NE20
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">that and the point where mormons believe they will be in control over there own planets when they die...and other stuff</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">we've alredy discussed this and I've shown that the principle of salvation actually meaning becoming like-god is taught by none other than Jesus in the Bible.

Since no one has addressed it, I'll take this opportunity to post it again.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">it says so in my footnotes...so i wouldnt have said it if it wasnt in the bible</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sure you are aware that the footnotes didn't come from the original text of the Bible - they were added by men much, much, much later. I would use a small "g" when describing what man may become as well. Also, I disagree with the footnote considering that Jesus quoted that verse in the NT in John 10:34. He quotes it in defense of himself, when the Jews say to him he's blaspheming by making himself God. Essentially the same thing you disagree with Mormonism about - man cannot be God. Jesus answers by not only defending himself but by quoting that scripture - evidencing that all men are in some form gods - not just the rulers or judges. In fact the way Jesus uses that verse completely negates what is found in your footnotes.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">just better said than what you have but it kinda clears it up in saying that we are Gods children, not sure what that had to do with Being a God but any way
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is what I don't get about other Christians, puppies are the children of dogs, and they grow up to be dogs; kittens are the children of cats and they grow up to be cats; calves are the children of cows and they grow up to be cows; we are the children of God and we will grow up to be angels? No, that doesn't make sense! We will grow up to be gods.

Your version of the Bible makes Romans 8:16-17 even more vague </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">we will be given what God has promised. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well what has he promised? Salvation? Well what does that entail? I prefer the translation I used because it's more clear - we will inherit God's kingdom. Who or what will be worthy to inherit God's Kingdom? a god.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But we do know that when Christ returns, we will be like him, because we will see him as he truly is.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, now who exactly do you think Christ, God's son, will be like? could he perhaps be like his Father?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

its cool and every thing ...i just dont believe it....

Yesterday, on his 94th Birthday, President Gordon B. Hinckley, the Prophet and Presiding Apostle in the LDS Church was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Here\'s the Article

Not to toot the horn too much in one day, but guess which state just came out with the highest volunteerism rate in the Points of Light Foundation annual survey?
POINTS OF LIGHT FOUNDATION ANNOUNCES STATE VOLUNTEERING RATES

Not only the highest rate, but outstripping the next contender by 6%. I guess all those heathen Mormons in Utah just don't get it. I mean since we aren't Christian or anything why do be bother with all the service? (note: full sarcasm intended)

Joel, this is no intent to agree with your tongue in cheek (I hope) reference to being heathens. I commend all the people that do good works. There are self-proclaimed atheists, wicas or people that have never heard of Jesus Christ who do good works too. I think people either do them or not. I'm sure all Christians or all people of any particular denomination would like that sort of recognition. It would certainly help validate any claim to organized religion or a particular demonination being the only/true/best...

Individuals not necessarily affiliated that way could never be recognized the same way yet do the same good works. I won't believe in God's/Jesus eye one does more worthy good works than another.In fact it's probably much harder for individuals or smaller groups to do as much as a large organization.

Out of curiosity, if it had been the scouts, a sports group, a block club or recovering addicts, would this have been called to anyone's attention here? Would they have received similar recognition? Does it take a state or religious group to be noteworthy or newsworthy? You know me, I picked the name.

oh yeah well guess which state just won the coolest guy award along with the cutest and most wealthy....my state of mind...lol ...huh huh get it cuz Joel said state and i was all like "my state of mind" ahhh man it crax me up every time.

NE20????? I'm not sure what that "joke" was about.

UKC - definitely tongue in cheek. I do, nonetheless think its remarkable that even though most consider us to be non-Christians, we manage to do a pretty good job of following the Savior's example in service. I think it's newsworthy because to many it's counter-intuitive. As I've already said, if a bunch of "supposed" non-Christians go out and do good works in the express effort to follow Christ's example it's newsworthy.

Utah and Utahn's are always a pretty good proxy for Mormons - granted there are non-Mormons in the State, it's still around 75% non-LDS.

You mentioned scouts - I'm an Eagle Scout and I'm very proud of the BSA. You probably didn't know this little fact either, but the LDS church is the single largest supporter of the BSA in US. We sponsor more troops, donate more funds, and have more Eagles amongst our ranks than any other religious or civic group associated with the BSA. In fact, when the BSA went to court a few years ago to fight against allowing openly gay scout masters, it was largely at the LDS church's insistence that we would pull out of scouting if we felt it no longer represented our values and belief system.

just a crazy joke...i saw the opportunity and had to grab it

I'm sure you understood the question it was merely, to make a general point or ask a general question about any person making a special point about something that was totally not self serving. I just wondered if any of us would have made a point of a group we weren't directly currently affiliated with. BTW in that post I negelected to say thenk you, congratulations on a job well done by all those fine folks. I really meant what I just said. You'll notice I didn't make it about Utahn's or Mormons. It was just about good people doing good works.

Just a thought about your Mormon Membership) mention of pulling out of Scouting. It doesn't at all surprise me that any particular group would balk and not want to be a part of anything that had to do with homosexuality. But, I've always thought that BSA was Boy Scouts of America, not of Mormon, or Christian or Democrat or Webberville etc. etc. Particularly since you now say that LDS is the largest supporter of the BSA it just seems to me another American Institution that is no longer American but public domain and opinion.

Perhaps you are correct about that. However, the LDS church became affiliated with the BSA because of the values the BSA had developed independent of LDS influence. What the LDS church is concerned with is a substantial movement away from those values - which we coincidentally agree with. Essentially it boils down to the Scout Oath
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and The Scout Law
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A scout is...
Loyal
Trustworthy
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
and Reverent </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sure you can see how the Boy Scouts have interpreted homosexuality to be contrary to the "Scout Oath" and "Scout Law. Historically doing one's "duty to God" and being "Reverent" has not been considered consistent with being homosexual (I'm sure you'll agree that this conception has changed somewhat recently in the more liberal leaning Christian world) and keeping onself "morally straight" has long been considered by the BSA to mean abstinence from sex outside the bonds of marriage.

Just to reiterate, the BSA came up with these standards long before the LDS church became involved. We simply want them to stick to these standards so that we can continue to support them in good conscience.

I would note that ever since the Supreme Court ruling regarding the BSA and homosexuality, there has been increasing public pressure on the BSA to adopt an informal "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the more liberal-leaining scouting districts. Simultaneously, the LDS church has revamped an old program for young men we call the "Duty to God" award. It used to be pretty simple to get now it's been revamped to be about as difficult as completing the requirements to become and Eagle Scout. I have a suspicion that the church re-vamped this program because they are truly prepared to leave the BSA and probably will do so within a decade or so, should the BSA continue allow the liberal-leaning districts to make a mockery of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.

Just realized I made a hugely misleading typo up above.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:
Utah and Utahn's are always a pretty good proxy for Mormons - granted there are non-Mormons in the State, it's still around 75% non-LDS. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I meant to say it's still around 75% LDS not 75% non-LDS.

Also UKC I responded to your most recent post just before the page break and didn't want you to miss it simply due to the pages switching.

I too was a scout. Didn't become an eagle like you but being a liberal don't see the conflict between the oath and law and homosexuality.

I guess it's the openly gay part that confuses me. I can understand people not wanting their children under the influence of a homosexual. I'm aware that most people think that evry homosexuals agenda is conversion and flaunting a lifestyle. What I don't understand is since they are everywhere anyhow why does being open and honest preclude them from any position. It seems like this more of the don't ask don't tell mentality.

I've often thought of secrets as not only being destructive and pwerful but also devious. Something needs to be hidden or kept quiet. With the impression most people have of homosexuals wouldn't the out ones be more perhaps safe near children and others? If you know what/who they are couldn't you keep a closer eye on a known factor thana secret hidden one? I'n using homsexual here becase of the connection to your post. What I really am meaning is, I'm sure people don't want their chidren around/influenced by drug addicts, alcoholics, adulteres and a host of other kinds of people. Just like homos they are everwhere too. This whole thing about knwoing as opposed to not knowing important aspects of a persons life just baffles me. It seems to me a gay who isn't open about it can do anything and belong anywhere the same as the alcoholic, drug addict, adulterer, pedophile etc. as long as they keep their mouth shut or aren't caught. Just doesn't make sense.

In the troop I belonged to, the scoutmaster was a minister and had a full time job in the auto companies here. Certainly sounds like an ideal role model and the golden boy of the Oath and Law.
Everybody was shocked when his wife divorced him because of his cheating and drunkeness. He left scouting on his own when found out. BUT, becuase he and his son a troop member kept their mouths shut people more more than happy to intrust their sons to his care. Do you suppose the same would have been true if he was openly a drunk and adulterer? At the very least, the parents could at least intelligently decide if they wanted their sons around this man. At most a closer eye could have been kept on him to at least assure he wasn't drunk while driving to campouts, or at meetings. I suppose even if he was a known adulterer nobody could do anything about that other than decide he wasn't for their son to be around.

well my thinking about the gay situation is ....before we start you all know my old name was tex 20 and i dont care if you call me redneck er not after this but the dont ask dont tell situation is the best on....they need to be kept secret...and i dont like gay people either....i dont like to be around em i dont like there gay voices and i dont like there gay tv shows...i cant stand quere eye for already nomal guy....it sends chills down my spine and i get in like this defense mode...(not attack or violent) when i am around a gay man....in jail there were alot of gay men and they had to be housed in different facilities because they wouldnt servive with the other guys who are straight....evn convicted felons and murderers know that gay is wrong....i cant stand it...but any way about your comment i think most gays dont like to come oput and say it is because they are to feminine to protect them selves and maybe they are embarassed...because they know there wrong.....but any way

Before this spirals out of control can we please take it to a more appropriate thread.

In fact, here it is: Homosexuality

Got the redirect Joel. Should I not expect a reply to my wondering about the logic involved?

I guess I should reply to your concern here UKC, because it's more about how Mormons do things than it is about how we feel about homosexuality.

When I was in fifth grade, my teacher was openly gay. My mother wouldn't have it and had me transferred to another class. 10 years later, the teacher was picked up for child porn and pedophelia. I'm not saying all gay men are pedophiles, kind of like how all drunks aren't violent and abusive. However, the correlation is high. Nonetheless, I don't believe my parents were afraid I'd be abused. They were merely concerned about the example set by the man in question.

Openly Gay - what's wrong with it? Openly drunk, openly philandering - it's all the same really. I would remove my children from any scout troop, school class, volunteer organization, or sports team led by someone who was any of the above, because I'm concerned about the example set by an authority figure. I don't want my children to think for one second that I support such behavior. Simply because the scoutmaster is an accomplished outdoorsman is not enough, in my book, to counterbalance the fact that he's a raging drunk. Simply because the basketball coach is a brilliant tactition, doesn't make-up for the fact that my child has to be exposed to the filth that he calls colorful language.

In the LDS church and LDS affiliated scout troops a scout master is not so much a volunteer. The Bishop over the congregation sponsoring the scout troop will extend a calling to a brother to serve as a scout master. The man will be interviewed, to determine his worthiness, by the Bishop. Then the Bishop will seek an answer in prayer and approval from the Lord regarding whether or not the individual is the right man for the job. In the LDS church someone with a drinking problem, smoking problem, an adulterer, swearing problem, or any other problem that would provide a bad example, would not be selected as a Scoutmaster.

Does that answer your question about the Logic UKC?

Your post I think said basically the same things that I posed in my post with the added information about the Mormon way. If that information is why no direct reply about the logic in don't ask don't tell wasn't made I guess so.

I still don't understand how merely pretending something doesn't exist actually changes anything.

Oooookaaaaay, Now I follow. I certainly don't believe that as a Mormon or as a Christian we should merely pretend that a sin doesn't exist. Perhaps the disconnect is in the vernacular here. I guess by saying the BSA doesn't allow openly gay scout masters, I should be a little more clear. I would assume that the idea is more about not allowing practicing homosexuals to be in the scouts.

prevailing public sentiment is that you are born gay - while I don't buy into that principle at all - were that actually the case, it becomes someones "cross-to-bear" so to speak. Simply because you feel you were supposedly born gay, doesn't mean you now have a free pass from God to commit sexual sin. My wife's parents are alcoholics and didn't quit while pregnant with my wife, she inherited the "alcoholism gene" and that doesn't mean she has free-rein from God to drink her life away.

In fact, if there were a man who felt he was gay from birth that wanted to be a Scout Master and wanted it so much so that he was willing to put aside his homosexual lifestyle and not be an openly practicing or preaching homosexual, I suppose that I wouldn't mind him running my kid's scout troop.

In short, when I said "openly gay" I probably should have said "practicing gay".

The LDS church has the same stance essentially - if you are a practicing homosexual that will get you excommunicated unless you are willing to give it up. I actually know several men who claim to be gay within the church who simply abstain from any and all relations of that ilk, because they feel it is what God would have them do.

Once again I hear what you are saying and would expect no less from probably 90% or more of the population. It still does not address the don'task don't tell. You now are talking practicing as opposed to no practicing homosexuals. That's not even close to the original question I had about my thinking that there is just no logic to don't ask don't tell. When you explained the process of how a scoutmaster comes to be in your post I understood that anyone with any deviance from what is acceptable in Mormonism is exempt from being a scoutmaster. I guess another way using that premise is to say or ask, what if the person passed muster, he/she happens to be homosexual, nobody has a clue unless he/she told. Are you following me this far? If the person in this case a man or do women become scoutmasters these days, has the position. He could go on indefinietly being the scoutmaster and doing a good, average or poor job of it. Just like a none gay person. Since homosexuals are unwelcome, I still don't get the logic of don't tell. Or, are all candiates asked? If they are it negates the whole don't ask don't tell scenario. I suppose this is now a Mormon issue since this is the Mormon thread. My question was across the board, the armed services, scouting
wherever the DA/DT thing applies or is an issue.

About openly gay. It's my understanding that an openly gay person is one who told. It has nothing to do with wheteher they practice their sexuality or not. They don't move in shadows and live in guilt and self hatred. Hence the open/out thing.

I agree with you, I think there is not logic behind don't ask don't tell policies. It's not as if, not knowing makes it any better. I suppose it's best to keep all these things out in the open.

What I was trying to say in my last post was that I had misspoken - when I said openly homosexual, I should have said practicing homosexual.