Fatboy

I've never heard of this, but I'd be interested in seeing some quotes. Do you have any? Amillia, I will have to say that I also strongly disagree with the notion of progressing from "kingdom to kingdom". That is a false doctrine, even if BRM agrees! LOL! In my Gospel Essentials class I was teaching on this very thing last sunday. The manual, and everything I have ever read teaches us that the body we are resurrected with, will determine the glory we shall inherit. We do NOT know however, if there is progression "within" kingdoms of glory, but my understanding has always been that there is NO progression from Kingdom TO kingdom. In the spirit prison we know that the spirits there can "progress". They are in a different situation...they have not yet been resurrected...so there is time there for them to progress to the extent they can. randy Well I believe that God is not going to torture us in Hell for eternity either. I believe that those who have glory will be given the chance to increase and progress. If their desires are to continue to progress they will progress. But there will be those who are happy where they are at. There will also be those that were negative in this life and in the next continue to be negative to the point of losing glory and digress. The atonement is infinite. It will continue for all, during all times. The Hell comes when we lose our connection with loved ones, as they progress at a different level, us never being able to catch them. Hell is coming face to face to what you could have been and had. Eternity is a measurement of time. D&C 76:4

As another poster asked, how do you think the atonement came about?

If you put it in the right perspective, why not celebrate with others of differing faiths. I know I have done so with my own family, and we have always been members. All religions have truths and carry a spirit with them. Done in the proper understanding, celebrate how you want to. Just my opinion.

We need to think outside of the box on this. Understanding what a sealing is important. It binds us to our children in the eternities. Every person who is born will have this work done for them. The most vile to the most angelic. The sealing power is the eternal link we have to not just family, but to God. I do not own my children because they are sealed to me. My parents do not own me because I am sealed to them. Curve, whether you believe the priesthood is necessary or not is beside the point. The priesthood is part of the sealing power and are essential to this. Sure a person can love their children and spouses, but if they did not have this work done while they were here, it will be done for them. And done in the proper way. Again the sealing is the eternal link we have to God. This link is important no matter what level we receive in the judgment. The sealing is the one of the most important ordinances we can perform, but I think many times we misunderstand it.

Nobody rational, certainly. But you're setting the bar too high. What about a person who doesn't know for certain whether or not the Church is true, but comes to suspect that it might not be? I suggest that a person who's invested a lifetime of time and resources in the Church might suppress questions or doubts that occurred to him -- not because he was necessarily faithful, but because he would not even want to consider whether he'd spent his life in a mistake. I know people like this. FB: The form of doubt in something can be very subtle. It is rare that a person who begins to question the own faith does so from one large event. And there may be some who doubt the church and but not see anything better. Good grief there is a website called New mormons or something like that. They sit around and belly ache. It is quite sad. Some have left others just want to vent there feelings. I use to try and answer some of their questions, but rarely did they ever answer back. None liked what I had to say. Now proud, I believe that the LDS church is a restoration of the ancient church Christ stared, not because of being a member, but because I asked God for the truth and God revealed to me the truth. I can not deny this. If I did, I would be mocking God. There are leaders of the church who commit themselves to the service of the Lord, to build what they believe is his kingdom on earth. Because you do not have the same experience with the LDS church does not invalidate it.

In order for the church to decieve a person, that would mean that Pres. Hinckley knows the church is a fraud. Do you believe that at 94 near the end of his life, that he would continue to say the church was true, and that he was a prophet it was not. What gain would he have in it? That would mean that the rest of the apostles know that the church is false. Do you believe that they would leave their jobs, or retirements to work in the service of God to build his kingdom if they did not believe in it? This would also mean that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the rest of the prophets knew it was false. After all they had gone through, do you think they believed it was false?

I just re-read Mr. Tolworthy's reasons for leaving and I wouldn't characterize the catalyst for leaving as 'abuse' - I would say he had a request from his church, the church chose not to respect his request therefore he had no choice but to stick up for himself and end the relationship. Don't know him personally at all but I tend to believe his reasons than hear-say from others. Really? Are your reasons because you don't like what you are reading or because you think they are lying - or maybe something else all together? - please share. M. 1st....I don't care what tolworthy put out for the world to read, it isn't the whole story. Seldom do disaffected saints tell it like it really is. 2nd....I don't care who you chose to believe. I know what I know. 3rd.....I have read all of it before from different sources and one can put the same information in a positive light or they can use it to try and discredit the church. These used it to discredit the church. 4th.....with all your getting ~ get understanding. This seems to always be lacking in the anti-approach to anything. One question, Amillia--Do you think it is possible for a person to leave the church for any reason, OTHER THAN, personal sinfulness? For example--it is possible a person could find that the history of the church as they were taught it at first, turns out not to be the same as the history as discovered by objective historical research? Could a person be totally morally clean, clear headed, kind to dogs and children, and still find the church to be something other than what the missionaries/parents/ ss teachers taught him it was? And that, feeling deceived and misled, he chose to reexamine the church, and found that, had he known BEFORE he was baptized, these things, he would not have joined. And thereby then decides to leave. Is that possible? I have known people who left the church because they dwelt on what they perceived as true history or partial history and could not accept that Joseph Smith or other church leader made mistake. Good grief, some people leave when one prophet dies and another is called.

What is her take on the situation? Have you discussed it with her? thats not really an option for me Hello Chicagoguy! To answer your original question...my response would be, yes...you could remain a member of the church...go through the motions etc. In the end your membership and even your Temple marriage will not enable you to enter the Celestial Kingdom with your family. If you feel that JS and the BoM is fraudulent then you should acknowledge those feelings honestly and openly with your wife. If you dont you will end up living a lie and it will eventually destroy you. Better to be honest about it now and take positive steps in whatever direction you and your wife decide. But, as far as the church is concerned....if you truly in your heart of hearts feel this way...in the end, your membership will have availed you nothing. Read Section 76. I want you to know I do offer these thoughts to you with sincere intentions...and with love. I just feel that you wanted to be spoken plainly to. Thats the reality of it. Now....it must be remembered that if you stay a member..and just go through the motions...there is always the possibility that at some point down the line that your testimony will return..that you will be strong in the faith. I dont want you to think that the church gives up on it's members. You know we don't. My only point is that if when you die...you still feel this way...and you were lukewarm and not valiant in the testimony of Christ and his restored gospel...its at that point that I refer you back to the first 3 paragraphs of this post! You have some major league fasting and praying to do my good brother! So get after it!!!! Take care and God bless you in your search for peace! randy First off why would sharing your feelings not be an option?

FB: Well there are a lot of things you got right. Although when teaching the gospel to investigators we do not go into that much depth. I guess the first error would be intelligences. You have eternal matter, when all matter is eternal in nature and can not brought from nothing into something. We do know that intelligences were seperate, but are given little knowledge as to what form if any they had. It was only important to know that we have always exist. That we were progressing as part of a eternal plan. God the Father created a spirit body for our intelligences so that we could continue to progress. In my opinion, the joining of our intelligence with spirit matter creates a soul. Anyway I digress. Next is born of merit. Some are, they were those who were great and noble spirits in our pre earth life. So apparently there were those who showed a greater commitment to following the laws in the pre earth life. I believe this is part of their character, but when born into this life, even though we can not remember our former life, this essense of character is born with his. The great thing is that we can learn to overcome the negative and follow more completely God. Next is those who go to paradise and who go to spirit prison. Theifs murders, and unrepentant adulterers, liars, etc, go to spirit prison. Those who go to Parasdise are those who lived to the best of their abilities the laws they are given. Spirit prison is not Hell, although there is weeping and wailing. They can however be taught and given a chance to accept or reject the gospel. The atonement paid for their sins as well, and is infinite and eternal. The fruits of the first resurrection begin when Christ broke the bands of Death by rising from the dead. Since all who have been born on earth are promised this part of the atonement or salvation, the resurrection is on going. The bible states that many of the ancient saints came from their toombs in the first of the resurrection. We also know that those prophets who restored the gospel in the latter days had also been resurrected already. The last resurrection will be those who will go to the telestial kingdom. Next is the judgment. "For the Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son." The only requirement to enter the kingdom of God is baptism by one holding the proper authority. There are many mansions in the Fathers house. The terrestial Kingdom is reserved for the good and honorable people of the earth. Those who could not accept more truth and light. This will include mormons. Exhaltation is the goal of all who want it, and abide by the laws and commandments which are required to reach that goal. This means that we be sealed to our spouse by one holding the sealing power to bind in heaven what is bound on earth.

D&C 93:28 28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. D&C 93:29 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. D&C 93:30 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. D&C 93:31 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. D&C 93:32 32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. D&C 93:33 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; D&C 93:34 34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. D&C 93:35 35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple. D&C 93:36 36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. FB: We know that God created our spirits. Intelligence was never created or made, and therefore we were also in the beginning with God. That is the beginning of creation since we too always existed.

So, you think that just preaching to a gay person is going to stop them from being gay? Maybe we could preach to the Chimps too--they are actually pretty smart. Just preaching? It is about spiritual laws. If they have been given these teachings and choose to ignore them (which they are free to do) then they have chosen to ignore teachings which require a higher level of spiritual adherence. There are always laws and law breakers. But Chimps aren't given the same laws as man. Get over it. Really? Who made the law that says that being born gay is a sin? Who said being born a gay was a sin? It is acting upon that weakness which is a sin. Why can't you separate these two concepts? Who said it was a weakness? Is hetersexuality a weakness? FB: Desires for the opposite sex should be used with the bounds the Lord has set. Even though men may have desires for a woman they are not married to, they are to remain faithful to the covenants they have made to God and their spouse. Same sex desires as with any desires and appetites should be controled.

There is not a person out there that does not have darkness in them. Yours is the tendency of same sex. And from what I have read, you have not acted upon this tendency. It is not a sin to be gay. It is what you choose to do with that feeling. I admire a person who would have such strong feelings, and control them. Even though you may drink, my goodness you have what many persons LDS or not LDS do not have. I would say that you rejoice in what you have accomplished. You are way ahead of the many others. As to having a family? That is your choice again. There are many good women out there who would support you in your quest of a family. Just be honest with them. But they are out there. I know that you are speaking from the bottom of the hole you think you are in, but many times it is just our perception of where we are at. I don't think you are as bad off as you think you are. There are many men who can not control their urges for other women, and there are men who do control these same urges and hold true.

Does that justify your involvement? Not if you don't have the gene! So as to not be too brief in my response: It is one thing to acknowledge that society, with its prejudices and rules of conduct won't "punish" people who stray too far from the accepted norms and rules. In many cases, the behavior has to be punished because it infringes on the rights of others. For example, alcoholism leads to automobile accidents, violence and really poor decisions generally. The behavior that results from alcoholism has to be discouraged for societies' well being. Adultery also results in serious and direct harm to children, and serious pain to others, disrupting the existing family. Genetic or not, the behavior needs to be discouraged. Now, let's examine homosexuality with the same measuring stick. First, it doesn't break up families (unless a person who is homosexual is not honest about it up from). No one is forced to marry a homosexual. Homosexuality doesn't lead to violence, automobile accidents, any more than just being human does. Nor does it cause any harm, in an of itself to any children. The only harm to children is if homophobic parents reject their gay child---and in that case the harm comes not from the gayness itself, but from the ignorance and insensitivity of the parent. As I said before, and you have not disagreed, a certain portion of any primate population, and that includes us, is going to be homosexual. It is not a disease, it causes no liver disease or automobile accidents. The only way it becomes an issue at all is when people arbitrarily decide it is not going to be tolerated. Many societies have tolerated it, with no ill effects. I would say that more harm has been done to people in the name of punishing gayness, than has come from the gayness it self. Lots of people in the LDS church have been hounded out of the church simply because they were gay. The church has made it clear there is no acceptance of gays in the church. The GA's won't say it that way, but the effect is the same---gayness is a mortal sin, and us good, rightous, tithe-paying, sons of the pioneers aren't going to put up with it in our church. By the way, the Minnesota and Australian identical twin studies are comprehensive and very scientific. They didn't deal just with homosexuality, they established that a whole host of human traits have genetic components. The Australian studied even showed that political orientation is influence by genetics. As science catches up with the claims of the pius religions dogmas, those dogmas will either parish or have to face some serious questions. For example, how can homosexual behavior be a sin, if God Himself made them that way? I have raised this question before and no one seems to be able to answer it.. (They try, but all I get is, well, read the Old Testament. I do, and I then find out that the God of the Old Testament also condoned slavery--- I can't believe in a God that would condone slavery, so I don't believe in the God of the Old Testament. There could be another one though, and he doesn't condemn gays for being what he made them either. As to the CROSS you want people to bear---just make sure that you are not the one making the CROSS--I think we all know what God thought of the people that made the last one. Any disobedience affects not only ourselves but others. If not directly, then indirectly. It is no sin to be gay, but it is if we act on it. It is not a sin to have feelings towards those of the opposite sex other than your spouse, but it is a sin if you act upon them. These feelings have to be controled even further. In that we don't even think about it. This life is for our spirit to learn to control our mortal body.

Although being intimate with your spouse is ordained of God and commanded in order to multiply and replenish the earth, when conception occurs, that conemption then becomes suseptable to death. That is mortality. Mortality make us an enemy to God because we are sinful. So the potential to sin comes at conception. Since when did a newborn have the potential to sin? You don't get the potential to sin until you can make a rational decision. The issue was how is it possible to be concieved in sin, not whether we acquire the ability to sin, later--there is no question about that, is there? So again, how can anyone be "concieved in sin", if there is nothing sinful about legitimate conception? Where is the sin in it? The idea that our mortality makes us an enemy to God begs the question. First, just how does our mortality, in and of itself, do that? It's not that we are going to die, which is the definition of mortality, that offends God; it is that when we are old enough to understand the nature and quality of our actions, we can make mistakes or sin. But, we're not even BORN into that, we can't sin until later, so how are we BORN or CONCIEVED in sin? I see you want to nit pick something apart. Sin denotes corruption. A child has the potential to sin and you are correct that until they come to the age accountibility they can not sin. Sin is knowing and understanding the consequences of our choice to disobey. However a child can disobey. Adam was like a little child when he made the choice to disobey. We know this because they had not yet knowledge of Good and Evil. So Adam disobeyed the law, which brings the same consequences as if he had known the law and understood law. As I have said, Christ did more than just pay for sin. Christ paid for all disobedience. Even if a person had been born and not committed sin, or was perfect, they would not have the power to overcome the sin or corruption of death. Christ also overcame this as the first fruits of the resurrection. A gift given to all who are born. So we could say we were conceived or born into sin. What? Now death is a sin? You are just mincing words. The fact is, the scriputure says we are concieved in sin, and you don't dispute that. You also agree that a tiny infant can't sin. So how then can there be anything sinful about conception? All that double talk about this being a corruptable world doens't change the plain meaning----and the fact that JS later reversed the concept and said " man isn't going to be punished for adam's sins". The only way you seem to think you can get out of this is to change the meaning of the word sin to some vague "corruptablility of the flesh" thing. But that is neve what is meant by sin. The use of the word in mormondum is an offense against God. Sin denotes imperfection. Mortality is imperfection. There does that make more sense? I don't know how else to explain it. No such thing as original sin. Sin was brought in to the world by disobedience by Adam.

Although being intimate with your spouse is ordained of God and commanded in order to multiply and replenish the earth, when conception occurs, that conemption then becomes suseptable to death. That is mortality. Mortality make us an enemy to God because we are sinful. So the potential to sin comes at conception. Since when did a newborn have the potential to sin? You don't get the potential to sin until you can make a rational decision. The issue was how is it possible to be concieved in sin, not whether we acquire the ability to sin, later--there is no question about that, is there? So again, how can anyone be "concieved in sin", if there is nothing sinful about legitimate conception? Where is the sin in it? The idea that our mortality makes us an enemy to God begs the question. First, just how does our mortality, in and of itself, do that? It's not that we are going to die, which is the definition of mortality, that offends God; it is that when we are old enough to understand the nature and quality of our actions, we can make mistakes or sin. But, we're not even BORN into that, we can't sin until later, so how are we BORN or CONCIEVED in sin? I see you want to nit pick something apart. Sin denotes corruption. A child has the potential to sin and you are correct that until they come to the age accountibility they can not sin. Sin is knowing and understanding the consequences of our choice to disobey. However a child can disobey. Adam was like a little child when he made the choice to disobey. We know this because they had not yet knowledge of Good and Evil. So Adam disobeyed the law, which brings the same consequences as if he had known the law and understood law. As I have said, Christ did more than just pay for sin. Christ paid for all disobedience. Even if a person had been born and not committed sin, or was perfect, they would not have the power to overcome the sin or corruption of death. Christ also overcame this as the first fruits of the resurrection. A gift given to all who are born. So we could say we were conceived or born into sin.

Although being intimate with your spouse is ordained of God and commanded in order to multiply and replenish the earth, when conception occurs, that conemption then becomes suseptable to death. That is mortality. Mortality make us an enemy to God because we are sinful. So the potential to sin comes at conception.

FB: Do you believe that you could be in the same pit? If they were true prophets and fell, do you think that God would allow them to lead the very people God was trying to save into an abyss? How do you know that Joseph Smith III was not a fallen prophet? Christ tells us that one of the ways we can see whether or not a prophet is called of God is by their fruits. Joseph Smith brought about the restoration and restored lost keys. Brigham Young saved the people from destruction and the church continued to not only survive, but grow into one of the fastest growing convert churches on earth. These are just some of the simple and visible fruits. What fruits has your prophets brought to the world, your people and the kingdom of God on earth? How do you know when you say that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, that instead it is just the opposite, and his son was the fallen one? Since David Whitmer thought the same as you, why didn't he come and join the RLDS church? Why did the other two witnesses return to the LDS church? Were they fallen as well? I guess I am a bit upset that you think Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet? Just when do you think he fell? Was he a fallen prophet when he blessed his Son? FB: You think I believe that Brigham Young was perfect? Good grief no. He would be the first to say he was not perfect. FB: And if you believe that Joseph Smith had earthly ambitions, then you do not know Joseph Smith. For what did he gain in earthly wealth? Does their weaknesses make them a fallen prophet? Moses murdered, David murdered and committed adultery, Jonah ran away from the Lord. I do not believe that Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young were infallible. They made plenty of mistakes. But when they are speaking for the Lord, they did their best to relay the will of the Lord. As perfect as any of the ancient prophets. I do not think that you are keeping your attitudes towards these great men very balanced. You have read very little about Brigham Young and the kind and gentile person he was. The direct and strong person he was. Very balanced. out

FB: Have you ever studied the history of Brigham Young? Although Brigham Young was strong minded, you make it sound like Joseph Smith went along with who ever was there at the time. I think that Joseph Smith learned many things in his life. I think it is just silly to think that Brigham Young influenced Joseph Smith in this way. I know it is the only way you can explain it, but Brigham Young did Joseph Smith's bidding, by going on missions for the church when really they were all needed at home. My Great Great Grand father went with him on one such mission when they were both so sick they could hardly sit up. I think your opinion of Brigham Young is way to harsh. He was a great man, and did what had to be done to lead. Who else could have done what Brigham Young did? Sidney Rigdon? James Strang? Joseph Smith III? There is no other leader that has kept the their own church growing, not even RLDS(CofC). Not one. Yet the LDS church which you claim is the apostate church is one of the fastest growing religions as far as converts go. The LDS church will baptise more in one year than you have members. Now don't take this as bragging. I am just saying that you need to rethink and do some research in the life of Brigham Young, and stop tearing him down as a person. I have never tore down Joseph Smith III. I have never said he fooled people into believe he was the prophet. out

I asked why it took 14 years for the RLDS to reorganize and what happened to the church in the interim. It is logical to me that God would not allow his church to be tossed about to and fro with no leader for 14 years, and then loose all that was gained during the prophet Joseph Smiths day. His sacrifice of life for the members of his day would have been illogical. What makes sense is that God already had in place the organization to not only continue with his kingdom on earth but to increase and grow.

In the end we will all know and have equal opportunity to follow Christ and live accordingly. To return to God no matter where we live or what we know.

FB: Blessed, I am glad you have found your faith and have felt the Holy Ghost. I would think that if you have two churches which have the same roots and believe similar things, I would think that it would be difficult to distinquish which is follow 100% and which one is not. Especially when one who is not can receive confirmation by the spirit of truth revealed to them. For what it is worth, I have asked God for knowledge concerning the RLDS, and have not received an answer, but a stupor of thought. Perhaps that is an answer. I have many times received confirmation about truths that we teach that you do not believe in. I will say this. The LDS church is not for everyone. There will be those who will not ask God if it true. I remember on my mission that we had been teaching a JW. Everytime we went there the spirit of teaching came in and she knew it was right. When asked to pray and ask God, she said that could not because she would have to change. She knew it was true. She told us it was true. Might be hard to understand, but for some people it just is not for them.

You can say that but since you are not the prophet, it is irrelevant. That is, it is not up to you to decide how God ought to manage his Church and follow the prophet so long as he says things you like, but then if he says something you don't like, proclaim apostacy. But then, that is the way of the RLDS church: take a vote, see if something is popular, change the name, change the priesthood, adopt trinitarian inclinations, select a Methodist trained president, etc. I can understand that you personally are opposed to plural marriage but to claim that God is against it is an entirely different thing. The main thing you have working against you is a little something called the Bible. Do you deny that a number of God's elect were polygamists? The difference in those days, I suppose, is that they often didn't marry the second wife, but simply took their wives servants as brood mares. Again, you must have trouble keeping a straight face when you post humor like that. Ever read the OT? Ever notice how God was a violent god... death, bloodshed, murder, kidnapping, vengence, eye for an eye, world wide flood, turning people into salt for looking backwards, killing children for calling Elijah baldhead? Beside, your whole argument is so completely silly. Think of the ancient Jewish religion. Think of current day Christianity, even your peculiar brand of Christianity. How different are the two? Yet your argument is that the 1830 Church is toooooo different from the 1840 Church. Huh? How's that work? People Jenda is doing just as we are doing. Our very best.

I don't think that she's unaware either. But she did say, "I never stated, nor have I read anywhere, that BY tried to emulate Joseph on the day of the Conference." Doesn't that sound like she's saying that she is not aware of the conference event? Or any such event taking place even on the day of the conference. Second, From JSIII's memoirs it seems that the parade event was after the conference. IMSHO...Jenda was bouncing back and forth between the two and got stuck. Let me state it this way. I knew there was a conference. I knew there was a parade. I knew that BY impersonated JS. From JS,III's, memoirs, I assumed the impersonation happened during the parade. I don't think I bounced back and forth at all. It is what I stated from the beginning. The event at the conference wasn't...look he's on Joseph's horse and wearing Joseph's stuff. he sure look like Joseph. At the conference it was a spiritual event. Brigham was speaking...oh, it sounds like Joseph...He even looks like Joseph. iIt was a sudden change. They that witnessed it said that it was a spiritual event. IF it was a spiritual event at the conference, then BY took advantage of that event by purposely furthering it by taking JS's horse and regalia for the parade. Still not the most pleasant of thoughts. Jenda, just as with all things about theology and belief, it rests on faith. You don't believe it and therefore do not have faith that the Lord knew what he was doing so as to continue his church as I believe it was intended. Think of the loss of his children if it was left unattended for 14 years. Think about those who were witnesses to the Book of Mormon and left. THey did not accept Joseph SmithIII to be the successor. It makes sense that God would have set up his organization to continue after the prophets murder. The perfect way is to have the authority left to the quorum of the twelve, and in time choose a successor.

I was saying that I have read that BY tried to impersonate (you can call it a transfiguration if you like) Jospeh Smith. The references I have say it happened the day he took the horse, the accounts you have, which were also written years after the incident, state it took place another day. Big deal, who cares what the day was? The fact that it happened at all is the problem. He impersonated Joseph so that those who were not necessarily loyal to him, but were loyal to Joseph would be swayed enough to swing him their vote to lead the church. IMO, it was all a sham. Jenda there are accounts that are written at the time of the event. I realize you think it is a sham. Why are you so negative with Brigham Young? I do not deny that Joseph Smith the Prophet gave his son a blessing which included a great promise. But that promise has to be realized when the Lord wants it, not when they feel like they want to accept it. That is not the way the Lord works. If Brigham Young had not taken the lead, what would have happened to those who joined the church and were being killed and driven out by the mobs? Were they to wait 14 years until Joseph Smith III finally accepted the leadership spot? The Lord set up his church and organization through the prophet Joseph Smith. To which the Lord promised it would never be taken from the earth. Well God set it up so that when Joseph Smith was murdered, the church would go on and grow. Don't be angry at Brigham Young because people, of which were my ancestors, saw Brigham Young transform as if he were Joseph Smith the Prophet. One of my relatives states that she could see it as plain as day and yet the man standing next to her never did see it.

With the one exception that our current leader attended a seminary... and what the big deal about that is??? I don't know why you even pointed it out?!?! The rest is absolutely correct -- YOUR opinion. I guess the ridicule of what other's hold as sacred beliefs even though different from yours is allowed on this board... hmmm. So much of the Second great commandment... doesn't seem to take effect on this board. Blessed I don't think Snow was trying to offend. My goodness this is a pleasant board compared with one Jenda and I have been on. So when someone is pointing out that your president was schooled by traditional trinitarian beliefs which was not part of what the founder Joseph Smith believed in, then one has to wonder why he was schooled in religion in the first place. Joseph Smith wasn't. Neither was Joseph Smith III. How many of your presidents have gone to mainstream christianity schools of theology?