Obiwan wrote:I think the people who tend to go to the Temple are "upper class" in quality, such as in behaviors, for they tend to have their lives in order in other areas of life, thus I would think that the likelihood of spreading "communicable disease" there would actually be "lower" compared to most other areas of life that every kind of person has access to.
Awesome.
this one is my favorite. I wonder if defending lying constitutes a communicable disease? They send enough missionaries out to spread the disease. I know a man in my city who is a temple goer and he'll rip a person off for money any chance he can get. He is not honest in his dealings with his fellow man and is very selfish. if that's upper class....
Brings up a question in my mind of how valuable a family relationship is to God if said family is not LDS? Matthew 10:34-39 seems to indicate not very. I don't think we should intentionally go out to break up a family, but as a Church, are we perhaps too sensitive when it comes to conversion strife in families or are we just right? What do you think?
Brings up a question in my mind of how valuable a family relationship is to God if said family is not LDS? Matthew 10:34-39 seems to indicate not very. I don't think we should intentionally go out to break up a family, but as a Church, are we perhaps too sensitive when it comes to conversion strife in families or are we just right? What do you think?
The family is the basic unit of the church. This means that families that aren't in the church aren't of any value to the church.
Brings up a question in my mind of how valuable a family relationship is to God if said family is not LDS? Matthew 10:34-39 seems to indicate not very. I don't think we should intentionally go out to break up a family, but as a Church, are we perhaps too sensitive when it comes to conversion strife in families or are we just right? What do you think?
Runtu wrote:The family is the basic unit of the church. This means that families that aren't in the church aren't of any value to the church.
And this, children, is why BC's comment is so moronic....and yet another example of why he is a wretched embarrassment to not only his priesthood, but the LDS Church, in general.
Brings up a question in my mind of how valuable a family relationship is to God if said family is not LDS? Matthew 10:34-39 seems to indicate not very. I don't think we should intentionally go out to break up a family, but as a Church, are we perhaps too sensitive when it comes to conversion strife in families or are we just right? What do you think?
Runtu wrote:The family is the basic unit of the church. This means that families that aren't in the church aren't of any value to the church.
liz3564 wrote:And this, children, is why BC's comment is so moronic....and yet another example of why he is a wretched embarrassment to not only his priesthood, but the LDS Church, in general.
I find the "wretched" to be useful, you can find many teaching opportunities in the wretched.
The Jews were scattered and smitten because of what they did to Christ and will continue to be afflicted until Christ comes and saves them at the last day. Then they will see and feel the wounds in his hands and feet and will be saved.
The Jews were scattered and smitten because of what they did to Christ and will continue to be afflicted until Christ comes and saves them at the last day. Then they will see and feel the wounds in his hands and feet and will be saved.
Damn those Jews!
I think that will be some queue of Jews. How long will each one get to do his or her salvific stare and grope?
And by the time all those Jews are done poking fingers into his traumas, Jesus will be feeling pretty sore around the wounds, and probably suffering from some really nasty infections. Or will all the Jews do a surgical scrub-up first and wear latex gloves? And what happens if some Jews are allergic to latex? What happens if Jesus is allergic to latex? And ... Oh, never mind.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
While we were recently treated to the concept of gender racism here, over at MDD, we can learn that racism has nothing to do with race!
LDS Guy 1986 wrote:
krose wrote:No, but racism is only effective among members of a more powerful race. So in white-European dominated USA, the answer is still essentially "yes," and it was even more true circa 1830.
Racism has nothing to at all, with more powerful races!
In fact this statement is so racist in and of itself that I had to point out it's hypocritical nature.
Racism is simply about pride and arrogance, it has nothing to do with race, when you live, or anything besides such sickening pride of outward appearances that you are a bigot.
The ignoramuses that talk about racist old white guys, are themselves bigger bigots and racists than those they accuse of racism, in my opinion.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."