Snigmorder

Don't tempt me or I'll tell the zookeepers to fill your water hole with the choicest of liquid compounds.

Looks like it. "In a statement, Dehlin said that he and his wife were proud to stand up for freedom of expression, and gender and marriage equality." A Mormon, or any other pursuer of Christ, who makes dullard leftist superstitions precedent over the uncreated realities of the Eternal Civilization and fails to see the contradiction thereof, is the very definition of complacent or unbelieving. And if one professes to believe and supports the leftist program, they ought to engage in some serious reflection and humility. Because when the Eternal Civilization comes, those philosophies, which were a stumbling block to their faith, will be burned as chaff, and they will be restored to nothing but that which they've sown, like the rest of us. Their virtue signaling and fake moral high ground will have no merit at the Judgment Bar.

The complacency of Mormon stories makes me spit.

@Sunday21

If they were skin tight he wasn't looking at the shins.

If I had kids I'd be afraid to send them to government schools. As a kid I resented the school for making me go and I resented the school for sending homework home with me, basically invading my life outside of school. I resented the whole thing and it made me hate learning. It was a difficult resentment to get over, it even effected my early adult life. The idea of being compelled to read and then having to prove it to the lousy teachers via a reading log sounds like garb. If I had to do this as a kid it would've been a grievous offense. I didn't want to read in grade school, and I had a 12th grade reading level (according to Accelerated Reader anyhow, probably a bunk program.)

*reads title of video* *watches video*

Forget about men. Men and women are theomorphic. This means they look like God the Father. In the restored gospel, we know that Man is theomorphic because Man is the actual offspring of the Father. It is not a respectful or righteous thing to adorn and array, to dress this body, in clothing that is trashy, disgraceful, irreverent, or even clothing that's too expensive or impractical. Now let's come back to men. Like it or not, when you show skin, men notice, and you have made yourself an object of immorality, whether you like it or not (I don't necessarily include or exclude LDS men.) Would you look your Father in the face and tell him "I didn't dress to please you because I didn't want men to control me?" Or a different way "I care more about my pride than Your wishes."

I feel like everyone's a classical feminist.

18% is still too high for a backwards superstition.

Still gotta to be baptized. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5 And you gotta have obedience to the commandments. "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." - Matthew 19:16–17

What's FAIR's most untruthful argument or claim?

Perhaps he wasn't being shown an unbridled view of things, but rather what he ought to see. I would argue it's simply unimportant to mention them in a vision. It seems to me that visions are as concise possible. Same goes for our knowledge of the gospel. We don't need to know about the ancient and eternal woman/women to whom the ancient and eternal Man is married, for example.

Do you have anything to say about FAIR's apologetic work? Because that's how I see FAIR, they're about apologetics, not doctrine. If I were to come across your comment, I would conclude that you find their apologetic arguments "unbalanced and untruthful."

Definitely, I agree.

Official church doctrine has nothing to do with the research of FARMS and FAIR. Official church doctrine does not explain the Kinderhook plates, for example.

Absolutely Fom my own personal experience, masturbation is the catalyst for all other perversions and sexual defilements. I am inadequate to express in words how wrong this practice is. It is not innocent or "not that bad." In my opinion, it is foremost among sexual wrongs, not by law, but by the danger and potential it carries. Pornography is arousal on demand. The things which you see in pornography are things you were never supposed to see. It broadens what's possible in your descent down the hole of depravity, it is a rocket fuel for personal and social wickedness. Couple that with the self agitation of the genitals and you have a disturbing situation. Let me tell you a short story. I've had a masturbation problem since I was 6 or 7 and a pornography problem since 15. The only attraction I'd ever had for girls was "sexual" (or a variation thereof.) They were a pillar of flesh whose individual parts I got to fantasize about and stare at on the computer. Since I'm anonymous, I'll share something else with you, something you might hear when discussing porn addiction. I got bored of "normal porn" and slowly ventured into gay porn, then slowly into beastiality, then slowly into pornographic cartoons of children. The constant sexual haze I had been subject to, and the neurological changes which accompanied it, ruined any normal response to the opposite sex I was supposed to have. This changed at age 22 and only after years of trying to quit and prayer and revelation. As far as I'm concerned it was an act of grace, that the damage I had inflicted upon myself had begun to reverse and a new view of love and women shown to me by revelation. Nowadays, happily for me, a smiling girl is mind blowing, whereas before I wouldn't have noticed, how gray. I still have a problem with pornography and masturbation. However, its not nearly as bad as it used to be. There has been much healing performed. Do not trifle with these things. Get away now.

One of my favorite FAIR conference presentations recently re-posted.

Since we're talking about garments, I have a short story told me by my dad. My dad was helping my uncle move an old metal shed. In the process of moving the shed, the old metal collapsed and tore and came down on my dad's leg. It tore straight through his new denim jeans, but his leg was left uninjured because it hadn't penetrated his garments.

Main issue is that the Africa guy went and told everyone about his alms and how astute he was in learning from the experience.

All of the miracles in the Bible are recorded accounts. We have numerous, perhaps hundreds or thousands, of written accounts of latter-day visitations by heavenly beings by numerous people. Those have as much credence as the accounts of miracles in the Bible. If the latter-day Saints are having heavenly visitations, what does it matter the publicity of prophetic miracles or otherwise? And what about priesthood miracles? I've heard stories that, if written in the king James style, would sound like a miracle performed by Jesus in the New Testament. And what about books which contain no miracles and only prophesying and visions? If the book of Mormon is true, and the testimonies of the witnesses are true, and stories and accounts of heavenly visitations are true, and if personal testimony is true, the issues raised by the question are just details. To quote Tad R. Callister's "The Infinite Atonement." "Does the saviors atonement extend beyond this world? Elder McConkie Todd: "Our Lord's jurisdiction and power extend far beyond the limits of this one small earth on which we do well. He is, under the father, the creator of the world without number. And through the power of his atonement the inhabitants of these worlds, the Revelation says 'are begotten sons and daughters unto God', which means that the atonement of Christ, being a literally and truly infinite, applies to an infinite number of earths." I think Bruce would agree that there was only one atonement performed by Jesus Christ, ever. How any of this works or is possible is a distraction from the real task at hand, In my opinion. The opposing influence of an adversary is absolutely essential to agency and moral choice. All the people here on earth chose to come here and obeyed the Father in doing so. A preexistent man looking the everlasting God square in the face and denying Him is an entirely different manner of disobedience. They disobeyed even in God's presence. Now, in the earth, we have two influences: One of them entices men to do wickedly and the other entices men to do righteously. And men are instructed sufficiently to know the difference. "And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings. [D&C 88:11] From this we learn that the Light of Christ is the creative and governing power for all things in this universe and for all of God’s creations. It is everywhere present. ... I believe that what the scientist calls nature is the Spirit of Jesus Christ. I believe that what the Catholic and Protestant worlds call God is the Spirit of Jesus Christ. And perhaps this is what all religions call God. It is everywhere present; it can dwell in a man’s heart. I believe that what the humanist would call decency and what the man on the street would call common sense is the Spirit of Jesus Christ. We all are partakers of the Spirit. The civilized world has the Spirit of Jesus Christ; and if the people obey it, they will be led to the covenant gospel probably through members of the Church and missionaries. They will pray in their own ways. I’ll never forget the great impression I had in the Irish Mission when I wrote to new converts to obtain an understanding of their background and their conversion process. It was almost universal that they had been praying in some way or hungering in some way, not necessarily in our way but in some way they were hurting and desiring something more, and many of them were trying to be truer to their consciences. They were being prepared by the Spirit of the Lord." - 'An Educated Conscience' given by Stephen R Covey The Holy Ghost does not witness to, or emblazon a testimony for, an organization which isn't the Church of the Firstborn. There's no reason to conclude other people's religious positivity is the Holy Ghost. Abraham was given a second woman to wife and he predates the rigid Mosaic law. Seeing as Abraham sought after righteousness and was obedient and humble before God, I conclude that his plural marriage was not that of the Mosaic fashion. The reason for this is because, in a legal sense, they have not sinned, and therefore the law has no claim on them, this is made possible by the Atonement. The question asking if children who die in their innocence were predestined to do so is irrelevant and useless in my opinion. What evidence is there from which we can draw this conclusion? (Same goes for the idea of "Valiant spirits" being given something.)

I would certainly be confused. Much like homosexual marriage, polyandry makes no sense and has no function.

For some reason polygamy and polygany are synonyms.