mnn727

This is what I was commenting on "But by May the 28th 2008 we will have manditory to take the International ID RIFD microchip" And just a quick thought, since this was developed to provide identification for lost dogs and cats, it truly could be called "the mark of the beast"

Funny, if true, that would be all over the news (and its not)

To read online: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents To buy online: http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=0174078

Yes, but there's that old "enduring to the end" clause. President Faust (if anyones election and calling should have been made sure it was his) started many of his conference talks with requests for prayers that he be able to endure to the end. God may know if we will endure to the end, however to me the doctrine of "calling and election" infringes on our freedom to choose (ie agency)

I personally have a very hard time with "calling and election made sure" just as I have problems with "once saved always saved" - both pose the same theological problem

They were not LDS Elders than (or more likly, you misunderstood what they said) In LDS theology 3 seperate and distinct "persons" make up the 1 Godhead

I am confused, first you say then you say: So, if you are aware you can not pick and choose what you like, then why do you pick a couple things out of Mormonisn you believe, but not all of it? Sorry, you have me confused

Not to me at least, sorry but I'll try to respond. Not sure what you mean by "In the Universe my son inhabits" but I don't believe you can take part of this religion and part of that religion to fit what you want to believe. The God I believe in does not work like that. We believe that all people are eternal and have always existed, first as intelligences and then as spirit beings, then we became mortal and in the end we will go to our reward. Mormons, unlike most religions believe almost everyone who ever lived will inherit heaven (In my Fathers house are many manisions)

Believing Christ, by Stephan Robinson

Yes, that was what I wanted to quote, perhaps it could have been stated better, so I'll give it a try:Anyone saying if you don't believe Joseph's message you won't make it to the CK, would be the same as saying if you reject Pauls message you won't make it to the CK, or if you reject Peters, or James or Johns message you won't make it to the CK

Elphaba I think its very difficult to know the mindset of people from history. I disagree with your charectorization of Brigham Youngs mindset mainly as it goes against what he and others have preached about baptism for the dead being a gateway to the CK. Frankly I think BY was a lot less crusty than he had the right to be. Nevertheless I found your post interesting and shows you have done your homework even though we come to different conclusions. Issacs post (partially quoted below) makes much more sense to me historically and doctrinaly and is the way I understand the "mindset" of BY's to have been when he said it

Follower Let me give you some advice. Stop believing everything you are told about us(whether it be from a website, a book or a person) You are being misled. The quotes you have been posting are: 1.) taken out of context 2.) some are from sources that have long been declared false by the Church, some have no backing in doctrine and may be ignored. 3.) ignores everything else the same speaker has said on the same subject, 4.)makes much use of elipses........ to remove material that explains what the person meant or to remove entire sentances, paragraphs and in 1 case I researched, 33 pages of material missing between the 2 parts of the ellipses. I would recommend that you explore BOTH sides of Mormonism doing HONEST RESEARCH and then make up your own mind rather than believe what you hear -- at least if you are actually interested in TRUTH that would be the way to do it, anything else is just plain dishonest.

There are lots of books on teaching, however they all boil down to two things, get the class involved and always ask open ended questions. I teach EQ for the SWK lessons and to prepare I go through the book online. I actually copy it into a MS Word file and then I choose which paragraphs I feel are important (though prayer and prompting hopefully) and get rid of everything else, then I come up with open ended questions I can ask about each paragraph to get discuassions going(usually from the end of the chapter). I then print out one copy for me (with questions in a different color ink so I can see them easily), then I print out another copy with just the paragraphs I want to discuss and cut them apart and hand them out at the beginning of class and each member that wants to, takes one to read ( I number them). Its not the only way to teach, but it sure works for me. I picked up the method from an EQ teacher in my last ward that I really enjoyed his classes Class is great, there's never enough time to finish as we have great discussions and best of all, I don't have to do a lot of talking- PM me if you want to see an example.

I would be interested in reading it when you are done, perhaps you could post it.

Fantastic, lets us know how it goes

Church rules state that there must be 3 men (at least 1 an Elder or High Priest) present if they are meeting with a single woman, this is for protection on both sides. There is nothing un-kosher about it. There are rules against 2 missionaries meeting with a single woman. There have been many times the missionaries have asked me to go along with them to an appointment with a single woman, just so they could go and teach. However if anyone feels uncomfortable about a situation they should not get into it.

This is GOOD!!!, VERY GOOD!

Follwer said:>>However, when you compare Moroni 10 with 1 Corinthians 12:1-11, the writer makes no reference to Paul as the author. Reply>> How could Paul be the author when there was no contact between the Nephites and the Jews of the middle east? Moroni was repeating what Christ told him as was Paul, or do you expect Gods message to change depending on who he is talking to?? You could just as easily claim that they were BOTH plagerizing God

So we are supposed to give specifics, but you don't have to? that's not how it works, you were asked a couple of times so far to provide evidence of where the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, so far you have ignored that question and even admited you've not studied the Book of Mormon. Since the Bible was not compiled yet, nor were all its books even written at the time John wrote this, it could have only been speaking of itself, the Book of Revelation. Duet 4:2 says the same thing, shall we throw out everything past it?

How many years have you spent studying the Book of Mormon yourself? for that matter how many times have you read the Bible from start to finish. Be honest with yourself at least, you've never read the Book of Mormon have you? you're just repeating what someone (person, book, website) told you

Its been called the Stake Center everywhere I have lived

Doctrine has not changed, peoples speculation has(and not just about LDS things?) Yes, be sure to read both sides - the entire; story, sermon or talk, not just cherry picked quotes (especially quotes with lots of ellipses....) and then decide for yourself, its the only way to learn the entire truth.

I teach from the SWK manual in Elders Quorum. My quorum is a very talkative bunch, partipating fully in the class (thank the Lord - it makes teaching easier) we got up to the pornography section and stayed on that for about 15 minutes, it would have went longer but I had to cut it short because class time was over. Unfortunatly that means we missed the rest of the lesson. I feel though that that is where the Spirit wanted the emphasis, I felt that in preparing the lesson and I felt that during class. Its definatly a big problem in society and I have heard that even many in the Church get caught in pornography's grasp.

Well, I was ready to start answering but then read Seleks answers and find I no longer need to answer, Selek has stated the LDS position very clearly. You will find that many people against us attempt to twist our beliefs for shock value, some do it intentionally and some out of ignorance, also many Mormons (even leaders) have speculated on some things that just are not doctrinal, yet those against us find that one or two sentance phrase that some one speculated on, they then take it out of context all while ignoring everything else that same person said over their lifetime about the same subject, also ignoring clear doctrine and try to say "Yup those crazy Mormons believe........." just to try to shock someone.

I was raised Pentacostal, got married in the Catholic Church and went to many 'flavors' of Church in my adult life trying to find one. Finally in my mid 30's I was introduced to the LDS Church, suddenly I was "home". Its the only Church that the doctrines made sense to me and follows what I had read for myself in the Bible (as compared to what ministers and Priests tried telling me the Bible "really meant")