AnthonyB

Why would someone want to be polygamous..... 1) They believe God commanded them to do it (eg Joseph Smith) 2) My observation is that especially in older age groups there is often an imbalance that means there is not enough men for the available women in many faith communities.1/2 of a good man may be better then not partner for some woman. 3) Outreach situation where within the group being reached it would be advantageous for the people working to build cultural bridges. Also in some cultures a single woman would find it much harder to work then a married woman and in some groups the numbers of woman wanting to work as missionaries is greater than the number of men. Just wanted to add that I don't personally support polygamy but just highlighting reasons people could have to support it...

If the LGBTI movement wants true (and total) equality then there are some areas where they are not fully equal and in which equality would be very difficult to enforce. 1) Procreation No child can currently be born by a non hetero couple that is a genetic blend of only that couple, there must always be a 3rd person involved either for genetic material and aslo sometimes gestational input. The creation of children is usually more expensive (IVF, surrogacy costs) One of the primary drivers of life is reproduction, our biology is not technologically aware, so exclusively non hetero people surely have the dilemma around their inability to procreate. If I was born unable to precreate (whether it be natural or not), it would be hard not to see that as a disability. 2) Partnering There is some conjecture on % but taking two commly quoted numbers. If the % of LGBTI people is 10%, non LBGTI people have around 8-9 times the number of available partners in a population. If % is closer to 4%, then that number increases to over 20 times and in smaller number sets they take a number from there own side of the pool. (ie At 4%, that would mean 2% of gay men (& 2 % lesbian roughly) but in a population of 100, there would be only 2 gay men, leaving only 1 possible partner (ie each other).) It is no easy matter for many people to find a life partner, but the % above make that seemingly a far greater challenge. 3)Genetic/Biological predisposition If, as often asserted, being LGBTI is natural, then it is likely that genetic/biological markers or predisposing identifiers for this natural conditon will be identify. Given the prevalance of gender selection through technology and reproductive choices (aka abortion), even in places were it is outlawed, it is not hard to imagine that people will choose to select away from having LGBTI children.We already dispose of surplus embreyos in IVF, it is not hard to imagine that this will take place.

Donations to churches are not tax deductible in Australia. Only to registered charities which work on charitable work not religious activities. Min 10% of money in a the church I currently attend goes to foreign missions. Separate donation is given for special Christmas present, which generally goes to large project overseas. Also do separate offering once a month for local support of people. We did have a tax exempt for building works that were used for education purposes (eg sunday schools) but this has been recently removed.

LDS were strong influenced by Christian Primitivism, it is telling that the frst non LDS to write a review of BoM was Alexander Campbell and he is the only non LDS person mentioned by name in the King Follett Discourse. As to whether it was naive to think that people that people could get along without creeds, it has been done but not in the US. I will note that many groups are divided in the US that are not divided elsewhere in the world.

Back to the original question about "creeds being an abonimation", Joseph Smith was mirroring standard Christian Primivitism in what he said, which was much wider then the LDS church. It has to be placed within the context of not how we use creeds today but the usage and results of them to someone living in the 1820's. Churches at that time seemed to be splitting to ever smaller groups and arguing and bickering over minutae of their ever growing and precise creeds. Here is Alexander Campbell on creeds, "Human creeds have made more heretics than Christians, more parties than reformations, more martyrs than saints, more wars than peace, more hatred than love, more death than life." (Campbell-Rice Debate, p. 765) Barton Stone "It may be asked again–Have you no creed or confession as a common bond of union? We answer, yes. We have a perfect one, delivered us from heaven and confirmed by Jesus and his Apostles–we mean the New Testament. We have learned from the earliest history of the church to the present time, that the adoption of man-made creeds has been the invariable cause of division and disunion. We have, therefore, rejected all such creeds as bonds of union, and have determined to rest on that alone given by divine authority, being well assured that it will bind together all who live in the spirit of it. Or Thoman Jefferson, "You ask my opinion on the items of doctrine in your catechism. I have never permitted myself to meditate on a specific creed. These formulas have been the bane and ruin of the Christian church, its own fatal invention, which, through so many ages, made of Christendom a slaughter-house, and at this day divides it into casts of inextinguishable hatred to one another." (Cousins, p. 158)

Nearly every Christian group I can think of has another group that doesn't accept them as "true" Christians. It is almost the one true mark of being a Christian. Whether you believe in: The "full" gospel aka the bits I've got underlined The "restored" gospel aka the bits you've deleted or ignored The "apostolic" gospel aka the bits that our anscestor got told that you didn't The "reformed" gospel aka the bits some guys worked out everyone else got wrong The "liberal" gospel aka the bits that makes sense to someone with a modern belief system There is someone for all of us, who has got the "gospel" so wrong that we all find it hard to understand how their view can be related to the gospel truth.

IrishColleen, My guess is that her parents would react rather like a Baptist parent would if their children became LDS, Bahai or JW (for example). I'm guessing nominal LDS parents would react differently then more faithful LDS parents. Also given the historic aminosity between LDS and traditional Christians, there may be a part of teenage differentiation as part of the response. There can be conflict caused by choices between traditional Christians groups yet alone for choices outside your own sphere.

As a non LDS poster, the reason I like this forum is that LDS so often come to scripture from such a different perspective. I enjoy the comparisons and exchange of ideas. As an example, I am now much more appreciative of Jesus suffering in the garden, then before talking to LDS. .

A reasonable concise discussion of amill http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/amillennialism The millennium is now, Jesus is already reigning, he just hasn't extended his rule fully to earth. There will be a judgment at the 2nd coming, those outside of covenant with Jesus will be excluded from God's presence. Those in covenant will be in the new heaven and new earth. I also do not believe in a literal pit of fire, as a physical flame roasting people. I don't think God will inflict physical pain on people. He will just remove the grace of His constraint on peoples evil desires and actions. People will burn with unchecked desires and evil actions. They will get what they want but in doing so will create a godless hell. Evil will be unquenched and there will be no check on it from God.

Mordorbund, There are three views on millennium held by traditional Christians Premillennialism- the most common view amongst evangelicals, Jesus returns before the millennial reign. 7 year tribulation which Jesus returns either at the start, middle of end of, then the millennial reign (ie 1000 years), after that the final judgment. Postmillennialism - very common in 19th century, where over a 1000 year period things get better and better (ie more Christians., more Christian like society) and then Jesus returns Amillenialism -holds that the millennium is symbolic language and there is no literal 1000 year reign on earth. Jesus is reigning now in heaven and one day Jesus will return, there will be the final judgment and there will be a new heaven and new earth. I believe the last one best accounts for the biblical evidence but it has a lot to do with how you read Revelation. ie In my opinion an Apocalypse has to be read as part of that genre and not a book of literal history of events but a book of symbolic retelling in various repeated examples of what the kingdom of God is like. It should be viewed something like a impressionist painting, don't obsess over the placement or meaning of individual dots but stand back and marvel at the whole pictures it creates of Jesus victory over evil

Just got Netflix and noticed this movie on it. (Only officially arrived in Aus about a month ago) PC did you watch it and is it worth my time? As for a Mormon sign, I have never meet a Mormon in my life (that I knew was a Mormon, outside the 2 misso's I arranged to get the BoM from) So I'm not sure what I'd be looking for, except that the blokes would be very likely wearing ties. Although in hot weather (say 40' C + ) having to ensure that your sacred clothing is covered might make Mormon's standout. I'm largely evangelical , but have never watched "Left Behind", as I'm amillennial not premillennial.

To the excellent advice given on many of the posts of this thread I'd only add two thoughts... What you give value to, your heart will tend to begin to love. Learn to give value to your wife, it is always easier to see faults then the good in poeple. Work with ALL your strength and might at this marriage, at yourself as a man and husband. Expend every effort and value your marriage covenant. Even if the worst still happens, by your effort you will be hopefully have made yourself a better person and a better future spouse.

I'd consider myself evangelical. (but also restorationist and charismatic both of which would have some historically exclude me from being evangelical) It is often used of a section of a particualr denomination ( which are often similair to what is described above) So in Anglicanism, there are three main wings, Liberal, Evanglelical and Anglo-Catholic. Although it is not in the NAE list, I'd say even the SDA's for example have both traditional and evanglical leaning members. As an odd aside, I here it pronounced in the US as evan-gelical, starting like the boys name Evan. In Australia it is said as E-van-gelical, saying the letter E and then the word van, almost like the word "even".

lordie, God heart and intention was that all the disciples of His Son should be one. Jesus prayed for that in his last hours. All disciples of his should seek that. However people having free will or agency however can make choices. The reasons for the divisons are many and varied, sometimes culture, tradition get between people, somtimes we react against another person, or someone offends us so we look for fault. I could go on for pages for things that have caused division. We are all hopefully doing our best to follow the light that Jesus left us thorugh his Word and example. I would however point out for all the pain of division and my personal desire for Christian unity, God has crafted some beautiful things from the brokeness of his people. The exuberance and vibrancy of Pentecostal worship, the dedication to socail service of the Salvo's, the beautiful simplicity of breaking bread amongst Christian Brethren, the exisquite cathedrals of more traditional churches, the depth of theolgical thought in the Reformed churches. Just as race was brought about by sinfulness of people at Babel and despite the awful things that division has been used for, still I see incredible beauty in difference displayed amongst various people. So I think ouir sinfullness has led to us being splitt but God has still worked to transform a single vase into a mural that in many ways He has made more beautiful.

PC, Alexander Campbell was a strong supporter of TC but not "creedal" TC, restoration (for him) was removing newer traditons to return to as near as he could to the original tradition. Anyway my point was more that the creeds were used abonimably in that era in a way that they tend not to be used today. I am not a follower Joseph Smith, but i could well imagine Jesus describing creeds as an abomination, not for the content but for the use they were put to. The pain and suffering caused by people enforcing words and meanings, outside of any NT mandate, on other believers as mandatory was horrid. We both view ourselves as TC's but although I grew up in a tradition that chose to ignore the creeds in favour of the bible (well actually more our covenant book, the NT.) Thinking creeds are bad is not uncommon among CoC'ers etc but many Baptists as well. As we have discussed previously I have no problem with anything in the Nicene creed but I know that is at least one line of it that you (and most evanglelicals outside Lutherans and RM'ers) would disagree with. (ie I believe in one baptism for the remssion of sins.)

I think that maybe some historical context needs to be added around calling creeds an "abomination". At the time Smith used the phrase in the early 1800's, from my reading of history they were often used very differently then today. It was not uncommon for them to be used as heartless means of breaking people with questions and excluding them, churches were splitting over ever finer points of doctrine and anathemizing each other. Alexander Campbell: "Human creeds have made more heretics than Christians, more parties than reformations, more martyrs than saints, more wars than peace, more hatred than love, more death than life." (Campbell-Rice Debate, p. 765) Thomas Jefferson: "You ask my opinion on the items of doctrine in your catechism. I have never permitted myself to meditate on a specific creed. These formulas have been the bane and ruin of the Christian church, its own fatal invention, which, through so many ages, made of Christendom a slaughter-house, and at this day divides it into casts of inextinguishable hatred to one another." (Cousins, p. 158)

carlimac, The prayer in the book of Moroni, were you pray to see if the BoM is indeed the word of God.

Biology generally occurring factors come in a ranges not neat on/switches, even with gender the most bipolar of genetic traits, there are people who are biologically indeterminate. I think there are multiple factors involved but lets just for example simplify it to two, gender attraction and libido. Someone who is exclusively SSA but has a very low libido would probably find it easier to divert their attraction then someone with a high libido.

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends. I just wanted to say maybe we should think of more and better ways to celebrate the choice to carry a baby to term, even if the circumstances aren't perfect.

Although we don't think of it LDS terms, TC's do believe in temple worship and having a high priest. Jesus is our high priest interceding for us, a perfect, infalliable always reliable and effective high priest. He is our prophet, seer and revelator. One that anyone of us can approach at any time and for any need. We don't have temples on earth but we have a temple in heaven that we all have access to. When we worship in a spiritual sense we are partaking in the temple worship that is in heaven. It is as if God has removed the veil between our chapel and the heavenly temple where he is.

My beach towel has dark spectral colours (eg rainbow), bought it about 10 years ago. Coming from a extremely conservative country town I had no idea of the modern association of the rainbow, just thought it looked scientific. Still use it cause I don't believe in giving up symbols and I don't care what other people think. Every time I see the rainbow I'm reminded that even though God is patient with wickedness he will eventually punish it.

I think the most defining difference from which many of the other difference flow from, is that LDS see God and man as one species, whereas TC's see God as a diety and man as his creation.

Jamie123. Ahhh so you've got a copy of the..... Wicked Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have had the impression that our societies (ie Western cultures) have been "degenderizing" for the last 40 years. Each individual step may at times seem beneficial or even trivial but I can't help see the pattern. A relentless tide to remove gender. Now as Christians (LDS or traditional) gender is seen from scripture as a God given gift, to assist us in understanding the fullness of God (although we disagree on what this fullness is). The trick is to differentiate between what is merely a cultural tradition and what is intrinsic to gender. Speaking for myself, having grown up with an absent father, Father's Day was not a day I enjoyed as boy, it reminded me of what I didn't have. However those feelings are part of the spur to ensure that I'm not an absent Dad, it has helped drive me to aim to be a better Dad then mine was to me.

Australians only tip for exceptional service. Our minimum wages are quite a bit higher then the US and it has just never been part of our culture. But if I'm ever in the US I'll tip 20% service staff but to be honest the whole tipping system leaves me very confused.