Why Changes to the Temple Ceremony?

[Sir]

Originally Posted by James Banta

If the whole church is doing it as is represented in who is called to serve as a GA. The whole church has shown that it is a group of Zoramites.. Even in it's pulpits



Anyone can see how the GAs are placed above the congregation.. Yeap that is Zoramite.. The LDS church is in apostasy.. IHS jim

Actually, the choir sits higher than the GAs, and as the congregation slopes higher toward the back than the GAs, and don't forget the second level, which sits much higher than the GAs.

You didn't think this through very well, Jimster.

[Ma'am]

Originally Posted by neverending

Sir,
Try and explain it anyway you want, but a modification IS a change!! The endowment procedure has been changed too. No longer do the men or women going through the temple for the first time have oil touched to intimate areas of their bodies. That is a CHANGE!! The blood oaths have been TOTALLY removed from the ritual, that is a MAJOR CHANGE!! So, your answer is not truthful. JUST WHAT, are these circumstances that now have gone against what God supposedly ordained? No one was pressuring the Church to make these changes other then maybe the young women going through to be married and found the rituals gross and disgusting as I did. A secret club for only the worthy members? An ordinance so special and important that it is denied to a majority of its members, especially when you think of those members who live in poor countries. And let's not forget the wealth that resides within the LDS Church and how they spent 3 billion dollars to build a shopping mall and condos in downtown Salt Lake City and recently spent a half billion dollars to purchase land in Florida. Why not allow ALL members this wonderful ordinance if it is the highest form of worship for you and without it, those poor souls will never gain their exaltation? Should people due to being poor be denied these special ordinances? That would be making God out to be a respecter of persons.

Didn't there used to be blood oaths in the ceremony, that the participants had to make slashing motions across their throats and I think bellies, that they should die if they gave away what they participated in, in the endowment ceremony? Why would God want us to make blood oaths like that? Why would God want us to have secret ceremonies? I have been to many churches and nothing they did was done in secret. So, why the secrecy in the temple ceremonies?

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Ma'am

Didn't there used to be blood oaths in the ceremony, that the participants had to make slashing motions across their throats and I think bellies, that they should die if they gave away what they participated in, in the endowment ceremony? Why would God want us to make blood oaths like that? Why would God want us to have secret ceremonies? I have been to many churches and nothing they did was done in secret. So, why the secrecy in the temple ceremonies?

Especially when the Lord Jesus condemned oaths and said let your yes be yes and your no be no. Mormonism simply have no clue about the Gospel. Nobody who knows Christ would participate in something so occult.

[neverending]

Snow...a poor ****ogy about baptism. Has the LDS changed to baptism by sprinkling? NOW, that would be a change. Being dunked into a river, or lake or even a swimming pool, makes no difference, it is still by immersion so that makes no change or difference. Now as to differences in Christianity? As far as doctrines, NO! We believe in ONE GOD, and his Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit which makes ONE GOD!! We believe Christ bled and died on the cross for ALL man kinds sins. He became sin and took our place on the cross. I could attend any denomination on any given Sunday and feel comfortable and have no problems with anything preached. Those denominations who have chosen to go against God by having women clergy, performing gay marriages and even allowing clergy to be gay themselves are NOT part of the body of Christ, meaning, they have distanced themselves from the truth of what the gospel is and have gone their own way, the way of the world. Don't worry, soon the LDS Church will be accepting of gays; which they already are doing (alright to be gay as long as one doesn't act on their desires) and performing gay marriages, its only a matter of time. They will bow to the pressure put on them by the world just as they did with the blacks in 1978. When the LDS Church begins allowing gays to be married in the temple the questions to gain a recommend will have to be changed and how will you feel about that?

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Ma'am

Didn't there used to be blood oaths in the ceremony, that the participants had to make slashing motions across their throats and I think bellies, that they should die if they gave away what they participated in, in the endowment ceremony? Why would God want us to make blood oaths like that? Why would God want us to have secret ceremonies? I have been to many churches and nothing they did was done in secret. So, why the secrecy in the temple ceremonies?

As I continue to research the changes to the temple ceremony I ran across this: As noted on page 218 of their recent book Mormon America, Richard and Joan Ostling point out that the main source of Mormon converts comes from people already familiar with some sort of Christian background or belief system:

"Mormonism succeeds by building on a preexisting Christian culture and by being seen as an add-on, drawing converts through a form of syncretism. Mormonism flourishes best in settings with some prior Christianization."

Syncretism means "the combination of different forms of belief or practice" and also "to unite and harmonize especially without critical examination or logical unity."
Since most Mormon converts in the 1970's and 1980's were coming from a Christian background, it was becoming apparent to LDS leaders in the 1980's that ridiculing the Protestant minister in the temple film was offensive to many new converts. There were even some reports of converts attending the temple once, and vowing to never return -- sometimes even refusing to return to any LDS meetings.
In 1987, David John Buerger (an active but liberal Mormon), published an article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, a liberal Mormon publication which is not controlled by the LDS church. In the article, Buerger suggested that LDS church leaders needed to seriously consider making changes in the temple endowment ceremony to counter declining rates of attendance.
Although possibly just a coincidence, the Mormon Church issued a survey to about 3,400 members in Canada and the U.S. to determine members' opinions concerning temple work and various other topics only a few months after the 1987 Buerger article.
Soon after the 1988 survey, plans were underway to change the endowment ceremony again (the ceremony had been modified many times since its introduction in Nauvoo, Illinois in the early 1840's). In 1990, the revised ceremony became effective, and the Protestant minister was eliminated from the film.
Some of the key changes were:
1. Protestant minister paid by Lucifer to preach false doctrine was eliminated.
2. All penalties (and gestures like throat slashing, chest slashing and bowel slashing) were eliminated.
3. Women's promise to be obedient to husbands was modified.
4. The intimate position at the veil (foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand on shoulder and mouth to ear) was eliminated.
5. The strange words "Pay Lay Ale" (meaning "Oh God hear the words of my mouth") were eliminated.
Without question, most faithful Mormons would stand firm in their faith that any decision to change temple ceremonies would have to come by direct revelation from God. It's likely that few LDS members are even aware of the 1987 Dialogue article or the 1988 survey. Many endowed members first attended the temple after 1990 and have no idea about the old version of the ceremony. I've even heard reliable reports of members refusing to believe that older versions included the ridicule of a Protestant minister and bloody oaths. Of course, these people would avoid any information about older versions of the ceremonies in books or on the internet. Critics and skeptical members might speculate that the 1987 article was one catalyst for the 1988 survey which was a catalyst for the 1990 changes. It's probable that the survey results indicated that a significant number of people were offended by various parts of the ceremony. In particular, many converts with a Christian background were highly offended by the part of the minister accepting employment from Satan ("Lucifer"), not to mention the bloody oaths and other things.
It would seem that the church caved to pressure from its members for the numbers of those attending the temple was falling off. Goodness, they had to do something. But when an ordinance in this church, ordained by their god was changed with no revelation given to their prophet, doesn't that make it MAN ORDAINED?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by neverending

As I continue to research the changes to the temple ceremony I ran across this: As noted on page 218 of their recent book Mormon America, Richard and Joan Ostling point out that the main source of Mormon converts comes from people already familiar with some sort of Christian background or belief system:

"Mormonism succeeds by building on a preexisting Christian culture and by being seen as an add-on, drawing converts through a form of syncretism. Mormonism flourishes best in settings with some prior Christianization."

Syncretism means "the combination of different forms of belief or practice" and also "to unite and harmonize especially without critical examination or logical unity."
Since most Mormon converts in the 1970's and 1980's were coming from a Christian background, it was becoming apparent to LDS leaders in the 1980's that ridiculing the Protestant minister in the temple film was offensive to many new converts. There were even some reports of converts attending the temple once, and vowing to never return -- sometimes even refusing to return to any LDS meetings.
In 1987, David John Buerger (an active but liberal Mormon), published an article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, a liberal Mormon publication which is not controlled by the LDS church. In the article, Buerger suggested that LDS church leaders needed to seriously consider making changes in the temple endowment ceremony to counter declining rates of attendance.
Although possibly just a coincidence, the Mormon Church issued a survey to about 3,400 members in Canada and the U.S. to determine members' opinions concerning temple work and various other topics only a few months after the 1987 Buerger article.
Soon after the 1988 survey, plans were underway to change the endowment ceremony again (the ceremony had been modified many times since its introduction in Nauvoo, Illinois in the early 1840's). In 1990, the revised ceremony became effective, and the Protestant minister was eliminated from the film.
Some of the key changes were:
1. Protestant minister paid by Lucifer to preach false doctrine was eliminated.
2. All penalties (and gestures like throat slashing, chest slashing and bowel slashing) were eliminated.
3. Women's promise to be obedient to husbands was modified.
4. The intimate position at the veil (foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand on shoulder and mouth to ear) was eliminated.
5. The strange words "Pay Lay Ale" (meaning "Oh God hear the words of my mouth") were eliminated.
Without question, most faithful Mormons would stand firm in their faith that any decision to change temple ceremonies would have to come by direct revelation from God. It's likely that few LDS members are even aware of the 1987 Dialogue article or the 1988 survey. Many endowed members first attended the temple after 1990 and have no idea about the old version of the ceremony. I've even heard reliable reports of members refusing to believe that older versions included the ridicule of a Protestant minister and bloody oaths. Of course, these people would avoid any information about older versions of the ceremonies in books or on the internet. Critics and skeptical members might speculate that the 1987 article was one catalyst for the 1988 survey which was a catalyst for the 1990 changes. It's probable that the survey results indicated that a significant number of people were offended by various parts of the ceremony. In particular, many converts with a Christian background were highly offended by the part of the minister accepting employment from Satan ("Lucifer"), not to mention the bloody oaths and other things.
It would seem that the church caved to pressure from its members for the numbers of those attending the temple was falling off. Goodness, they had to do something. But when an ordinance in this church, ordained by their god was changed with no revelation given to their prophet, doesn't that make it MAN ORDAINED?

Was it not man ordained to begin with? Did the temple ceremony ever exist in mormonism in any state that has a reference to today's ceremony before Smith became a Mason? The LDS temple ceremony then is a perverted version of the Masonic ceremony.. Yes the story line is different but the names, signs, keys, and penalties were identical.. The whole ceremony is man ordained not just the most recent changes.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Sir

Actually, the choir sits higher than the GAs, and as the congregation slopes higher toward the back than the GAs, and don't forget the second level, which sits much higher than the GAs.

You didn't think this through very well, Jimster.

Yes that is a practice that we see from long ago before the advent of amplification to make sure the choir can be heard. That has a purpose.. The idea of promoting men above the people is wrong as the BofM attests.. Know what.. I wouldn't even mind seeing the speakers located on the stand but men who are there just because they are called elder? NOPE! that is wrong..

Ok I have asked you before.. While I use the name here that you have chosen to be called you insist on using names that I find to be insulting.. I am Not Jimbo, Jimster, or any name that an uneducated backwoods hillbilly might use.. My name is James, you may even use jim but I ask you now for the last time to give me the same amount of curtsey I afford you and use the name I have listed on the forum as mine.. If you can't do this then no more complaints about the language we rightly use to describe the person of Joseph Smith.. Words like liar, pedophile and pervert.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Sir

Actually, the choir sits higher than the GAs, and as the congregation slopes higher toward the back than the GAs, and don't forget the second level, which sits much higher than the GAs.
You didn't think this through very well, Jimster.

Oops! At least Jim has been known to admit he was wrong about something on occasion, if I am not mistaken.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Oops! At least Jim has been known to admit he was wrong about something on occasion, if I am not mistaken.

Having never been wrong myself, I could not tell, but maybe one day.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I am Not Jimbo, Jimster, or any name that an uneducated backwoods hillbilly might use.. My name is James, you may even use jim but I ask you now for the last time to give me the same amount of curtsey I afford you and use the name I have listed on the forum as mine..

If someone were to search the forum for posts by you where you referred to Joseph Smith as "Joey" would they find anything? Isn't "Joey" a name that an uneducated backwoods hillbilly might use?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

If someone were to search the forum for posts by you where you referred to Joseph Smith as "Joey" would they find anything? Isn't "Joey" a name that an uneducated backwoods hillbilly might use?

Kinda like Bubba, as in Bill Clinton. Just goes to prove joey and Bubba, do have more in common then you think.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Yes that is a practice that we see from long ago before the advent of amplification to make sure the choir can be heard. That has a purpose.. The idea of promoting men above the people is wrong as the BofM attests.. Know what.. I wouldn't even mind seeing the speakers located on the stand but men who are there just because they are called elder? NOPE! that is wrong..

Ok I have asked you before.. While I use the name here that you have chosen to be called you insist on using names that I find to be insulting.. I am Not Jimbo, Jimster, or any name that an uneducated backwoods hillbilly might use.. My name is James, you may even use jim but I ask you now for the last time to give me the same amount of curtsey I afford you and use the name I have listed on the forum as mine.. If you can't do this then no more complaints about the language we rightly use to describe the person of Joseph Smith.. Words like liar, pedophile and pervert.. IHS jim

I don't care what words you want to call Joseph Smith.

Can I call you adulterer?

At least that one is proven fact here, unlike your charges against Joseph Smith.

[neverending]

And can I call you a cultist, hypocrite, God hater, gullible, and blind?? Are you free from sin, Sir? Are you so righteous that you have never failed in living your faith? Have you never held hate or envy towards anyone, at anytime in your life? Do you get angry with your wife, kids, mother, father siblings, neighbor, co-worker or boss? We are ALL sinners Sir, and because we are, that is why Christ came to earth. Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). Christ's whole mission here on earth was to spread his gospel and bring the lost sinner to repentance and for them to be saved. He went to the cross for that cause but have you really given any thought, that he loved YOU enough to die for YOU!! He took YOUR place on that dreadful cross, when it should have been YOU! There is NOTHING you could ever do to repay Christ for his sacrifice for YOU!! Maybe time for you to humble yourself, get on your knees and ask God to forgive you. Ask him to open your heart and mind to the real truths and show you the way to him, not J. Smith who we have evidence of his philandering and law breaking. Were the things he did prove he was a man of God? Your church's main thing is claiming it is, "the ONLY TRUE CHURCH." If this is true, why then are so many members not living it? One would think every member would be joyous and doing all they could to show the world that Christ lives in them and due to that, the light of Christ would sign through. I've yet to see that in any LDS members I've known. All have been judgmental, cruel and malicious gossipers.

[Ma'am]

Originally Posted by Sir

No confusion at all.

The ordinances have not changed.

The means and the message are able to be modified according to circumstances.

But the ordinances themselves have not changed.

Hope that helps.

Weren't the blood oaths discontinued in 1990? And all of that touching and anointing with oil on bare skin, under the robes the women wore? I have read that many hated that.

These are BIG changes, especially the blood oaths. And weren't changes made in the play that the inductees had to watch, that showed Satan paying Christian clergy to supposedly preach a false gospel?

These changes are changes in the ordinance. BIG changes. So, how can you possibly say the ordinances haven't changed? They weren't discontinued, but they were changed!

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Ma'am

Weren't the blood oaths discontinued in 1990? And all of that touching and anointing with oil on bare skin, under the robes the women wore? I have read that many hated that.

These are BIG changes, especially the blood oaths. And weren't changes made in the play that the inductees had to watch, that showed Satan paying Christian clergy to supposedly preach a false gospel?

These changes are changes in the ordinance. BIG changes. So, how can you possibly say the ordinances haven't changed? They weren't discontinued, but they were changed!

I don't know what went wrong, but when Joseph Smith jr. got the everlasting never to change again gospel from the book with the golden bible or Book of Mormon, and not the mention all them up to date revelations from his mormon god one might think the LDSinc. gospel would have never changed, but we know different don't we.
Oh well maybe jo should have said, " the everlasting gospel, until further notice. lol

[Sir]

Originally Posted by neverending

And can I call you a cultist, hypocrite, God hater, gullible, and blind?? Are you free from sin, Sir? Are you so righteous that you have never failed in living your faith? Have you never held hate or envy towards anyone, at anytime in your life? Do you get angry with your wife, kids, mother, father siblings, neighbor, co-worker or boss? We are ALL sinners Sir, and because we are, that is why Christ came to earth. Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). Christ's whole mission here on earth was to spread his gospel and bring the lost sinner to repentance and for them to be saved. He went to the cross for that cause but have you really given any thought, that he loved YOU enough to die for YOU!! He took YOUR place on that dreadful cross, when it should have been YOU! There is NOTHING you could ever do to repay Christ for his sacrifice for YOU!! Maybe time for you to humble yourself, get on your knees and ask God to forgive you. Ask him to open your heart and mind to the real truths and show you the way to him, not J. Smith who we have evidence of his philandering and law breaking. Were the things he did prove he was a man of God? Your church's main thing is claiming it is, "the ONLY TRUE CHURCH." If this is true, why then are so many members not living it? One would think every member would be joyous and doing all they could to show the world that Christ lives in them and due to that, the light of Christ would sign through. I've yet to see that in any LDS members I've known. All have been judgmental, cruel and malicious gossipers.

There was so much irony and hypocrisy in that post I don't know where to begin!!!!

[Ma'am]

Originally Posted by neverending

As I continue to research the changes to the temple ceremony I ran across this: As noted on page 218 of their recent book Mormon America, Richard and Joan Ostling point out that the main source of Mormon converts comes from people already familiar with some sort of Christian background or belief system:

"Mormonism succeeds by building on a preexisting Christian culture and by being seen as an add-on, drawing converts through a form of syncretism. Mormonism flourishes best in settings with some prior Christianization."

Syncretism means "the combination of different forms of belief or practice" and also "to unite and harmonize especially without critical examination or logical unity."
Since most Mormon converts in the 1970's and 1980's were coming from a Christian background, it was becoming apparent to LDS leaders in the 1980's that ridiculing the Protestant minister in the temple film was offensive to many new converts. There were even some reports of converts attending the temple once, and vowing to never return -- sometimes even refusing to return to any LDS meetings.
In 1987, David John Buerger (an active but liberal Mormon), published an article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, a liberal Mormon publication which is not controlled by the LDS church. In the article, Buerger suggested that LDS church leaders needed to seriously consider making changes in the temple endowment ceremony to counter declining rates of attendance.
Although possibly just a coincidence, the Mormon Church issued a survey to about 3,400 members in Canada and the U.S. to determine members' opinions concerning temple work and various other topics only a few months after the 1987 Buerger article.
Soon after the 1988 survey, plans were underway to change the endowment ceremony again (the ceremony had been modified many times since its introduction in Nauvoo, Illinois in the early 1840's). In 1990, the revised ceremony became effective, and the Protestant minister was eliminated from the film.
Some of the key changes were:
1. Protestant minister paid by Lucifer to preach false doctrine was eliminated.
2. All penalties (and gestures like throat slashing, chest slashing and bowel slashing) were eliminated.
3. Women's promise to be obedient to husbands was modified.
4. The intimate position at the veil (foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand on shoulder and mouth to ear) was eliminated.
5. The strange words "Pay Lay Ale" (meaning "Oh God hear the words of my mouth") were eliminated.
Without question, most faithful Mormons would stand firm in their faith that any decision to change temple ceremonies would have to come by direct revelation from God. It's likely that few LDS members are even aware of the 1987 Dialogue article or the 1988 survey. Many endowed members first attended the temple after 1990 and have no idea about the old version of the ceremony. I've even heard reliable reports of members refusing to believe that older versions included the ridicule of a Protestant minister and bloody oaths. Of course, these people would avoid any information about older versions of the ceremonies in books or on the internet. Critics and skeptical members might speculate that the 1987 article was one catalyst for the 1988 survey which was a catalyst for the 1990 changes. It's probable that the survey results indicated that a significant number of people were offended by various parts of the ceremony. In particular, many converts with a Christian background were highly offended by the part of the minister accepting employment from Satan ("Lucifer"), not to mention the bloody oaths and other things.
It would seem that the church caved to pressure from its members for the numbers of those attending the temple was falling off. Goodness, they had to do something. But when an ordinance in this church, ordained by their god was changed with no revelation given to their prophet, doesn't that make it MAN ORDAINED?

Thank you for that information; some of it is new to me. If it was so perfect to begin with and ordained by God, why then, did they change it? Shouldn't they have listened to God and not those coming into Mormonism from a Christianized background? Isn't it better to obey God than man?

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by neverending

If this is true, why then are so many members not living it? One would think every member would be joyous and doing all they could to show the world that Christ lives in them and due to that, the light of Christ would sign through. I've yet to see that in any LDS members I've known. All have been judgmental, cruel and malicious gossipers.

Your whole post was made useless by this statement. Because you know darn well that not every single LDS you met has been judgemental, cruel and malicious gossipers. It is a gross generalization. Just like if I said every "Christian" that I've met has been a fake, someone who claims to be a saved Christian and then turns around and does all sorts of worldly things. It is a gross generalization, but at least I honest enough to admit that it is.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by neverending

Snow...a poor ****ogy about baptism. Has the LDS changed to baptism by sprinkling? NOW, that would be a change. Being dunked into a river, or lake or even a swimming pool, makes no difference, it is still by immersion so that makes no change or difference. Now as to differences in Christianity? As far as doctrines, NO! We believe in ONE GOD, and his Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit which makes ONE GOD!! We believe Christ bled and died on the cross for ALL man kinds sins. He became sin and took our place on the cross. I could attend any denomination on any given Sunday and feel comfortable and have no problems with anything preached. Those denominations who have chosen to go against God by having women clergy, performing gay marriages and even allowing clergy to be gay themselves are NOT part of the body of Christ, meaning, they have distanced themselves from the truth of what the gospel is and have gone their own way, the way of the world. Don't worry, soon the LDS Church will be accepting of gays; which they already are doing (alright to be gay as long as one doesn't act on their desires) and performing gay marriages, its only a matter of time. They will bow to the pressure put on them by the world just as they did with the blacks in 1978. When the LDS Church begins allowing gays to be married in the temple the questions to gain a recommend will have to be changed and how will you feel about that?

And I see a change in their at***ude toward ****sexual "marriage" coming down the pike. The Mormons will do anything to make themselves as "agreeable" to as many people as possible. And ****sexual members will be a boon as far as more money is concerned.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Sir

There was so much irony and hypocrisy in that post I don't know where to begin!!!!

Oh, really? And what is hypocritical about Christ's death on the cross where he did for your sins? I forgot, you're sinless. And you constantly fail to answer questions asked of you. I can only think that you don't have a concrete answer or you are only here to play your games. So don't worry, you don't have to try and begin to answer for it would be something like this one. No substance.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Your whole post was made useless by this statement. Because you know darn well that not every single LDS you met has been judgemental, cruel and malicious gossipers. It is a gross generalization. Just like if I said every "Christian" that I've met has been a fake, someone who claims to be a saved Christian and then turns around and does all sorts of worldly things. It is a gross generalization, but at least I honest enough to admit that it is.

How about this - do you believe it is ethical for Mormons to snoop around in "visitors messages" not addressed to them and then publicly post them on a forum?

[neverending]

Snow...Since you have no idea where I grew up nor what kind of Ward or Branches I have lived in, you have no room to say anything. I have yet to meet ONE member of your church who ever showed me any kindness, even when I was a member so I am not making generalizations. I've seen the heartless way members of your church treat each other. Your church IS a respecter of persons, and only those with money have any importance within your church. Did you know my own brother was left alone for the last six months of his mission due to the Mission President who got all bent out of shape getting told off by our family doctor. My brother had asthma and had to take medication daily for it. His landlady saw him popping pills each morning and accused him of doing illegal drugs and called the Mission President. It was wrong and cruel and anything could have happened to my brother during that time. DON'T tell me what I know.....you've not lived my life!!!

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by neverending

Snow...Since you have no idea where I grew up nor what kind of Ward or Branches I have lived in, you have no room to say anything. I have yet to meet ONE member of your church who ever showed me any kindness, even when I was a member so I am not making generalizations. I've seen the heartless way members of your church treat each other. Your church IS a respecter of persons, and only those with money have any importance within your church. Did you know my own brother was left alone for the last six months of his mission due to the Mission President who got all bent out of shape getting told off by our family doctor. My brother had asthma and had to take medication daily for it. His landlady saw him popping pills each morning and accused him of doing illegal drugs and called the Mission President. It was wrong and cruel and anything could have happened to my brother during that time. DON'T tell me what I know.....you've not lived my life!!!

You are right. I don't know you and I don't know your life. But when someone makes sweeping generalizations such as "I have yet to meet ONE member of your church who ever showed me any kindness..." makes one really wonder about your life. So you've never gone to a store in Utah and been treated kindly? You've never had any neighbor who did not maliciously gossip about you? The Law of Large numbers makes it highly unlikely that you been treated unkindly by EVERY SINGLE LDS you've encountered. What have I done that has been unkind?

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Apologette

How about this - do you believe it is ethical for Mormons to snoop around in "visitors messages" not addressed to them and then publicly post them on a forum?

Are we picking individual situations and generalizing on the particular population as a whole? If so, we'll be at this all day with my experiences with "Christians".

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Apologette

How about this - do you believe it is ethical for Mormons to snoop around in "visitors messages" not addressed to them and then publicly post them on a forum?

Yes.

If you go write on someone's board how much you don't like LDS people or say bad things about them, it is perfectly ethical for a LDS to post such comments on the LDS board.

Why not?

What Anti-LDS say to other Anti-LDS on their walls is usually more of their honest opinions. Why not post them? Those who speak negatively of LDS in private will be rewarded openly.

And by the way.....all visitor messages are made for public access. There isn't any malicious hacking or invasion of privacy.