Scott Lloyd Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I live outside of Utah. If I want to get any news at all about gays vs religion I have to read newspapers like the Salt Lake Tribune. That publication, in particular, is on a mission to keep most any policy the Church has in its sights, but the policies towards gays is particularly near and dear to their hearts. I think the rest of the world cares very little about it, and adopts the correct stance - if you don't like it then don't attend. I think that the Church, on a worldwide basis, also doesn't see this as a very important issue. I don't know how you people can stand to live in a state that has such anti-Mormon tendencies.There are advantages too. I live within line-of-sight of three temples and within an hour's drive of nine (soon to be 10) temples (including the flagship Salt Lake Temple). Things like that tend to balance out the aggravation from the anti-Mormon irritants.
Zakuska Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) I'll post it here too... Leviticus 18:22 Leviticus 20:13 Judges 19:16-24 1 Kings 14:24 2 Kings 23:7 So now we're living the Levitical Law? Eating shell fish is also an Abomination (Lev. 11:12) Do you eat Shell Fish? Theres quite a few Red Lobster Restaraunts in SLC and Im pretty sure I saw President Monson, Several of the Twelve and quite a few of you all eating there once too. My wife once served President Monson and his wife *GASP* a diet coke. (Horror of Horrors!) Was not the Law fulfilled in Christ? Was not much of the law "traditionals of the fathers" instead of commandments from God? (Jesus thought so) Did not Christ say to Peter of the heathon nations practicing those "abomination", "Call not that which I have cleansed, Unclean"? Why are we taking the Judgement out of Christs hands when it comes to Homosexuality. We all have crosses that we bear. What makes your or my sins any worse than a homosexuals sins? You or I are not bared from church membership for our sins, they are. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", Jesus said. We Spiritually stone homosexuals for their sins all the time. Excommunicating them or baring the doors against them. Why cant we just forgive and leave the judgement where it belongs. In Christs hands. Isn't that what Paul taught us to do? Romans 14 1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.1 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.2 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.3 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.4 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.5 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.6 7 A Homosexual might be weak in the faith and not able to fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth. But we shouldn't forbid them to join or condemn them to hell for it either. Let the Lord take care of their sins. He can't very well heal them if every time they try and check in to the hospital psyhcophantic Doctors and Nurses kick them out the door again because they aren't/can't perfectly following the Gospel. If God hasn't thrown any fire and brimstone at San Franscico by now, perhaps he has figured out a better way to more lovingly deal with our Homosexual brothers and sisters. And just maybe we should not presume to take his place and throw fire and brimstone at them either. He created them that way after all, Only he can heal them. Did Jesus, Paul or any other Apostles ever tell us to forbid a homosexual from entering the congregation for any reason? Enuchs can join the church as evidenced by the book of Acts where the Eunuch was baptized. (bringing into question all of Deut. 23 as "Jewish Tradition/Bad Policy") We also allow barren women to Join the church. So using the Proclamation on the Family as justification of disallowing Gay couples into the church makes no sense. Gay and Lesbian couples are basically Eunuchs. However, they do have the potential to be able to reproduce with the miracles of Modern Medicine. So they are one step better than a Eunuch in that respect. God did promise the Eunuchs better blessings than us breeders. (Isaiah 56:4) Have you ever stopped to think that just maybe the Lord is using this issue to judge the modern church? He might just be seeing who will fall into the Moses camp (letter of the Law, follow the prophet he knows the way, stone the sinners, kick them out of the congregation) and those who fall into the Jesus Camp of "Unconditional (Agape) Love" (have mercy on the sinners, judge the ye be not judged) The same laws the Bretheren are meting out will Judge them as well. Edited November 16, 2015 by Zakuska
KevinG Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) You bet your bibby I'd be excommunicated for my sins if I did not repent of them. We don't excommunicate gays, or even people who have sinned with homosexual behaviors. We do excommunicate those who don't repent (of any serious sin) or who enter into same sex marriage, polygamy, or other arrangements forbidden by the Lord and His church at this time. I absolutely believe that the Lord is using the homosexuality issue to judge the church, as well as every other moral issue. Edited November 16, 2015 by KevinG
ksfisher Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) I'll post it here too... So now we're living the Levitical Law? Eating shell fish is also an Abomination (Lev. 11:12) Do you eat Shell Fish? Theres quite a few Red Lobster Restaraunts in SLC and Im pretty sure I saw President Monson, Several of the Twelve and quite a few of you all eating there once too. My wife once served President Monson and his wife *GASP* a diet coke. (Horror of Horrors!) Sodom and Gamorah where 400 year Prior to the Levitical law you are quoting. "Where there is no law there is no sin." (Or sin is not counted/imputed) Romans 5:13 Was not the Law fulfilled in Christ? Was not much of the law "traditionals of the fathers" instead of commandments from God? (Jesus thought so) Did not Christ say to Peter of the heathon nations practicing those abomination, "Call not that which I have cleansed, Unclean"? Why are we taking the Judgement out of Christs hands when it comes to Homosexuality. We all have crosses that we bear. What makes your or my sins any worse than a homosexuals sins? You or I are not bared from church membership for our sins, they are. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", Jesus said. We Spiritually stone homosexuals for their sins all the time. Excommunicating them or baring the doors against them. Why cant we just forgive and leave the judgement where it belongs. In Christs hands. Isn't that what Paul taught us to do? Romans 14 1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.1 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.2 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.3 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.4 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.5 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.6 7 A Homosexual might be weak in the faith and not able to fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth. But we shouldn't forbid them to join or condemn them to hell for it either. Let the Lord take care of their sins. He can't very well heal them if every time they try and check in to the hospital psyhcophantic Doctors and Nurses kick them out the door again because they aren't/can't perfectly following the Gospel. If God hasn't thrown any fire and brimstone at San Franscico by now, perhaps he has figured out a better way to more lovingly deal with our Homosexual brothers and sisters. And just maybe we should not presume to take his place and throw fire and brimstone at them either. He created them that way after all, Only he can heal them. Did Jesus, Paul or any other Apostles ever tell us to forbid a homosexual from entering the congregation for any reason? Enuchs can join the church as evidenced by the book of Acts where the Eunuch was baptized. (bringing into question all of Deut. 23 as "Jewish Tradition/Bad Policy") We also allow barren women to Join the church. So using the Proclamation on the Family as justification of disallowing Gay couples into the church makes no sense. Gay and Lesbian couples are basically Eunuchs. However, they do have the potential to be able to reproduce with the miracles of Modern Medicine. So they are one step better than a Eunuch in that respect. God did promise the Eunuchs better blessings than us breeders. (Isaiah 56:4) Have you ever stopped to think that just maybe the Lord is using this issue to judge the modern church. He might just be seeing who will fall into the Moses camp (letter of the Law, follow the prophet he knows the way, stone the sinners, kick them out of the congregation) and those who fall into the Jesus Camp of "Unconditional (Agape) Love" (have mercy on the sinners, judge the ye be not judged) The same laws the Bretheren are meting out will Judge them as well. You're claim here (especially in your last pragraph), if I'm reading this right, seems to boil down to saying that it is the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that are in apostasy and not same sex married couples. Am I understanding correctly? Edited November 16, 2015 by ksfisher
Mystery Meat Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Well.... there was this. Genesis 19:4 ¶But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. There was homosexuality... although the scriptures say the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for: Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. The abomination in question was not defined, but may or may not include homosexuality which we know was referred to as an abomination here (along with adultery and a few other no-nos): Leviticus 18: 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. I agree, but I was humoring him.
juliann Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 All this tells me is that Dehlin got enough criticism that he also had to do damage control. 4
Buckeye Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 All this tells me is that Dehlin got enough criticism that he also had to do damage control. Zing!
Popular Post Bob Crockett Posted November 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 16, 2015 My take is that Dehlin still passed along information he should not have and mischaracterized it. Huh? Do people really believe that? What rule says that he "should not have?" He's an excommunicated member. 5
Popular Post Buckeye Posted November 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 16, 2015 Huh? Do people really believe that? What rule says that he "should not have?" He's an excommunicated member. Several posters have proposed that CHI 1 should not be publicly discussed because its circulation is limited to bishoprics and stake presidents (and higher authorities, including 3 women). Personally, I think the notion is silly. The original church handbooks were not only published, they were codified in scriptures - section 20 for example. If our God does not work in secret, why are we so afraid of what's in the handbooks? 5
Traela Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I agree. Saying children are unworthy doesn't seem right. What would a better word be? Unauthorized or unqualified? Each has it's own connotation but all correctly mark the child's baptism as unacceptable.I agree- "unworthy" is completely the wrong word. It's very much like those who can't attend a sealing because of age or non-member or new member status: they can be completely worthy in the moral and religious sense, but because the rules for getting a recommend they still don't qualify. 1
Bobbieaware Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Or perhaps they see scriptures a little differently and think church Doctrine and Policy actually goes against the Gospel and might be mistaken.Riddle me this. What was the sin of Sodom and Gamorah according to scripture?Hint: it wasn't homosexuality.Ezekiel 16:49According to the Apostle Jude, the sins that brought about the divine decree of destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah were fornication (sexual relations outside of marriage) and "going after strange flesh," (an allusion to homosexuality). I find it interesting how often the flowing excerpt from the New Testament is almost always left out of debates centered on why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.I wonder if asserting that the Apostles and Prophets of today's Church are teaching doctrines and policies that are "against the Gospel" falls into Jude's category of "speak(ing) evil of dignities?
Zakuska Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Well.... there was this. Genesis 19:4 ¶But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. There was homosexuality... although the scriptures say the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for: Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. The abomination in question was not defined, but may or may not include homosexuality which we know was referred to as an abomination here (along with adultery and a few other no-nos): Leviticus 18: 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. First, the word "know" in Genesis 19:4 does not necessarily connote knowing some one carnally, (ie having sex with them). The men wanted to converse with the Angels, find out what they were doing there. They identify the Angels as "foreigners". Perhaps their motives to talk to the angels weren't "sexual" in Nature at all. Maybe they saw some foreigners and wanted to know what they were up to. Perhaps us modern scripture readers just have dirty minds and want to input the worst possible motives to the Sodomites. It makes sense to me since Lot is accused of being a foreign spy himself in verse 9. Remember "As far as it is translated correctly". So we cant say for sure that Homosexuality was involved for 100% certian. Second, Leviticus came 400 years after the fact so you are getting the cart before the horse on this one. As you have rightly surmised the "abomination" referred to in Ezekiel 16:49-50 many or may not have include Homosexuality. We know from Lev. 18:22 that the Jewish Fathers setup Policy against homosexual relationships so we can surmise that "they" felt it was an Abomination. But that doesn't mean the Lord felt it was the Abomination referred to in Ezekiel 16:49-50. Unless you can show a verse with God himself saying he destroyed Sodom and Gomorah because of their deviant sexual practices of Homosexuality you are only guessing. Not even Jude in the New Testament does that. Jude 1 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Notice they had sexual relations outside of marriage. They ate "strange flesh" sacrificed to idols. "Strange Flesh" usually means the flesh was from an unclean animal (eg. cats/dogs) or possibly even Human flesh so don't eat it. (Remember: Baal worship included sacrificing Children to the Idol and cooking and eating them) Third, "Where there is no law sin is not imputed" Romans 5:13Forth, Eating Shell fish was also an Abomination. Lev. 11:12Fith, Much of the Levitical Law is no longer under effect, (Such as the prohibition to not eat shell fish) because of the Law of "Agape Love". So now that the Bretheren have defined and codedfied SSM a sin. It will be held against them. How "loving" is that? You're claim here (especially in your last pragraph), if I'm reading this right, seems to boil down to saying that it is the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that are in apostasy and not same sex married couples. Am I understanding correctly? No, not in the least. I think they are doing exactly what the Lord wants. Its up to us to make the choice. Will we follow the Law of Moses and a Man "Follow the Prophet Don't go Astray" Stone the Sinners, Keep them out of our Congregations at all costs, or will we follow Christ and show forth unconditional love for those who sin. Edited November 17, 2015 by Zakuska
Deborah Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Some of the bravest Church members over time were blacks who accepted the Gospel of Jesus even in the face of so-called racism. They understood that the Lord does things in His time, not ours. I think a big factor was the blacks in Africa who found a Book of Mormon and were converted and patiently asked and waited for the right time. 1
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted November 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 16, 2015 Straight up? I got the pdf in my email and read it carefully. "Clearly this needs clarification" I thought "The anti's will make this into a feeding frenzy." I went online and it had already begun. I can't stand Dehlin, but he is just a parrot as far as I can tell. He does what everyone does- reads stuff, makes his interpretation with which I always disagree, and puts it on line. He's the little parrot character Iago in the Aladdin movie. No substance just chatter chatter chatter, always taking the negative line on everything. I wouldn't "credit" that guy with anything of substance. There was no "leak"- it was out there for anybody to read. Around 25 in my stake got the pdf. The church says there are 3,163 stakes in the world. 3,163 x 25 = 79,075 pdf's out there floating around in email boxes I really think nobody needed Dehlin to "leak" the "confidential memorandum". He is just Iago out there squawking and pointing and jumping up and down. 6
ksfisher Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 No, not in the least. I think they are doing exactly what the Lord wants. Its up to use to make the choice. Will we follow the Law of Moses and "Follow the Prophet Don't go Astray" Stone the Sinners, Keep them out of our Congregations at all costs, or will we follow Christ and show forth unconditionaly love for those who sin. So, again if I understand correctly, you believe that new policy in the handbook is the mind and will of the Lord to his prophets and apostles. But, that the Lord wants us, as members of the church, to head in a different direction that what the brethren are teaching? I do believe that we are commanded to show forth love to all. But also that we have an obligation to warn others and call them to repentance. And that it is because we love them that we are motivated to warn.
mfbukowski Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I agree- "unworthy" is completely the wrong word. It's very much like those who can't attend a sealing because of age or non-member or new member status: they can be completely worthy in the moral and religious sense, but because the rules for getting a recommend they still don't qualify.Not so. Worthiness is not the only issue. You also have to understand the endowment and unendowed people simply do not understand it. That would be impossible. How can you understand something you have never heard or experienced? They would have no context for any of it to make sense. They would be gawkers at a sacred ceremony with no idea what the meaning of anything was. Many many many religions ancient and modern have esoteric rituals only for members. Sealings are of that nature.
Buckeye Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 LOL yep- that's him! That picture can describe a lot of people the past 2 weeks - people on both sides of the divide.
Teancum Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Unfortunately, Gray, you clearly don't understand how conversion works. At least, in the Church of Jesus Christ.People don't become converted because they've ticked off a laundry list of criteria they like, or concepts that comfortably fit their pre-existing world view. People become converted because they have some strong reason to accept the Church's core truth claims. Everything else is just part of the package.Perhaps you are too young to remember the mid 1970's, and how self-congratulatory people were about their state of enlightenment on racial issue. They were no less convinced of their superiority than the current generation is, and yet the Church continued to grow and attract converts. Sure after it changed in 1978. Had it not there is no question growth would have slowed. And now once again growth has slowed especially in the industrialized world. Why is that? 1
Buckeye Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Not so. Worthiness is not the only issue. You also have to understand the endowment and unendowed people simply do not understand it. That would be impossible. How can you understand something you have never heard or experienced? They would have no context for any of it to make sense. They would be gawkers at a sacred ceremony with no idea what the meaning of anything was. Many many many religions ancient and modern have esoteric rituals only for members. Sealings are of that nature. So why invite non-member family to baptisms and sacrament meeting? Edited November 16, 2015 by Buckeye
mfbukowski Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 CHI 1 is on a need-to-know basis. It is quite boring. If you don't need to know how to hold a disciplinary council or how many need to be there, or how to administer tithing, you don't need to know it. It's neither "secret" or "sacred". It's essentially like a manual for how to run a company, what forms to fill out and where to send them, how to account for things, how the computer system works etc. Very boring stuff. I can't imagine why anyone would care what is in there if you don't need it for your calling. 1
Mystery Meat Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I'll post it here too... So now we're living the Levitical Law? No, and that is not what he said either. You are arguing in bad faith. Murder was also a violation of the Law of Moses as was stealing, lying, and adultery. Should we also abandon those sacred commandments because we no longer live the law of Moses? Of course not. Some commandments and laws transcend specific dispensations. The best way we can identify which ones do is through listening to modern prophets. Another way is to look to the scriptures. There is evidence both prior to the enactment of the Law of Moses and after that homosexuality was wrong. Why would we expect our dispensation to be an exception? Furthermore, the early Apostles were often times given new instruction that contradicted the old Mosaic Law. For example, the gospel was too be taught to the Gentiles and a dietary code that contradicted the old one was revealed. If something as trivial as eating certain animals was fit for further light and knowledge, you would think something as important as homosexual sex would be updated to make it acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. But, as it is, the Lord did not make any such change. Rather, just like throughout our history of God's dealings with the children of men murder, lying, adultery and fornication have been consistently labeled as sins, so too has homosexuality consistently, and not just under the law of Moses, been tagged as a sin by God's chosen anointed.
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted November 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 16, 2015 So why invite non-member family to baptisms and sacrament meeting?Did you ever notice that one set of ordinances happens in the temple and others don't?? What kind of question is that? No comparison. It's the difference between public and private. It's why we don't have internet cameras in our bedrooms. Very basic stuff 7
Teancum Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 There are advantages too. I live within line-of-sight of three temples and within an hour's drive of nine (soon to be 10) temples (including the flagship Salt Lake Temple). Things like that tend to balance out the aggravation from the anti-Mormon irritants. It seems that anything that questions things LDS is anti Mormon for you. Yet you call LDS Critics provincial.
Recommended Posts