BYU = Ignorance is Dangerous

[Fiannan]

The muslims must be forbbiden to follow this assassin abomination, and the jihadistsmare a dangerous for us, until the Okaida says that the jihad is a dangerous

Please elaborate?

[Patriot16]

Yes, we Mormons are always setting off bombs, shooting people, driving trucks into crowded markets, chanting death to anyone who doesn't convert as we march in the street, beating non believers.
Yes, very similar.
dc

How about Mormons massacring an entire wagon train of men, women, and children because it is believed some of the people on the train participated in the murder of Joseph Smith. Note: none of them were connected to Pres. Smith's death.

Patriot16

"As the troops were making their way west in the summer of 1857, so were thousands of overland emigrants. Some of these emigrants were Latter-day Saint converts en route to Utah, but most westbound emigrants were headed for California, many with large herds of cattle. The emigration season brought many wagon companies to Utah just as Latter-day Saints were preparing for what they believed would be a hostile military invasion. The Saints had been violently driven from Missouri and Illinois in the prior two decades, and they feared history might repeat itself." lds.org


Also a man from Arkansas said he had the gun Joseph Smith was killed with. There's the connection to Joseph Smith.

The SLC and southern Utah Mormons knew the wagon trains, particularly the Francher group, posed no threat. Please provide documentation about the gun allegedly with which Pres. Smith was killed. That having been requested, I suggest, as have many historians, that the attack was partly provoked by the motive of religiously directed revenge for Pres. Smith's murder and Pres. Young's desire to demonstrate his ability to provoke violence and thus scare off U.S. President Buchanan's approaching army which he thought was going to depose him. My point is that even Mormons are capable of hurting others in the context of religiosity.

Patriot16

[larsenb]

I don't see anything wrong with this. It is just experiencing and appreciating another culture. My wife has several muslim friends who wear the hijab. Active LDS women in Saidi Arabia, Qatar, Kawait City, and UAE wear the hijab in public.

In Israel, many married women, who are Orthodox Jews, wear very beautiful and colorful scarfs that cover their hair. They do not cover their faces. I think the colorful scarfs make the older women look more beautiful. The hijab, however, looks dark and sinister.

The hijab as dark and sinister? Hardly, in my view. I could see someone saying that about the fully veiled women from head to foot with a narrow slit for the eyes, all in black. But having seen many, many women in this garb a couple of months ago, it never occurred to me that it was dark and sinister, just rather bizarre, until I got used to seeing it.

And I didn't see any LDS women wearing the hijab in a branch I attended in Oman. When we visited a mosque in southern Oman, they required my sister to wear a scarf. She went back to the hotel and got an actual hijab which she had packed, having lived in Muslim countries in the past. The door attendant grinned from ear-to-ear when she reappeared and was very happy to have her visit the mosque.

We wear garments. A somewhat similar concept. So what. But the point that BYU forbids beards (if they still do), is odd . . . especially in view of our past history and the almost universal prevalence of beards in our present culture.

[Matchmaker]

I didn't mean the hijab was dark looking. I meant the one with the slits.

[larsenb]

I didn't mean the hijab was dark looking. I meant the one with the slits.

OK. My main take on these fully, black veiled women was a sense of mystery and curiosity, oddly enough. You start thinking: I wonder what this one looks like . . . how mysterious. Nothing really sinister. You may react differently, though, if you ever get to see them up close and almost personal.

And some of the black and light, almost diaphanous, material has interesting embroidery, especially along the edges. In some cases you could call it elegant in a subtle way.

[David13]

I didn't mean the hijab was dark looking. I meant the one with the slits.

OK. My main take on these fully, black veiled women was a sense of mystery and curiosity, oddly enough. You start thinking: I wonder what this one looks like . . . how mysterious. Nothing really sinister. You may react differently, though, if you ever get to see them up close and almost personal.

And some of the black and light, almost diaphanous, material has interesting embroidery, especially along the edges. In some cases you could call it elegant in a subtle way.

I would far more likely call it Satanic before I would call it elegant.
Elegant to me has some human form to it, and this is indeed sinister.
dc

[Fiannan]

Not even Satan, the earth's first fashion designer, told Eve to find a large palm leave and cover her face with it.

[Fiannan]

Check out this post showing traditional clothing in Islamic nations and contrasting it with the evil influence of the Saudi-backed Wahhabi agenda:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZdxQcoXEAA4MPj.jpg:large" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ithink]

Your perception of the garment, fair enough. But my question is: if you have no garment or temple, are you not damned?

Let's talk about this carefully.

You cannot get a TR without wearing the garment, but you say one will get the celestial kingdom regarless? How is that, do the "rules" vanish when we die? Or does God know more than his servants?

ie. I want to marry some girl in the temple, but I refuse to put that on? Yet I am fit for the kingdom?

Sounds ridiculous to me, perhaps you can clarify with reason rather than a blast of hot air.

It was not me who complained, just for the record, the displaying of the garment on this post was not done in the correct manner, it was
blasphemous, stating that if " You take off the garment, its outer darkness forever," which is false, a person can repent.

Ditto about not being the one who complained. In fact I think it's a great idea to leave ithink's ridiculous post. It only serves to discredit ithink as " You take off the garment, its outer darkness forever," is a blatant lie.

Samuel the Lamanite declared:

“And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.

“He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death; and ye can do good and be restored unto that which is good, or have that which is good restored unto you; or ye can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you” (Hel. 14:30–31).

"I believe there is a critical body of knowledge relating to the temple garment. When that knowledge is obtained, Latter-day Saints filled with faith wear the garment and wear it properly, not because someone is policing their actions but because they understand the virtues of the sacred clothing and want to “do good and be restored unto that which is good.” On the other hand, when one does not understand the sacred nature of the temple garment, the tendency is to treat it casually and regard it as just another piece of cloth." Elder Carlos E. Asay

[eddie]

Your perception of the garment, fair enough. But my question is: if you have no garment or temple, are you not damned?

Let's talk about this carefully.

You cannot get a TR without wearing the garment, but you say one will get the celestial kingdom regarless? How is that, do the "rules" vanish when we die? Or does God know more than his servants?

ie. I want to marry some girl in the temple, but I refuse to put that on? Yet I am fit for the kingdom?

Sounds ridiculous to me, perhaps you can clarify with reason rather than a blast of hot air.

Ditto about not being the one who complained. In fact I think it's a great idea to leave ithink's ridiculous post. It only serves to discredit ithink as " You take off the garment, its outer darkness forever," is a blatant lie.

Samuel the Lamanite declared:

“And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.

“He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death; and ye can do good and be restored unto that which is good, or have that which is good restored unto you; or ye can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you” (Hel. 14:30–31).

"I believe there is a critical body of knowledge relating to the temple garment. When that knowledge is obtained, Latter-day Saints filled with faith wear the garment and wear it properly, not because someone is policing their actions but because they understand the virtues of the sacred clothing and want to “do good and be restored unto that which is good.” On the other hand, when one does not understand the sacred nature of the temple garment, the tendency is to treat it casually and regard it as just another piece of cloth." Elder Carlos E. Asay

Saving ordinances on behalf of the dead can be done by proxy, there is no such thing as being damned if you have not had these ordinances. Why do you say such things?

[ithink]

In asserting that these ordinances must be done, you admit the LDS teach one is damned without them, is that not so?

Saving ordinances on behalf of the dead can be done by proxy, there is no such thing as being damned if you have not had these ordinances. Why do you say such things?

[ithink]

We wear garments. A somewhat similar concept. So what. But the point that BYU forbids beards (if they still do), is odd . . . especially in view of our past history and the almost universal prevalence of beards in our present culture.

You say so what, but that is the point. So what if I say I don't want or need them? Ceremonial garb of any kind, I get that, but full time mandatory / forced / with penalties? How do you say "so what" to that?

[eddie]

In asserting that these ordinances must be done, you admit the LDS teach one is damned without them, is that not so?

No, I did not say that, define damned.

Saving ordinances on behalf of the dead can be done by proxy, there is no such thing as being damned if you have not had these ordinances. Why do you say such things?

[ithink]

In asserting that these ordinances must be done, you admit the LDS teach one is damned without them, is that not so?

No, I did not say that, define damned.

Saving ordinances on behalf of the dead can be done by proxy, there is no such thing as being damned if you have not had these ordinances. Why do you say such things?

Aren't they called "saving ordinances"?

[eddie]

In asserting that these ordinances must be done, you admit the LDS teach one is damned without them, is that not so?

No, I did not say that, define damned.

Saving ordinances on behalf of the dead can be done by proxy, there is no such thing as being damned if you have not had these ordinances. Why do you say such things?

Aren't they called "saving ordinances"?

The opposite of saving is damned? Show me where that is said, or are you being extreme? Gods plan provides for those who died without the saving ordinances.

[Join us]

Oh boy, where do I start. @-)

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=42580806" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

byuhijab.JPG

A seemingly nice gesture, but in reality, these students are totally naive. Do they not know that real Muslim women in real Muslim societies CANNOT take the hijab off? Well, they can, but if they do....

muslimacid.jpg

But then again, if you are Mormon, and you wear these...

garments.JPG

... but decide to take them off, it's OUTER DARKNESS for you, for all eternity.

The Mormon girls in the hijab said "We have a lot in common with our Muslim brothers and sister".

Well indeed they do.

ithink everyone should wear garments.

You were a better person when you did.

The post about garment wearing Mormons also wearing a burka must blow your cult-hating mind!!

[ithink]

In asserting that these ordinances must be done, you admit the LDS teach one is damned without them, is that not so?

No, I did not say that, define damned.

Aren't they called "saving ordinances"?

The opposite of saving is damned? Show me where that is said, or are you being extreme? Gods plan provides for those who died without the saving ordinances.

Oh come on, you're purposely being obtuse. Even the online stuff get's it right: http://www.antonymsfor.com/damned

We were all taught that everything less than exaltation is damnation, because to be damned means your progress is stopped, and if you even use the temple, you see that you progress from one to another, and if not, you're damned.

[ithink]

Oh boy, where do I start. @-)

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=42580806" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

byuhijab.JPG

A seemingly nice gesture, but in reality, these students are totally naive. Do they not know that real Muslim women in real Muslim societies CANNOT take the hijab off? Well, they can, but if they do....

muslimacid.jpg

But then again, if you are Mormon, and you wear these...

garments.JPG

... but decide to take them off, it's OUTER DARKNESS for you, for all eternity.

The Mormon girls in the hijab said "We have a lot in common with our Muslim brothers and sister".

Well indeed they do.

ithink everyone should wear garments.

You were a better person when you did.

The post about garment wearing Mormons also wearing a burka must blow your cult-hating mind!!

Hi I'm new Join Us. I'm not and apparently I still am Us.

Stick to the topic and avoid the ad hominem attacks, things will go better for you if you do.

[eddie]

Aren't they called "saving ordinances"?

The opposite of saving is damned? Show me where that is said, or are you being extreme? Gods plan provides for those who died without the saving ordinances.

Oh come on, you're purposely being obtuse. Even the online stuff get's it right: http://www.antonymsfor.com/damned

We were all taught that everything less than exaltation is damnation, because to be damned means your progress is stopped, and if you even use the temple, you see that you progress from one to another, and if not, you're damned.

__________________________________________________________________
All men, excepting those who sin against the Holy Ghost, who shed innocent blood or who consent thereto, will be saved in some kingdom; for in my father's house, says Jesus, are many mansions" (JD 11:125-26).

Ultimate and total damnation comes only to the devil and his angels, who rebelled in the first estate, and to the sons of perdition, who are damned eternally and denied entrance into any kingdom of glory hereafter (D&C 76:32-34). The sons of perdition are those guilty of unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost (D&C 132:27; cf. Mark 3:29), which includes the willful denial of the "Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame" (D&C 76:35).