selek

False premise. Who here has said anything about ignoring the promptings of the Spirit? I certainly did not. False premise (and false witness). Who here said anything about casting stones? I was talking about confronting and correcting falsehood.Kindly limit your indignation and presumption to what I actually said. It'll make it that much easier to have an adult conversation. Thank you for the stroll down memory lane- but your grandfather isn't the topic of discussion here.If you read my post, you will note that I have nothing but compassion and understanding for people such as your grandfather. I was talking about an entirely different type of individual altogether- one who's actions are overtly hostile and combatative. I would like you to address what I actually said, rather than running around tearing your hair and shrieking hysterically.I said nothing about casting people into the fire. I said nothing about eternal condemnation or damnation. I talked specifically about confronting and contradicting evil and falshoods being circulated about the Church, and about remaining true to our commission and calling. Kindly stop hyperventilating and extend me some of the consideration you insist we should show to open and avowed enemies of the Church. Unless and until you can address my arguments- instead of inventing arguments for me- you (like the rabid apostate) are incapable of holding a rationale, reasoned conversation. Thank you for the sleight about my character and integrity.Rather than address anything I said, you've resorted to vitriol, screaming, misrepresentation, and demonization. Rather than address my arguments, you've attacked ME, as a person. Given the screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth over perceived "attacks" against trolls, rabble-rousers, and apostates, I find it very revealing that this was your first and only recourse. One might wonder who else in this forum is projecting thier sins onto others with whom they disagree...

Miss Halfway, you miss the point.If you read the posts above, you will discover that being an "ex-Mormon"- and worse, being categorized as one- is not about attitude, but about actions. The review linked in the OP of the Dehlin thread is 98 pages of demonstrating how actions outwiegh pretty words. I don't know of any faithful LDS (though logic insists there must be some) who have a problem with someone who simply falls away in disbelief or inactivity and moves on to what they perceive as greener pastures. Where we have a problem is the militant agitator, the bomb-throwing instigator, and the in-your-face Pharisee who is not content to leave the Church, but who insists on justifying his decision by trying to destroy the testimony of others. We, as Latter-day Saints, are commanded to comfort those that mourn and weep with those who are afflicted. While we (as with all men) can do better, in general we do pretty well. We do not seek out people to condemn, but offer compassion, love, and welcome to those who are lost and searching. We do very well in being patient, long-suffering, understanding, and forgiving to those who need or desire these things. On the other hand, we are nowhere, and in no wise commanded to harbor or encourage those who would destroy the faith. In point of fact, we are told NOT to tolerate such individuals in our midst as much for fear of their damnation as our own. As far as an ex-Mormon's motivation goes, very often we can take them at their word. If someone tells me he hates the Church because they didn't peel open his skull with a melon baller and pour in a graduate level course in speculation on Joseph's alleged flaws, I don't need to guess or speculate about his motivation. If someone tells me that he doesn't believe anymore- for whatever reason- I don't need an in-depth, comprehensive psychiatric evaluation to conclude that he isn't interested in being a Mormon. Neither conclusion, however, warrants the individual bashing or attacking the Church, sneering at those who remain faithful, or of using half-truths to attack, belittle, or demonize the Church of Christ. Bull pockey. Your argument is biblically illiterate (or you are being disingenuous). Christ and his disciples call out liars, false prophets, and those who would lead astray the members of the Church with startling clarity and startling regularity. Neither the Savior, nor his Prophets, nor his Disciples had any truck with wolves in sheep's clothing or with those who sought to undermine His work. In point of fact, we are commanded to use righteous judgement in every aspect of our lives- and that includes judging those who desire to separate us from the Church of Christ. Even if it means allowing false prophets access to your children? In other words, if we stop teaching our peculiar doctrines, if we stop proclaiming our peculiar authority and pedigree, if we stop proclaiming those inconvenient truths- if we would just go along to get along- we could win the praise and adulation of the pomp of Babylon.I'm sorry, but my calling and commission as Priesthood Holder and witness for Christ come from the Son of God, not the Church of Public Relations. I understand your desire for the praise of Man, but as for me and my House- we shall serve the Lord. This statement is a classic presentation of Battered Wife Syndrome. Despite all evidence to the contrary, it's OUR fault that they hate us, and if we just love them enough, just compromise our integrity enough, just put up with the bruises and split lips and blackeyes enough, then they'll realize they love us after all. Unfortunately real life doesn't work that way. To continue the analogy, the Church (and the body of believers) are the Bride of Christ- and is in no way deserving of the slings and arrows and lies and slanders which apostates, fools, and turncoats heap on it day in and day out. The notion that we must sit silently and complaisant while the Church is defamed is a fundamentally unhealthy, dysfunctional, and supremely evil mindset.

Why could you not? Assuming you are both faithful members, in sound mind and in good standing and obedient to your covenenants, and not currently married to anyone else, there should be no reason why you could not be sealed in the Temple.

The MADB forum and a bunch ex forums.

And I am just really blown away with the knee-jerk reaction that people have when called on their arrogance and presumption."Contradiction" is NOT "persecution", and trying to determine what it is that you're actually trying to achieve is NOT "avoiding debate". At this point in the conversation, there IS no debate. We are in agreement that abortion is a terribly malignant thing, and a tragedy in nearly all circumstances. The only remaining "difference of opinion" is the idea that others might legitimately think differently than you do. You, however, seem determined to force us "to all sing from your hymnal." That sort of absolutism and moral preening is proselyting, not conversation. Debate is an exchange and analysis of ideas involving different positions. It is NOT you judging and finding us wanting for the crime of not being as "enlightened" as you are. This is still, in point of fact, a board dedicated to explaining and supporting Latter-day Saint theology.It is not- and never will be- your private soapbox from which to brow-beat us with the Gospel According to StephenVH. On the contrary, I asked what you hoped to obtain here- and then explained why I found the guesses of others to be wanting.Isn't that exactly what you claim to be doing? Two things come to mind: The first is to remind you of Luke 4:18 "18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath annointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captive, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised," We already agree that abortion is wrong- so why not save your ministering for those actually in need of it? The second is, "Physician, heal thyself." You didn't answer my question about what it is you hope to obtain- you simply accused me (falsely) of trying to silence you.

Of course not- but see below. Unless such a person is personally involved or specifically ASKED for such an opinion, it would be the height of chutzpah and even arrogance to intrude. Unsolicted advice is seldom welcome- particularly in so personal and painful a circumstance. This decision is a matter of considerable privacy- and for the faithful Latter-day Saint- one of considerable pain. It is not something to be bantered about with Mrs Kravitch, Aunt Ethel, or Joe the Barber. Someone exercising that degree of intrusive meddling in my family's private affairs- without an explicit invitation- would receive a firm but clear, "BUTT OUT!"- followed as necessary by a free ride on the first boot out the door. Even assuming that your guess is correct, however, the problem remains: Steven started the conversation with a question, but is now lecturing us about how the answers he received are all "wrong". That's preaching, not inquiring. That's proselyting, not discussion. He's gone from asking a question to making a sales pitch. That behavior is made considerably more annoying by the fact that no one here actually disagrees with the notion that abortion is wrong- let alone expressed such a notion. We understand his position- and most of us agree with it. So why is he flogging a dead horse, if not to "cry repentance" unto a God-fearing people for the heinous sin of not thinking exactly the way he does?

Stephen- what do you hope to accomplish in this thread? You asked how others defend abortion in the case of rape and incest. Your question has been answered- and yet you continue to argue that the answers you were given are all wrong. As several have stated- we are not embracing or endorsing these rationalizations. On the one hand, we are not obliged to defend positions we do not hold. On the other- we not under ANY obligation to justify ourselves to you- only to the Lord. We as Latter-day Saints- and a the Latter-day Church- have decided that in rare cases such as rape and incest, a blanket rule is not advisable, wise, or even compassionate. We leave it to the individual Saints to petition the Lord in humility and faith and determine the best course of action for themselves. Lecture us all you like, but it is not we who must be convinced.

Is she open to hearing more? Or is her mind made up? I would suggest that peruse the articles at the following link in order to become well-enough versed to discuss the issues with her: Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood - FAIRMormon Are Mormons Christian? | BlacksInTheScriptures.com The only other advice I can offer at the moment is to humbly and faithfully lay your burders before the Lord in prayer- and ask him to grant you the words to show that what you are doing is right in his sight, and to soften your parents hearts towards your decision. Congratulations and good luck.

One thought that occured to me while I was reviewing the thread earlier today: "Ex-"smokers, "ex-"addicts, "recovering" alcoholics, ex-prositutes, and ex-used car salesmen all define themselves by something they are not anymore. In every instance, whatever categorization they use (be it smoker, addict, alcoholic, Congressman, etc.), it is nearly always something they are running away from. The negative connotion is implicit and well-nigh inescapable. Those who call themselves "ex-Mormon", "ex-Catholic", or "formerly sane" are implicitly revealing a negative attitude towards their former allegience, condition, or lifestyle. Whenever someone says, "She turned me into a newt!", followed by the statement, "I got better...", that individual is implicitly stating that "being a newt" is a less-than-desirable state of affairs. On the other hand, I occasionally refer to myself as ex-Navy when there are far, far worse things I could have been (such as Air Force). Now....if you need me, I'll be looking for a little peril at Castle Anthrax.

Show off.

I think that this is a matter of "letter of the law" versus "spirit of the law".In the strictest sense, your parsimonious approach is the correct one. On-paper, an "ex-Mormon" is someone who used to be Mormon, but is not any longer. That having been said, the usage of the vernacular is also correct. Words are used to convey ideas- and thus have meaning beyond their strict dictionary definition. Because the term allows us to accurately and concisely convey and discuss a reality that each of us has experienced, the usage- and the connotations attached- are valid. If, on the other hand, we were taking the Alice-in-Wonderland caterpillar approach of "when I use a word, it means precisely what I wish it to mean and nothing more", then the use would be invalid- special pleading, at best. It is the term's usefulness- it's validity as a means of exchange- that gives it meaning.

Yeah- but $1.35 million? For ten years? The article specified that the requirement required that all of the streetsigns, letterhead, etc. would need to be changed and that a ceremony presenting them with a key to the city would be required. I seriously doubt the $1.35 mil would cover the costs the town would be incurring, let alone making it "worth their while". Call me unsubtle, but I've got very specific ideas about where they could put said key. I am inclined to agree- but that's still three whole minutes that could've been spent on something more relevant: like outlawing nuclear weapons inside city limits. And I think this is the fundamental truth of the matter.It was never a serious offer- only a cheap publicity stunt- and a waste of taxpayer time and money to even consider. Of course, if you're going to exploit women for sex, why not exploit the taxpayer, too. Heck, Congress does it- why not sugardaddy.com?

For myself, I draw the same distinction (as others have already mentioned) between "former Mormons" and "ex-Mormons". "Former Mormons" are people who have left the Church for whatever reason and who have gotten on with their lives. "Ex-Mormons", in my vernacular, are those who have left the Church but feel a nigh-overwhelming need to justify that decision to all and sundry. It closely parallels a joke I heard growing up. Said a father to his son, "Son, never ask a man if he is from Texas. If he is not, you don't want to embarass him. If he is, he'll tell you soon enough."

I am appalled at 1) the sheer effrontery of it, and 2) that they had to actually consider it before bouncing them out of town on their heads.

"The peasants are revolting!" "Yes, my Lord. But now they're rebelling!"

Now? Now can I go all "medieval" on them?

Yeah- but it still looks like she's got a knife behind her back...

This analogy is deeply and fundamentally flawed, and is in fact contrary to scripture and the Gospel.We, as Latter-day Saints are commanded to by wise and discerning, and to use good judgement every day, every moment of our lives. Every time we are confronted with a choice between good and evil, we are making a judgement. Do you prohibit your children from hanging around with known drug dealers? Congratulations- you just made a judgement. Do you allow your teen daughter to spend alone time with the forty-year-old man in the trenchcoat who just wants to take some art pictures of her in the privacy of his mother's basement? Congratulations, you just made another judgement. Knowing his current positions and attitude, would you want bigernflo as your ten-year-old's Sunday School teacher or Scoutmaster? Congratulations, you just passed judgement on bigernflo. So spare me the histrionics. Contrary to the special pleading, touchy-feely politically correct nonsense, we are COMMANDED to be good judges, wise as serpents, and to confront, resist, and rebuke evil. The idea that we are not allowed to judge is a lie, propogated by the father of all lies. No one in this thread has judged, let alone condemned the OP. We have expressed our concerns about his opinions, attitudes, and actions, but NO ONE here has consigned him to Outer Darkness or labelled him a Son of Perdition. We have judged his attitudes, his actions, and his agenda. Kindly show me one ounce of evidence that we have judged unrighteously. No one has "condemned or hated" the person- we have in every instance attacked his attitude, his agenda and his behavior. And still you complain. Does that include the judgement and condemnation you are meting out on those willing to take bigernflo to task for his false doctrine? As I have already said twice- the response bigernflo received is directly attributable to his conduct on this board.Had he come to us in any other way, he would have been treated far, far differently. Had he showed any interest in learning the truth- as opposed to preaching his new Gospel despite any and all correction- he would have been handled far, far, differently. I understand that you're convinced that sugar attracts more flies than vinegar, but sometimes the truth must be stated plainly and without prevarication. All opinions are NOT created equal, and all truth is NOT relative. Bigernflo came here (by his own admission) specifically to promote false doctrine and to stir up the Saints to contention. The Savior explicitly condemns both behaviors. Your claim that I have judged bigernflo is false. To continue to repeat it is to bear false witness- something else the Savior had little patience for. I get that you don't particularly like my methods. I don't particularly care. For all the handwringing, tearing of hair, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, not a single one of the wilting violets has shown that my statements were factually or doctrinally incorrect. But kindly refrain from misrepresenting me or my position based on the fact that you have a problem with my approach.

Such thoughts- and guidelines-are not exclusive to Catholicism.All these things are equally true to LDS understanding. Agreed, in all respects. This is unfortunately, a matter of opinion, rather than of fact. While I generally agree with you, these statements are our personal interpretation of God's law.In point of fact, there have been many instances in the OT where the innocent blood was spilled- where women and children were put to death simply because God was punishing their nation as a whole. We like to pretend that Herod's murder of children was a unique and totally unjustifiable abberation- but the Israelites themselves conducted such wholesale bloodlettings several times in their history. The only objective difference is that we believe God ordered them to commit such acts. Would we be as quick to condemn Herod if he had instead been acting at the behest of John the Baptist?

Price check! Aisle Seven! Can we get a moderator to compare the IP addresses of the OP in both this thread and in Bigernflo's latest foray into the joys of being stoned?

TPV, you are absolutely correct: the worth of even a single soul IS great in the eyes of God.So which approach do you think will save more souls: mollycoddling Bignernflo's heresy? Or slapping it down harshly and unequivocably? The best analogy I can think of right now is that Bigernflo's philosophy is a single cancer cell. If we tolerate it, we will allow it to spread, causing greater harm to the body. If we instead excise it early, we save ourselves a great deal of trouble down the road. In the vein of your complaint, however, I want to ask: How much respect did the Savior show for the merchants and salesman he drove out of the Temple with a hand-made whip? How much respect did the Savior show for the Pharisees who laid in wait for him trying to trip him up and preaching false doctrine to the children of Israel? In both cases, Christ was merciless, because the objects of his ire were impenitent, keen on teaching falsehood as truth, leading the children of God astray, and in digging a pit for their neighbor. Bigernflo has done all these things. Had Bigernflo come here with questions, had he come here in penitence and humility, indeed- had he come here for any reason other than to FLAUNT his sin and encourage others to join him in it- the reception he got would have been far, far different. Still, I want to be fair about this, so let's parse out the posts which have caused so much heartburn: This is indeed an opinion, and a derisive one at that. But at who or what is it directed?Did I say bigernflo was "the stupidest poster in the history of the boards"? No- I said the comment was stupid- and I went on to explain, with facts, why I felt that way. This could have been framed a lot better- but it was still directed at the calibre of the argument, not at the individual himself.I, for one, assume that bigernflo is capable of much more cogent and rationale thought than has thus far been displayed. This statement is a logical conclusion given that marijuana use and possession without a prescription remains a crime in nearly every state of the union.Bigernflo admitted that the first time he tried marijuana, it was a joint that was prescribed for someone else. Obtaining or using a precription under false pretenses remains a serious crime- a felony in most instances. You may not like the way I said it, but what I said is perfectly accurate. Again, everything I said in this piece is scripturally and factually accurate. Note that I did not attack bigernflo as a person once- in every instance I was attacking his position, his argument, and his personal philosophy. Condemning his agenda, his reasoning, and his actions is a far cry from damning him. Again- everything I said here is scripturally and logically justifiable.I did not call bigernflo names, nor did I attack his looks, his weight, his oral hygeine, or his parentage. I attacked his mindset, his attitude, his arguments, and his conduct. And those- like the conduct and arguments of the money changers in the Temple, the Pharisees who laid in wait to trap the Savior, and anti-Christs such as Korihor, are fair game. You may not like the way I said it- but you cannot deny that what I said is true. Al that having been said- I am not the topic here, and will not respond to any further derailments towards that end. I thank you for your opinion, but sniping at me does nothing to combat the falsehoods being propagated in our midst.

The most common reason people believe abortion is wrong is because it takes the life of a baby innocent of any crime save existing. The child is not responsible for the actions which brought him or her into existence- but it is the child all the same who bears the full weight and burden of the "corrective" action. An abortion- without exception- is the shedding of innocent blood. In most cases, it is also the ending of a human life. The rationale for an exception in the case of rape or incest revolves primarily around the repugnancy of those crimes- and argues that carrying the child to term and/o raising that child further victimizes the mother (who is also, in the case of rape and incest) an innocent. The question then becomes which innocent party shall we victimize? I don't necessarily agree with the premises being argued, but there are many who do without guile and in good conscience. The bottom line, to me at least, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has unequivocally and unwaveringly condemned abortion-as-birth-control, abortion-on-demand, and abortion-for convenience in the clearest and harshest terms. In the case of rape, incest, or serious medical threat to the life and health of the mother, abortion may be necessary. In such extreme circumstances, a blanket ruling will not suffice; and the family must decide for themselves- in close consultation with their Bishop and prayerful communion with the Lord- what the best course of action is.

While I sympathize with your pain Dove, this is an apples-and-oranges comparison.Your loved one is not here (on a family and LDS board) teaching false doctrine, promoting the habit, and bearing false witness (by using the Church in an attempt to justify his breaking of the law). Your loved one is not trying to subvert the teachings of the Church in order to justify sin. We, as Latter-day Saints are commanded to repudiate false doctrine when it is presented to us.I don't believe for a moment we can help bigernflo. He is unrepentant and militant in justifying his sin. By his own admission, he did not come here with questions, but with an agenda- not to learn, but to preach the Gospel According to BigernFlo. Therefore the only thing we can do is expose his position for the damnable mockery that it is.

Membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neither a promise nor a hope that life thereafter shall be free from worry, disappointment, hardship or strife. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something. While we can hope that our loved ones will follow us into the Church, we are also warned quite explicitly in Matthew 10:34-38: If the new convert is not willing to take up his (or her) cross, and do what they know to be right regardless of all things, then they are unworthy of Christ. This isn't a Mormon thing. It's a matter of eternal law.

I've heard good things about this product: Soft Smooth Skin- get Udderly Smooth Skin