Celestial Mormon Marriage

[ihaveopposablethumbs]

We're all gonna feel really silly when we're all just rotting in the ground....

[imtherealthing]

If the temple ceremony changed that is because of revelation - Christ's church is based on revelation - you NEVER truly understood this doctrine when you were LDS and still don't...the Lord's revelations can change - remember Jonah who went to Nivenah - the Lord said it would be destroyed then CHANGED his mind as was the time Abram also CONVINCED the Lord NOt to destroy a city if only a few people were righteous ..etc...you DO NOT understand the scriptures - you don't know LDS Doctrine

[moparmonster1965]

Are you trying to pass that nonsense off here, too? You know you're taking things out of context and then applying different meanings to these verses.

Jonah told the people of Nineveh that unless they got their act totgether, he would destroy the city with 40 days. they repented and God was appeased.

And he went by Abraham at the point he was bartering with God to spare the city of Sodom, not Abram. But you're obviously wrong because God destroyed both cities, didn't he?

[tnfellow]

Matthew 22: 24-34, and Proverbs 19: 9 what are the meanings of these bible verses??

[slu2com]

There is a video here on youtube that uses the words of Christ to explain that:

/watch?v=W268djDSq-o&feature=r­elated

In the resurrection they will not be married nor given in marriage, they will become like the angels.

Equals

No celestial marriage IMHO

[Fonzie223]

I understand that you haven't made a video in a while however you haven't posted any different videos and you asked me look at all of the other videos. I'm not stalking you nor trolling you. However when I saw your video I thought wow what a well spoken guy but then your constant theme of mormon bashing toned you out......

[slu2com]

You asked about why I haven't covered the validity of the Bible, and I told you to go see my other videos. I guess you haven't found it yet. It's there.

And in my very last video that I made several months ago, I said that I am moving on from Mormonism.

I grew up Mormon, in a generational Mormon family, and most of my friends are Mormon. This is why I used to be concerned about Mormonism.

But after being away from Zion for so long, Mormonism got less interesting.

[Fonzie223]

LOL, and on and on and on and on...... man you have a pair of lungs on you but again somewhere along the way you loose your thunder or point..

Again why don't you simply state what your religon/belief is and stand by it without attacking others/religion/belief.

[slu2com]

The reason why I spent any time on Mormonism, is because for over 150 years, my family has been Mormon. I was raised Mormon. I have certain convictions about Mormonism as a result of my experience, and since Mormonism consumed 3/4 of my life. I feel like Mormonism is still very much a large part of my life. 90% of my friends and family are LDS.

[slu2com]

BTW- It's been about 6 months or so since I've even made a video about Mormonism. I said my peace, and moved on.

[MySweetSelf]

Andy Garcia...in the role of his life....as....

JESUS!

[minipalmer]

Oh, you mean when the citizens of California expressed their desire to rid their state of gay marriage, and the courts didn't care? So then they expressed AGAIN through Prop 8 how much they did not want gay marriage.

Well if they're only fighting for our Constitution, they're not fighting for gay marriage now are they? :)

[minipalmer]

And yes, it is correct that marriage is temporal. It does not continue after this life. Which is why we believing in being "sealed" to our family, which is a covenant that continues after this life.

[utahpirateradio]

Here is my point:

"Polygamy was not intended to be everlasting doctrine"

Refer to Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 page 269

"The ONLY men WHO BECOME GODS, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into POLYGAMY".

Do you believe this?

[minipalmer]

No, I do not. However, the Journal of Discourses is not Mormon Doctrine.

[utahpirateradio]

Your prophet Brigham Young, and many prophets after him considered it Mormon doctrine.

Shall I gave you the testimonies? I can give you several.

[minipalmer]

About your claim concerning the vast and frequent changes concerning Mormonism, we do believe in Modern Revelation. That God has a specific plan for these times, as he did back in Jesus's day. The law of Moses changed into the new law that was brought to pass when Jesus was crucified, just as new laws are brought into our Church.

[utahpirateradio]

Hebrews 13:8

[minipalmer]

Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior, surely is the same today as he was yesterday. However, his plans for the children of men change according to the needs of the world.

Today we see an uprising in homosexuality. These are different needs than 20 years ago when Roe v. Wade was being discussed. (Or even 100 years ago, when polygamy was the issue at hand.)

If Hebrews 13:8 is your only response, explain to me the Nicene Creed in relation to Protestant and Orthodox Christianity.

[utahpirateradio]

I don't believe in Protestant Christianity.

See my video (mentioned in this video) "Historical Christianity".

I believe the Romans and the Mormons are the protestants.

But lets compare. What is our main volume of scripture?

I read the King James Bible. You read the King James Bible. Both are our primary source of doctrine... Right?

Correct me if Im wrong..

But the KJV is a product of the Nicene creed.

But I also consider other first century works as scripture too.

[minipalmer]

I had not heard the KJV was affiliated with the Nicene Creed, however this would make sense why we have "Joseph Smith Translations" in all of our Bibles.

But also, don't forget the Book of Mormon :)

[utahpirateradio]

But you are talking about 19th Century works, not ancient reliable sources.

One of the two you mentioned, the Book of Mormon is 19th century religious fiction based on a book originally written by Solomon Spaulding "A Manuscript Written".

Mormons talk about the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. But one thing is for sure, the Book of Mormon does not pass the test of time, like the Bible CERTAINLY does.

These Mormon doctrines are not compliant. And the story doesn't authenticate.

[minipalmer]

That is one of the more absurd things I have ever heard. There was a claim of wikipedia of a different book with the same claim you have.

So the Book of Mormon isn't as old as the Bible, what's the point? Shouldn't we be excited about a new Godly book being placed in our hands?

You seem to have a very pessimistic view of religion. Not everything in the religious world is a conspiracy.

If time is the only verifying agent in religion, then surely you accept mythology as scripture. Live on Zeus!

[slu2com]

The point is that the Book of Mormon claims an antiquity that it doesn't have.

[minipalmer]

I know the Book of Mormon to be an ancient document. You claim it to be a 19th century work. The Bible was not originally written in English. In fact, I'm sure it took many years before it was translated into English. I suppose the English Bible does not have antiquity either.

What do you think of the dead sea scrolls?

[slu2com]

"I know the Book of Mormon to be an ancient document."

Prove it.

"You claim it to be a 19th century work."

Yes, and according to the evidence we have regarding the Book of Mormon, it will remain 19th century religious fiction until more substantial proof exists.

"The Bible was not originally written in English. "

That's neither here nor there. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical archeology is what we have the authenticates the Bible. Something the BofM doesn't have.

[minipalmer]

What Biblical archeology are you referring to? Where is Noah's ark?

There is no evidence that the Hebrews even lived in Egypt, yet they Bible claims they lived there for 400 years.

[slu2com]

"What Biblical archeology are you referring to? Where is Noah's ark?"

Noah's ark was a wood ship, that probably decayed by now.

What I am talking about, is that every city spoke about in the Bible has been found.  Many of these cities are much smaller than what "Zarahemla" was said to be in the Book of Mormon.

Even Jericho which is a 7000 year old city that had been long abandoned has been found. Solomon's temple has been found. Etc. etc...

[minipalmer]

"Every city" is a vast and incorrect claim. Sodom and Gomorrah, for example.

There are many abandoned cities in South America that have not been identified.

My point, however, is not that we find physical evidence of our religion. In that case, we would be looking for the bones of the men and women who Jesus healed himself. This is futile and unnecessary. Surely it helps ensure our religion, but faith takes precedence by a long shot.

[slu2com]

"Every city" is a vast and incorrect claim. Sodom and Gomorrah, for example."

Maybe you hadn't heard, but that city has been found too.

But tell me this. Out of the hundreds of perfectly identified sites found from the Bible via modern day archeology, how many Book of Mormon cities have been found?

Can you name just 1 Book of Mormon city that has been perfectly identified? Or even partially identified?

Just one?

[minipalmer]

Once again, I reiterate that archeology is not grounds for faith.

The Book of Mormon ends in the prophet Moroni finishing his record and burying it. His final words were basically, "I have no family or friends left, and I'm wondering off the my death."

The civilizations in the Book of Mormon became savage and incoherent because they lost the blessing of the Lord. Maintaining culture and civilization through this would be incredibly difficult.

[minipalmer]

But if you must know, plenty of large civilizations and abandoned ancient villages have been discovered in South America. Just because we can't label them does not mean they are not evidence.

Besides, you really think all of those "perfectly" identified cities are accurate? Do you know how many times science and men have been wrong? The Earth used to be flat, you know.

[slu2com]

", plenty of large civilizations and abandoned ancient villages have been discovered in South America"

Yes and they have all been identified, and none of them relate in the slightest bit to civilizations spoke about in the Book of Mormon.

The timelines are wrong, the technology is wrong, the language isn't there, the DNA isn't there.

You want to talk about the earth being flat. Im just comparing what we know about the Bible that took place before the BofM's finality. Compared to the BofM.

[minipalmer]

The DNA? Haha. What is the wrong technology you speak of?

And I don't see how the time lines are wrong. They prophesied of the coming of Christ, and Christ visited them after his resurrection.

So you're saying that 3 men wrote a fictional book to establish a non-profit religion and be kicked out of house and home and thrown out of the country? Interesting theory.

One of these three men was excommunicated from the Church, and still would not denounce it in court. What would he have to lose?

[slu2com]

"One of these three men was excommunicated from the Church, and still would not denounce it in court. What would he have to lose? "

Credibility. I mean if he went into a huge grandiouse expose on how angels appeared to him, and all of these crazy visions, etc... Only when he was trying to sell this new religion. But then later recanted after doing some soul searching. I mean, he was already on shaking ground credibility wise. One more admittance of lying would only damage his rep worse.

[minipalmer]

Possibly. We can sit here and speculate all day, but we will never change each others mind and we will certainly never prove anything.

I don't believe that a fictional book could launch one of the fastest growing Churches in the world, where men would lay down then lives for a non-profitable religion.

[utahpirateradio]

"don't believe that a fictional book could launch one of the fastest growing Churches in the world"

if numbers are proof. You can not that the 7th Day Adventist are growing at a rate faster than Mormonism, and certainly Islam is growing even faster than that.

Numbers don't mean much. Heck, there are 50 million marijuana smokers in the USA alone. Far outweighing the following that Mormonism boasts of.

[utahpirateradio]

"You can not"

I meant "You can notE"..

[minipalmer]

Haha, well this is an extremely conservative religion asking you to clean up your life and adopt a lifestyle many people hate. Not a drug that is portrayed as "cool" and that is an escape from life.

By that token, there are a LOT of people who drive cars in America. Far more than Catholics.

:P

[utahpirateradio]

"By that token, there are a LOT of people who drive cars in America. Far more than Catholics."

Now you're getting the hang of it. Numbers don't mean crap, otherwise you would be following Islam right?

[minipalmer]

"Now you're getting the hang of it. Numbers don't mean crap, otherwise you would be following Islam right?"

No way, I'd be driving a CAR! You know us Mormons with our horses and buggies.

But I disagree. Our society is going far, far left. The the Mormon Church is far, far right. Yet, we continue to grow, at a pretty good rate.

[slu2com]

"Yet, we continue to grow, at a pretty good rate. "

Actually that is an illusion. The Salt Lake Tribune and a private 3rd part research group has shown that Mormonism is declining and not gaining numbers. This is all since the invention of the internet actually.

At one time the LDS church records department had one person employed to remove names. Now the LDS church is getting so many requests for name removal, that they have 16 staff employed to remove names. Thats a lot of name removals!

[slu2com]

I've made a video on this. And I have also listed references to this at BehindZionCurtain. com.

If you go to google and search this term: LDS number declining

You will find the articles that Im talking about.

[minipalmer]

Hmm, that is interesting. Very possible it is just one of those Mormon things we say too much and never think about. These pages can be very biased, mind you.

You sure jumped on that problem fast, but you haven't answered my questions as to how the timeline and technology of the Book of Mormon are wrong.

[slu2com]

"but you haven't answered my questions as to how the timeline and technology of the Book of Mormon are wrong."

The Aztec, Incan, Myan and Olmec peoples have all been carefully scrutinized, and not even serious LDS scholars will claim any of those people to be the Book of Mormon people.

However, if you think you have a match, I'd love to hear about it. How have you identified this match?

[slu2com]

"No way, I'd be driving a CAR!"

Cool... And when it comes to the most popular religion. It isn't Mormonism, not by far. It's not even Christianity. Nope, it's Islam.

So while you're driving a car, and since you base your faith on numbers and growth. I suppose you'll be wrapping your head in a towel, and praising Allah while in your car driving.

Im just basing this on your boasting of how fast the LDS church is growing, when you use that to prove it's truth..

[minipalmer]

This comment is laughable. I would never suggest that we are the most popular religion. In fact, I'd much sooner suggest that we are the most unpopular.

People devote their lives to tearing down our religion, supposedly helping us to see "the light" by hurling insults at us and suggesting we adopt a looser moral code. I don't see "the light" in this situation.

[slu2com]

"helping us to see "the light" by hurling insults at us and suggesting we adopt a looser moral code."

I wouldn't suggest you adopt anything. I just pray and vote that the government doesn't MAKE you adopt anything else.

When the US government forced Mormons to renounce polygamy or lose their state, Mormons choose to renounce polygamy.

I think that is wrong! I also think it to be wrong for the US government force anyone else to renounce their religious ideals.

[minipalmer]

Bringing us back to the root of the problem, gay marriage! The word "marriage" is taken. Pick a new one. How about "civil union"? That works.

The Lord has a time and place for everything to occur. If polygamy was what needed to be removed to be accepted into the states, so be it. We needed to be a part of this country to practice our missionary work and practice freely.

[slu2com]

"If polygamy was what needed to be removed to be accepted into the states, so be it."

Im sure you've sacrificed plenty. But Im not talking about you. I am talking about your religion creating an "everlasting principle" and Brigham Young announcing that he would NEVER give up polygamy and neither would the church.

But not many years later, the LDS decided to sacrifice doctrine to be accepted into society.

That is bullshit, regardless of what you think!

[minipalmer]

I've sacrificed nothing. I've grown out as a white kid out here in the suburbs of Houston.

So that is the problem then. The term "everlasting covenant" means it cannot be broken by man, nor by death. The same as the sealing of marriage within the Church. Otherwise, the same argument could be made for many doctrines of every religion... ever.

What the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away.

[slu2com]

"I've sacrificed nothing. "

And it still means nothing.. The point is that your church sacrificed their right to practice their religion. That is a sad thing. In a country that protects the right to practice whatever religion you want, whatever way you want to practice it... And your church had to bow down, and give up their rights just to fit in.

Sad state of affairs. And even sadder when you consider how they're are petitioning to make laws that will violate other people's rights.

[minipalmer]

That's assuming that gay marriage is a right. Is bestiality a right?

As I said before, pick a new word. Rather than redefine marriage as between two "people", pick a new word. But gays won't settle for that. They want homosexuality to be normal, and it never has been and never should be

[slu2com]

"Rather than redefine marriage as between two "people","

Like I said, marriage means different things to different people.

Mormons (including FLDS) and Islamic people have defined marriage as between "many people"..

Marriage isn't as narrow a belief as you may think, and marriage has come from non-Christian cultures too. Cultures that didn't have exposure to Christianity, or Judaism.

You may think that you have found some kind of way to monopolize on marriage. I think it's wrong.

[minipalmer]

"Like I said, marriage means different things to different people."

Well then I would like the be able to be married to my dog. Also, murder means something different to me as well. I think murder is good if the person deserved it. So don't you dare arrest me for murder, because that's not what it means to me.

Obviously that was sarcasm. However, that's not apparently not something you can cling too.

[slu2com]

"Obviously that was sarcasm"

Here is a fact, rather than sarcasm and invalid points.

1. Marriage is between two consenting adults. Even gay marriage.

2. Marriage is nothing like murder or bestiality, because it is based on two consenting HUMAN parties.  No one is getting hurt.

3. An agreement between two consenting people has nothing to do with you, unless you are one of those 2 people.

[minipalmer]

Yes, marriage is between two consenting adults. A man and a woman. You did not provide facts, you provided what you want to be facts.

Yes, I have nothing to do with two gay people loving each other. They can love and love and love and love. But they can't get married. Pick a new word.

[minipalmer]

"You may think that you have found some kind of way to monopolize on marriage."

If you haven't noticed, so has the majority of America. And this is a democracy.

[slu2com]

"And this is a democracy. "

Don't you mean THEOCRACY?

[minipalmer]

Just because I have a religious outlook on life does not make our country a theocracy. The democracy allows for the will of the people; and fortunately the will of the people right now is that gay marriage is wrong.

[slu2com]

"gay marriage is wrong"

Which is fine. I agree. I do not agree in passing laws to discriminate against certain people.

Either discriminate against everyone, or no one.

Like I said, I don't even support passing laws against said Mormon bigamists. I think that was just as wrong in 1890 as it is in 2008!

No one should be told who they can or can't marry. Unless it's someone under the legal married age.. (which is the only problem that I have with polygamists).

[minipalmer]

If you agree then why do you not oppose it? You don't have to give in just because you've been talked into the idea that gay marriage should exist.

Marriage is a wholesome and God ordained ceremony. Gay marriage is not. Gay marriage has never existed! And it shouldn't! Were it not so, gay marriage would've been aloud at the writing of the constitution, or sometime before now. There's no reason to break down now.

Or if we must, pick a new word! :)

[slu2com]

"Or if we must, pick a new word! :) "

It's not my place to choose a word for someone's marriage.

If someone wants to call their marriage a "celestial marriage" even though it's a new term, a weird term, and not a term found in the Bible.. Well thats ok with me.

I think the term "celestial marriage" is incorrect Biblically. But it's not my place to make a law against Mormons that force them to rename their marriage.

Mormon Celestial marriage is between themselves. Not me or the gov..

[minipalmer]

The difference here is that you will never hear about Celestial marriage, it will not be taught to your kids, there will be no tax benefits from it, and it is a religious additive to marriage.

Gay marriage redefines marriage.

"It's not my place to choose a word for someone's marriage."

That's because the word marriage is already taken. Marriage is between man and woman.

[slu2com]

"That's because the word marriage is already taken. "

I doubt anyone has copyrighted the word marriage. It's a free word, not bound by your religion, or anyone elses.

[minipalmer]

It is already a government and religious institution which uses that word.

[slu2com]

So you mean it's a universal and free word?

Yes.  I agree. Many people, organizations, governments, and religions use this word. Not just Christians, Muslims, and Mormons. Even pagans use this word, and have had a form of marriage pre-dating Christ.

[minipalmer]

I highly doubt Muslims use the word "marriage". I'm sure it is something in their own language.

However, in our language, in our culture, it means "marriage between a man and a woman."

[slu2com]

"I highly doubt Muslims use the word "marriage". I'm sure it is something in their own language."

Of course. They would speak the word marriage in the language of "Islam". RIIIGGGHTT!?!

ROFL

There are as many English speaking Muslims as there is any.

"it means "marriage between a man and a woman."

To you. But you, and your religion don't own this word. So don't keep pretending that you do.

[minipalmer]

No, I nor my religion own this word. Fortunately, the majority of America is smarter than this and knows what marriage means.

[slu2com]

" the majority of America is smarter than this and knows what marriage means. "

Yeah, the smart ones who think Muslims have their own special language!

BTW- Did you know that Joseph Smith created a Mormon language? Called the "Deseret" language.  8-D

[slu2com]

" the majority of America is smarter than this and knows what marriage means. "

This is why we voted George Bush in for two terms.

Some of America actually believe that Muslims have their own special language.

Sounds like something George Bush would come up with.

Zombies!

[minipalmer]

Oh, so now we made the smarter choice and voted Obama in?

I suppose this comment was important enough to post twice, in different ways.

The majority of Muslims speak Arabic. This is what I was referring to. It's difficult to wrap your head around, I'm sure.

So what you're telling me is that the smart ones actually vote FOR gay marriage, and called themselves disciples of Christ? Yeah! They ARE smart! Clearly they are following in Christ's footsteps. :D

[slu2com]

"The majority of Muslims speak Arabic. This is what I was referring to. It's difficult to wrap your head around, I'm sure."

So did Jesus. He didn't call marriage "Marriage"..

What is your point about Muslims speaking in a different language? Does it really matter?

And I think I can prove you wrong about your statement "The majority of Muslims speak Arabic."

According to my information there are more English speaking Muslims than not.

[slu2com]

"The majority of Muslims speak Arabic. This is what I was referring to. It's difficult to wrap your head around, I'm sure."

Only 15% of Muslims speak Arabic as a native tongue.

Now listen. I realize that one of the main reasons that George Bush won two terms as president is because of religious nut jobs that don't know a damn thing about religion or the rest of the world.. BUT AT LEAST TRY!!! Would ya!

[minipalmer]

"because of religious nut jobs that don't know a damn thing about religion "

This is incredibly ironic, coming from you.

"This isn't like what Joseph Smith did"

No, it's worse! Men marrying men? Plenty of men in the old testament had several wives. Plenty of them were gay, and they got destroyed! I realize this doesn't account for our perverse modern society, but I think it's significant as one "disciple" of Christ to another.

[slu2com]

"No, it's worse! Men marrying men?"

What business is it of yours?

If what they are doing is not infringing upon your life, liberty, or property, then they are not violating the constitution or any other documents that our founding fathers wrote.

And a man marrying another man has NOTHING to do with you! Get over yourself !

[slu2com]

"If you agree then why do you not oppose it?"

Gay marriage is wrong for me. And if someone wants to follow a religion that denounces gay marriage, then either they don't belong in that religion, or they need to rethink their marital values.

But none of this belongs in the hands of the government. Two consenting adults, gay or not have the right to define a commitment that they have made however they want to.

This is none of your business.

If you don't support gay marriage, don't have one.

[minipalmer]

I think you worded your first statement wrong. Are you saying religions shouldn't denounce gay marriage, and people shouldn't support religions that do?

"none of this belongs in the hands of the government."

Yet they will receive tax benefits from it, and government documentation for it. You're absolutely right! Gays make any commitment they want! But they can't have a marriage, because that is between a man and a woman! Pick a new word.

[minipalmer]

It will not be called gay marriage, it will be called "marriage" and be considered exactly the same as a marriage, which it is not.

Are we, as a country, not aloud to draw the line when things become morally wrong? When something will not benefit our society?

It seems eventually the legal age will be lowered to birth, and pedophiles will run free. We need to stop limiting the children's freedom! And the rapist's! I know you will say they are not consenting, but this is getting out of hand.

[minipalmer]

I'm having a tough time figuring out why you are supporting this though you are against homosexuality. In the past century people would have thought our society insane for even proposing something as ridiculous as gay marriage.

And now people against homosexuality are fighting for gay rights. I've seen it all.

[slu2com]

"And now people against homosexuality are fighting for gay rights. I've seen it all. "

Sorry, it's not 'gay rights' Im fighting for. Im equally fighting for LDS rights too.

And you can gaurantee that anti-Mormons, and Mormons are fighting side by side in foreign wars to preserve the freedom of all Americans, not just some.

If you want to divide and marginalize, thats fine. But I don't buy into that bullshit.

[minipalmer]

Yes, we fight in foreign wars to defend our constitutional rights. Specifically the ones that allow us to vote against something which is wrong.

If you want to stretch and stretch the small thread of morality our country has left, that's not fine.

[slu2com]

"Yes, we fight in foreign wars to defend our constitutional rights."

Yes, as the constitution explains... Equal rights.

[minipalmer]

I never read that perversion was an equal right. I'll have to look back on that.

[slu2com]

"I never read that perversion was an equal right. "

Marriage son, thats what Im talking about.

If two consenting adults of one orientation can have marriage. Then those of other orrientations should be able to have marriage.

This isn't like what Joseph Smith did, such as taking many wives. Or taking 14 year old brides.. That IS perversion. But two consenting adults getting married is their business, not yours or mine.

[minipalmer]

"Marriage son, thats what Im talking about."

Oh, that's between a man and a woman.

[slu2com]

Historically untrue for thousands of years. Marriage doesn't have your limitations for everyone.

Sorry, just because YOU think YOUR way is the right way. Doesn't make it so for someone else.

[minipalmer]

My introduction of the numbers game was never to prove the Church's authenticity, but rather debunk your idea about our "fictional" book.

The right way to prove the Book of Mormon right or wrong is practicing James' advice in James 1:5, which I'm sure you've heard 100 times.

[slu2com]

Alright, and I will give you some wisdom.

youtube. com/watch?v=hfI9B8e9tW4

Johnny Cash, Man in Black.

[slu2com]

sltrib. com/ci_2890645

[minipalmer]

Have you read the Book of Mormon? You claim to be a religious man, and a disciple of Christ. I offer to you that this book is ordained of God, given to man for a specific reason due to current and past world events; and as it even says, a man can draw nearer to God by abiding by its precepts.

I can't offer you a scholarly view, or a theologian's ideals; I'm just a kid. But the LDS Church offers a more complete gospel than any other. Mainsteam Christianity has many, many holes in its doctrine.

[slu2com]

"You claim to be a religious man"

Actually, I don't claim to have a religion.

[minipalmer]

You claim to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. Either you accept Christianity, or ... heck I don't even know. So are you going to tell me that you don't believe in organized religion?

[slu2com]

Religion is something like what the pharisees had.

The Body of Christ is a living breathing RELATIONSHIP.

The difference here is dogma vs. non-dogma.

[minipalmer]

Do you believe in the Bible?

I grant you that modern day religion is too focused on guide lines rather than finding Christ.

[behindzioncurtain]

youtube. com/watch?v=qOJ_hi5BuZ4

[slu2com]

youtube. com/watch?v=jdB2SWsBiIc

[omiolo]

you sure SPIN a lot.

(1) Leave words out,

(2) conveniently make one small statement seem like it was widely said and applied

(3)cling to rumors and unsubstantiated conjecture

I realize you want to be right. But deception doesn't make you right!

[slu2com]

omiolo, please feel free to demonstrate your claim. Thanks!

[uSoBayArea]

omiolo is jo smith reincarnated.

[utahpirateradio]

omiolo a.k.a black and decker.. The universal tool.

[uSoBayArea]

Classic...Black and Decker