The problem with this thread is simple: do the critics and antimormons see themselves in korihor? I do believe that some do and if more would read his story again, they would see themselves even more. The fact is there are many different kinds of korihor's among us, each doing their bit to lead people away from the church as korihor attempted to do at the time of alma. And the strategy is the same: to use intellect, to use evidence, and to ask for a sign and to use cunning words to cast doubt.

You continue to unwittingly make my case. The gospel is about coming to Christ and becoming like him. "Truth" is but one of several means to achieving that end, though only in so far as those "truths" are relevant to that end. Not all "truths" will free us from chains of sin and spiritual death and free us to become like Christ. In fact, some "truths" may distract us from that end, and perhaps enslave us in counterproductive obsessions--as the case may be. This is a "truth" that you seem incapable of getting--which is, in part, why you and others like you haven't been called to the important task of constructing the curriculum for the Church. This is a position which needs to be filled by people who know what they are doing and know what the Church is all about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You continue to unwittingly make my case. The gospel is about coming to Christ and becoming like him. "Truth" is but one of several means to achieving that end, though only in so far as those "truths" are relevant to that end. Not all "truths" will free us from chains of sin and spiritual death and free us to become like Christ. In fact, some "truths" may distract us from that end, and perhaps enslave us in counterproductive obsessions--as the case may be. This is a "truth" that you seem incapable of getting--which is, in part, why you and others like you haven't been called to the important task of constructing the curriculum for the Church. This is a position which needs to be filled by people who know what they are doing and know what the Church is all about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Why do you look at death as punishment? It is only punishment to the unrepentant. To all others it is a reward.

Read about it in my Blog:

http://zerinus.blogs...-of-mormon.html

Again, if it is true I have "hurt" people (I very seriously doubt it), I will only repeat that I have never hurt anyone that didn't need hurting.

I attempted to justify nothing. As far as I'm concerned, nothing I have done there required justification. I get that you don't agree with my assessment. What I don't get is that you have willingly attempted to perpetuate a false image of me as one whose typical online behavior has consisted of "coarse" language and also aligned yourself with an apostate mob in an attempt to effect a public lynching of a fellow Saint.

What I don't understand is how you justify what you have done here. I find it despicable. I would never do such a thing. And I consider the occasional slip of a coarse term here and there to be far less a crime than that of joining with an apostate lynch mob.

I'd rather have one jwhitlock next to me in a foxhole than 1000 of the politically correct, easily manipulated weaklings who are becoming so prevalent in the Church these days.

I think this thread has fully run its course.

I've said what I wanted to say. Others have done likewise.

So I'm locking it.

And yet that exclusion is entirely of thier own making.

The Temple is open to anyone who will humble themselves and prepare themselves to enter the House of the Lord.

That they refuse to sanctify themselves is THEIR burden, not ours.

When people go on the attack against other people's faith, particularly when their attacks become the prevailing aspect of their ministries, this suggest to me that they lack the strength of conviction in the positive persuasive power of their own beliefs, and need to cut others down to their size in order to compete. That we LDS tend to confine ourselves to preaching the positive message of the restored gospel and defending the faith, is a testament to the strength of our position.

Besides, for we believing LDS ...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Gay marriage in the temple would horrify me.   Women being ordained to positions in the priesthood -- not so much.  But I don't think it will happen.  I don't want it to happen.  But, since I think that there are ways that they already function in the priesthood, this is not horrifying to me.   It would not actually -- in my mind -- represent as huge a change as it would appear.  But gay marriage would require repudiation of multiple important doctrines.

Lew Craig says:

That Gee is criticized by those of this certain ilk means he is a threat to them! Way to go Bro. Gee! Congratulations!

It is a conceit of the critics- unfounded and unproven- that the Church is being unreasonable both in closing its Temple doors to those who are unworthy or unprepared to enter and in instituting policies which emphasize sacred covenenants over temporal obeisance.


But they desperately avoid (like vampires and garlic, politicians and honesty, Twilight fans and real literature) any examination of whether the families are being reasonable in their demands for admission

This issue was first raised FORTY-FIVE posts back (in Post #51)- and no one has troubled to offer any reasonable jusification as to why the standard should be waived.

The foot-stomping, clenched-fisted, pouting lipped "But I want it!" doesn't work for a two-year-old.

Why then should it work for a reasoning adult between the ages of thrity-five and fifty?

William Schryver said: Ms. Brooks is obviously exercised by the principle of plural marriage, as are many Mormons and non-Mormons alike. That's fine. She won't be compelled to practice it, either in this life or in the "great beyond."

As for myself, I am not bothered by "The Principle," and I certainly don't feel compelled to lie about this or any other doctrine of the restored gospel.

So a parent wishing to see the marriage of their child is like a two year throwing a tantrum....

There have been a few threads there about the temple marriage thing, most of them got really ugly. There was one in particular I used to link to with friends. Always left a very bad impression. My girls were quit indignant over many of the comments, they took it quite personally when they saw the posters were talking about people like their grandparents, siblings and parents. Some threads I really like

These "policies" have been good tests of faith and where one's priorities are. I admire greatly people like Darius Gray who joined the church when he could not have the Priesthood and now is a very high profile and wonderful spokesman for the church.

But I suppose some people would rather not have their faith tested. It's like not studying for the final and knowing you'll probably fail so you'd rather get out of taking the test

I thought it was surprisingly hostile for a MD&D thread. I just don't get it. Some people would like to have a civil ceremony so the entire family can attend. What the hell is wrong with that?

The thread I sent to my friends was far and away more hostile than this one. Along with the "tantrum" idea posters called non-LDS self centered, domineering, intrusive, and they were quite contemptuous of non-LDS weddings. I tried to find it over there, it was shortly after an article about a woman in AZ who's son married and LDS woman in the temple. IIRC the mother of the bride opted not to attend the wedding and stayed out with the non-member family.

Yes. Wanting your family to attend your wedding is like trying to avoid a final. The same church that used to run ads about the importance of family, has a policy that needlessly excludes non members from the marriages of family and friends. They could have their cake and eat it too. They could allow a sealing and a civil ceremony, but they require this from members for God knows what reason. Also anyone who challenges that policy is a 'two year old' or 'wants to get out of taking a final.'

The Church actually already does this in several countries where a temple marriage isn't civilly recognized (e.g., the UK). Members in the UK are honestly quite puzzled by the Church's stance against civil marriage ceremonies in the US. They've been doing sealings and civil ceremonies on the same day over there for decades without any problems.