Funny, they appear to have the Light of Christ on their faces and in their hearts:
Their 10' medley of Christmas carols ...
Posted on 12/10/2011 9:14:17 AM PST by Colofornian
Ex-Catholic...
Is there anything in current MormonISM which makes it sinful to be placing $10,000 bets?
I did some research on that question. I found fourteen references to Beck being a temple mormon however I don’t know how accurate that is.
In her usual style, Sandy lied about Rick Perry. The guy who made the comments she referred to is not and has not been Rick Perry’s pastor. Tis the season ... for Sandy apparently.
Yes. A person’s religion is a reflection of their core beliefs and what motivates every decision they make in life. This should concern every thinking voter.
What about the Sons of Perdition? Aren’t they consigned to the outer darkness, forever?
IIRC, she's been SHOWN this in past threads; right?
"Now, it may be contended that a judgment, with some degree of salvation for all, encourages the sinner to pursue his dark ways. Not so. However generous the judgment, it is measured by our works. Our punishment will be the heavy regret that we might have received a greater reward, a higher kingdom, had our lives conformed more nearly to truth. Such remorse may yield keener pain than physical torture." (Understandable Religion, p. 89)
While Widtsoe is careful not to call a heavenly kingdom "hell", he is nonetheless certain that there will be a keen regret for lost opportunities:
"Humanity will be grouped according to their works in three main divisions: Celestial (like the sun), Telestial (like the moon), Terrestrial (like the earth). Within each group there will be many gradations and divisions, until from the lowest to the highest in all groups there will be a series of gradually ascending glories. There can be no talk of a hell, except for the few 'sons of Perdition,' but undoubtedly the regret for lost opportunities will be keen among those in the lower degrees of glory." (Program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, p. 226)
Joseph Fielding Smith, on the other hand, considers the tormenting regret experienced in the bottom two heavenly kingdoms and concludes "in that sense it will be hell":
"This earth will become a celestial kingdom when it is sanctified. Those who enter the terrestrial kingdom will have to go to some other sphere which will be prepared for them. Those who enter the telestial kingdom, likewise will have to go to some earth which is prepared for them, and there will be another place which is hell where the devil and those who are punished to go with him will dwell. Of course, those who enter the telestial kingdom, and those who enter the terrestrial kingdom will have the eternal punishment which will come to them in knowing that they might, if they had kept the commandments of the Lord, have returned to his presence as his sons and his daughters. This will be a torment to them, and in that sense it will be hell." (Answers to Gospel Questions, v. 2, p. 210)
This line of thinking is interesting in light of Joseph Smith's following teaching:
"A man is his own tormenter and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone" (TPJS, p. 357)
The entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on "Damnation" essentially explains that the bottom two kingdoms of heaven are kingdoms of damnation:
"Just as there are varying degrees and types of salvation, coupled with eternal progression in some areas (D&C 76:96-98; 131:1-4), so are there varying degrees and types of damnation. In LDS doctrine, to be damned means to be stopped, blocked, or limited in one's progress. Individuals are damned whenever they are prevented from reaching their full potential as children of God. Damnation is falling short of what one might have enjoyed if one had received and been faithful to the whole law of the gospel. In this sense, all who do not achieve the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom are damned, even though they are saved in some degree of glory."
(Right; Sandy??)
Once the individual is assigned to a particular "glory," he is there permanently. There are no progression between kingdoms. Spencer W. Kimball taught:
"No progression between kingdoms. After a person has been assigned to his place in the kingdom, either in the telestial, the terrestrial, or the celestial, or to his exaltation, he will never advance from his assigned glory to another glory. That is eternal! That is why we must make our decisions early in life and why it is imperative that such decisions be right" (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 50).
“Eternal damnation is the opposite of eternal life, and all those who do not gain eternal life, or exaltation in the highest heaven within the celestial kingdom, are partakers of eternal damnation. Their eternal condemnation is to have limitations imposed upon them so that they cannot progress to the state of godhood and gain a fullness of all things” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p.234)
My rememberer ain't broke!!
Look near the bottom...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2810383/replies?c=36
+1
I will absolutely not vote for Romney. His positions change faster than an Oklahoma Weather Vane.
He stands for nothing.
He has no core belief.
He is a flim flam man and we already got one of them in the White Hut.
American be damned but, if this turd is still floating on election day, I will not hold my nose.
I will vote according to California law and write someone in, if that is possible or I will be hiking in the woods without one iota of concern for the results.
Well, I guess, Saundra, with your legalism in full gear, you're even too legalistic for the ultra-legalistic Mormon church!
What do I mean? Well I happen to have a copy of the Lds "Church Handbook of Instructions Book 1 Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics 2006." I found a couple of interesting instructions from the Mormon hierarchy to local stake presidents and bishops re: adultery:
"If a member voluntarily confesses a serious transgression that was committed long ago and his faithfulness and service in the intervening years have demonstrated full reformation and repentance, a disciplinary council often is unnecessary. See 'Time Between Transgression and Confession' on page 118." (p. 111)
Tell us, Saundra, do you know -- or do you not know -- if Gingrich has voluntarily confessed adultery and repented of that sin at some point? Or are you Newt's self-appointed judge now?
Here's yet another quote from the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions: "If a person commits adultery while married to a spouse to whom he or she has been sealed, he or she may not be sealed to the partner in the adultery unless the sealing is authorized by the President of the Church. Such authorization may be requested after the couple have been married for at least five years." (p. 85)
Did you know Saundra, that your President can authorize a "sealing" -- a marriage for eternity -- if the couple has been married an arbitrary "five years" even if one of them has committed adultery?
First of all, Saundra, what's so "holy" about an arbitrary five-year mark? Does God not forgive at 4 years and 364 days, but forgiveness kicks in 24 hours later? Secondly this shows the Mormon Church has its own immoral "statute of limitations" on adultery.
I guess you're probably upset now. Now you know there are likely people who have committed adultery five or more years ago or so...the Mormon church knows about it...and yet in some cases, a Mormon "prophet" has likely authorized that sealing to go forth.
So your Mormon church prefers to seal adulterers than say, oh, I don't know...your average Gentile who's been faithful to their wife all these years????
I guess you better "pack up" and leave the Mormon church and head for even higher ground, eh?
Well, Godzilla...just look how easy it is for self-confessed untruths to tumble out of Saundra's mouth!
In post #20, Saundra accuses Christians of being "a bunch of hypocrites!" But note how she unleashes this accusation: "I HATE to say it but these people are a bunch of hypocrites! (ACTUALLY I DON'T HATE to say it.)"
We'll take the latter confession as the truth -- that Saundra DIDN'T hate to say it; we'll take the words uttered in her mind and keyboard just milliseconds earlier as the falsehood: "I hate to say it..."
There ya go: Saundra confessing to a falsehood.
Ya see, Saundra. We don't need to accuse you. You accused yourself.
Apparently, these falsehoods just tumble out of your keyboard so effortlessly, you occasionally catch one and try to correct it. And in part, you did here. But too late. Here's one example where you didn't go back and edit PR-wise for public consumption.
Weird dude....
Two posts ago, in response to this Saundra Duffy comment, I posted this quote from the Lds "Church Handbook of Instructions Book 1 Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics 2006":
"If a member voluntarily confesses a serious transgression that was committed long ago and his faithfulness and service in the intervening years have demonstrated full reformation and repentance, a disciplinary council often is unnecessary. See 'Time Between Transgression and Confession' on page 118." (p. 111)
Now what is "very interesting" is a couple of things here:
(1) On p. ii the document says: "copies not distributed to the general Church membership or to the public." So this document was intended for only Lds bishops and Lds presidents.
(2) Please note this contextual quote on how the LDS church defines a "serious transgression" -- found on the previous page to the above quote:
"A Disciplinary council MUST be held when evidence suggests that a member may have committed any of the following transgressions Murder...Incest...Child Abuse...Apostasy...A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression while holding a prominent church position, such as Area Seventy; temple, mission or stake president; patriarch; or bishop. As used here, SERIOUS TRANSGRESSION is defined as a deliberate and major offense against morality. It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing." (p. 110)
Now let's set the picture here. If a Mormon in a "prominent church position" commits a "serious transgression" as defined above, a disciplinary council is in order. BUT...but...but...the weasel committing attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, assault, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, family abandonment, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, drug dealing, fraud, perjury, etc. may not even have a disciplinary council provided three things happen:
(a) "a member voluntarily confesses a serious transgression"
(b) That crime or transgression "was committed long ago"
and (c) "his faithfulness and service in the intervening years have demonstrated full reformation and repentance"
As long as those three wide open conditions apply, "a disciplinary council often is unnecessary" to hold a prominent church leader accountable for a past crime (and/or transgression).
Well, whaddya know. These special opt-out of accountability arrangements don't apply to ANY Mormon women. Notice the word "his"...'cause ONLY Mormon men may hold a "prominent church position." Nor do these special opt-out of accountability arrangements apply to your average Mormon male, either.
Now why would the Mormon church want to avoid mandatory "disciplinary councils" for their male prominent church position people?
(1) Maybe one of them committed adultery and the couple really have moved on in their lives.
(2) Less likely these things "get out" and get gossiped about among grassroots Mormons;
(3) The less that "gets out" the less public scandal the Mormon church has to endure about their leaders.
And then...we come to "golden" reason #4. Obviously, I'm not saying this applies often. But the fact that the Lds church has defined "serious transgression" to include multiple crimes. Serious crimes of exploitation and violence (attempted murder, assault, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse). And serious crimes of financial exploitation (robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, fraud, perjury)...it becomes "obvious" why leeway is offered only to Lds male church leaders:
(4) The Mormon Church is still a "good ole boys network" and they will at times be party to covering up PAST serious crimes.
How do we know this beyond looking at this gaping loophole in their handbook for their leadership?
Well: Have Lds bishops covered up other sex abuse cases?
This seems to be an ongoing matter in the Mormon church:
* November 2011: Provo city to file charges against LDS bishop
* April, 2011: * Mormon Church Denies Prior Knowledge of Susan Brock Affair With Teen Boy, Which is a Lie
* March, 2011: Sacramento News & Review
* February, 2011: Father of The 5 Browns pleads guilty to sexually abusing his daughters
* December, 2010: Did fellow Mormons cover up officer's baby molestations?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.