What Do You All Think About This?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Has it occurred to anyone that this policy (assuming it exists) might not be that bad an idea ... in that unmarried twentysomethings (I was one) can be total horndogs with a snowball's chance in an un-air-conditioned singles' ward meeting of remaining chaste? And that endowing people and putting them under solemn covenants which the odds are better than even they'll break is an excellent way to diminish the importance of those covenants in their eyes?

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 7 2004, 04:46 PM

Has it occurred to anyone that this policy (assuming it exists) might not be that bad an idea ... in that unmarried twentysomethings (I was one) can be total horndogs with a snowball's chance in an un-air-conditioned singles' ward meeting of remaining chaste? And that endowing people and putting them under solemn covenants which the odds are better than even they'll break is an excellent way to diminish the importance of those covenants in their eyes?

Yes, you rang?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 7 2004, 04:46 PM

Has it occurred to anyone that this policy (assuming it exists) might not be that bad an idea ... in that unmarried twentysomethings (I was one) can be total horndogs with a snowball's chance in an un-air-conditioned singles' ward meeting of remaining chaste? And that endowing people and putting them under solemn covenants which the odds are better than even they'll break is an excellent way to diminish the importance of those covenants in their eyes?

Hey PD,

Does your non-response to my PM mean that you're not interested in the book?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by bat+Sep 7 2004, 08:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Sep 7 2004, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Sep 7 2004, 04:46 PM

Has it occurred to anyone that this policy (assuming it exists) might not be that bad an idea ... in that unmarried twentysomethings (I was one) can be total horndogs with a snowball's chance in an un-air-conditioned singles' ward meeting of remaining chaste?  And that endowing people and putting them under solemn covenants which the odds are better than even they'll break is an excellent way to diminish the importance of those covenants in their eyes?

Hey PD,

Does your non-response to my PM mean that you're not interested in the book?

I think I may have deleted your PM. What book?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 7 2004, 05:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 7 2004, 05:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Sep 7 2004, 04:46 PM

Has it occurred to anyone that this policy (assuming it exists) might not be that bad an idea ... in that unmarried twentysomethings (I was one) can be total horndogs with a snowball's chance in an un-air-conditioned singles' ward meeting of remaining chaste?  And that endowing people and putting them under solemn covenants which the odds are better than even they'll break is an excellent way to diminish the importance of those covenants in their eyes?

Yes, you rang?

What is a snowball's chance, anyway? Please calculate to the nearest thousandth, showing your work.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Sep 7 2004, 11:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Sep 7 2004, 11:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Sep 7 2004, 08:38 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Sep 7 2004, 04:46 PM

Has it occurred to anyone that this policy (assuming it exists) might not be that bad an idea ... in that unmarried twentysomethings (I was one) can be total horndogs with a snowball's chance in an un-air-conditioned singles' ward meeting of remaining chaste?  And that endowing people and putting them under solemn covenants which the odds are better than even they'll break is an excellent way to diminish the importance of those covenants in their eyes?

Hey PD,

Does your non-response to my PM mean that you're not interested in the book?

I think I may have deleted your PM. What book?

Grant Palmer.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Bat,

It's been a while. What was that book about again?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Amillia+Sep 5 2004, 08:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Sep 5 2004, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Kevin@Sep 5 2004, 08:43 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 08:07 AM

I recently found out : Unless a young man or woman are going on a mission or are getting married, they are not allowed to take their endowments until they are in their late twenties.

I don't know where you get your information but its false. I have known and know at least a few who have received their endowment since President Hinckley was called. Ths standard is that our youth are not to receive their endowment until such time that they are sufficiently mature and reach a sufficient level of committment to keep the covenants they will make in the temple. Youth reach that level of maturity at differing times and so they receive their endowment at differing times. It is up to the leaders, bishops and stake presidents, as well as the individual to make such a determination. I don't think its wise or incumbant upon you to question those decisions. Let the Lord run his church the way he ses fit - he'll deal with any mistakes made by leaders.

Our bishop told it to our neighbor, who was our bishop 10 years ago, just two nights ago. So did this bishop lie?

Oh, well, yes. Of course. You could most reasonably conclude that the bishop lied based upon this heresay. I mean, there really is no other reasonable conclusion is there? It makes no sense at all to consider that perhaps the bishop was mistaken or that your third hand information might be somewhat inaccurate. Yes, he must have lied.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 8 2004, 10:36 AM

Bat,

It's been a while. What was that book about again?

That's the one written by a former CES teacher or something like that. It MUST be good, FARMS has reviewed it 6 times !

I was told that you showed an interest in it at one time, and I have an extra copy. I'm only offering it to you because you and I are such good friends.

About the book (Click this)

[shanstress70]

Hi Bat,

I read some amazon reviews about this book. What I don't understand is this: why would he write a book trying to disprove the church, but still belong to it?

I've wondered this about other authors as well.

Any ideas?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Faerie@Sep 6 2004, 09:13 PM

curvette, is your husband still a bishop?

Nope... He's moved on to bigger and better things! :)

[Kevin]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Sep 9 2004, 04:09 AM

Hi Bat,

I read some amazon reviews about this book. What I don't understand is this: why would he write a book trying to disprove the church, but still belong to it?

I've wondered this about other authors as well.

Any ideas?

I suspect that a least a few of these remain members in an attempt to add credibility to their book. "Hey, I am a member so I know what I'm talking about!"

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Sep 9 2004, 04:09 AM

Hi Bat,

I read some amazon reviews about this book. What I don't understand is this: why would he write a book trying to disprove the church, but still belong to it?

I've wondered this about other authors as well.

Any ideas?

I dunno, I just started reading it today.

[liahonagirl]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 10:35 PM

I call denying blessings to worthy saints evil.

So does this mean that my 4 year old son who is more worthy than any of us on the board should be allowed to take out HIS endowments? Or am *I* evil because I will not allow him to?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by liahonagirl+Sep 9 2004, 03:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (liahonagirl @ Sep 9 2004, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 10:35 PM

I call denying blessings to worthy saints evil.

So does this mean that my 4 year old son who is more worthy than any of us on the board should be allowed to take out HIS endowments? Or am *I* evil because I will not allow him to?

Why not, when he's 8 he is considered to be old enough to be baptised. I don't see the difference.

[liahonagirl]

So should a 12 year old be allowed to fight for her/hisr country because s/he would be allowed to drive at 16?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by liahonagirl@Sep 9 2004, 05:21 PM

So should a 12 year old be allowed to fight for her/hisr country because s/he would be allowed to drive at 16?

Your analogy is invalid, but you knew that already, didn't you? We're talking about religious rituals, not doing things that can kill people. Feel free to try again though. Thanks.

[srm]

Originally posted by Kevin+Sep 9 2004, 09:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kevin @ Sep 9 2004, 09:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--shanstress70@Sep 9 2004, 04:09 AM

Hi Bat,

I read some amazon reviews about this book.  What I don't understand is this:  why would he write a book trying to disprove the church, but still belong to it?

I've wondered this about other authors as well.

Any ideas?

I suspect that a least a few of these remain members in an attempt to add credibility to their book. "Hey, I am a member so I know what I'm talking about!"

There was an anti-mormon a few years ago named Cowdrey (no relation although he claimed relationship)...anywho, he joined the church so he could choose to leave it an say that he was a former member.

[srm]

Originally posted by liahonagirl@Sep 9 2004, 05:21 PM

So should a 12 year old be allowed to fight for her/hisr country because s/he would be allowed to drive at 16?

Alma 54: 12

Ether 15:15

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by srm+Sep 9 2004, 09:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Sep 9 2004, 09:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Kevin@Sep 9 2004, 09:18 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--shanstress70@Sep 9 2004, 04:09 AM

Hi Bat,

I read some amazon reviews about this book.  What I don't understand is this:  why would he write a book trying to disprove the church, but still belong to it?

I've wondered this about other authors as well.

Any ideas?

I suspect that a least a few of these remain members in an attempt to add credibility to their book. "Hey, I am a member so I know what I'm talking about!"

There was an anti-mormon a few years ago named Cowdrey (no relation although he claimed relationship)...anywho, he joined the church so he could choose to leave it an say that he was a former member.

That is interesting. Do you have a reference that I might be able to look at?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by srm+Sep 9 2004, 09:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Sep 9 2004, 09:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--liahonagirl@Sep 9 2004, 05:21 PM

So should a 12 year old be allowed to fight for her/hisr country because s/he would be allowed to drive at 16?

Alma 54: 12

Ether 15:15

Alma 54: 12

I'm going to send my wife and children to kill you. Yay! G-d would be proud of that. The ends justify the means in this case, I suppose.

Ether 15:15

Read verse 17. See what happens when you send women and children into battle with male warriors? Joseph Smith might as well have sent Hobbits into battle. That would have made more sense.

[Setheus]

you're all arguing over something that isn't even in effect. This myth about the church making you wait unless getting married or going on mission is nothing more than a rumor and you guys are eating it up.

[Maureen]

This is something I found at lds.org. It’s from 1971:

“Young people in student wards and stakes should, as a general rule, be discouraged from going to the temple for their own endowments before marriage or a mission, and they should never go as a group to receive their own endowments.” “Policies and Procedures,” New Era, June 1971, 19

I also found this. I’m surprised by this one because when my friend got married 25 years ago at the Cardston Temple we did just that while we waited – we decorated the car in the temple parking lot.

“… young people and their families should be told that there must be no rice thrown on or around the temple grounds. Furthermore, it should be made clear that it is improper to deface or decorate automobiles that are to be parked near the temple. Honking horns and dragging objects behind automobiles are also violations of good taste in the proximity of the temple. Such customs are not in keeping with the sacredness of the temple marriage ordinance.”

M.

[shanstress70]

Oh come on! No decorating cars with a 'just married' poster? Way to take the fun out of something.

Someone needs to pull the stick out!

[Guest curvette]

Yeah, so we'll just park a couple of blocks away.