HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Layoffs  NaturalBornCitizen  FastandFurious  OPSEC  Benghazi  Libya  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice  Donate

Dear FRiends, Your loyal support makes Free Republic possible and your continuing participation makes FR the number one grassroots pro-life conservative forum on the planet! If you have not yet made your donation, please click here and do so now. Thank you very much, Jim Robinson

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $31,282
35%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 35% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Colofornian

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Chapter 38: Eternal Marriage ['Eternal Marriage Essential for Exaltation' (living with) Lds god]

    04/26/2015 9:26:11 AM PDT · 7 of 8
    Colofornian to NetAddicted; All
    I’ve been reflecting on this, &, in order to achieve enlightenment, you have to realize your oneness with all existence

    Sounds like...
    ...(a) many Hindu gurus
    ...(b) New Age thought
    ...(c) Pantheism
    ...(d) All of the above

    (d) is the correct answer

  • President Harold B. Lee’s General Priesthood Address ['only' married exalted 'in celestial kingdom']

    04/25/2015 8:50:52 PM PDT · 32 of 36
    Colofornian to babygene
    Anyway, "nice" sidelining of this thread to either...
    ...totally unrelated content;
    ...or pure fiction
  • President Harold B. Lee’s General Priesthood Address ['only' married exalted 'in celestial kingdom']

    04/25/2015 8:48:57 PM PDT · 31 of 36
    Colofornian to babygene; Religion Moderator; All
    Would you please privately send me the content of this “post#3”. I don’t recall even reading this thread, much the lest posting to it...

    (I just sent it to babygene, rm)

  • President Harold B. Lee’s General Priesthood Address ['only' married exalted 'in celestial kingdom']

    04/25/2015 8:47:40 PM PDT · 30 of 36
    Colofornian to babygene; ansel12; All
    OK, freep mail it to me...

    dun...

    Now do you recall typing it?

  • President Harold B. Lee’s General Priesthood Address ['only' married exalted 'in celestial kingdom']

    04/25/2015 7:49:27 PM PDT · 16 of 36
    Colofornian to babygene; ansel12

    I still have everything up as it was posted thru post number 5...before post number 3 was deleted & can quote part of it back 2u...it was submitted exactly 158 seconds before post no. 4...and it strangely has your username babygene attached to it...either u posted it or somebody with access to your keyboard did...

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/25/2015 6:05:23 PM PDT · 55 of 57
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; Elsie; All
    Furthermore, wanted to make sure people could follow up directly on my post #53 and check out original Lds.org sources...so just put together two new threads based upon excerpts from the digital versions of "Gospel Principles" (chapters 47 and 38 excerpts):

    * Chapter 47: Exaltation [Requirement #5: 'We MUST be married for eternity...']

    * Chapter 38: Eternal Marriage ['Eternal Marriage Essential for Exaltation' (living with) Lds god]

    So thank you, StormPrepper, for your persistent accusations on this thread.

    It allows people to not simply take my word or take your word on these disputes, but go directly to Lds.org for their "official" renderings on these matters.

  • Chapter 38: Eternal Marriage ['Eternal Marriage Essential for Exaltation' (living with) Lds god]

    04/25/2015 6:00:50 PM PDT · 1 of 8
    Colofornian
    (In the hard copy, this is a page 218 excerpt)

    This book has been THE essential Lds Church curricula assimilation study manual for those investigating the Mormon Church.

  • Chapter 47: Exaltation [Requirement #5: 'We MUST be married for eternity...']

    04/25/2015 6:00:41 PM PDT · 1 of 2
    Colofornian
    (This is from hard copy pages 275-280)

    This book has been THE essential Lds Church curricula assimilation study manual for those investigating the Mormon Church.

    In the 1978 version of this same book, marriage was #4 under 18 "Requirements for Exaltation"...In the 2009 and 2011 versions, those 18 "requirements" became "5" plus another 10 were listed as additional commandments.

    What? Did 18 "requirements" become a Mormon 'gospel' lite version of 5 (or even if you count the 10 secondary ones, 15?)

    What? The Mormon Church can't keep it straight for its own people as to how many requirements it takes to live forever with Heavenly Father? (Because THAT is what "exaltation" is in the Mormon Church: It's the only degree of glory where supposedly people get to live eternally with him...and failure on these "requirements" means no celestial kingdom eternal relationship with Heavenly Father...)

    Which, in turn, makes me ask: What's "heaven" minus living forever with Heavenly Father?

    Anyway, here's what p. 291 in the 1978 "Gospel Principles" version included:

    There are specific ordinances we MUST have received to be exalted: ... 4. We MUST be married for time and all eternity.

    (No ifs, ands, or buts there!)

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/25/2015 5:36:36 PM PDT · 54 of 57
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; Elsie; All
    Here ya go: Posted President Harold B. Lee’s General Priesthood Address ['only' married exalted 'in celestial kingdom'] as an entirely new thread for you -- directly from Lds.org...

    Is Lds.org good enough for you as a source?

    Go there. Click on the original link. Read the entire message if you want to.

    But let's see if you label Harold B. Lee with the same accusations you've tossed my way...

  • President Harold B. Lee’s General Priesthood Address ['only' married exalted 'in celestial kingdom']

    04/25/2015 5:33:09 PM PDT · 1 of 36
    Colofornian
    Look carefully at those bold-faced words in this Lds leader's General Conference address from October 1973...published in the January 1974 Lds Ensign publication.

    Per Lds theology, the "Celestial Kingdom" is the highest kingdom of three supposed tiers...and ONLY those living in that kingdom live forever with Heavenly Father.

    (The Middle tier can live with Jesus, but not Heavenly Father).

    IoW, no marriage, no living forever with Heavenly Father, per Lds "prophet" Harold B. Lee.

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/25/2015 5:03:23 PM PDT · 53 of 57
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; Elsie; All
    When ever you get called out for posting errors and half truths, which you constantly do, you post tirades trying to pettifog the issue and baffle with BS. ... "..no hubby, no living with Heavenly Father eternally." These are your words and they are wrong. They are not even remotely true. A true Christian would admit when they make a mistake. A true Christian would try to make it right.

    Are the following OFFICIAL LDS Church citations any more authoritative for you?

    I have TWO copies of the official Lds publication: Gospel Principles. One was published 1978; the other was a revision published in 2009. For 37 years, this book has served as THE basic primer Lds have used as an assimilation class for newbies. IoW, it's no "average" Lds church curricula book.

    Chapter 47 in both is simply titled "Exaltation."

    On p. 291-292 of '78 version it lists 18 "Requirements for exaltation" (that's the heading the book gives).

    For some reason in the '09 version, this list was shortened to 10 "Requirements for Exaltation" ... found on pp. 277-279 [Maybe it's "Exaltation Lite" for lowering the standards so more Mormons can live with Heavenly Father eternally?]

    No matter, on this particular matter under discussion, the versions are nearly the same:

    1978 version:

    There are specific ordinances we MUST have received to be exalted: ... 4. We MUST be married for time and all eternity.

    (p. 291)

    (Perhaps StormPrepper, you'd like to parse the word "MUST"????)

    Earlier in this "Gospel Principles" publication a chapter 38 excerpt reads:

    HEADING: 'ETERNAL MARRIAGE IS ESSENTIAL FOR EXALTATION' "...But to Latter-day Saints, marriage is much more. Our exaltation depends on marriage...Our Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so that we can become like him. We MUST live the law of eternal marriage to become as he is--able to have spirit children." (p. 231)

    In the 2009 version, it reads:

    To be exalted, we first must place our faith in Jesus Christ and then endure in that faith to the end of our lives. Our faith in Him must be such that we repent of our sins and obey His commandments. He commands us all to receive certain ordinances...5. We MUST be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next.

    p. 278

    Tell us Stormprepper, why would the Lds powers that be add in the 2009 version "must be married for eternity...in the next" when Joseph Smith taught in D&C 132 that no marriages are done in the "next life?"

    "Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever ... when they are out of the world it [the marriage covenant] cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God".

    Chapter 38 in the 2009 version:

    HEADING: 'ETERNAL MARRIAGE IS ESSENTIAL FOR EXALTATION' "...But to Latter-day Saints, marriage is much more. Our exaltation depends on marriage...Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so that we can become like him. (p. 219)

    What, Stormprepper? These Lds leaders who oversee this book are in "error" too? They also are "wrong" -- not even "remotely true"???

    And what? Since the very book this is found is entitled "Gospel Principles," are you confirming for us all that the Lds church can't even define what its "gospel" is? It changes? It varies by mere edit?

    Let's move on to other similar interesting promulgations on this topic by the Mormon Church

    What also have the Lds "prophets" taught?

    1973-74:

    "ONLY those who enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in the temple for time and eternity, only those will have the exaltation in the celestial kingdom. That is what the Lord tells us” (President Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, Oct. 1973, 120; or Ensign, Jan. 1974, 100; Religion 234–235 - Eternal Marriage Student Manual, p. 193).

    So you've, StormPrepper, by extension, then ALSO labeled Harold B. Lee, the Ensign magazine, and Lds curricula as a "false prophet" here? Are they liars? Half-truthers? Deceivers? Mistaken? Out of tune with the Lord's teaching all as "Prophet" Lee claimed, "That is what the Lord tells us."

    1913:

    "No man can be saved and exalted in the kingdom of God without the woman, and no woman can reach perfection and exaltation in the kingdom of God, alone. . . . God instituted marriage in the beginning. He made man in His own image and likeness, male and female, and in their creation it was designed that they should be united together in sacred bonds of marriage, and one is not perfect without the other (President Joseph F. Smith, in Conference Report, Apr. 1913, p. 118; Religion 234–235 - Eternal Marriage Student Manual, p. 175).

    OTHER

    * "Exaltation grows out of the eternal union of a man and his wife. Of those whose marriage endures in eternity, the Lord says, ‘Then shall they be gods’ (D&C 132:20); that is, each of them, the man and the woman, will be a god. As such they will rule over their dominions forever” (Elder Bruce R. McConkie, 1966, Mormon Doctrine, 613; Religion 234–235 - Eternal Marriage Student Manual, p. 168).

    "No woman can reach the perfection and exaltation in the kingdom of God alone" (Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 77).

    * "The Lord has prescribed REQUIREMENTS for eternal life in the celestial kingdom. We MUST COMPLY with the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, page 90).

    After reading these, will you repent of your accusations? Or will you stiffen?

  • Polygamy: Demise [Lds polygamy didn't end with 1890 manifesto; nor was it intended to]

    04/25/2015 1:50:55 PM PDT · 13 of 13
    Colofornian to Elsie; StormPrepper; All
    Yup...shows even Mormons wonder how those who don't support polygamy could be promoted to Lds church high office circa 2015

    (Kind of a stark admission, eh?)

    Eh, Stormprepper, eh?

  • Polygamy: Demise [Lds polygamy didn't end with 1890 manifesto; nor was it intended to]

    04/25/2015 1:05:57 PM PDT · 10 of 13
    Colofornian to Utah Binger; All
    Thanks for posting the United Order pix (Orderville, Utah)

    Here's what Lds “prophet” John Taylor said about the "United Order" communism of late 19th century Utah in Orderville: "We had NO EXAMPLE OF THE 'UNITED ORDER' IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WORD OF GOD ON THE SUBJECT... (Lds author George W. Givens, 500 More Little-Known Facts in Mormon History, p. 169)

    Taylor was the third Lds "prophet." He realized no scriptural basis for United Orders & dismantled the one in Orderville (he also cited other reasons such as "Our relations with the world and our own imperfections prevent the establishment of this system at the present time, as was stated by Joseph in an early day, it cannot yet be carried out."

    Lorenzo Snow, before becoming an Lds "prophet" in 1898, founded the United Order community of Brigham City.
    A Utopian author (Bellamy) then visited Brigham City in 1886. It reinforces his ideas in his book.
    Lenin gets ahold of his book; and further injected utopian Marxism into Soviet Russia.
    In the interim (back in Utah), a ballad crops up about Orderville after it appears that one of the sons of the Lds presiding elder of that town (Alvin Heaton), murders a pregnant girl (Mary Steavens) he refused to marry in 1890. Apparently, he was convicted & sent to prison. (see Givens, p. 190)

    (So much for Mormon "Utopia")

    Yup...and here the United Order was supposed to be "everlasting," was it not? That was Joseph Smith's "revelations" in D&C 82:18-19 and 104:1, 48, 53

    Even George Givens, a Mormon author, described Brigham Young’s communist-built community of Orderville, Utah as “pure communism”: "When Brigham Young established Orderville and similar United Orders, John Taylor was less than enthusiastic. He realized that enterprises such as Orderville were pure communism and not the law of consecration. He made this plain after he became President, when in 1882 he sent an epistle to all authorities of the Church in which he bluntly stated: 'We had no example of the 'United Order' in accordance with the word of God on the subject...Our relations with the world and our own imperfections prevent the establishment of this system [i.e. the system of consecration and stewardship spoken of at times as the 'United Order'] at the present time, as was stated by Joseph in an early day, it cannot yet be carried out.'" (George W. Givens, 500 More Little-Known Facts in Mormon History, 2004, p. 169)

    The truly unfortunate thing for world history is that John Taylor didn’t go far enough, for while he dismantled Orderville, he left another “United Order” community (Brigham City, Utah) alone.

    Here is Givens again (a faithful Mormon author):

    "One of the most famous utopian books ever written was Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy, published in 1889. Some scholars believe Looking Backward had considerable influence in the making of Lenin's Soviet Russia. If this is true, then [ensuing Lds "prophet"] Lorenzo Snow and the Latter-day Saints must receive some of the credit--or blame. Hearing of the success of the United Order in Brigham City, Edward Bellamy made a special trip to Utah in 1886 to study its operation. There he spent three days with Lorenzo Snow, Brigham City's founder and forty-year resident. Impressed with the thirty to forty industries run by its 2,000 inhabitants and the vitality at that time of one of the most successful United Orders, Bellamy returned home and wrote his influential book." (500 More Little-Known Facts in Mormon History, p. 185).

    Way to go, 19th century Mormon leader-“prophets” of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor & Lorenzo Snow!!! They all unwittingly fueled Soviet Communism!

    It was…
    … Smith’s original idea of a United Order, something he falsely prophesied would be everlasting- see Doctrine & Covenants 82:20; 104:1 – I mean you haven’t taken scissors to those verses yet, have you Rip? So that must mean you still embrace these concepts as “Mormon truth”
    …followed by Young’s implementation of these communistic ideas into Utah communities like Orderville & Brigham City…
    …with Lds “prophet” Snow being the founder & long-term dictator of Brigham City, which in turn, influenced Bellamy, who in turn influenced Lenin!!!
    …and while Taylor didn’t like the orders, he only did a half-mast job of taking apart Orderville, but leaving Brigham City untouched.

  • Polygamy: Demise [Lds polygamy didn't end with 1890 manifesto; nor was it intended to]

    04/25/2015 6:09:19 AM PDT · 5 of 13
    Colofornian to Jim Noble; All
    Does anyone doubt, for a second, that if the right case went in front of the Supreme Court, that Mormon polygamy would be restored?

    Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, who wrote the mid 1960s book Mormon Doctrine, a book later picked up and published by the Mormon Church in the 1970s and quoted THOUSANDS of times in official Lds curricula, wrote on this subject, as mentioned in this April 20, 2008 Salt Lake Trib article:

    In his quasi-official 1966 book Mormon Doctrine, which remains in print, the late LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote that ‘the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming and the ushering in of the millennium.’ And by policy, men can be ‘sealed’ for eternity in LDS temple rites to more than one wife, though women are permitted only a single sealing. Three of the church's current apostles, for example, were widowed and remarried. Each will have two wives in the eternities” (“Modern-day Mormons disavow polygamy”).
    Source: What is "Celestial Polygamy"?

    (Note: McConkie's book, still in print in 2008, is now no longer republished by the Church...though his citations are en masse!)

    By the way, the linked article above, mentions:

    Note carefully the last sentence, “Three of the church’s current apostles, for example, were widowed and remarried. Each will have two wives in the eternities.” The three Mormon Apostles referred to in this article are Dallin H. Oaks, L. Tom Perry, and Russell M. Nelson. All three men are widowers, and all three men have been “sealed” to a second wife.

    Perry, a current Mormon "apostle," has been in the news of late: Elder Perry to undergo cancer treatments; Elder Scott hospitalized

    Perry is 92.

    Hence, once Perry dies, he would -- if Mormon theology is right -- be with his first wife (who died)...while his second wife remains on earth.

    Since he was married supposedly "for eternity" in the Mormon temple to both, Perry, if he dies first...would, upon his second wife's death, become an eternal polygamist.

    All from the church that supposedly frowns on current polygamy.

  • Polygamy: Demise [Lds polygamy didn't end with 1890 manifesto; nor was it intended to]

    04/25/2015 5:29:21 AM PDT · 2 of 13
    Colofornian to All
    Hardy's first book on polygamy was:

    B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992,)

    Between 1890-1910: LDS leaders solemnized at least 262 known plural marriages in the post-manifesto years when the church was pretending to be 100% against polygamy (source: Hardy, A Solemn Covenant, 1992)-- most of whom by either apostles like Taylor & Cowley (later ex-communicated) or by Ivins in Mexico, who was rewarded for this & made a general authority in the early 1900s, or by others who became general authorities after solemnizing such plural marriage vows.

    Hardy lists the specific people involved in these plural unions in his appendix of the book, and is able to provide specific years these plural unions took place in most cases, along with a list of plural wives for each man.

    Mormon leaders did not break up most of the polygamous arrangements that were already intact in 1890 & thereafter. B. Carmon Hardy shows in his book's appendix that some of those polygamous unions lasted into the early 1960s...some of those who were secretly solemnized in the early 1900s.

    So when Mormons say polygamy "ended" in 1890 among mainstream Mormons, there's "no way" when there wasn't even a Mormon monogamous "prophet" at the helm until the mid-1940s!

    Btw, Hardy devotes a full chapter in that 1992 book to how LDS regarded polygamy as sexually superior to monogamy--not for erotic or "orgy-like" reasons--but for what they regarded was the "opposite"--associating prostitution and the resulting ill-health with monogamy, etc.

    IoW, some Lds 19th century leaders were openly attacking monogamy.

  • Polygamy: Demise [Lds polygamy didn't end with 1890 manifesto; nor was it intended to]

    04/25/2015 5:09:20 AM PDT · 1 of 13
    Colofornian
    Note: TimeAndSeasons.org is a Mormon Web forum with Mormon contributors.
  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/25/2015 4:54:56 AM PDT · 50 of 57
    Colofornian to Elsie; All
    just accept the FACT that you are, truly, damned for not following your Scripture found in D&C 132:58-66?

    Well, post #30 includes this citation from Joseph Smith's nephew, "prophet" of the church:

    ...this doctrine of the eternal union of the husband and wife and OF PLURAL MARRIAGE, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become gods neither could we attain to the power of eternal increase... (Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 21, pp. 9-10)

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/25/2015 4:52:46 AM PDT · 49 of 57
    Colofornian to Colofornian; StormPrepper; All
    After all, I already covered that in post #29).

    Correction of which post #. This should be post #30.

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/25/2015 4:50:46 AM PDT · 48 of 57
    Colofornian to Elsie
    Good luck! Mormonism has NO qualms about putting words in GOD's mouth; so I doubt you'll get no consideration at all.

    LOL

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/24/2015 9:23:53 PM PDT · 43 of 57
    Colofornian to StormPrepper
    No one needs to be married to enter the Celestial kingdom and live with Heavenly Father for eternity. A single woman, that's one without a "hubby" can live with Heavenly Father for eternity. That's your error. Will you admit to it?

    Go ahead. I challenge you to label the citations of Joseph F. Smith & Joseph Fielding Smith in posts #29 & #42 as "errors." That THEY were mistaken!

    Then we can agree -- you & me -- that they BOTH were errorists!

    Come on, don't weasel out of addressing their comments head-on. Don't make the issue about me. Deal with their quotes. Head on.

    Will we get an evasive weasel response from you again on this? Or will you actually let these two "prophets" words sink in for your eval for the world to see?

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/24/2015 9:18:22 PM PDT · 42 of 57
    Colofornian to StormPrepper
    Yes, you did. Those are your words. "..no hubby, no living with Heavenly Father eternally." Those are your words in black an white.

    You can't even keep your own rhetoric straight! (Is that intentional? Or are you always so confused?)

    You made two distinct accusations of two distinct "errors" -- one in post #27 (re: single women not being able to live eternally with heavenly father); the other in post #34 (re: married women & whether it mattered if they were married in the temple).

    So here my post #40 dealt with the latter; and what do you do? You ignore that & revisit your post #27 re: single women...

    Do you need help on basic clues, StormPrepper?

    Post #40 didn't even address your accusation of "error" re: SINGLE women (I mean why would I? After all, I already covered that in post #29). It focused on MARRIED women as to whether it mattered if they were married in the temple...Here I'll help you along by quoting your comment back to you:

    You took a "cue" and got it completely wrong. Will you correct your error? Not being MARRIED IN THE TEMPLE does not keep anyone out of the Celestial kingdom of God, like you said it does. (Your post #34)

    *******************************

    So...I've decided to help you as your personal "Sub-topical navigator" on this thread, in order to make it easier on you...I will...from now on...provide a heading for you so you know whether we are discussing married women or single women.

    Married women

    I take it that since you didn't address married women in post #41, you thereby concede then what I said about this matter in post #40: That the "in the temple" issue you had was with the Encyclopedia of Mormonistic folks ... not me.

    Thanks indeed for your confirmation on this...by way of silence!!!

    Single women

    OK, if you want to hit the rerun button I will:

    Yes, I said: "Even if single women get the temple rec, no hubby, no living with Heavenly Father eternally."

    Why did I say that?

    Here, I'll do a Q&A with your two "prophets" -- as if they were being interviewed personally by me (original quotes are in post #29):

    Q: Mr. Prophet's nephew...a LOT of Mormon single women out there, ya know. In light of that, if you had to narrow down 'one of the most important' (Mormon) 'doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world', what might that be?

    A: (By Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Smith's nephew): '...this doctrine of the eternal union of the husband and wife and of plural marriage."

    Q: Tell us, Joseph F. Smith, why & how is this doctrine of such import?

    A: (Joseph F. Smith): "Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become gods neither could we attain to the power of eternal increase...
    (Source: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 21, pp. 9-10)

    Q: So, to recap: No exaltation minus the eternal union of a husband and wife?

    A: (Joseph F. Smith): Are you not listening? As I just said, 'Without...this doctrine of the eternal union of husband and wife...we never could be exalted...'

    Q: Thank you, Mr. Smith.

    As an aside, just so that others know that when Lds say "exaltation" they mean living forever with Heavenly Father, I need to add these theological notes as charted here:

    When Mormons talk about eternal life & exaltation, they're not just talking about "heaven" What's the "rest of the story"? * Mormons believe that only their “Melchizedek priests” (D&C 76:57) are the ones eligible for “dwell[ing] in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.” (D&C 76:62) In the Mormon view of heaven, ONLY those entering into Mormon "covenants" and obeying fully Mormon laws get to live forever in God's presence: * Eternal life is living with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in the celestial kingdom. This blessing--which is also called exaltation--comes only to those who keep the commandments and make the necessary covenants (Source: Preparing for Exaltation Teacher's Manual, p. 4, 1998) * ”Immortality is to live forever as a resurrected being. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, everyone will receive this gift. Eternal life, or exaltation, is to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, where we will live in God’s presence and continue as families.” (same source, p. 52) * “’Eternal life’ is a higher state than immortality alone and means to live forever in a resurrected condition in the presence of God, and to become like God…Eternal life is exaltation into the type and quality of life that God lives. Receiving eternal life is conditional, predicated upon obedience to the fullness of gospel law and ordinances (D&C 29:43-44; 130:20-21). It requires voluntary obedience to all of the ordinances and principles of the gospel…continuing through…the covenants of the Endowment and marriage in the temple…” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:677-678)

    Now, I will do the same thing: A "Q&A" (of sorts) with Joseph Smith's great nephew -- deceased Lds "prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith:

    Q. Sir...Mr. Joseph Fielding Smith...we've been talking about all these Mormon single women...and whether that effects their potential "exaltation" and whether that impacts them being able to receive "fullness" in God's kingdom. Tell us, what's your take on all of this?

    A: (Joseph Fielding Smith): "So if you want to enter into exaltation and become as God, that is a son of God or a daughter of God, and receive a fulness of the kingdom, then you have got to abide in his law-not merely the law of marriage but all that pertains to the new and everlasting covenant... (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 63)

    Q: So that indeed includes the "law of marriage," then?

    A: What did I just say?

    Q: Well, you did say "marriage" was a "law..." I'd guess we'd have to wonder when is a law not a law, and when can laws be selectively obeyed?

    Q: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Joseph Fielding Smith. Just wanna let you know that some grassroots Mormons out there seem to have some heartburn with your comments and those of Mr. Joseph F. Smith!

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/24/2015 2:21:19 PM PDT · 40 of 57
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; Elsie; All
    Not being married in the Temple does not keep anyone out of the Celestial kingdom of God, like you said it does.

    Never said what you are claiming I said (the "married...in the temple" part as being an ABSOLUTE for living with Heavenly Father)...so please stop putting words in my mouth.

    May I suggest you pay a wee more attention to the specific words keyboarded before you start going on personal accusation rampages?

    I will cite to you the specific phrases I uttered in posts six and thirty...(& will even then add the context citation parenthetically):

    Post #six: Even if single women get the temple rec, no hubby, no living with Heavenly Father eternally

    In post #six, mentioned "temple rec" but did NOT mention being married IN the temple. Post #six was actually about single women...NOT married women (or where they get married).

    Context of citation: Per Mormon theology, that trend (along with the trend away from Mormon temple recommends) means the overwhelming bulk of Mormons wont qualify to live with Heavenly Father forever. Simply because of those 2 missing elements: An eternal marriage & no temple rec. Even if single women get the temple rec, no hubby, no living with Heavenly Father eternally (Post #six)

    Let's now jump to post #30 for a continuation of your proper interpretive tutorial, shall we?

    Here was my one line pertaining to the "married...in the temple" question at hand:

    "Obviously one of the 'covenants' Mormons are EXPECTED to enter into is marriage...and not only 'marriage,' but marriage 'for eternity' in the Mormon temple...so says the Mormon Encylopedia:

    There. I used the word "expected."

    An "expectation" is not necessarily defined as an absolute prerequisite. For example: All Mormon young adults are, in effect, "expected" by Mormon culture & Mormon leaders to serve as Lds missionaries; but by no means are all required. Hence, an "expectation" is exactly that!

    Now, yes, that word "required" DID come up within my post...but if you want to call it an "error," by all means, label the BYU leaders who put together the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as "errorists"...for that is where the "requirement" claim that you have such issues with originated!!!

    In fact, I will even go the next step and "high five" you & join with you in labeling them as errorists. Here is what THEY said that seemed to send you into a Mormon tizzy...note especially the last line:

    “’Eternal life’ is a higher state than immortality alone and means to live forever in a resurrected condition in the presence of God, and to become like God…Eternal life is exaltation into the type and quality of life that God lives. Receiving eternal life is conditional, predicated upon obedience to the fullness of gospel law and ordinances (D&C 29:43-44; 130:20-21). It REQUIRES voluntary obedience to all of the ordinances and principles of the gospel…continuing through…the covenants of the Endowment and MARRIAGE IN THE TEMPLE (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:677-678)

    So it's these BYUites who claim:
    "...exaltation...Receiving eternal life is conditional, predicated upon obedience to the fullness of gospel law and ordinances. It REQUIRES voluntary obedience to all of the ordinances and principles of the gospel...continuing through...the covenants of the Endowment"

    'AND MARRIAGE IN THE TEMPLE' (Unquote)

    Kind of interesting that in your haste to attempt to pin "error" upon my statements that you wind up lambasting the powers that be within BYU Mormonist theology!!!

    So, tell you what...instead of attempting to manufacture false conflict 'tween the two of us, let's just pair up here! We actually seem to be ... at least upon THIS finetuned subject ... a match!

    Of course, it's an error for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism to claim that you HAVE to be married (a "requirement") in the Mormon temple to receive exaltation/eternal life (what Lds theology defines as eternal life with heavenly father)!

    We agree!!!!

    In fact, let's just get it off of our chests with a nice all encompassing statement: Lds theology is just ONE HUGE ERROR!

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/24/2015 12:50:50 PM PDT · 39 of 57
    Colofornian to elcid1970; Elsie; All
    Well...when I said Mormons are preppers I kinda meant their religious requirement that Mormon households maintain a year’s supply of food, preferably purchased through Deseret Enterprises Inc.

    Yup. Ready for whenever the Shiz hits the fan...or however you might lose your head in a fictional situation.

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/23/2015 5:57:09 PM PDT · 30 of 57
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; Elsie; All
    Me: Even if single women get the temple rec, no hubby, no living with Heavenly Father eternally.

    You: What you're saying is false. Do you care?

    My comment here didn't originate with me...I simply am taking a "cue" from two Lds past "prophets":

    (1) Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Smith's nephew
    (2) and Joseph Fielding Smith, Joseph Smith's great nephew

    Here's what they had to say 'bout the import of marriage from a Mormon perspective:

    ...this doctrine of the eternal union of the husband and wife and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become gods neither could we attain to the power of eternal increase... (Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 21, pp. 9-10)

    "So if you want to enter into exaltation and become as God, that is a son of God or a daughter of God, and receive a fulness of the kingdom, then you have got to abide in his law-not merely the law of marriage but all that pertains to the new and everlasting covenant... (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 63)

    The latter citation comes from a book published by the Mormon Church itself:

    Deseret Book.com: Doctrines of Salvation

    So are you telling us, SP, that these "prophets'" teachings are "false?"

    ******************

    Here's some related material:

    In the Mormon view of heaven, ONLY those entering into Mormon "covenants" and obeying fully Mormon laws get to live forever in God's presence:
    * Eternal life is living with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in the celestial kingdom. This blessing--which is also called exaltation--comes only to those who keep the commandments and make the necessary covenants (Source: Preparing for Exaltation Teacher's Manual, p. 4, 1998)

    Obviously one of the "covenants" Mormons are expected to enter into is marriage...and not only "marriage," but marriage "for eternity" in the Mormon temple...so says the Mormon Encylopedia: “’Eternal life’ is a higher state than immortality alone and means to live forever in a resurrected condition in the presence of God, and to become like God…Eternal life is exaltation into the type and quality of life that God lives. Receiving eternal life is conditional, predicated upon obedience to the fullness of gospel law and ordinances (D&C 29:43-44; 130:20-21). It REQUIRES voluntary obedience to all of the ordinances and principles of the gospel…continuing through…the covenants of the Endowment and MARRIAGE IN THE TEMPLE…” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:677-678)

    (One can find the Encyclopedia of Mormonism online, administered by the Mormon Church owned & run BYU operations)

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/23/2015 10:24:29 AM PDT · 19 of 57
    Colofornian to TontoKowalski; SZonian; All
    It's not that so many of the claims are open to interpretation, it's that they are just provably false. The internet is killing Mormonism. Mormons will tell you it's "anti-Mormon" literature, but really it's just "truth."

    Indeed.

    And the Mormon leaders & grassroots have been well aware of the Internet's impact:

    * Special report -Mormonism besieged by the modern age
    * Mormon scholars: Internet spotlights LDS taboos
    * Notes: Mormonism and the Internet

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/23/2015 9:48:52 AM PDT · 8 of 57
    Colofornian to All
    EHaremny, the matchmaking website for Mormons...

    ...where you can match with 29 women in a different dimension.

    :)

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/23/2015 9:44:50 AM PDT · 6 of 57
    Colofornian to 2ndDivisionVet; All
    What happens when polygamy becomes legal?

    Good Question...

    70 percent of men aged 20 to 34 are single

    That means A LOT of not only men but women who are single...

    Per Mormon theology, that trend (along with the trend away from Mormon temple recommends) means the overwhelming bulk of Mormons wont qualify to live with Heavenly Father forever.

    Simply because of those 2 missing elements: An eternal marriage & no temple rec

    Even if single women get the temple rec, no hubby, no living with Heavenly Father eternally...eventually, the Lds gen authorities may have to round up all these single women into Mormon harems...for their own eternal welfare, mind you.

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/23/2015 9:34:26 AM PDT · 2 of 57
    Colofornian to All

    So, per this excerpt above, this Mormon sociologist says there’s “no explicit doctrinal barrier” to Lds female elders.

  • What challenges will the Mormon church face in its 3rd century?

    04/23/2015 9:34:00 AM PDT · 1 of 57
    Colofornian
  • How Much Influence Does the LDS Church Have on the Legislature? Depends on Who You Ask

    04/23/2015 9:04:36 AM PDT · 35 of 37
    Colofornian to Gamecock; Elsie; All
    **Terrestrial - for religious people who aren’t Mormons and for Mormons who have not met the requirements of the Church.** (elsie)

    Mighty neighborly to let us in! (Gamecock)

    Except that they don't...

    You can't live forever with Heavenly Father in the alleged "terrestrial" kingdom...

    Tell us, Mormons: What's a heaven minus Heavenly Father?

    (Answer: It ain't)

  • How Much Influence Does the LDS Church Have on the Legislature? Depends on Who You Ask

    04/23/2015 9:02:45 AM PDT · 34 of 37
    Colofornian to JAKraig
    I don't see a problem with the State Legislator of Georgia not having any Mormons on it or Kentucky, New York or many other states. People like to be represented by people like themselves. It sounds like someone doesn't like Mormons and wants to take away their opportunity to represent themselves in their own state.

    Lds are only 2.7 percent of the entire US population...

    Not much left to go around (even above 1 percent of a given state's population) after you consider that...

    If Utah is fifty seven percent Mormon...
    And Nevada & AZ 8 percent Mormon...
    And Idaho & Wyoming higher than that...
    With Colorado getting a few percentage pts too
    Along with a few other Western states...

  • [compiled from 2007-2013] Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in America (20)

    04/22/2015 12:39:44 PM PDT · 32 of 56
    Colofornian to tcrlaf; All
    A similar article was posted a year or two ago on FR.

    I looked then at most of the maps of those particular neighborhoods.

    What was shameful to the legacy of Martin Luther King is that about half ... or over half of THOSE particular neighborhoods of that article posted THEN had either in close proximity or fairly close proximity either a park or a boulevard named after Martin Luther King.

    Where are the reformers who would seek to elevate his name vs. having neighborhoods yield crimeridden shame to his name?

  • Past time for NFL to consider 'bullpen drive-closers' as part of QB roles? [Tebow vanity]

    04/21/2015 6:50:51 PM PDT · 50 of 57
    Colofornian to Excuse_My_Bellicosity
    I’m not going to sit here and list every sport for you with an analysis. I’d spend the rest of my natural life on that post.

    (Hey, it's REAL simple: This article wasn't about "every sport." It compared baseball with football...two sports)

  • How Much Influence Does the LDS Church Have on the Legislature? Depends on Who You Ask

    04/21/2015 2:00:42 PM PDT · 19 of 37
    Colofornian to JAKraig; Elsie; All
    I guess the Roman Catholic Church has it's own Parliament in Italy. This is stupid. I wonder what the Baptists would say about the number of Catholics in Rome. I wonder what the Catholics say about the city council in Cleveland Tenn. Where ever you have a large majority of one religion among a group of people of course their representative government will have a majority of those people on it.

    Slight misrepresentation of the facts here.

    Utah isn't as monolithic as it used to be.

    Elsie mentions it's fifty seven percent Lds.

    The article says:

    ...the 104-member, part-time Legislature, whose members are around 80 percent faithful members of the Mormon Church...

    So the legislature is roughly 23 percent more Mormon than Utah is.

  • How Much Influence Does the LDS Church Have on the Legislature? Depends on Who You Ask

    04/21/2015 11:50:03 AM PDT · 12 of 37
    Colofornian to colorcountry
    I’d say too much by 84%.

    Agreed

    (Matching up with the Protestant percentage who said "too much")

  • How Much Influence Does the LDS Church Have on the Legislature? Depends on Who You Ask

    04/21/2015 11:48:58 AM PDT · 11 of 37
    Colofornian to Alex Murphy
    Just the faithful ones, huh? How did they know which ones were faithful?

    Very good Q

  • Apparently No One Noticed What This Woman Was Staring at When They Chose Her for Their Label

    04/21/2015 11:45:58 AM PDT · 50 of 63
    Colofornian to sparklite2

    (Well perhaps dead men make for good “composting” for organic products like this one?)

  • How Much Influence Does the LDS Church Have on the Legislature? Depends on Who You Ask

    04/21/2015 10:20:48 AM PDT · 1 of 37
    Colofornian
  • Mysterious Drone Causing Headaches in Mansfield (Privacy RIP)

    04/21/2015 10:08:30 AM PDT · 28 of 73
    Colofornian to Army Air Corps
    So, peeping Toms around the country can rejoice.

    Not a whole lot different from peeping toms creeping around your home ... even from sidewalk vantage points...and taking pictures. Nobody's going to get arrested there, either.

  • Past time for NFL to consider 'bullpen drive-closers' as part of QB roles? [Tebow vanity]

    04/20/2015 8:32:37 PM PDT · 46 of 57
    Colofornian to Excuse_My_Bellicosity
    Soccer, basketball, and hockey (and tons of other) players are expected to read dynamically-changing offenses and defenses and change their game accordingly, I don’t see why it would be such a stretch for a football player to do it.

    And yet you don't apply this concept to baseball?

    No critiques for baseball mgrs who pinchhit when the ones they are batting for should be able to "handle" the pitcher on the mound? What about critiques for mgrs who take out a pitcher who's only been throwing for a third of an inning? 2/3rds of an inning? An inning? Those pitchers are expected to be able, with the pitch calling of the catcher, to be able to hold down the opposition, are they not?

    Why do they need to leave in favor of another bullpen pitcher?

    Seems to me you apply expectations to some professional athletes, while letting others off the hook.

  • Past time for NFL to consider 'bullpen drive-closers' as part of QB roles? [Tebow vanity]

    04/20/2015 4:22:20 PM PDT · 44 of 57
    Colofornian to Ransomed; Alberta's Child; All
    Look up average ERA for pitchers per times through the batting order. The more times you see a pitcher generally the easier it is to hit off him.

    Yes, and when you look up the NFL teams in 2014 who struggled scoring TDs in the red zone...

    ...Especially...
    ...the Jets...
    ...Jacksonville...
    ...Buffalo...

    ...Even tho the closer you get to the goal line, the easier it is to score...teams like the Jets were only scoring TDs thirtysix percent of the time once they got to the red zone...

    So just as starting pitchers struggle with increased exposure vs. some hitters, some QBs seem to struggle more with redzone pressure.

  • Past time for NFL to consider 'bullpen drive-closers' as part of QB roles? [Tebow vanity]

    04/20/2015 4:16:37 PM PDT · 43 of 57
    Colofornian to discostu
    And in general with less room to work tight in the end zone is considered to be the spot QBs need to be more accurate, not less, so you’re really not going to have a guy who’s not good enough for midfield but good enough to close the drive.

    Most passes inside the 30 of the opposition these days isn't a direct end zone route...more & more relying upon YAC. The toughest defensive assignments are when they know the QB has legs for either scrambling for positive yardage or scrambling for extra finding a receiver open.

    This isn't simplistic "good enough" or "not good enough" ... or they wouldn't likely be in an NFL uniform... it's about throwing wrinkles to the defense

    In baseball, managers will bring in lefties to throw to lefty batters. They might bring in a speedy pinchrunner @ 3b to force the infield to play in with less than 2 outs...

    Your "not good enough for midfield" comment is like critiquing a baseball manager who brings in a reliever for a starter ... even tho that reliever is "not good enough" for for the starting rotation.

  • Past time for NFL to consider 'bullpen drive-closers' as part of QB roles? [Tebow vanity]

    04/20/2015 4:00:56 PM PDT · 42 of 57
    Colofornian to discostu
    And no teams don’t run 55% of the time inside the 30, in the modern NFL 3rd and inches is a passing down.

    When Tebow headed up the 2011 Broncos, once the ball got to the 31 yard line of the opposition or inside of that, they ran the ball fifty nine percent of the time.

    If you've got a QB who while inside the red zone, runs the ball in for a score 37 to 38 percent of the time, runs the ball for a first down just as often, then we're not even talking about your "average NFL" team...and to think this article was addressing the "average NFL" team...as if the "average NFL" team would buy into what this article highlighted isn't paying close attention.

  • Past time for NFL to consider 'bullpen drive-closers' as part of QB roles? [Tebow vanity]

    04/20/2015 3:44:01 PM PDT · 40 of 57
    Colofornian to discostu

    With the way a qb may hit a dozen receivers in a game..with half or more of them only catching 1 or 2 passes for entire game...”timing and rhythym” become overrated...especially given that many if not most teams run the ball 55 to 60% inside the opposition’s 30...see post #19 for details

  • Past time for NFL to consider 'bullpen drive-closers' as part of QB roles? [Tebow vanity]

    04/20/2015 3:40:17 PM PDT · 39 of 57
    Colofornian to wardaddy

    Pay attention...Rollin fingers was mentioned in the article...

  • Past time for NFL to consider 'bullpen drive-closers' as part of QB roles? [Tebow vanity]

    04/20/2015 2:03:50 AM PDT · 21 of 57
    Colofornian to Alberta's Child; pieceofthepuzzle
    I don't think the scenario described here by the author would work.

    Why wouldn't it work?

    You have...

    ...A coach who implemented spread-offenses with QB runs off of them in college (IoW a coach who can operate beyond the NFL "box")...

    ...A QB who was successful near or within the red zone, leading to 85% of scores on those opportunities? And that was as a mere rookie without an entire pre-season and exhibition season to work up an offense around his skillset.

    ...And you had a QB who had enough of a red-zone/near red-zone balance (8 TD passes; 6 TD runs) that defenses in those situations need to respect.

  • Past time for NFL to consider 'bullpen drive-closers' as part of QB roles? [Tebow vanity]

    04/20/2015 1:50:35 AM PDT · 19 of 57
    Colofornian to Teacher317; catnipman; Excuse_My_Bellicosity; All
    It’s been attempted enough times in football to know that it is not a winning strategy.

    (Then perhaps you'd have actual specifics on which teams tried it & what the results were)

    Football is a different sport from baseball. The rhythm and timing between QB and receivers and linemen is CRUCIAL.

    You said: "Timing...between QB...linemen???" Really?

    Listen, whatever "timing between QB...and linemen" that's so "crucial" is going to be of necessity on running plays as well. Which, in turn means that whatever "timing" issues are of necessity between a "QB" and a "lineman" are just as crucial as "timing" between a "RB" and a "lineman." (And we don't see NFL teams hesitant AT ALL about putting in new RB in the red zone, do we?)

    The rhythm and timing between QB and receivers...is CRUCIAL. Changing abruptly at the most important moment in a game is simply too big of an obstacle to overcome any difference in QB skills that the backup may have. (Also... If he were THAT much better, he would be the starter.)

    LOTS of faulty assumptions there:

    Faulty assumption #1:

    Let's start with that last comment: "If he were THAT much better, he would be the starter."

    I reviewed Tebow's 2011 passing stats from the 31-yard line in: Yeah, he tossed something like 8 TD passes...but he was only 20 of 51. (That's less than 40% accuracy).

    You see, Tebow's success deeper in the opponent's turf wasn't usually arm-based. And even on many of those TD throws, his scrambling mobility played a bigger role than "timing patterns" that you seemingly want to reduce the entire passing game to.

    Which leads then into Faulty Assumption #2:

    Which is, that, the "QB skills" requisite deep in the other team's territory is somehow primarily "QB and receivers." Not only does that less-than-40% completion % negate that focus, but the Bronco run-pass ratio for the same part of the field also cuts down that theory:

    I looked over those 13+ games where Tebow ran the 2011 offense: After the Broncos got to the 31 yard line -- or inside of it -- they called:
    * 54 RB rushes (& 1 WR around);
    * 21 Tebow carries (not sure how many of those were scrambles; the 21 doesn't include 1 sack)
    * 51 passes

    That means, including the sack as a pass play, that the Broncos only passed the ball 41% of the time deeper in the other team's territory. And I'd say, most teams likely run more than pass in those situations as well.

    Which, frankly means that in up to 60% of plays in those scenarios, the "timing" between a WR and a QB means zilch...as in zilcho!

    Faulty Assumption #3 -- and a BIG one:

    If you what you said was "so" about "timing and rhythm," then no team (or at least MOST teams) would dare put in "new" receivers once they got close to or within the red zone!

    I mean, otherwise, per your theory, that would somehow "disrupt" all that accumulated "timing and rhythm" the QB & primary receivers "hooked up" on in the previous (usually) 50 yards!

    Tell us, Teacher: What specific NFL team buys into that nonsense?

    What? Do you claim that NONE of them or MOST of them wouldn't dare put another receiver in because of this "sacred" notion of "timing & rhythm" earned from their own 20 to the opposition's 30???

    Plus, what further makes it faulty can be demonstrated even from the first few full games Tebow played as a Bronco in 2011:

    In the first full game, tight end Daniel Fells came in later in the game to replace Virgil Green. Fells only made two catches in the entire game...both on the same drive...both from the 31 yards of the opposition or within...One a 28-yard reception he took to the 3-yard line; and then a 3-yard TD catch.

    There was NO "timing and rhythm" Tebow worked up with Fells prior to moving into the opposition's near red zone. If the 2nd or 3rd-team tight end or wide-outs are sidelined a fair amount -- failing to "nail down" all that supposed "timing and rhythm" you talk about -- then you've just made the case for them to remain on the sidelines in red-zone or near red-zone situations. Yet, Fells didn't...and the Broncos were one TD richer for it.

    That happened yet again the very next game. Fells only caught one pass...a 5 yarder...and it happened deeper in the other team's territory.

    Likewise, in game #10 of that season, Jeremiah Johnson only caught one pass the whole game -- an 8-yarder from Tebow. Again, it occurred deeper in the opposition's territory. There was no "timing and rhythm" work-up foundation.

    And these days, tho I haven't taken the time to statistically back it up, I notice MANY MANY games where you have multiple running backs and multiple tight ends and back-up wide outs who wind up getting one or two catches apiece for the ENTIRE game. Your "timing and rhythm" scenario for these teams where it's become a reality is a myth for these types of teams as well.

    And, going back to Tebow's less-than-40% completion % in or just beyond the red zone, if all that "timing and rhythm" work-up he & his receivers had "layered up" prior to getting to the opposition's 30-yard line was of such import, it didn't seem to kick in for him the later the drive went.

    Tebow was a "closer" despite rookie pass miscues he made...NOT because of all the traditional "QB skillset" you want to assign.

    Likewise, some relief pitchers in the Majors (Mike Marshall, Charlie Hough, Hoyt Wilhelm) were successful precisely because of the errant nature of their (knuckleball) pitchers and weaker arms...not because of them.

    If you were to impose the modern-day "skill set" template of a "closing pitcher" able to zip fastballs anywhere from 96 to 102 mph, then that would leave a fair number of solid closers in Major League history who proved otherwise.

  • Past time for NFL to consider 'bullpen drive-closers' as part of QB roles? [Tebow vanity]

    04/20/2015 1:00:21 AM PDT · 17 of 57
    Colofornian to catnipman; Teacher317; Excuse_My_Bellicosity; All
    So, after the starting quarterback figures out the defenses, figures out their weaknesses, knows when to throw and knows when to hand-off...

    #1, these are professionals, after all...and knowing when to throw & when to hand-off tends to come both in practice, the exhibition games & all preceding other games.

    #2...re: "figuring out the defense" & "figuring out their weaknesses..." well, if you have to be an "in-the-game" QB to do that, then why bother EVER -- at ANY level (college, high school, pros) have either some offensive play coordinator or sideline coach call a play?

    You make it sound like nobody on a sideline or in a pressbox seat could possibly "figure out" a defense or its weaknesses?

    That's gotta be one of the more pathethic, unthought thru comments to float around.

    ...gets on the same page with all of his receivers as to which routes to run...

    Uh, yeah. Each QB does that pre each play. (It's called a "huddle"). And that "huddle" is based upon extensive practices further fleshed out via those exhibition games & previous games I mentioned above!

  • Past time for NFL to consider 'bullpen drive-closers' as part of QB roles? [Tebow vanity]

    04/20/2015 12:53:14 AM PDT · 16 of 57
    Colofornian to ifinnegan

    You are correct...I was going on faulty memory on that & misposted which team Fingers was on at the time...all else was correct