Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Oct 12, 2011 Full story: CNN 32,004

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is an award-winning comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

Full Story
concerned in Brasil

Europe

#31881 Jan 23, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>And you are the same fool who just yesterday stated, "At the very least the LDS are honest and what they say they believe, they really believe." Then in your very next post claimed, "When I talk to LDS in honest moments they don't believe the religious nonsense, they stay because all their family and friends are there, they sell out the truth so they can be part of the clan." Pull your head out of your arse.
You're the same fool who came on here claiming there is a telescope called "Humble" and thinks cosmetology is the study of the cosmos. So which is it? Do you purposely portray yourself as a fool or are you a fool? No charge Mouse.
You to apparently ignore context I was referring to LDS in general in one post not that I know and who live in my community and then those I know personally I also stated that many don't know there own LDS history and believe what they are told today not knowing their faiths past. If I did not word it in a more concise manner you have my apologies. In context we were dealing with same sex marriage and homosexuality.

When dealing with one apple or two in the barrel sure we get nonsense like surprise and others.

I suppose its easier for some LDS here to take cheap shots as they know they can't be Identified.

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31882 Jan 24, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>And you are the same fool who just yesterday stated, "At the very least the LDS are honest and what they say they believe, they really believe." Then in your very next post claimed, "When I talk to LDS in honest moments they don't believe the religious nonsense, they stay because all their family and friends are there, they sell out the truth so they can be part of the clan." Pull your head out of your arse.
You're the same fool who came on here claiming there is a telescope called "Humble" and thinks cosmetology is the study of the cosmos. So which is it? Do you purposely portray yourself as a fool or are you a fool? No charge Mouse.
Thanks!!!
:)

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31883 Jan 24, 2014
Former Mormon bishop accused of luring teenage boy for sex

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Former-Mormon-bi...

"A former bishop with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is accused of trying to lure a teen boy for sexual exploitation, according to the Mesa Police Department.

"Berry said police obtained a search warrant for the computer and detectives discovered conversations Coleman was allegedly having with a 17-year-old boy in Brazil.

"Investigators say Coleman suggested leaving his wife and daughter and moving to Brazil, or having the teen move into his Mesa home. He also reportedly called the teen his boyfriend.

"Berry said Coleman was the bishop of the Lehi Second Ward in Mesa at the time of the investigation but is no longer with the Mormon church. It is unclear when he left his position and whether it was related to the allegations.

"Berry said the investigation is ongoing and there could be other victims."

Yeap, the God of the Mormon church is really good at picking those Bishops.

Since: Sep 12

Sparta, MO

#31884 Jan 24, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
Former Mormon bishop accused of luring teenage boy for sex

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Former-Mormon-bi...

"A former bishop with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is accused of trying to lure a teen boy for sexual exploitation, according to the Mesa Police Department.

"Berry said police obtained a search warrant for the computer and detectives discovered conversations Coleman was allegedly having with a 17-year-old boy in Brazil.

"Investigators say Coleman suggested leaving his wife and daughter and moving to Brazil, or having the teen move into his Mesa home. He also reportedly called the teen his boyfriend.

"Berry said Coleman was the bishop of the Lehi Second Ward in Mesa at the time of the investigation but is no longer with the Mormon church. It is unclear when he left his position and whether it was related to the allegations.

"Berry said the investigation is ongoing and there could be other victims."

Yeap, the God of the Mormon church is really good at picking those Bishops.
That's really not a fair comment to make. This kind of thing happens in other denominations and faiths as well. Just like you already believe, man is not perfect and is culpable and prone to weakness and sin. But I know... Let's point it out solely at the "LDS God" and Church because this is a thread about Mormons, even "former" ones.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31885 Jan 25, 2014
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's really not a fair comment to make. This kind of thing happens in other denominations and faiths as well. Just like you already believe, man is not perfect and is culpable and prone to weakness and sin. But I know... Let's point it out solely at the "LDS God" and Church because this is a thread about Mormons, even "former" ones.
Here is why I think the charge is fair. Mormonism teaches it's leaders are called by God through the power of the priesthood, by revelation. You express this in the 5th Article of Faith

"We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

That isn't just men picking and choosing, that is men picking and choosing by revelation from God through the priesthood. Men being inspired in who to chose. Man isn't perfect, but God certainly is. And if you are gonna claim leadership by inspiration from God, people have a right to example the choices God has made. An example of what kind of fruit is coming from the tree.

"In the Church we do not assume authority belonging to either an ordained or a set apart office or calling. We MUST BE CALLED to a position and sustained, be ordained or set apart and given authority. The fifth Article of Faith says,'We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.'(A of F 1:5.)" Boyd K. Packer, "What Every Elder Should Know--and Every Sister as Well: A Primer on Principles of Priesthood Government," Ensign, Feb. 1993, p. 11

"We must each prepare ourselves for every good work that might come to us and then accept the principle that revelation, not aspiration, is the basis for our respective callings." Monte J. Brough, "A Holy Calling," Ensign, May 1997, p. 27

"We believe that all the callings in the church are received as callings from God. We do not lobby for positions and no one receives wages for the work they do as part of these callings. Callings are extended to us, to help us to learn and grow in the way that God intends for us. Those who act as leaders in the church, are instructed to follow the inspiration of the Spirit, in calling others to positions."

http://maryrubow.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/the...

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31886 Jan 25, 2014
*examine the choices...

Since: Sep 12

Kissee Mills, MO

#31887 Jan 25, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>Here is why I think the charge is fair. Mormonism teaches it's leaders are called by God through the power of the priesthood, by revelation. You express this in the 5th Article of Faith

"We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

That isn't just men picking and choosing, that is men picking and choosing by revelation from God through the priesthood. Men being inspired in who to chose. Man isn't perfect, but God certainly is. And if you are gonna claim leadership by inspiration from God, people have a right to example the choices God has made. An example of what kind of fruit is coming from the tree.

"In the Church we do not assume authority belonging to either an ordained or a set apart office or calling. We MUST BE CALLED to a position and sustained, be ordained or set apart and given authority. The fifth Article of Faith says,'We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.'(A of F 1:5.)" — Boyd K. Packer, "What Every Elder Should Know--and Every Sister as Well: A Primer on Principles of Priesthood Government," Ensign, Feb. 1993, p. 11

"We must each prepare ourselves for every good work that might come to us and then accept the principle that revelation, not aspiration, is the basis for our respective callings." — Monte J. Brough, "A Holy Calling," Ensign, May 1997, p. 27

"We believe that all the callings in the church are received as callings from God. We do not lobby for positions and no one receives wages for the work they do as part of these callings. Callings are extended to us, to help us to learn and grow in the way that God intends for us. Those who act as leaders in the church, are instructed to follow the inspiration of the Spirit, in calling others to positions."

http://maryrubow.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/the...
I agree that the Church's leadership is called by inspiration. Personally, I don't believe this is always the case in all Church callings, but that's my opinion. That being said... Callings are not only given to fill positions in the Church, rather they are for the individual, just as your paste points out. It is up to that individual to learn and grow, and more importantly to rely on The Lord to fulfill that particular calling. In helping him/herself, they are also helping those they are called to serve. Now bring in our weaknesses and capacity to sin. There are going to be those who fall short and succumb to their shortcomings, as we are not perfect. Heavenly Father provides the path, it is up to us to follow him and stay on that path. That's something not all are going to do. What I'm trying to express is that just because God calls a person through the Priesthood doesn't mean perfection is going to be the result. We ALL are incapable of perfection. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it in our daily lives.
Now, back to why I feel it wasn't a fair comment. This incident and many others like it happen quite often in other Christian denominations (and faiths) by men also "called by God." Because they are "called by God" shouldn't they be held to the same standard? I say, if you are, yes. They are purported "Men of God." But they're men and they are subjected to their own weaknesses and sin. It's all unfortunate that these things happen, and unfortunately will continue to happen. If you sin, and make no attempts to change and put off that sin, your sin will eventually find you out and expose you. As we see everyday.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31888 Jan 25, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>So what you're saying is, the women in China "rule" {exercise ultimate power and authority} over something that they don't even own? The home?
I said "rule the roost", I didn't state what percentage owned or didn't won the roost, I didn't state economic and or social status etc. You thus made a stupid and ignorant inference of stating what I didn't say by stating "...you're saying is, the women in China "rule" {exercise ultimate power and authority} " ....and I said nothing in any such manner. You said it in an extreme way to describe what you want what I said to mean. I can expect this extremism from nomo and dana but from you also? Your bad. Not mine.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31889 Jan 25, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Are you drunk? If you are, say so now, I don't converse with drunks.
First of all, since when does "illuminate" mean cease to be, it means to light up. Read the words I'm writing. Eliminate not illuminate. And eliminate was not used in conjunction with change, it was in conjunction with the term "crapping and pissing" In regard to the topic, it's just a less vulgar way of wording it. And I'm not giving any exception or changing positions, read the words I'm writing. None of your examples are a example of changing human nature.
Are you drunk? Are you high? Did you read the post without glasses? Did you forget how to assume the obvious when you read something that seems amiss in context? I used the word eliminate in the first of my statement. I then obviously misspelled it illuminate later. The fact that you thought the word was correct in context is your bad not mine when I used the word correctly before I began to misspell it incorrectly. You should have written to ask if when I said illuminate if I actually meant eliminate which I would have said yes, by bad for spelling. But the context of the actual implied meaning was the same as the originally correctly spelled word I used in the beginning. You should have understood that.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31891 Jan 25, 2014
pearl wrote:
And eliminate was not used in conjunction with change, it was in conjunction with the term "crapping and pissing" In regard to the topic, it's just a less vulgar way of wording it. And I'm not giving any exception or changing positions, read the words I'm writing. None of your examples are a example of changing human nature.
Now back to your original statement I addressed..........
"Try making that toddler not "crap and piss" at all then you would have changed something." Read that sentence carefully. To not crap or piss would be to eliminate the biological function to piss or crap. Understand your words? You said.... "Try making that toddler not "crap and piss" at all.." Doing that would be eliminating the total need to expel bodily waste by pissing and crapping. That was your statement of what you meant.
One can obviously change HOW one craps and pisses as to WHEN they crap and piss. But one cannot eliminate the need to crap and piss. Understand your confusion?
Human nature/instinct from it's raw form (i.e. not regulated, not controlled, not manipulated, not redirected) can be changed to be regulated, controlled, manipulated and redirected.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31893 Jan 25, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>And by your logic, the only reason we haven't killed each other off as a species, is because societies laws prevent us from doing so. And I keep telling you all your examples of changing human nature are not examples of changes in human nature. Every example you've given has ridiculous assumptions, that need to be addressed. A child doesn't shit at "will" Eliminate his need to shit than you've changed a biological function, instinct, nature. Changing where the child shits doesn't change the nature at work here, making him hold it, doesn't change the nature at work. Your not changing behavior, he still needs to shit. Now that I've put that in crude layman terms, perhaps you can make some sense of the subject matter.
lol...fricking get a dictionary! To eliminate something IS NOT to change something. Are you making up definitions to suit your twisted thinking? Obviously.

Eliminate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam ...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eliminate
Full Definition of ELIMINATE transitive verb 1 a : to put an end to or get rid of : remove < eliminate errors> b : to remove from consideration < eliminate someone as ...

Change - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change
Definition of CHANGE. 1: the act, process, or result of changing: as . a: alteration <a change in the weather> b: transformation <a time of vast social change> <going ...

Fricking get a check on your grammar please. To eliminate something IS NOT to have changed something. To eliminate something is to make something cease to be, to make it not to exist, to remove it from an equation so it doesn't any longer exist.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31894 Jan 25, 2014
pearl wrote...
1. And by your logic, the only reason we haven't killed each other off as a species, is because societies laws prevent us from doing so.
1a. Science of the fields of behavior believes that to be true. It might take a while to be accomplished but it would happen. Laws for humans killing other humans are regulated for when and why a human can kill another human to abate humans from doing "over kill" of each other. Obviously you're not aware of that fact. Obviously you're not aware of how this world would be for humans if suddenly over night all laws in all cultures/societies were removed for humans killing each other. A movie was made about this where for one 24 hour period on earth anyone could kill anyone of any age by any means. The movie actually reflected what would take place if their was no restrictions for humans killing each other on a year to year scenario.
The laws threatening one with death for killing another keeps most people from killing other people who would consider doing it just once or many times. So laws do in fact restrict and change other wise human nature/instinct to act impulsively or purposefully with or without thought.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31895 Jan 25, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey completely stupid
I am not Mormon, I am anti -mormon, your above statement is ludicrous to say the least.
Your Faith believes God was once a Man the Bible directly contradicts that belief
Your faith believes you and I are spirit brothers and sisters to Lucifer the Devil as is Jesus the Bible explicitly contradicts this.
Your Faith believes those of dark skin in this world are that way because they stayed neutral in the war against Lucifer and those of white skin were those who sided with Jesus. Again the Bible explicitly contradicts this.
Your Faith believes we can become Gods and have our own planets etc etc and the Bible explicitly contradicts this.
Your so called Prophet founder of the LDS faith died in a shoot out in Jail trying to kill police officers of the Law,
who had some 33+ wives many children and many still married to living men. He hide this from his first wife Ema and all the rest. He is a Pedophile pervert who made many prophecies that never came to pass and thus is a False prophet.
He claims the BOM was given to him by God yet it contradicts the Bible the word of God that predates the BOM by thousands of years.
YOUR faith is simply false and those who die putting their faith in that lie for Salvation are lost as Jesus and the Bible explicitly teach.
Your faith worships a false Jesus that never existed in any time any where.
You realize all you just said proves what I said, that all you can do is paste what others have stated? That you never make your own arguments? That you totally avoid becoming engaged in debates about Mormonism that would require you to make an actual argument from your own thoughts?
You're a paster. And your a pathetic paster because it's all you know how to do obviously. You know nothing of how to form an actual argument to base an opinion from. You're nothing but a copy cat that relies on other peoples writings to have something to paste. You're the worst waste of your own time.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31896 Jan 25, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is why I think the charge is fair. Mormonism teaches it's leaders are called by God through the power of the priesthood, by revelation. You express this in the 5th Article of Faith
Hey living, watch dana's reply to this as the same as he states it can be factually applied to another time dimension by his present logic.

"Jerusalem Clay Tablet Times News"

The times reports today of past events that the prophet believed to be *od took on a man named Peter a while back whom we knew to be a tax collector. Apparently this *od had a bad day because it seems Peter has been said to have denied even knowing him not once, but three times to three different people to save himself from being executed by roving mobs looking for followers of this prophet *od called Jesus. Seems a real *od with real perfect powers would never have made such a mistake to place such a person with such duties of his new religion who would later deny knowing him.
On other matters, this Jesus *od seems to have had another bad day for choosing adherents like Judas Iscariot as a leader as he is reported to have committed suicide by hanging himself after turning his *od over to Jewish soldiers.
This Jesus *od just doesn't seem to have the qualifications for an actual *od because he just seems to have a knack for choosing the wrong people as leaders. Seems as soon as this Jesus *od was arrested all his leaders ran and hid to save themselves from being jailed, beaten and or executed by roving mobs looking for them. What happened to true martyrdom and dying for the good cause instead of running from it to save one's life out of fear?
In other news it's reported that after the death of this Jesus *od, a split in this new religion took place as none of the leaders believed what this Jesus *od taught that he would raise himself from the dead and come back to them. Rumors have it none of the leaders believe what he said as being able to be done. One's doubts has earned him the nick name "Doubting Thomas" he doubts what his *od taught him so much.
Than we have astonishing news that someone resembling the Jesus *od is walking about claiming to be him. The leaders this Jesus *od choose refused to believe it was him till it's said the person with identical scars made them feel his scars and than with proof they claimed it was him and admitted what he claimed was true. How does such a true and everlasting omnipotent *od of truth and perfectness choose such a bunch of misfits that deny him and all he stands for? Seems the Jesus *od could have choose people that wouldn't doubt him or deny him and would at least believe what he taught.
Sound familiar to your accusation dana? "Yeap, the God of the Mormon church is really good at picking those Bishops."
Except 2000 years ago you would have phrased it... "Yeap, the *od of the Jesus church is really good at picking those apostles."
No am not

Madison, TN

#31897 Jan 25, 2014
Who are you people

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31898 Jan 25, 2014
pearl wrote:
A child doesn't shit at "will" Eliminate his need to shit than you've changed a biological function, instinct, nature. Changing where the child shits doesn't change the nature at work here, making him hold it, doesn't change the nature at work. Your not changing behavior, he still needs to shit. Now that I've put that in crude layman terms, perhaps you can make some sense of the subject matter.
....and to wrap up all this talk so to speak, you went from it not being possible to change human nature/instinct to stating the only way to making a change, is to eliminate one or more functions of human nature/instinct. Eliminating something isn't is making a change. It's making something cease to be, to no longer have an existence, to not be a part of anything any more. Eliminating isn't change.
Change is to take something from how it naturally/normally functions/appears and cause it to behave/look differently in a different manner than it normally works/looks.
The human nature/instinct of an infant to toddler is to expel waste when the urge to release said waste is felt. That's human nature/instinct in it's raw unchanged human behavior taking place. Parental behavior teaches the toddler to manipulate and control that bodily urge. That's change.
What you are now specifying is that the raw animal human nature/instinct can't be changed which in the field of psychology is called natural urges, those things we as humans are born with. Like defecating and fighting and eating and having sex. Those are all human nature/instincts in their raw form where they would exist if no laws existed to control such urges.
Human nature/instincts are all essentially labeled urges. Urges to defecate, urges to fight, urges to mate, urges to eat, urges to move about and explore. You can eliminate an urge by death obviously. But you can also change how an urge functions in it's raw state to make it function differently by laws and rules and traditions as taught by society.

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31899 Jan 25, 2014
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the Church's leadership is called by inspiration. Personally, I don't believe this is always the case in all Church callings, but that's my opinion. That being said... Callings are not only given to fill positions in the Church, rather they are for the individual, just as your paste points out. It is up to that individual to learn and grow, and more importantly to rely on The Lord to fulfill that particular calling. In helping him/herself, they are also helping those they are called to serve. Now bring in our weaknesses and capacity to sin. There are going to be those who fall short and succumb to their shortcomings, as we are not perfect. Heavenly Father provides the path, it is up to us to follow him and stay on that path. That's something not all are going to do. What I'm trying to express is that just because God calls a person through the Priesthood doesn't mean perfection is going to be the result. We ALL are incapable of perfection. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it in our daily lives.
Now, back to why I feel it wasn't a fair comment. This incident and many others like it happen quite often in other Christian denominations (and faiths) by men also "called by God." Because they are "called by God" shouldn't they be held to the same standard? I say, if you are, yes. They are purported "Men of God." But they're men and they are subjected to their own weaknesses and sin. It's all unfortunate that these things happen, and unfortunately will continue to happen. If you sin, and make no attempts to change and put off that sin, your sin will eventually find you out and expose you. As we see everyday.
Crazy,

Your post was inspirational and I totally agree... we all come down here and we are expected to do our Duty and it's up to us to fulfill that mission. Your post was well presented and well spoken.:)
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#31900 Jan 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you drunk? Are you high? Did you read the post without glasses? Did you forget how to assume the obvious when you read something that seems amiss in context? I used the word eliminate in the first of my statement. I then obviously misspelled it illuminate later. The fact that you thought the word was correct in context is your bad not mine when I used the word correctly before I began to misspell it incorrectly. You should have written to ask if when I said illuminate if I actually meant eliminate which I would have said yes, by bad for spelling. But the context of the actual implied meaning was the same as the originally correctly spelled word I used in the beginning. You should have understood that.
Well I did you give you the benefit of doubt the first time you used the wrong word, but the second time you did it, I began to wonder. That coupled with the fact that you completely misunderstood the context of the phrase "eliminate" and read something far different into my post, other than what was said, well at that point I had to assume you were;
A. Self medicating
B. Stupid
C Not reading what I'm writing
D. Not capable of following a train of thought that isn't already implanted in your skull.
You ramble, your inconsistent, and when you demonstrate your incompetence of understanding and or dialogue you consistently try to pass it of as someone elses failure.
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#31901 Jan 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Now back to your original statement I addressed..........
"Try making that toddler not "crap and piss" at all then you would have changed something." Read that sentence carefully. To not crap or piss would be to eliminate the biological function to piss or crap. Understand your words? You said.... "Try making that toddler not "crap and piss" at all.." Doing that would be eliminating the total need to expel bodily waste by pissing and crapping. That was your statement of what you meant.
One can obviously change HOW one craps and pisses as to WHEN they crap and piss. But one cannot eliminate the need to crap and piss. Understand your confusion?
Human nature/instinct from it's raw form (i.e. not regulated, not controlled, not manipulated, not redirected) can be changed to be regulated, controlled, manipulated and redirected.
Again these posts just seem to zoom past your head. Your complete lack of comprehending my posts, then claiming "That was your statement of what you meant." and all the while insisting I should NOT interpret your posts literally, or other than what the say is becoming a drag. I just wanted to make note of that fact.
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#31902 Jan 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...fricking get a dictionary! To eliminate something IS NOT to change something. Are you making up definitions to suit your twisted thinking? Obviously.
Eliminate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam ...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eliminate
Full Definition of ELIMINATE transitive verb 1 a : to put an end to or get rid of : remove < eliminate errors> b : to remove from consideration < eliminate someone as ...
Change - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change
Definition of CHANGE. 1: the act, process, or result of changing: as . a: alteration <a change in the weather> b: transformation <a time of vast social change> <going ...
Fricking get a check on your grammar please. To eliminate something IS NOT to have changed something. To eliminate something is to make something cease to be, to make it not to exist, to remove it from an equation so it doesn't any longer exist.
I have an experiment we could try. Go to your vehicle and eliminate one of the tires. Next time you try to drive it we can see if there is change.
But once again you didn't follow the concept, so I'll state it thus; try to change the instinct to defecate,{for the sake of argument and in your context I will stipulate for the moment that it is an instinct } in fact try to change it by forbidding it. Can't do it you say? Could it be, because you can't change human nature by forbidding it?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

North Salt Lake Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
LDS Apostle visited Tonga (Feb '14) 1 hr piratefighting 19,925
Mormons carry a few more pounds (Feb '06) 8 hr Ishbal Ulk 300
Is Ebay's Declining Reputation Scaring Buyers A... (Oct '13) 15 hr SellerBacklash 7
Looking for a girl friend (May '07) Oct 28 demar dubidad 790
where my Norte partnaz Oct 27 Delano ca WsDN 1
Mormons: Founder had a teen bride Oct 26 DaddyB 1
Entertainment is a Diet of Decadence in The War... Oct 26 Culture Auditor 1
North Salt Lake Dating
Find my Match

North Salt Lake People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

North Salt Lake News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in North Salt Lake

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]