have gone pro. In Ballet when you get older, at least when I was there, there is a LOT of homosexuals in the semi-pro and professional scene, at least for men. Back then it was more of a hidden culture, now I'd say it is more forward. That is NOT my lifestyle, and that is not one I would choose to expose my children to. Both of those men chose various ways to deal with their lives. One chose to get married, and also obeyed the law of Chastity. His love for children (not in a perverted sense, in the way any Mormon or other Christian would want children) was one driving motivation for him to participate in a heterosexual relationship. The story isn't a fairy tale though, and the end is not as happy as many might hope. He remained married, but life was spent more or less apart doing their own separate things when they were old. I feel they have a right to be who they want in the US, but I'd also say there IS an agenda some of them have. I'm not going to go into detail, but overall it's an effort to make what used to be seen as a sin as good, and what is good...evil. To me, those who push the normalization of homosexuality are probably those who are seeking to destroy Christianity and any who believe in the traditional aspects (the commandments in the Bible, etc) of Christianity. Even those who claim Christianity many times, if they are pushing the normalization of homosexuality, are pushing the love everyone idea while ignoring that there are things that we should do if we love the Lord. These people do NOT have our best interests in mind. Not every person with SSA is like this. In fact, a majority just want to live and let live with equal rights. The thing is, for a vast majority of them, if they do not make their lives centered around that idea, and point it out, no one would realize who was homosexual or who was heterosexual for the most part. In many ways it's the extremists who are pushing a lot of what I would see as an agenda, and including things like homosexual relationships in children's films is part of that agenda. IF it is rather blatant in the film, I would also say it is inappropriate, and for that reason, would not want my children to be influenced by it anymore than I would by any of the other ideas that permeate the world that say sinning or fighting against the Lord's commandments are commendable things or ideas. Ironically, there was always speculation by some in that community that a certain character in the original animated Beauty and the Beast was Gay. This was due to his fascination of Gaston. The people today say that including this character as Gay and the scene is a tribute to the composers (who I believe one was gay and died later on while working on other Disney movies) who made the original Beauty and the Beast animated movie. This may be so, but even if that character is or is not Gay in the original animated Beauty and the Beast, it is not something that is explicitly stated in the movie and not something that is clear, nor is it something people can definitively state one way or the other. AS I said, I may see the film to see if it has anything objectionable for children. It is not an outright boycott of mine, but due to the material mentioned, I am not going to simply let my children go and watch it like I might the animated movie.

I'd like to get another home near to where we are now, have around 10 acres, and build my own house...OR, fix up a house I have in another location, add on another bathroom and room, a second house next to it, and settle down living there.

While interesting, I question the validity that someone is assigning to another as a cross dresser, especially in the context of the stage. Up until the 1950s, men dressing as woman on stage was actually far more the norm than the exception in many instances. To equate these as the same as many of those who crossdress in public today, is a rather large fallacy for someone to make. Centuries ago, in most stage productions, the actors were all men. Woman normally did not participate in acting. This meant that when there was a woman portrayed on stage, it was normally a man. So, in the context of William Shakespeare, Juliet most likely was played by a man dressed up as Juliet. This continued up until at least the 19th century, and even then was still very common for men to be acting as women on stage. In fact, many strictly went by which gender they acted as, so if they were good at playing a certain type of woman on stage, that would be what they would normally focus on. Woman started being more acceptable in theater, and it became more common for woman to be in theatrical productions, but it was still common for men to be acting as woman. This was considered a respectable profession, and there were respected actors in that field. In the 19th century, some woman who were in the field were considered to have low morals, as it was more acceptable in many 'romantic' dramas to have men kissing actors portraying woman, than actually kissing woman who they were not married to (weird morality...maybe), if there was any actual kissing even portrayed. There were notable woman actors in the 19th century, but they truly came to prominence at the beginning of the 20th century. Even then, men portraying woman in acting continued, though not as much as it had in the past. In some areas it was due to the availability of woman (as mocked in the film West Point Story with James Cagney), in others it was simply the tradition of that particular acting troupe or theater. Now days, it has pretty much died off, but this is a more recent phenomenon. It can not be denied there was a large amount of those that cross dressed in normal life who were in the theater, as well as homosexuality and other arenas of life, but typically these were not necessarily connected to what happened on stage. An individual who portrayed woman on stage was not necessarily normally a cross dresser, and vice versa, someone who played men on stage may have actually been a cross dresser off stage. One doing one thing, did not correlate to them doing something else. I would like to see the documentation that Morris Young was not simply what some in modern day language would call a Drag Queen Entertainer (Drag Queens dress in woman's clothes, but are not necessarily Gay or cross dressing other than being on stage. They come from all identities, genders, and other forms. Some are also cross dressers or other dynamics in their off stage lives, but many Drag Queens also do it primarily for entertainment of others). Every source I've seen regarding him thus far that try to paint him as something other than doing it simply for entertainment has come from questionable sources (which in typical fashion, are what many would call anti-Mormon resources). I'd be interested in the primary sources which show if he carried this persona beyond the stage into his everyday life, or if it was just a stage persona that he participated in.

Well, it can be expensive to take everyone to the cinema, however the dollar movies had Moana start yesterday. We all hustled down there to try to get to see the movie. It sold out half an hour before it started. I discussed it with my wife and she decided we'd let all the kids stay up really late last night (5 of the kids are still sleeping now after 7AM, only one of them woke up. I gave him the option of playing a game called Dragon Quest Heroes that he got for his birthday in a separate room to keep him quiet, or go off with me to get breakfast, he chose the video game). Of course the kids wanted popcorn and snacks as well. So, at $2 a ticket, we paid $16 total for entry (including the kids, me, and my wife), and then they have these things called kids packs where they have a popcorn, drink, and candy for $4. So, I got each kid one of those for $24. Then, my wife wanted to get a drink and a popcorn so that was another $7. And finally, I got a tub of popcorn to refill the kids popcorn when they ran out for another $5. Total cost for a family night out at the dollar cinema...$52. I can see why we don't go to the movie theater as a family that often. On Moana itself, 4 out of 6 kids give it a thumbs up. 1 out of 6 kids gives it a super thumbs up along with both big toes and their nose. 1 kid says she was neutral on it (but she was sitting right next to me and she was totally entranced the entire time...so I think she liked it more than she says she did). Wife says she liked the music, but doesn't say anything about the rest of the movie, which indicates she didn't like something about the story...but hasn't told me. I liked it. I wondered if they had any input from the Polynesian cultural center or any Mormons were involved with it. It was a pretty fun movie. No real romance in this one, just a fun movie overall. I wonder how much of it was based on real Polynesian or Hawaiian Myths or not.

Off topic, but relavant. On the broken leg thing, I have had health insurance that had policies of only covering you when you went to an assigned medical provider. AS these medical providers were not open on Sunday, it meant unless you wanted to pay for it yourself, risk bill collectors if you didn't (even if the hospital is required to help you, they can also collect the money, or try to), you HAD to go on another day to get medical care. They allowed you to go to certain clinics on Saturday, but nothing they covered was open on Sunday. The only exceptions were things that fell under what THEY considered emergencies. Broken bones did not count. Neither did severe allergic reactions unless you were hospitalized for them (which was frustrating, as we experienced these things personally under our insurance, such as when my wife had an allergic reaction to a medicine that was prescribed to her and started to swell up. We went to an emergency room, but afterwards, as she was not hospitalized and simply got medicine to combat the allergic reaction, were warned by the insurance that this was not something they covered...which kind of annoys me, even today). In the light that insurance companies can try to force such things, I'm not sure if a broken bone that was not taken to an emergency room is necessarily abuse, as waiting to see a medical provider outside the emergency room (which is also cheaper for the insurance companies I might add) seems to be encouraged by a few of the insurance companies out there. Is it annoying...absolutely. However, they do not view it as life threatening apparently.

I've heard varying statistics as well. I had heard that the BYU divorce rate was actually almost 50%, which is surprising. I've also heard that the LDS church nears the national divorce rate on average, but when you look at those who are active in the LDS church and were sealed in the temple it decreases dramatically. It also gives rise to the adage of young woman marrying an Eagle Scout and Returned Missionary, as I think that is tossed into the mix as well with the Temple Marriage and active in the church that has the result being a far lower divorce rate in the LDS church among those individuals than those that are not included in that statistic. Which doesn't mean you HAVE to have all of those items to have a successful marriage...at all. It's just a statistic. There are many in the church that have none of those that are not divorced, and those that have all of those that do get divorced. The best thing I think is to choose wisely...if you can. And if you can't, you can control your own stupidity and act wisely (which means be less selfish and more loving in general)...which I've been blessed with a wife who acts just like that...even when I'm an idiot.

The thing that confuses me at times is that my grandmother has had her ordinances done 4 times now. How many times are they going to keep doing her temple work? Someone entered her name again, I don't know if they'll use that one too. They all show up with her information though.

That wasn't exactly what I understood your links to say. I read it yesterday, but didn't comment on it, as overall I'm trying to remain out of this overall. I understood it that the main purpose was not to reverse global warming. The idea is that with the cold, you spray a coat of water on top of the ice in the cold months which then freezes. An example would be if you had a very cold day outside and then got some water in a spray bottle and started spraying it on top of the ice already there (or your car if you want to see more visible and faster results perhaps). Due to the cold, that spray will freeze forming a layer of ice. Do this enough and constantly enough, and you'll get a thick layer of ice. They want to do this to form a thicker layer of ice on the artic ice (or basically, another layer on top of the existing layer of ice to make more ice there). The goal is to slow down the melting of the ice, as a thicker layer of ice melts slower than a thinner layer of ice. That's the only effect, to slow down ice melt. I suppose the idea is that if they do this, that not as much water goes out into the oceans. Other than that, it doesn't cool down the earth or slow down AGW from their point of view as far as I could see in regards to what the articles were saying.

A little off the topic, but relavant to the post of SWK above...do you have the rest, or the scriptures he quoted. At times when prophets say something, if it is not as the official Prophet, it may be their opinion or thoughts. It does not make it bad guidance, and in fact may be very GOOD guidance, but on a few of those I had my eyebrows raised in questioning. I ask for the following reason... I was a little surprised to see incontinence listed. Utilized in the lesser known and not as often used lack of self restraint...it MAY be. However, in the common usage, there is no way I'd ever consider that a sin. I'd want to see the scripture reference to that to determine what it exactly is referring to, as condemning little old men and little old woman for the failure of their bodies to operate correctly seems a tad harsh when they have no control over what old age does to them. I'm almost positive as I know most of them would prefer NOT to suffer from incontinence if they had any control at all over it, so if it is listed as a sin on top of that...count me...puzzled? The next part is much harder to discuss due to forum rules. Due to this, I am not going to go into explicit detail in the WHY some of the verses in the Bible that are used to explain some things are actually misused, as I feel that is against the forum rules (and in some ways I think this could be right on the edge of that as well, though I am trying to stick to historical legacy and scriptural interpretations on this). I am purposefully trying to stay in the forum rules, though that makes explaining it a tad more difficult. In the bible, it doesn't utilize our modern language, adultery and fornication are blatantly listed. Homosexuality, despite many excuses that some try to make (stating it refers to male prostitution and other fallacies in their interpretation) is also pretty blatantly listed as a sin. In fact, some would ascribe some of those same verses which talk about Homosexuality also referring to Transgender, though in that instance it is normally directly discussing transgendered ideas in regards to prostitution rather than those simply choosing transgendered ideas due to life choices and choosing to live their lives in that fashion. However, masturbation and petting are not listed in the Bible, Book of Mormon or any other scripture either as these words or in other terms. Petting is questionable in some ways, even if it is not listed blatantly, it could be included as inferred in some scriptures that refer to impurity and fornication. Masturbation on the other hand has had two different areas of accusation, the first as it was lumped into sexual impurity or perversion as utilized as an explanation by the Catholic Church (which I believe Mormons are not part of) and though talked about in multiple texts in regards to celibacy among priests (again, which Mormons do not believe in) and that practice, is not something that is found in older documents or texts at all. The second reference in in the 1830s (or thereabouts) where a craze occurred where a story from the Bible took a story completely out of context and created something that many in the medical profession called Onanism based off the Old Testament story. However, by doing this, they misinterpreted what occurred (as in, the story where we get the term Onanism from includes FAR more than self gratification) and the story itself includes TWO individuals where the one is sinning when doing a specific act with another person involved (where as masturbation/Onanism as it became known is only ONE person involved which is actually a pretty key difference). With that misinterpretation, it misses the entire point of the story and the reason for the person's punishment from the Lord. Due to this, Bible scholars have pointed out the inaccuracy of this (even though the term stuck) idea since then and that this story has NO relevance to masturbation that many try to attribute it to. Bar this, there is NO reference that I know of that condemns masturbation in the scriptures. This does not preclude the Catholic Church's interpretation and how it applied it to it's Celibacy ideas with Priests (and as I stated, last I checked the LDS church does not ascribe to that ages old idea from the Catholics) as well as the ensuing diseases resulting from it (which I believe a slang term even called it Priest Disease due to how common it was among Priests due to the policy that resulted in it). We believe in all those as sins and transgressions BECAUSE of our modern prophets, not because they are listed in the scriptures. We treat it as suggested in the Handbook of instructions as per obedience to our leaders rather than anything I know of directly from the scriptures in some cases. This is inspired guidance. I believe SWK was inspired and was an apostle and prophet. These things in the quote ARE things you should not do as you should avoid sin, as we know by our leaders today, past and present. I am not questioning that. However, that does not mean he was always exactly accurate on all things, which is why I'd want to see exactly what his scriptural reference was in regards to his statement above. He is correct, obviously, and divinely guided in his instructions, but I don't see the scriptures he was referring to in the case of a few of the sins that were listed.