• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

Scott Lloyd

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Scott Lloyd last won the day on January 8

Scott Lloyd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12,117 Excellent

About Scott Lloyd

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

14,487 profile views
  1. One of the things I love about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the integrity of its general leadership, especially the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. By that, I mean they can be counted on to steadfastly remain true to the revelations, doctrines, teachings, standards and commandments of Jesus Christ. They are solid as granite. They will not be dislodged in that resolve by the shifting sands of societal trends or by being bullied by social and political pressure and criticism. Notwithstanding such fortitude, they are as loving, forgiving and tolerant as they can reasonably and realistically be in any given circumstance while remaining true to principle. Of course the latter is part and parcel of their integrity, because they are under commandment from Jesus Christ to be charitable. Their integrity is so essential to their calling it is easy to take it for granted, but I do appreciate it. I see it as crucial to our survival as a church. That is to say, Christ would reject us as a people if the leadership did not remain true to Him in all things, because we would then be unqualified to fulfill the mandate to set the stage for Christ's second coming.
  2. Could we call those the three P's of thread disqualification?
  3. Just noticed that my thread on the great and spacious building has been summarily closed. i find this puzzling. Except for some petulant pushback by one or two individuals, I thought the discussion had been, for the most part, reasoned, civil and even thought provoking. And I don't really think the discussion had run its course, as happens so often with threads that remain open for days and weeks after they have outlasted their usefulness. And despite some attempt at derailment, I really didn't see any of that in my thread. Moreover, it seemed to be getting a lot of traffic, garnering well over a thousand views in two or three days. And some of the posts got a considerable number of rep points. The only thing I can guess is that there was some angry reporting to the moderation team that has gone on under the radar. I think there was some misunderstanding by some of intended meaning, terms and symbols, and perhaps that got carried into the reporting. I'm not complaining, really. Just curious. But I've seem some threads on, say, the Mormon leaks that were far more unseemly.
  4. Did you not see my response to you, we've one where I referred you to what I said in my post to Poloma? In referring to "the OP" are misconstruing and misvharacterization get what I said. Hence my observation that you lack understanding. Do you have me on "ignore" or something?
  5. You lack understanding. Please see my most recent post wherein I respond to Paloma. (Just scroll up two posts above this one).
  6. Thanks for this. The parable of the sheep and goats is similar to the "two churches only" paradigm taught in the Book of Mormon. Those who view it as literally referring to two formal organizations or who think it denotes a dichotomy between "Mormons and everybody else" or see it as "us vs. them" are misguided in their mindset. Any entity that promulgates teachings consistent with Christ and His gospel, to the extent that it does, belongs in a figurative sense to the church of the Lamb. Any entity that contends against Christ or His apostles or His teachings, to the extent that it does, belongs to the church of the devil. So it's a matter of truth vs. error, right vs. wrong, the sheep and the goats. Kudos to you for grasping the concept better than some professed Mormons -- or former Mormons -- do.
  7. So as long as I keep quiet on right vs. wrong, nobody will bother me. Is that it? No thanks. Sounds like the version of "free speech" that is being practiced on the Berkeley campus right now. And being pushed by the Human Rights Campaign.
  8. Yes. the "two churches only" paradigm is essential in understanding the prophecies of the last days pertaining to those contending against the church of the Lamb. It's a matter of truth vs. error, right vs. wrong. Much of the opposition that emerges these days against the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders has to do not with theological differences but with the Church's firm stand on principles of truth and righteousness, championing the integrity of the traditional family, holding fast for morality,things like that.
  9. Asked and answered. In an earlier post, I already drew a distinction between disagreeing and contending. As CV75 astutely pointed out in a prior post, the aggregate of people worldwide who are sworn enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ is substantial enough, that "multitudes" would not be inappropriate in characterizing them. And as I indicated earlier, those in the world who oppose principles of truth and righteousness must be included with those who contend against the apostles of the Lamb of God, since it is the apostles who are engaged in promoting and fostering those principles. Finally, as time goes on, I expect that things will only get worse as pertaining to the mounting of worldwide opposition to the apostles as they champion the cause of Christ and His Church.
  10. On this point, I would return to the speech Elder Oaks gave that I cited earlier: Further: On the insinuation here of heavy-handedness by Church leaders with regard to how they deal with criticism, Elder Oaks taught: And there's this challenging bit of wisdom:
  11. Your definition strikes me as a new one, one not intended in the scriptural passages in which the phrase occurs. In fact, I would call it quirky. I'll have to acknowledge sharp disagreement between us on that statement.
  12. It's entirely possible that cinepro has never beaten his wife. But if that supposition is not true, he is certainly guilty of domestic violence. The understanding that the content of the Book of Mormon was produced expressly for us who are living in the latter days did not originate with me. President Ezra Taft Benson taught it repeatedly a generation ago: Link: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng On the other hand, the notion that everything Nephi wrote or recorded by way of revelation was preached or distributed to the people living back then is not self-evident to me. Perhaps you can substantiate it.
  13. In this talk https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng Elder Dallin H. Oaks seems to apply the definition to the Lord's anointed that I have always understood it to mean: those who have been called of God to lead His people.
  14. I'm not sure how much of Nephi's vision would have been preached or publicized to his contemporaries. My understanding was that it was revealed to him and recorded to come forth in our day. But in any event, it is also my understanding that the doctrine of a Messiah coming in the meridian of time to redeem His people was part and parcel of the word of God as it was preached from Adam down through the prophets that preceded the coming of Christ, though that knowledge or a portion thereof may have been lost through apostasy.
  15. Feeling a bit defensive, stemelbow? There, there. You can stand down. I'm not interested in turning this into a brawl.