Ed Decker

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Jenda@May 13 2004, 07:08 PM

It is the elders and priests responsibility to bless and administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The teachers and deacons are not authorized to participate in any way in any of the ordinances/sacraments.

Thanks Jenda. I see what you mean. Deacons in the LDS church take part in administering the sacrament.

M.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Tr2]

Let's define terms here. When you say taught by prophets, what do you mean? the president of the Church...one of the First Presidency or the Twelve. What do you mean? Secondly, if it were taught would that make it doctrine or binding upon the members?

Well "prophets" like Brigham Young come to mind. Because I've read so much that Brigham Young said, I have a lot of trouble understanding how any mormon on the planet could see this man as anything but a joke. If you want me to give some sources it may take a while but I think most people already know some of the silly things that BY said. BY can make most modern day TV evangelists seem rational and logic based.

I think the reason why LDS members do not accept much of what he said is because they aren't as foolish as he was. However things like these are still part of LDS history.

[srm]

Originally posted by Tr2@May 14 2004, 10:00 AM

Let's define terms here. When you say taught by prophets, what do you mean? the president of the Church...one of the First Presidency or the Twelve. What do you mean? Secondly, if it were taught would that make it doctrine or binding upon the members?

Well "prophets" like Brigham Young come to mind. Because I've read so much that Brigham Young said, I have a lot of trouble understanding how any mormon on the planet could see this man as anything but a joke. If you want me to give some sources it may take a while but I think most people already know some of the silly things that BY said. BY can make most modern day TV evangelists seem rational and logic based.

I think the reason why LDS members do not accept much of what he said is because they aren't as foolish as he was. However things like these are still part of LDS history.

So you mean president of the Church?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Tr2]

So you mean president of the Church?

Sorry, yes that is who I mean. Is there a difference between the two that I am not aware of?

Either that or there is lots of misinformation about him and he is very misunderstood.

No, you were correct the first time. He was a wacko.

that still doesn't explain why Decker said that "Mormons" believe those things

I believe that is how the video can be misleading. The teachings and facts are real but he should have stated, "mormon prophets once taught".

Also if Ed Decker was so accurate in his description of Mormons, what do you think of his "Luciferian" conspiracy theory?

Which on are you referring to?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 13 2004, 05:25 PM

Anti-Mormons are or at least claim to be Evangelical Christians who believe in one God (Jehovah), and deny the existence of all other gods. The name "Lucifer" in many English Bibles is simply a translation of the Hebrew/Canaanite name "HEYLEYL" ("Shining One"); a pagan Canaanite "god" who, in Canaanite myth, tries to ascend above all other stars (the Canaanites believed the stars were gods) and sit upon the Throne of El; the chief father-god of the Canaanites. Instead of sitting upon El's throne, Heyleyl is cast out of Heaven. According to Evangelical Christian belief LUCIFER (Heyleyl) CANNOT EXIST! Since there is no God but Jehovah, the Canaanite god Heyleyl cannot have any existence of any kind. In other words, in Evangelical theology, Lucifer does not exist! If Lucifer does not exist, then there can be NO "Luciferian" conspiracy! If Lucifer does not exist, then he could NOT have been the Serpent in the Garden of Eden! In Mormon theology, El is the Father, and Heyleyl is one of His sons, and the Canaanite myth of Heyleyl is basically a true story (although somewhat corrupted) that was told by Adam to his children and handed down from one generation to another.

This is somewhat true.

Lucifer is a latin word meaning "morning star", "shining one". So when Jerome translated that particular Isaiah passage into Latin, he was not referring to Satan when he used the word Lucifer. But over the years, the word Lucifer has become synonymous with Satan.

So the argument that Lucifer does not exist is baseless, since when speaking of Lucifer now people are of course referring to Satan.

M.

[Guest Starsky]

So Lucifer and Satan are two separate entities? OR two separate stations/levels/estate/state of being?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 14 2004, 01:49 PM

Yea, I realize that Christians do not believe themselves to be referring to the Canaanite god, Lucifer when they talk about Lucifer.

Lucifer is not the Canaanite god, it is just the latin equivalent.

HELEL: Or Lucifer. The Light Bringer, the Morning Star. Son of Shachar. Helel once attempted to take his Father's Throne, but failed (another myth concerning Venus' place as the last star in the sky each morning, as if trying to defy the Sun). This is the very Myth which spawned the Christian Myth of the War in Heaven (see Isaiah 14:12- which, in Hebrew, says "Helel", and not "Lucifer").

http://phoenicia.org/anchor119863

Helel which means "morning star", "shining one", etc; is the Canaanite god. It was translated as Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate and is translated as "O Shining one, son of the dawn" in newer English Bible translations.

M.

[broadway]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 13 2004, 12:52 PM

Broadway,

"Many of the things you mentioned I am familiar with and am content with. Some of the things I have NO clue what you are talking about."

The nice thing about life, we can all learn...

"I would like any links you may have that would go to support your claims. I accept your word as the truth so far as you understand it. For my own, though, I would like to form my own opinions on. You mentioned having a link for one of the things for certain. Go ahead and start me out on that."

No valuable links exist that I'd recommend. Primary sources are the only things that should concern you. I think $70.00 is a worthwhile investment when your salvation is on the line. Don't you agree?

"Also, if you would...start a thread on these things. Especially the ones you felt you could not remember or whatnot."

It's all about time. I've still got some of my old paper's I could email you, but they may be censored on this forum. If you're interested, let me know.

"I appreciate your respect in not saying things you shouldn't say outside of the temple. You are a very kind person, indeed, to have this respect even though you do not believe in it. Your respect is for other people, I am sure, rather than for this forum or for our church. Whatever the reason for your respect, it is appreciated. You do not have to explain it any further. You can just take the credit for it and leave it at that."

Well, I wouldn't say that. I don't hesitate to discuss temple ceremonies with those who ask. But nobody here asked...

"Ah yes, You made the comment that many changes were made for practical reasons. Yes. Many. I agree. This would account for many of your issues."

And for the better, I would add.

"I cannot see that thse particular issues were theones that changed your mind about my church. Which ones specifically did it?"

I was raised to believe that God was the same yestereday, today and forever. Changing "essential" doctrines made God look like a liar. That would be a big part of it.

"Also, a little back ground would be nice as well. Did you have a run-in with a leader about your differing beliefs that started you on your quest for truth that lead you outside of the church? Some other situation, perhaps??"

I had an Institute Professor ask for my assistance on researching plural marriage. I read primary sources where lds prophets taught that if you didn't live plural marriage while on this earth, you would never be a god. That started the whole thing back in '98.

"I am 36 weeks and 4 days. In other words, I have a little over three weeks left. Your wife is twenty weeks? Wow! That is an exciting time of pregnancy. Things are now starting to change. The baby's gender can be seen. Baby can be measured . All kinds of fun stuff...and if memory serves me correctly, twenty weeks is the beginning of the fun for the daddy too since the blood flow is much stronger in certain places, and makes it easier for mommy to be ...frisky. Yes, 20 weeks is a fun time."

Ah yes, a fun time indeed.

"3 kids? Wow...this is my second. My son is 3. I will be having a girl this time. I am elated that things worked out that way. I always assumed that I would have a house full of boys the way my mom did and my husband's parents did. Good luck. She has a long road ahead of her, but it will end quicker than she thinks. (At least I am hoping, for my own sake!!!)"

Sounds fun.

Jason,

here is a little playwrite I cooked up. Tell me what you think...

Me: God doesn't change. Neither do you.

You: ok ok ok...wait a minute! Are you saying that I have always looked like this? Are you suggesting that you do not believe in the LDS doctrine that I will one day have a glorifed body? Are you saying that I always have the same moods, beliefs, education and underwear? That doesn't seem like you have thought this through too much, dear.

Me: First of all, Doesn't Catholic scripture say that God is the same today yesterday and forever? Hasn't God changed moods commandments, and such? Why,then, is it the mormon church that gets your anger over this? What about God doesn't change?

You: Yes, Catholic scripture states that God is the same today yesterday and forever...but the Catholics do not preach that God was once a man.

Me: So, we are talking about form, here when we talk about changing?

You: Not entirely, but yes, for the most part...

Me: The Mormon church preach this as well... You are familair with what an intelligence is, I assume."

You: Yes. It is a confusing doctrine, but I do know it.

Me: This is what doesn't change. What we really are...intelligences. God is made up of these, so are you. This never changes. Other things do.

You: Oh, I see. You are so much wiser than I am. Why didn't you say so in the first place? Wow. Is it too late to become a memeber again?

Me: You know better than that.

You: Is it too late to marry you?

Me: (pauses...) uhhh...what?

You: (blushes) nevermind.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@May 14 2004, 10:00 AM

I have a lot of trouble understanding how any mormon on the planet could see this man as anything but a joke.

And this, dear Trident, is why your typical post is typically thought of as a typical joke. You know nothing about the man and yet you pretend to have a clue. BY is one of the great figures in American Western history, whose accomplishments make other significant historical figures from the west look pale in comparison. How hard to you suppose it would be for me to back that up? Eh?

PS. Check you PMs. I sent you the link and wire transfer you requested.

[srm]

I asked, "So you mean president of the Church?"

Trident answered, "Sorry, yes that is who I mean. Is there a difference between the two that I am not aware of?"

OK below are the items that Saint listed. Other than #5 which Decker twists beyond recognition...please show me where that president of the Church said these things.

1. Black people are shown in the pre-existence being given black skin because they were neutral in the war against Satan. I've heard that story before, but it is not doctrine.

2. God had sex with Mary...literally. Again...not doctrine.

3. Jesus had 3 wives. Not doctrine.

4. Joseph Smith claimed to be descended from Jesus Christ. I never heard that one before! Um...I'm guessing its not doctrine.

5. We are judged by Joseph Smith, Elohim, and Jesus on Judgement Day. The cartoon shows Joseph Smith in the middle of the two, as if he is most important.

6. The cartoon also says Mormons believe JS shed his blood for us so we could become Gods. He is more important than Jesus Christ.

[Tr2]

snow,

BY was obviously a capable leader, but so was Hitler. You know more about By than I do but I know that he was a racist leader who imposed his own will on people and called it the will of God.

I will get to other posts when I get the time.

[Jason]

broadway,

Interesting playwrite. Here's my version.....

You: God doesn't change. Neither do you.

Me: God doesn't change (Mal. 3:6) but Men do. (even my underware from time to time.)

You: First of all, Doesn't Catholic scripture say that God is the same today yesterday and forever? Hasn't God changed moods commandments, and such? Why,then, is it the mormon church that gets your anger over this? What about God doesn't change?

Me: God has allowed changes in doctrine, but the Dogma's of the Church are the same. A Dogma is a teaching that is concrete. There is no change. Doctrine, on the other hand, are teachings used to help us understand Dogma. While doctrine is official, it is not mandatory that you accept to be a Catholic. Dogma, on the other hand, is mandatory to be a Catholic. Remember, there is nothing new under the sun. (Eccl 1:9) A Dogma, for example, is that God is a Spirit. (St. John 4:24) Changing that Dogma would be to assert that God has a body of flesh and bones. (D&C 130:22) See the difference?

You: So, we are talking about form, here when we talk about changing?

Me: Nope. We're talking about substance. We're talking about radical change that no longer resembles the original.

You: But why can't God be a spirit and have a body of flesh and bones?

Me: Because God cannot change.

You: But isn't that just an external change? Can't we both be right?

Me: Well, no. Either God is a spirit, or he is not. It doesn't say that God is "spiritual" but that he is Spirit.

You: Well, I still disagree. I have been taught this and I accept it, even if it's just on faith.

Me: Okay. But remember this: "Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines." (Heb 13:9)

You: Looks like we've come to an impasse?

Me: No. You're just being stubborn. Someday God will soften your heart, and you'll study the New Testament and the Early Church Fathers. Then you'll realize that the Catholic Church (not necessarily Roman or Greek Orthodox mind you) is the original Church and that Mormonism has not restored anything that resembles early Christianity.

You: Hmm...Well Im not ready to give up my eternal family!

Me: We are all God's children, and will all be together in Heaven. Our love and companionship will still be alive and well. That's what Catholicism teaches! You don't need a temple sealer for that.

You: I didn't know they taught that.

Me: You'd be surprised how wonderful Early Catholic teachings really are. Have you ever heard of the baptism of intention?

You: No.

Me: All the righteous men and women of the world who would have been baptised had they been given the chance are considered baptised. No vicarious ordinances necessary. (See # 1260 of Catechism of the Catholic Church)

You: You're kidding? I thought only Mormons worried about the unbaptised?

Me: Nope. Tell me a precious teaching that you hold, and I'll see if there's a Catholic equavilant.

You: Deal!

Me: Any other questions?

You: Does this mean that I don't have to accept polygamy in this world or the next?

Me: Yep.

You: You're my hero!

Me: Yeah, I know...

[broadway]

Jason,

LOL!!!

That was funny. (Mine was funnier)

You say substance. I say form...you say poh-tay-toe, I say poh-tah-toe...

I am not sure there is much of a diffference.

I never said God didn't have a spirit. In fact, there is a difference between the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of God. I know that we are made in GOd's image and in his likeness...so if we have a spirit and a body, then it only stands to reson that so does He.

You are a spirit, too. This does not mean that you do not have a body.

What about the scripture that talks of Jacob fighting God...literally physically fighting God? How can a man physically fight with a spirit?

[Jason]

"You say substance. I say form...you say poh-tay-toe, I say poh-tah-toe... I am not sure there is much of a diffference." (broadway)

Let me show you. Jesus said: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit [pneumatos] is spirit [pneuma]." (St. John 3:6) Then Jesus said: "God is a Spirit [pneuma]: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit [pneumati] and in truth." (St. John 4:24) The Greek word PNEUMA is also translated as 'breath', or the breath of God.

"I never said God didn't have a spirit. In fact, there is a difference between the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of God."

No. You don't understand the Scriptures. All references to the "Spirit of God" and the "Holy Spirit" use the same "breath" root. Whether it is the Hebrew "ruwach" or the Greek ""pneuma" it always means the same thing. The two terms are interchangeable. There is no separate "spirit" sent forth from God besides the "Holy Spirit" as you know it. They are one and the same.

"I know that we are made in GOd's image and in his likeness...so if we have a spirit and a body, then it only stands to reson that so does He."

Why does it stand to reason? A painting or sculpture may also be in our likeness, but are we pictures? Are we stone sculptures? Are they not inferior to ourselves in every possible way? Are we not inferior to God? Is not a Spiritual Being greater than a Physical Being?!

"What about the scripture that talks of Jacob fighting God...literally physically fighting God? How can a man physically fight with a spirit?"

Let's take a look:

"And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man [iysh] with him until the breaking of the day." (Genesis 32:24) The Hebrew word 'iysh' means a mighty being or man. Early Hebrew thought (and Christian) teaches that this was either a symbolic wrestle (the most likely choice, through great prayer), or that Jacob possibly wrestled with an Angel (we know of three Angels by name: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael). In either case, Jacob saying that he had seen the face of God was not literal, but meant that he had experienced the power of God first hand. (Possibly an experience like Moses and the burning bush.)

Compare that with this:

"And God [elohim] said, Let us make man [adam] in our image, after our likeness....So God [elohim] created man [adam] in his own image, in the image of God [elohim] created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:26-27) The Hebrew word 'adam' means a 'lowly man', while 'elohim' means both 'gods' and 'Mighty God'. (Incidently, Eve in Hebrew is 'chavvah' which means 'life giver'.) It is illogical to compare a omnipotent God with a "lowly man".

Jason

[Jason]

A few more references for you reading pleasure:

Office of Seventies-

"The quorum of Seventies, in conference assembled, agreed to erect an extensive rotunda in Great Salt Lake City, to be called the “Seventies’ Hall of Science,” and Joseph Young, their President, was appointed trustee and superintendent of the work." (MFP 2:67)

"A Letter to the First Seven Presidents of Seventies... Dear Brethren: In accordance with a resolution passed by the General Board of Education September 11th last, you are hereby authorized and requested to select and call upon members of the various quorums of Seventies whom you think qualified and suitable for missionary service in the various mission fields to attend the Latter-day Saint schools or colleges to take one year’s preparatory course to better fit them for their missionary labors, and, so far as may be necessary to meet the requirements of the various missions, you are requested to inquire of the various stake presidencies the names of such other young men of good standing and report as would also be willing to take such preparatory course in one of the three colleges most convenient to them, and you will be further guided in this labor by the instructions you have already received from the General Board of Education in relation to this matter." (MFP 3:323-324.)

"1912— January. Communication to the Quorums of Seventy. Important Instruction by the First Council. Differences of views seem to exist in some cases between our Seventies quorums and the local authorities of wards and stakes in relation to the extent and kind of local work our Seventies may be required to do, and what their obligations are with reference to local appointments in ward or stake work, and in auxiliary associations. . . . In discussing this subject, we call attention to the fact that the Seventies differ from other officers in the Priesthood– except the Twelve Apostles– in that they are called to preach the gospel ‘and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world. Thus differing from other offices in the Church in the duties of their calling’ (Doc. & Cov. 107:25). Also: ‘The Seventy are to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve **** in building up the Church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations *** It is the duty of the traveling High Council to call upon the Seventy, when they need assistance, to fill the several calls for preaching . . . the gospel instead of any others. *** And these seventy are to be traveling ministers, unto the Gentile first and also unto the Jews; whereas other officers of the Church who belong not unto the Twelve, neither to the Seventy, are not under the responsibility to travel among all nations. . .’ (Doc. & Cov. Sec. 107). . . . But while the foregoing represents undoubtedly the special calling of the Seventy, and the purpose for which Seventies’ quorums exist, we cannot ignore the fact that the greater part of the Seventies’ time, under our present circumstances, is spent at home, within some one or other of the organized stakes of Zion. Indeed, the very general rule is that only from two to three years out of a possible ten, twenty, and, in rare cases, thirty years of an elder’s connection with the Seventies’ quorums, is spent abroad on missions; as for the most part men do not go upon more than one mission, the proportion being not more than from one to five in a hundred that ever fill second missions. Moreover, under existing circumstances, very many of our Seventies never go on missions at all, as Seventies; for while it is true that very many in our Seventies’ quorums have been upon missions, they did their missionary work while they were yet elders, and then were brought into the Seventies’ quorums, to go no more out as missionaries, as a rule. At present it is a conservative estimate to say that less than eighteen per cent of the mission work of the Church is done by Seventies, nothwithstanding [sic] all that is said in the revelations about the Seventies being called to this work ‘instead of any others.’ . . . If Seventies may not, from force of circumstances which environ them, ‘travel continuously’ in the world as propaganda, as ideal conditions for Seventies would seem to suggest, why not accept cheerfully and willingly the service for the Church which so abundantly presents itself to them while at home, and which in reality is being done by them?" (MFP 4:258-260.)

I should also point out that the Quorum of Seventies today are ordained High Priests, not Seventies. No one is actually ordained a "seventy" today. It is basically an extinct office with the title in place.

Second Anointings -

It was once taught, as you will read, that without a second anointing, you could not be exalted as high as possible. If you recall the temple ceremony, your first anointing is only a prepatory ordinance for what you still lack. (I'll leave out the exact wording, but think about the first few things said at the onset of the ceremony by the speaker...)

"Think not, O ye Elders of Israel! that your eternal heirship is won, and immutably secured, because you have attained to a portion of the Holy Priesthood, and few of its initiating ordinances, while as yet your life and the security of all your great and glorious blessings in hope and prospect, are as a vapour [sic] before the sun; as yet depending wholly on your meekness, faithfulness, and perseverance to the end, in everything good. Think not that you are legally entitled to even one life, while you live on this earth, unless you are sealed up to everlasting lives, by the will and decree of the Eternal Father, and a knowledge of the fact has been communicated to you, through the proper source, and not direct, to you, in person. And consider that the blessings you have hitherto received, through the mercies of Him who loveth you, even your Father in heaven, will all be wrested from you, like David’s of old, should you err like him. To the sisters in Israel, we say, be patient. If your husband has died in the faith, and you wish to be sealed to him for eternity, you must come to Zion to receive that sealing ordinance.... But come to Zion, be patient till you get here, and the Temple is completed, and your oldest son, by the husband to whom you wish to be sealed, may stand as his father’s legal representative by your side, and by him you may be sealed to your dead husband; for it is the legal right, in God’s Kingdom, for the oldest son to minister, and obtain blessings for his father, and act for his father when he is gone into the eternal world." (MFP 2:117-118.)

"Dear Brethren: It has been decided that it is no longer necessary for those going to the Temples to attend to ordinances therein to send their recommends to President Woodruff to be by him endorsed. The signatures of the Bishop and Stake President will be all that is required. This decision applies to all ordinances attended to in the House of the Lord, except Second Anointings, which last named will still require the approval of the President of the Church before they can be administered. This being the decision, Bishops of Wards and Presidents of Stakes will see the increased necessity for care, so that no unworthy person will be recommended for ordinances in the Temples. Your Brethren, Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (MFP 3:228.)

Second anointings are now limited generally to the General Authorities and their wives. Looks like the rest of you are gonna burn. Bummer....

Deacons and the Sacrament-

Here we have a discussion on whether or not to have music during the administration of the Sacrament. The reader will notice that the meaning of the word “administer” is here understood to mean BOTH the blessing of the Sacrament, AND the passing of the Sacrament.

"May 2, 1946. Dear Brethren: Inquiries received at the office of the First Presidency disclose the fact that there is a divergence of opinion and varied practices among ward officers with respect to the kind of music, if any, that should be rendered during the administration of the sacrament. Recently, this question came before the First Presidency and the Twelve who unanimously approved the recommendation that the ideal condition is to have absolute quiet during the passing of the sacrament, and that we look with disfavor upon vocal solos, duets, group singing, or instrumental music during the administration of this sacred ordinance. There is no objection to having appropriate music during the preparation of the emblems, but after the prayer is offered, perfect silence should prevail until the bread and the water have been partaken of by the full congregation. It was further suggested, and unitedly agreed upon, that the sacrament should be first given to the presiding authority in the meeting. This may be the bishop, perhaps one of the stake presidency, or one of the visiting General Authorities. It is the duty of the priest officiating to determine who is the presiding authority present; thus, whenever the sacrament is administered, members of the Aaronic Priesthood officiating will have a lesson in Church government. When the sacrament is given first to the presiding authority, those officiating may pass the sacrament consecutively to members of the Church who are sitting on the rostrum and in the audience. It was also the conclusion of the Council to recommend to the Superintendency and General Board of the Deseret Sunday School Union that local Sunday Schools be advised that the significance of partaking of the sacrament will be enhanced if no music be given at that period. Undoubtedly, there will be those who will claim that soft, appropriate music contributes to better order; but careful consideration of the institution and purpose of the sacrament will lead to the conclusion that anything which detracts the partaker’s thought from the covenants he or she is making is not in accordance with the ideal condition that should exist whenever this sacred, commemorative ordinance is administered to the members of the Church. Reverence for God and for sacred things is fundamental in pure religion. Let every boy and girl, every man and woman in the Church, manifest this principle by maintaining perfect order by self-communion whenever the sacrament is administered.” (MFP 6:252-253.)

Jenda's views on the Mormon Sacrament are correct. At least that was the case fifty years ago....

More later..

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@May 15 2004, 11:09 AM

snow,

BY was obviously a capable leader, but so was Hitler. You know more about By than I do but I know that he was a racist leader who imposed his own will on people and called it the will of God.

I will get to other posts when I get the time.

Here's the thing Trident,

When you compare BY to Gangis R. Hitler, you lose the argument. The reason is self-apparent and no reasonable person needs it explained.

Beyond that, you can say that he was racist, and I am inclined to agree that by today's standards, he was. Big deal. He was racist in the same way that a great deal of the rest of society was racist as were Christian leaders from more orthodox Christianity, worse than some, better than many. It is noteworthy that you, like most others, think that Mormons should be held to a higher standard. I agree. They should and it is a shame that despite his many other talents, BY did not let the spirit of equality bless him with greater understanding.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 16 2004, 12:07 AM

Jenda's views on the Mormon Sacrament are correct. At least that was the case fifty years ago....

More later..

YES!!!

Also, we do have seventies that are ordained seventies, not high priests.

[Jason]

Thread's kinda quiet today...