Gazelam wrote:Harmony,
He's not talking about adultery, Gaz. He's talking about fornication. Different level of sin.
As to the talk, I had a bishop who obviously had either never heard it or ignored it. His main theme when my girls were in MIA was "Don't pet the tiger." He placed the responsibility for any and all sexual transgression squarely on the girls' shoulders. It was only one of the things my oldest rebelled against, while she was Laurel president.
There is no difference between adultery and fornication Harmony.
Baloney. There is a world of difference between adultery, which carries a sacred covenant, and fornication, which carries no covenant, at least not for an unendowed member, which is what we're talking about on this thread.
My good grief, Gaz! Adultery is an excommunicatable offense; fornication for the unendowed is not. Surely you know this!
I would have thought that a seasoned member of the church would know that.
It's because I
am a seasoned member of the church that I can call you on your mistake. Others might be taken in by your false doctrine.
Perhaps if you took the time to stop muttering against your church leaders you could hear the sunday school lesson.
Sunday School? I didn't learn that in Sunday School, Gaz. I learned that in the bishop's office, when he was on the phone with the stake president and refused to allow the SP to excommunicate my son for fornication,
because fornication by an unendowed member is not an excommunicatable offense.
Also I believe the phrase your trying to remember is called "Tickling the Tiger" by Theodore M. Burton, which can be heard
here. I recommend it, its an excellent talk.
My bishop said "don't pet the tiger". Maybe he got it wrong, but that's the phrase he used.
.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
