It's how I have raised my kids- it IS the "reality" of the situation I think, and they all understand the church that way- so far we are 4 for 4 in temple recommends, both who are married were sealed, and my one daughter just returned from her mission.

It works for me ;)

The key is not worrying about "what is true"- it is having a correct understanding of what "truth" IS. Then all the alleged "problems" go away. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/568 ... ge__st__20

Mfbukowski explains that we can avoid problems about the truth value of a given claim by redefining "truth" so as to fit around one's predetermined beliefs.

I would say we would not want to attract apostates, but would want to attract the faithful...
We can most likely help those that have fallen away by simply continue being their freind, and be Christ-like to them.

Non Mormons and anti Mormons are offended by anything and everything..... I personally feel very little compuction to be on their side in such matters since they either sincerely don't understand (which means they are allowing their ignorance to rule them), or they actively seek to hurt the church and its goals as mandated by God (meaning little more than malicious scum). Personally I wouldn't want to be in either of those camps.

So, everyone but Mormons are hyper-sensitive and easily offended, eh? But not Mormons, you say?


[ ] Story checks out
[X] OMGWTFLMAO

To me, what may be more important than whether you can choose to believe or not, is choosing who and what you wish to become and where you wish to go with your life, and then orienting and prioritizing your beliefs accordingly.

The mistake I see a lot of members make, is they place determining the "truth" of certain Church-related things high on their priority list, rather than, as the gospel is intended, putting becoming like Christ as main objective.

And, too often, they pursue the "truth" of matters that are not all that significant or relevant to becoming like Christ--like whether the Book of Mormon is historical or not.

Worse yet, they may use secular rather than spiritual methods to supposedly descern the "truth," putting their faith in man rather than in God, contrary to what God has proferred.

No wonder their faith in certain matters wanes. Spiritual faith can't be expected to continue to grow and thrive when a person takes their eye off the intended goal and pursue instead alternative objectives using methods not suited to obtaining the intended goal.

It is kind of like initaily deciding to head to the tops of the mountain, but along the way choosing instead to determine the "truth" of what may lay at the bottom of a nearby lake, and dawning a wetsuit, fins, and a snorkle in pursuit thereof, and then wondering why you aren't getting closer to the top of the mountain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

LeSellers: I object to the phrase "homeopathic quacks", especially if you are implying that homeopathy is quackery. It is not.

I object to the phrase "homeopathic quacks" based on its redundancy.

Jeff,

It helps to realize that:

1) Socially repelling people tend not to fare well in organizations they preceive as first and foremost social.

2) People who worship themselves as God, or who trust themselves over God, and look to themselves and man as the source of light and truth, tend not to fare well in churches where the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are God, and are the primary object of faith and the source of light and truth.

3) Dogmatist, with their fundamentalist, norrow-minded, and cemented notions of the "truth", tend not to fare well in religions open to new revelations and growth in faith and truth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am reminded of a bill introduced in the House several years ago by former Democratic Rep. Frank Pignanelli.

That bill made it explicitly illegal to have sex with animals.

It was voted down in the House, with one representative stating, “Rep. Pignanelli just doesn’t understand the pressures on the farm in rural Utah.”

Seems masturbation is unfair both to wives and livestock.

Yes, exaltation is "earned" in a sense, but it is "earned" through the grace of Jesus Christ. Without Him, there is no salvation, period. The Church has always emphatically declared this.

IMHO, if you don't believe that, you might as well be a Methodist. They are a lot cheaper, and from what I understand, have the best potlucks around.

Call me when there is a radical change to: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentence of sins, baptism by immersion, receiving the Holy Spirit, and enduring to the end.

Parallelism is a flawed argument.

For example, I can provide proof that the Book of Mormon was written in the 20th century. There are clear references to the Teliban, for example, where we have terrorists with a standing army who flee to the mountains in the winderness, and pursuit by government troops. Who could miss the the references to the Mafia and their oaths, We see "TV preachers", references to Darwinisn, to the arguments of modern atheists.

The Book of Mormon is clearly a production of the 20th century, based on the argument of parallelism.

The burden is on yourself to prove that there are references only to the 19th century, and to no other post 19th century culture.

This argument has been addressed previously. The problem is that one can prove ANYTHING given certain assumptions.

Daniel Peterson, on 02 March 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:
We don't know the reason for the ban.
Perhaps it was a mistake. In that case, we don't know why the Lord permitted it to endure until 1978.

What else would you expect from someone who uses the face of an infamous and self confessed sex predator for an avatar?

According to my projections of the graph found in that website, the total membership of the Church in 200 years from now is close to 100,000,000.

When you're projecting growth, small changes make a big difference.

For example, let's look at things 200 years out and assume world population grows at 1%.

Right now, LDS makes up about 0.2% of the world or 1 of every 400 people in the world are LDS.

If LDS grows at 2.4%, in 200 years 1 in every 27 people will be LDS.
If church grows at 1.5%, in 200 years 1 in every 160 people will be LDS.
If church grows at 1%, in 200 years the same 1 in every 400 people.
If church grows at 0.5%, in 200 years 1 in 1,156 people will be LDS.

I don't think so. The growth rate is actually exponential. I erred on the side of caution. The true figure in 200 years time is more likely to be close to 200,000,000, if past trends continue.

The issue is not why haven't we found any evidence. The question is why would we expect to find any evidence.