Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

199 Excellent

About drums12

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Somewhere in America

Recent Profile Visitors

1,160 profile views
  1. drums12

    Pope Endorses Homosexual Behavior?

    Seriously....quite making everyone an "offender for a word"
  2. I don't know if he thinks it has the least evidence...we didn't discuss things like the Book of Abraham if that's what you're getting at.
  3. I was talking to a close friend the other day who believes in the Restoration, the Book of Mormon, etc. He is very disillusioned with the modern Church for various reasons. As I mentioned my difficulty reconciling plural marriage, he said "but there is no proof Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. There are affidavits in which he denied it. There are no contemporary documents from his lifetime." I didn't wish to argue the point, but I think he is wrong. To my thinking, his belief requires a conspiracy of epic proportions. Dozens of early Saints would have to have been in on the lie. Still, let's just assume for a moment that he is correct. What are the implications for the modern Church? Would not Brigham Young and his successors have been adulterers, and thus unworthy to hold the Priesthood? What about eternal marriage? How do we separate the idea of eternal marriage from section 132, which clearly teaches plural marriage? Any other implications?
  4. drums12

    Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

    I'm a big fan of the Libertas Institute. I think the Church is dead wrong on this. A childhood friend has a son who had a hemispherectomy as a toddler to stop constant seizures. Cannabinoid oil is helping many children who suffer similarly. Perhaps had it been available and legal ten years ago his son would have hope of a normal life instead of being permanently mentally disabled. There is promising research overseas suggesting that cannabinoid oil also can shrink brain tumors. It's all well and good to say we need things tested by the government, but what if you're dying of cancer in the mean time? Should you not be able to try any therapy you wish? Beyond this, I don't believe the State has the right to tell people what they will or won't put in their bodies. The framers of the Constitution never would have supported prohibition. Ever. See D&C 98 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
  5. drums12

    New Revelations and the Future

    You are misinterpreting what the Lord is saying, IMO. He isn't saying "anything my servants say is as if I said it." He's saying, "I can speak through my servants, and when I do, their words are as if I had said it myself." Your interpretation is saying we should turn off our brains and blindly obey anything church leaders say. It's the old, "obey your file leader, and even if he's wrong you'll be blessed" argument.
  6. drums12

    New Revelations and the Future

    I tend to agree with what you're saying. However, even Joseph Smith, according to my understanding, didn't receive revelation by means of an audible voice from heaven. He recorded words as they came to his mind, at least in most cases.
  7. Yes is does. I know for a fact that the GHI requires disciplinary councils to be held in cases of criminal sexual abuse. There is no such requirement for chastity violations between consenting individuals, unless one is in a position of leadership. I have my own issues with Church policies and a host of other things, but some of you all are just drawing wild inferences.
  8. Ummm I assume one or more individuals had the idea (whether inspired or not is a matter of faith), then it was discussed with more individuals, and finally agreed upon by 15 (assuming all were present) individuals.
  9. The Church, like any organization, is made up of individuals and isn't a monolithic, sentient being. In this context, and similar contexts, I think of "the Church" as its high leadership such as the Seventy, Twelve, First Presidency.
  10. Your thread title says "the Church knew." I read the article you linked to. It says the second accuser told her local leaders. Then his leaders confronted him. I don't know if you're aware, but Bishops and Stake Presidents have directories and can (and do) contact leaders of other Stakes/Wards directly. I know this from personal experience. So while it's possible this was reported by her leaders to Salt Lake, it is also possible it wasn't. We don't know the details. In any case, let me state emphatically that I am disgusted, repulsed, and sickened by this whole thing. If General Authorities knew, and it seems likely that at least Elder Asay and Elder Wells had some knowledge of this man's proclivities, there is no defending them. edited to remove personal content
  11. drums12

    The Doctrine & Covenants, "Our Book".

    Stop. Just. Stop. You Evangelicals don't ever learn. Mormons don't care about all your anti-Mormon diatribe.
  12. drums12

    Is the Holy Ghost legitimate?

    You're assuming an awful lot. Of course I think the Church should do background checks.
  13. drums12

    Is the Holy Ghost legitimate?

    I'm glad you've all got it figured out. Funny how some folks who no longer accept with certainty some Church teachings, e.g. the Holy Ghost as a guide,etc, now have seeming certainty about their new paradigms. As anyone familiar with me knows, I have a lot of uncertainty about a lot of Church teachings, policies, etc. But I hope I don't confuse my doubts/uncertainties for having arrived at some superior state of enlightenment.
  14. Did you read carefully what Robert was saying? He wasn't talking about this case specifically, but rather Tacenda's accusation of systemic cover ups?
  15. I agree with you. As I said, Elder Oaks comments were/are disturbing to me. However, I think it's important not to just go with sound bites. Elder Oaks was speaking off the cuff in a press conference, IIRC. Were he to elaborate, his meaning might be different.