savedbygrace Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 As this thread has been closed I have to apologise for breaking the rule that no thread can commence with a link only. I didn't know that this rule existed. However, the reason I did not submit my thoughts on the question and the link [edit]is because I didn't want any ensuing discussion to focus on my thoughts. In view of the content and the title of the thread I wanted mormon thoughts as they are surely more relevant than mine, and for them to be focused on the content of the link and the question asked.Do not link to anything with temple content. Review the board guidelines that you agreed to when you registered here.
CV75 Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 I didn't want any ensuing discussion to focus on my thoughts. In view of the content and the title of the thread I wanted mormon thoughts as they are surely more relevant than mine, and for them to be focused on the content of the link and the question asked.Why are your thoughts not relevant?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 As this thread has been closed I have to apologise for breaking the rule that no thread can commence with a link only. I didn't know that this rule existed. However, the reason I did not submit my thoughts on the question and the link is because I didn't want any ensuing discussion to focus on my thoughts. In view of the content and the title of the thread I wanted mormon thoughts as they are surely more relevant than mine, and for them to be focused on the content of the link and the question asked.If this is the same link, it will be again. The other had Temple content. Thoughts I thought I would add yesterday never got posted due to closing. God made Adam, "Lord over all the earth", Christ is "Lord of lord's". I fear the only reason is to expose us to something you find incorrect, or an attempt to circumvent the rules.
Vance Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 There you go again, linking to a web site with temple content.Anti-mormon sites that contain temple content are extremely offensive to us. The material was aquired through nefarious means, and posting it shows a great amount of disrespect for the things that we hold sacred.I suggest you remove that link from your post.
halconero Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 If you don't want to give your opinion a summary of the link is good too.But...yeah...temple stuff is a no no here.
Vance Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 But then again, if your intent is to offend us, you have made a good start.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 But then again, if your intent is to offend us, you have made a good start.Yeah because this person is clearly saved by grace not of works. I mean after all works don't matter. You don't need them to be saved. So go a head dig a pit for thy neighbor.
BlueDreams Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 Yeah because this person is clearly saved by grace not of works. I mean after all works don't matter. You don't need them to be saved. So go a head dig a pit for thy neighbor.To her credit, she's catholic not evangelical. i doubt she'd say works don't matter.With luv,BD
Questing Beast Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 While this thread is viable: BY tried several times to get his "Adam-God" theory to take, even changing the endowment to suit it, but it never did. And as McConkie said, BY said some strange things, so it comes down to "which Brigham Young" are you going to believe, the one who said a few quirky things, or the massive amount of things he said that remain doctrinal for the Church? As the Church has always asserted that a prophet is only speaking as such when under the influence of the HG, the men as men can and do say things that don't bind the Saints in any way, because they were not inspired sayings. "Adam-God" theory falls under the latter....
RobertAC Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 There you go again, linking to a web site with temple content.Just so that I do not run afoul of the rules, would the Temple content be the letter copied on the referenced page, or is it one of the links on the site? (I do see that there is a reference to the Temple on what appears to be the main page of the site.)
Vance Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 The rule says,"Do not post temple content or links to temple content."The interpretation of this rule is totally up to the discretion of the moderators.In the past, generally, it has applied to the entire website that has any temple content anywhere on it.Your experience may vary.
Calm Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) In the past, generally, it has applied to the entire website that has any temple content anywhere on it.And it is usually explicit temple content....using words or specific descriptions, not just talking about the temple itself (there are many LDS and nonLDS sites that talk about the temple, but do so by referencing information found outside of the temple and only using temple info in a general way.If I am concerned about a link, I do a site google on the word "endowment" as that generally brings up any discussion about the temple ceremony itself. If they have specific wording, I try to find another source for the info. Edited March 12, 2013 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts