selek

This is, hands down, the single stupidest comment I've seen on this website- an achievement in and of itself.Cigarettes are legal in every state of the union- yet 60% of those sold and smoked in New York city are illegally smuggled. Six million Chinese counterfeit cigarettes were seized in a single raid in Manhattan. And that's for a legal product. If you're going to post here, please be sober when you do so. Medical marijuana is indeed legal in some states: transferring or obtaining prescription drugs under false pretenses, however, remains a felony. Congratulations: your "innocent" little past-time has already turned you into a self-confessed criminal. Well done! "Not harmful to the body"- newsflash: not all harm is physiological. A great deal of the harm you are doing to yourself is psychological, and more fundamentally, moral. The fact that you are here arguing that something the Church has explicitly rejected and cautioned against is somehow justifiable is a classic example of "calling evil 'good' and 'good evil'." You are here agitating to justify your sin and persuade others to think as you do. You are hear proclaiming the false notion recounted in 2 Nephi: "8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God." Aside from the board rules against proselyting, this behavior, too, is Scripturally and morally indefensible. With any luck the moderators will quickly awaken to a remembrance that this is a family board, not Craigslist.

There is a God. He is your Heavenly Father, and he loves you deeply, perfectly, and eternally. I know this because- despite every reason not to- he even loves me.

And so...like any new convert....you felt the need to return and "cry repentance" to the unfortunate wretches and lamentable dupes you left behind... Gee, thanks. As others have shown, your condemnation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is built on a false premise. We DO minister to the lost, the fallen, and the needful. We DO reach out to the sinner and invite them to come to Christ. By way of full disclosure, my family has been involved with the Salvation Army for four generations. My great-uncle died not too long ago a Major in the S.A. Walt Winters Obituary: View Walt Winters's Obituary by Rockford Register Star We, as a family, are both proud and grateful for his service and his dedication to Christ. But we love and respect him with few illusions about the earthly organization which he served. Like any other earthly organization- and despite what your new-convert-blush is telling you, the Salvation Army is not perfect. While I won't say that there was out-and-out coersion involved, my family has seen a lot of arm-twisting, and a lot social and religious pressure brought to bear- even to putting the organization before the welfare of one's family and children. Yes- the Salvation Army does corporal work, and I happily support their missions to the indigent, the lost, the hungry, the cold, and the drifting. But your "my new church is better than your church" rant is myopic at best.

Setting aside from the fragmented (nay, shattered) nature of that thought, it is important for you to realize that the Book of Revelations (especially the Book of Revelations) is written as metaphor and symbolism. I recommend the following piece by Gerald N. Lund: Seeing the Book of Revelation As a Book of Revelation - Ensign Dec. 1987 - ensign "But in a study of the book of Revelation, the interpretation of symbols becomes essential. The Apocalypse was painted with a symbolic brush. The palette was filled with metaphors, similes, symbols, and images, which require that we study it with those in mind. " For myself, I want to say bluntly that the idea that "if you don't agree with my interpretation of Scripture then you're in denial" is a particularly vile piece of binary thought. It is not indicative of a mind open to learning, nor of one receptive to new thought or wisdom.

So, in other words, even the "proof" Maureen offered for her tendentious accusation turns out to be no proof at all. The only support for her allegation is that the survey was taken within a year or two of the changes. By that standard, one might just as credibly argue that the changes in the endowment were "spurred" by the opening of the first McDonald's in Russia (which took place only a month or so earlier).

We know that that which is evil and sinful cannot tolerate the unfiltered presence of God. Can you imagine what it would be like to be damned, stripped of the veil, and yet still unable to escape his presence? In that sense, Hell and Outer Darkness would be a mercy, not a torment.

MS, One of the tenets of the LDS faith is that ALL will have the opportunity to hear and accept the Gospel- whether in this life or the next. This is the primary reason we do baptisms and other ordinances on behalf of the dead: so that those who choose to accept the fullness of Christ's gospel may do so without waiting for ordinances that can be performed only in mortality. While we agree with other denominations that this is the life we are given to repent and make our lives right with God- but those whom the Lord feels have not received a fair and free opportunity to do so will be afforded the opportunity before the final judgement. Under no circumstances does this knowledge justify us in procrastinating our repentance- we will be judged according to the light we have received. While we as Latter-day Saints are somewhat reluctant to embrace the traditional concept of Hell and its associated imagery (demons, pitchforks, flames and endless Friends re-runs), we do nonetheless believe that Outer Darkness is a close analogue. According to LDS theology, there are four kingdoms in the afterlife: three within Heaven and then Outer Darkness/Hell. Those who made the most of their opportunities to become Christ-like (or according to God's perfect knowledge, would have had they been given the chance) will reside in the highest, or Celestial, Kingdom. Those good and godly who walked uprightly before the Lord- but who would not accept the fulness of his Gospel, will reside in the Terrestrial Kingdom. Those who have (ultimately) paid for their own sins (instead of accepting the Atonement) will reside in the lowest or Telestial kingdom. Outer Darkness/Hell is reserved specifically for those who not only reject Christ's mercy, but who also wage war against him and seek to undermine his divine mission. Despite our other disagreements, I have to agree with StephenVR- your ultimate reward will be what you make of it. One more point (before the meds kick in and I forget): We do not believe that perfect justice requires (or even allows) an endless punishment for a finite crime. Or to put it another way: "A just God will not **** you to Hell for all eternity because you once stole a candy bar when you were five years old." In this instance "Eternal punishment" refers to the type of punishment, rather than it's duration. Among God's titles are the terms "everlasting", "eternal", and "without end". "Eternal punishment" does not refer to punishment without end, but rather to divine punishment as meted out by God.

Vort: unless of course one counts Stalin and Lenin's war against the peoples of Russia and eastern Europe (most of whom were their own citizenry) in the name of scientific socialism, or the millions who died in Southeast Asia in the name of the same cause. Remember: socialism was repeatedly cast as a rationale, scientific discipline and as the logical and inevitable result of the process of history.

In other words, you're going to believe what you want to believe, no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented because it suits your presumptions and assumptions to do so. You are correct that the First Presidency did not explicitly state that the survey had nothing to do with the changes. You postulate that because they did not explicitly deny that the survey was a factor, the survey then becomes the most probable factor "prompting" the changes. Using that "logic", one might just as readily argue that the fact that the First Presidency did not explicitly deny the involvement of aliens in their deliberations becomes proof that alien intervention is the most probable cause of the changes. Both arguments are equally ridiculous and both are a logical fallacy of the "have you stopped beating your wife?" variety. No- the First Presidency did not explicitly deny that the either the survey or little green men were involved in their decision to make the changes. They did, however, provide us a list of what was involved- and neither the survey nor the Greys were on that list. Elvis sightings are also common- but that doesn't mean I give them any credence, either. I am not dismissing the possibility that the survey was a factor in the changes that were made, nor would I think less of the Church leaders if it were so.I simply take exception to your airy and unfounded notion that it must be so- particularly given the singular lack of any evidence to support that contention. You have provided nothing except your unvarnished and unsolicited theory that this is the case, whereas I and others have provided evidence to the contrary. Evidence (and fact) trumps theory in every case. But do you understand them?It's one to speculate about the taste of a cookie while reading the list of ingredients. It's something else to actually put the cookie in your mouth and taste it. It is one thing to participate the Temple ordinances when quickened by the Spirit, and yet another thing entirely to read them in the various cesspools of internet anti-Mormonism. To summarize your position: You have never participated in Temple ordinances.Your entire exposure to Temple ordinances derives from looking up the rites on the Internet.To satisfy the itch of curiousity, you have profaned our most sacred rites by skimming them- out of context- from sources hostile to and dismissive of our faith.Based on that which you have received through fraud, deceit, and desecration, you presume to lecture us about which of the two is better.You insist- based solely on the coincedence of timing and your own biased opinion- that our leaders made these changes in response to public opinion DESPITE an explicit statement to the contrary made by those same leaders.And yet you still expect us to treat you as though your opinions are singularly unbiased and that you have not already made up your mind about us...

Call For References please, Maureen.Please cite a credible source that indicates that the changes were caused a/o driven by the survey, instead of by revelation. Ill-informed speculation, empty what-if's, and "best guesses" based on I-can-see-it-happening-that-way don't count. I will not link the source (they are a notoriously bigoted anti-Mormon ministry who actually cite the Endowment), but even they acknowledge this statement from the First Presidency: "Since the temple Endowment was first administered in this dispensation, minor changes have been made from time to time by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, acting unitedly in their capacity as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. After an exacting and extensive review, and following solemn prayer on many occasions in the Upper Room of the Salt Lake Temple, modifications in the Endowment ceremony have been recently made by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Those of you who are familiar with the ceremony will recognize these changes which do not affect the substance of the teachings of the Endowment, nor the covenants associated therewith." Here we have (presumably) a statement directly from the men making the change explaining their reasons and reasoning. Note their words: "exacting and extensive review" of the ceremonies and "solemn prayer" in the most sacred spaces in Mormondom. Not one word about "as a result of political pressure" or "because the members surveyed felt we should." We have, in the First Presidency statement, a direct contradiction to your assumptions, assertions, and guesses. Do you have any credible evidence which contradicts the First Presidency statement?

English translation: I think they're related but cannot prove my assertion. This is a shifting of the goal posts.Your original assertion was that the survey prompted the changes- meaning the survey was the cause of the changes. Now you are asserting that the changes in the endowment reflect the findings of the survey. I tend to agree with the latter proposition, but not the former. For those who take issue with the idea of the endowment changing, I offer the following: Mormonism and temples/Endowment/Changes - FAIRMormon http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Can_Temple_Ceremonies_Change.pdf

Maureen, this link shows that a survey was taken. Please link to a credible source that indicates that the changes in the Temple ceremony were "prompted by" the survey (as opposed to informed by it). Also, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison, at best. The changes to the Temple ceremony were cosmetic, not substantive- textual, rather than doctrinal. Nothing substantive- let alone doctrinal- was changed. As IrishColeen is want to say, the Temple ceremonies (then and now) say the same things "using different words".

One last flog on this particular horse, and then I go back to a more conciliatory tone: You accused me of looking to argue- and implied that I was either a hypocrite or a bad Mormon (by dint of violating the 11th Article of Faith)- based solely on the fact that I was pointing out "observed differences". While you may not have been insulted per se, it is quite clear that you were discomfited (even irritated) by what you perceived as my intransigence and "attacks". So that particular sword cuts both ways.

Putting forth a factual and logical argument about the inherent problems in the current canon does not mean I "do not trust" the Bible- it simply means I do not trust the Bible blindly.It means that I do not accept the current canon unthinkingly. I was a sailor (it shows up occasionally in my language). I love the Navy and I am extraordinarily proud to have served. But that doesn't for a moment mean that I am blind to the Navy's flaws. It simply means that I love the Navy with fewer illusions than others. I love the Bible- as I explained above, I was raised with it- and was reading Bible stories from my earliest memories. But I love and trust the current compilation with fewer illusions about what it is and is not. IC, when you leap to conclusions about what I believe, instead of asking me, you are putting words in my mouth. When you leap- without evidence- from specific criticisms to a general statement, you are putting words in my mouth. Nor I yours. In point of fact, however, I am contradicting misrepresentations YOU made about MY faith. I can indeed- because I did not even enter this thread until you began misrepresenting my faith. Indeed I do- as prima facia evidence, I offer the fact that I am not on an evangelical board bashing your religion. As others have pointed out, this is an LDS discussion board. I am here to teach and explain my faith- and that means contradicting those who distort or defame what we believe. You are free to believe what you like: but that does not- not for a moment- mean that your beliefs are immune to the same sort of scrutiny you insist on bringing to ours.

Yes- I do.Do you hold the Bible to the same burden of proof to which you hold the Book of Mormon? Based on the conversation above, I believe the answer is an unequivocal "no". Particularly when you insist on misrepresenting my position.This is the second time I've had to ask you not to put words in my mouth. But then again, intellectual honesty is a lot like Biblical study: it's easier to fudge things in the name of dogma than it is to do the heavy lifting to keep things factual.

An admission and reality which utterly destroys the notion of sola scriptura, and concedes that your earlier argument was bunkum.With this admission, you are conceding that your "ultimate authority"- the cornerstone of your denomination- is cracked and flawed. It is a flat admission that the Bible does not- as you have asserted- contain ALL God's truth for his children. Were a faithful LDS to state exactly the same thing- we would be accused of "attacking" the Bible. This reality, of course, is the heart of the LDS belief that the Bible IS the word of God, "as far as it is translated correctly." Why is it that a self-proclaimed evangelical can state this, but a faithful LDS cannot? And yet a look at "the Bible as a whole" clearly reveals that there are things missing. No matter which version or edition or compilation you are using, EACH of them contains contradictions, errors, omissions, and additions. Yes, one can- as you have suggested- attempt to harmonize those variations into a coherent whole- but that, by definition, is an opinion- a "best guess". Given previous experience, I suspect I will be saying this a lot (unfortunately, it happens to be true): This is a statement of FAITH, nor FACT.There are indeed many extant manuscript fragments- but not a single original text can be found. The oldest New Testament fragments date to about 100 AD- a full generation after the Savior and his original apostles lived and died. This does not qualify even as a statement of faith- it is instead wishful thinking and perhaps a petulant foot-stomp to boot. Horse feathers. Christianity is replete- even rife- with doctrinal contradictions cherished and preserved by Christians who in each case claim the Bible as their ultimate authority. I agree with this final statement.

So- assuming your explanation is correct, the standard English Bible does contain contradictions, was translated incorrectly, and must be interpreted in order to obtain the correct understanding. Thank your for the admission (against interest).

Make an appointment with the Stake President. Lay out your case to him there. Be prepared to take it to the Area Seventy and to the General Authorities if needs be.

I agree- but neither am I required to sit idle while you misrepresent my religion. I've eaten corned beef hash more than once, and I've seen a chicken lay eggs- so I'm pretty sure chicken fried steak is of the devil.Please get back to us when you resolve the logical consistencies in both your statement and mine (hint, they're the same mistake). Yes- and that system is predicated on a tremendous amount of faith, hope, and assumption.It's like mathematic: If two plus two is always four, then the system works. The first time, however, that two plus two is not four, the whole system goes to hell. Unfortunately, your systematic way to interpret the Bible rests on far more dubious foundations than be counted on the fingers of one hand. This, too, is a statement of faith- not fact. In your opinion. Reputable and learned scholars- people who have spent decades studying the Scriptures and built upon the shoulders of giants such as Thomas Aquino- disagree with your opinion. So long as you understand that your "observations" are not immutable fact, then I have no problem with this.The moment, however, you arrogate unto yourself the authority to tell Mormons how things "really are" in their religion, we will butt heads. I have made precisely two posts in this thread (including this one).Nowhere did a play the "my Church is better than your card"- in point of fact, I was the one who pointed out that objectively, one is no better than the other. As such, I would appreciate it if you stuck to arguing facts, rather than faith- and stick to the things I actually said, rather than inventing accusations out of whole cloth.

And you, truther, are looking for an excuse to be offended.You came to us with questions, remember? You have proclaimed your own ignorance about our faith- so why should you be offended when you are given a thorough and concise answer? First you subtly (or not so subtly) imply that these men might be acting from impure motives, now you are accusing them of deliberately trying to come between you and your family.That's hardly indicative of an objective, open-minded, or fair mindset. More derision, more condescension, more misrepresentation.We do not believe in "magic oil" or "magic undies" or any such thing. "Magic" in this context is a term of scorn and belittling. It is used solely by close-minded fools who seek to mock what they do not understand. So which are you? A close-minded fool or an earnest seeker of truth? More to the point- what you think doesn't matter. Your wife and daughter believe in the power and authority of the Priesthood. If you truly want to understand, then you need to pay attention to what they believe, not what you think. Unless you're trying to prove you're right and they're wrong, your opinion (however learned- or not) is irrelevant. One nameless, faceless anecdote proves nothing. We know nothing about the circumstances, the blessing, or the people involved.As such, this anecdote ranks up there with Harry Reid's imaginary friends commentary about Mitt Romney's tax returns. The facts (and the TRUTH) were not found in sound-byte accusations, but in a thoughtful review of the evidence- none of which you've provided. Again- are you hear to understand? Or to mock and belittle?The moderators have very little patience with trolls- and I do not suffer fools gladly. In point of fact- and as pertaining to matters of the Priesthood- you ARE incapable- and it's entirely your own fault. You are hobbled by your own pride, insecurities, and insufferable condescension. Whatever you believe, you are incapable of ministering to her in ways SHE believes are necessary. And that is entirely your own choice. Do not presume to blame us for the consequences of your own inaction.

With the exception of shyness, your story might have been my own. I, too, have attended less often than I should have, and know perhaps less than I should.There is not a single Latter-day Saint (outside of a padded room) who cannot look back and say, "I should've done this better, or that in a different way, or done this more often." As far as your particular burden goes, I have two very basic questions: How often do you turn to the Lord in prayer? How many of your other burdens do you lay at his feet in prayer? Shyness- and difficulty in public speaking- are common fears. They are also skills that must be honed to be fully effective. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Thomas Monson were not born charismatic speakers. These were skills they acquired and honed over time. I recommend a two-prong approach: One, lay up your burden before the Lord, ask- and have confidence- that he grant you the words you need. That's what Moses did. And Abraham. And nearly every other speaker who spoke through the Spirit. Even J. Golden Kimball. Second, find yourself a Toastmasters group. They are a club (for want of a better word) that teaches people how (and gives them opportunity) to practice giving speeches and presentations. They can help you develop and hone the skills you'll need.

IC, I was raised Baptist, and worshipped with Lutherans, Episcopals, Catholics, and Nazarenes. My maternal line has strong ties with the Salvation Army (yes, the actual congregation, not the charity). I have profound respect for those who are trying to earnestly and genuinely seek Christ (no matter their denomination) and who are humble and receptive to his spirit. That having been said, there are some fundamental misrerpresentations and mischaracterizations in your description of both LDS and non-LDS faith and worship. I agree- good churches have Christ as their focus and guide. Even though all are seeking "north", however, not all have their compasses calibrated quite the same way. These are, unfortunately, statements of faith, rather than of fact. The simple reality is that the Bible is full of contradictions (as any reputable Biblical scholar- no matter the denomination- will affirm). No denomination follows the scriptures with exactness or in exactly the same way. Each is relying (to greater and lesser degree) on a good-faith interpretation of Scripture to guide them. In essence, it can be argued that each faith is following the spirit of the Law, rather than its letter. If you are referring to the Bible, we as Latter-day Saints agree: but as any reputable scholar will admit, it also contains contradictions, errors, omissions, and erasures.The currently accepted canon of Scripture makes explicit reference to a number of tomes that it does not now contain. Even those who adhere to sola scriptura admit that the Bible does not contain the complete record of God's words to man. A number of things stand out in your statement:Policy is determined by the Church consitution and Articles of faith, in consulation with the Bible- rather than being dictated by it. If the pastor preaches something contary to the word of God, he must justify himself before the elders of the Church. Both of these speak to the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law as I phased it above. The pastor may keep his job so long as his interpretation of the Scriptures conforms to that of the body of the Church. How is that any different than revising the Church's constitution and articles of faith to reflect the opinion of the members? In both cases- it is left to the body of the laity to determine what is and what is not doctrine. This is a blatant, almost malicious, misrepresentation, and it is offered solely in the spirit of "my dad can beat up your dad".President Monson- as have all the prophets before him- has served for decades as a witness, apostle, and disciple of Christ. He has written many hundreds of thousands of words over the years of his service, nearly all of which are available to those with eyes to see and ears to hear. The same is true of each of his predecessors. Are you suggesting that we do not?Upon what evidence do you base that opinion? Contrary to your insinuation, we have not made such a trade. In other words, you **** us for having a "strong, central leader" whilst simultaneously celebrating the fact that you can enjoy a man (or in rarer instances, a woman) stand up and expound their personal interpretation of God's law and will.Rather than make the obligatory mote-and-beam analogy, I will simply point out that the only objective difference between your preacher and our prophet is the size of the congregation. Again, this is a blatant, almost malicious, misrepresentation.We, as Latter-day Saints, are every bit as able to turn to the Scriptures for answers as you are. We simply have a larger body of material to turn to. I expect that it will be an eye-opening experience.

To begin with, cleaning the chapel is not a "calling" in the classical sense, but a responsibility shared by all the members who worship in the building. There are actually two aspects of this: others have pointed out the first, namely that the financial math isn't quite as cut-and-dry as you are want to pretend. The second aspect, however, has to do with service to the Lord and respect for his property. Labor in and upon the chapels and Temples of the Lord reinforces their value in our own hearts and minds. By our very nature, we as human beings are "wired" to value (to honor and respect) that for which we labor over that which we are given. By taking two hours a week (if that- it goes much quicker when lots of people show up), we are investing in that building- and learn to be thankful for what we have even as we seek to maintain it. Moreover, it is an opportunity to serve- and to learn to serve gladly. Selfless service is indeed the penultimate hallmark of a true disciple of Christ. It's equally possible that she has had- without your approval and on your dime no less- a government functionary teaching her how to play games with condoms and how to get an abortion without your knowledge or approval.Are you equally outraged about this impropriety? "Lame" (in this context) is a word found in the dictionary of twenty-somethings and hipsters. Setting that aside, however, you're absolutely right it's exclusive. It is INTENDED to be. The Temple is not a chapel open to all and sundry who express a curiousity. It is a sacred space, set aside, reserved, and purified through ritual and exclusivity. It is a model of Heaven on Earth. Just as no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, so to do we strive to keep the unclean and the profane from entering the Temple. Just like the selfless service offered in cleaning the chapel, the Temple is a powerful object lesson to those who have eyes to see. Yes- it has the potential to be divisive- but one has only to look so far as the New Testament Book of Matthew to understand the reasoning involved: If your daughter loves you more than the Lord, she is not worthy of a Temple marriage. If your daughter is more concerned about doing what is right in YOUR sight than about what is right in the Lord's, then she is not a true disciple of Christ. If your daughter is more worried about obeying you then obeying God, then she is not worthy of the blessings she hopes to receive. As far as the "not family-friendly" nonsense goes, Mormon sealings (Temple weddings) built upon these principles succeed at a far higher rate than "normal" weddings because the "hurdles" and standards the couple is required to meet are far higher than a Vegas quickie or even a standard wedding. Which is more family friendly: salving your wounded pride and selfish desire? Or ensuring that your grandchildren have a stable, secure, and loving homelife as they grow up? For me that's a no-brainer. We wonder the same things- but the fault (if any is to be had) is yours, not ours.This information is not secret. It has not been hidden in any way. If you are asking your wife and daughter these questions in the same combatative, obnoxious tone you are using here, then it is clear that the problem is in your approach, rather than the questions themselves.We have "done" nothing to them. For myself, I consider such a tone- mockery, derision, and condescension, to border on emotional abuse- particularly when directed at the ones we claim to cherish above all the world. Indeed- but given the dismissive tone you've displayed thus far, one wonders what you will do with it once you find it.

Hmmm....for you Trekkers out there, I have attended Trek events with Mary Rice (who played T'Pring at age seven), and Craig Richard Nelson (who played the Inspector in TNG: "A Matter of Perspective"). Although they are not technically "paid" gigs (they collect money for autographs and photos instead of being paid to appear), I've knocked elbows with Tim Russ (Tuvok), Herb Jefferson, Jr. (the REAL "Boomer" from Battlestar Galactica) and several others. I've also lately been trading emails and messages with BJo Trimble. Best and most important of all- my daughter still text messages me.

There are a number of assumptions inherent in the above that are questionable at best.Marines, by definition, are forward-deployed light troops trained to operate in multiple environments with an emphasis on quick response and mobility. Whether deployed from seacraft or spacecraft, the basic utility and mission-purpose is the same. That having been said- and speaking strictly as a Navy man- I would much prefer a fighting force be charged with space domination in lieu of the Air Force.