Scott Lloyd

An indication one is halting between whether or not to use the singular they.

And there is the light of Christ helping folks to discern between right and wrong.

Are you seriously advocating that doctors be required or expected to perform elective medical procedures (such as tubal ligation) against their will? That attitude bothers me a great deal. What about breast augmentations or circumcisions or gender reassignment? Would you want physicians required or pressured to perform those as well?

And has always taught. It is society, not the Church, that has changed.

Thanks for your candor. I just added the link for those who are interested.

Are you a different Jared Livesey, then, than the one responding on the Interpreter web site and quoted here by Louis Midgley? (I’ll come back in a moment and provide a link) Quoting here: on January 14, 2018 at 9:07 pm said: This is from Jared Levesey’s blog: “My name is Jared Livesey, and I reside in Bakersfield, CA. I am an inactive member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (‘LDS Church’). I have been baptized again outside the auspices of the LDS Church because I believe Denver Snuffer has truthfully reported that Jesus Christ renewed the commandment to

Jared, are you a follower of Denver Snuffer?

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. First you say I’m absurd because I say that the Book of Mormon is a question of faith, not empirical proof. Then you yourself say the Book of Mormon is a question of faith. You’re not making sense, Bob

I’m not an apologist for nor an attacker of other belief systems. They can manage their theology and belief promulgation as they see fit. I will not oppose them. But the gospel of Christ as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith is and always has been a matter of faith. We are in this mortal sphere to learn to walk by faith. It is not intended that we convert people through argumentation and debate. Our task is to invite and encourage others to “come and see” what we offer. To do that, we need only keep the question open by fending off attacks on our faith. It is our sel

Cinepro’s point would be valid if we held to the claim that the authenticity of the Book of Mormon could be definitively proven by physical or empirical means. But we don’t. We present it with the invitation to take it on faith and to have it verified in one’s heart by spiritual means. Ergo, the burden of proof is on those who claim it is a fraud. Whether or not he is willing to own up to it, Richard is obliged to prove his assertion that “Joseph wrote it.” Failing that, the question is still open for those who would avail themselves of Moroni’s promise that the truth of it will be e

Looks like you were gave it all the consideration it merits. And then some.

Thank you for adding to my Latin vocabulary. I can see that, in some instances, caveat lector is an expression I can use with more nuanced precision than caveat emptor.

I’m reading Jackson’s Interpreter piece right now. The sense I’m getting is that we were snookered by the Wayment study, with everybody who cared at all about it hopping onboard and nobody really bothering to look at it critically. Even Jackson himself cited it approvingly in Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion before getting around to taking a close look at it. Now, from what I can tell, he pretty much rejects it in toto. The question I have to ask: Is this an instance of scholarly group think? What lessons should we draw from it?

In my view, the fact that she has so openly (after the fact) proclaimed her bias taints the credibility of the product.

A general observation: Without a live congregation to react, perhaps they need a laugh track. The speakers have been getting off some pretty good one-liners that seem to be falling flat for the want of an audience.