Sunday School Teacher Arrested on Molestation Charges (police say he molesting a 12-year-old boy)

Sacramento police have arrested a 36-year-old Sunday school teacher on charges of molesting a 12-year-old boy.

Christopher Todd Hettiger was a church elder and taught Sunday school for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on Rio Tierra Avenue in south Natomas.

Hettiger apparently met the boy and his mother through the church and hired the woman as a housekeeper. The boy attended Hettinger's Sunday school class and stayed overnight at Hettiger’s home on several occasions.

According to police, the case broke when the boy no longer wanted to visit Hettiger. When his mother asked why, he revealed the alleged molested, which had been going on for more than a year.

Hettiger also worked in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program four years ago. His many contacts with young people have raised suspicions that there might be additional victims.

According to investigators, Hettinger has no criminal record. He is self-employed, working out of his house as a computer consultant.

Many of the things other christians disagree with us over are things that first century Christians believed

You provided this link which didn't discuss Rev 22:13 at all and just gave some examples which have no bearing on Rev 22:13.

But the real question isn't what they think, but what God knows.

Of course it matters what Jesus' words meant to first century Christians! That's an incredibly, um, funny thing to say and makes absolutely no sense! C'mon, guy, stop and think about what you belong to - you're not being given real answers to very important issues.

Men can study and argue and make point and counterpoint till judgement day. If a person wants to know the truth however, they have to ask God with faith and sincerity to reveal it to them.

That's another standard Mormon line. I hate to call it that but that's what it is. It means nothing without the Bible to compare against what we think we hear from God. Otherwise you're setting yourself up to fall for any teaching whatsoever. Please, stop and think about this for awhile. You or any Mormon can contact me privately anytime you want.

1 Corinthians 7
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Looks like the Apostle Paul who serves the one and only risen and living Savior -the Lord God Jesus Christ- has no problems for Wrigley (and yourself) to stay in his (your) present condition. It is a blessing says the Apostle of the one true God -Jesus Christ!

And, let the record show, that "Wrigley" will not be alone this holiday season. Wrigley has a wonderful family where he will spend Christmas and he has his favorite "niece" -my Emma- who just ~loves~ her Uncle "Wrigley" so much!

Wrigley needn't change a thing. He is blessed in who he is! And that is a child of the one and only true God -the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jean

Sorry for the delay in the reply, Tues night we went to see The Two Towers at midnight, then I came home, got 3 hours sleep and had a very busy day yesterday before going to bed rather early.

"Okay - you say the above is not and never was Mormon doctrine"

Because that's the way it is.

"How do you reconcile that with the following: "

No need to reconcile anything, only to inform you of your mistakes. The Journal of Discourses is not scripture, revelation or doctrine. The content is not entirely accurate either. They were recorded using a form of shorthand that had no punctuation, then transcribed to longhand some time later. The content was never reviewed by the speakers to ensure accuracy so everything in it that can not be verified from more trustworthy sources is suspect to begin with.

Even if the record is accurate however, it is still the case the the speakers were speaking for themselves and their words do not represent anything other than their own opinions. We do not expect or demand perfection from any leader, the Bible itself shows that even prophets can be wrong at times. There is a well defined process by which scripture and doctrine and accepted, and it is inaccurate to protray something that is not cannon as if it is. The Seer also is not doctrine, and if I recall correctly, the church called Orson Pratt up on the carpet for some of the things he published in it.

What is church doctrine is that the CONCEPTION of Jesus Christ was a miracle performed by the power of the Holy Ghost. The RESULT of that miracle was that Mary, A VIRGIN, was pregnant with a child who's body was biologicaly related to both Mary and Heavenly Father as if they did have sex. Everything after the conception (the pregnancy, the labour, the birth) proceeded the same natural way as with all pregnancies. So it is perfectly accurate in our view to say that 'birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence' 'God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh' etc., these statment do not deny that the CONCEPTION of Christ was a miracle. The Bible calls him the Only Begotton Son of God, we belive just that, don't you?

If you want claim that our doctine is or was that there was an actual physical union between God the Father and Mary, you must show where in our cannon it ever said that, not from non-cannonical and/or questionable sources. You can not do that, such a thing never was our doctrine.

"How can they? By changing the definition of the word "virgin". The reasoning goes like this: since Mary had sexual relations with an immortal man, not a mortal man, the phrase "virgin birth" still applies."

Again, that never was doctrine, only the opinions of some men. Members are free to disagree with those opinons without consequence.

"You provided this link which didn't discuss Rev 22:13 at all and just gave some examples which have no bearing on Rev 22:13. "

I didn't claim it did, I though since you imply comparison with 1st century christians is a usefull exercise that you might find that information interesting.

"Of course it matters what Jesus' words meant to first century Christians!"

I'm sure it matters to first century Christians, but to me they are still imperfect men, and I will not be goverened by the opinons of men in spritual things. What is important to me is understaning it as God does, and if that seems 'incredibly funny' to you then it would problaby be best to just agree to disagree at this point.

'you're not being given real answers to very important issues'

From my POV you are missing the forest for the trees and I'm trying to point out the forest to you. When you can see the forest, then it makes scense to talk about the trees.

"That's another standard Mormon line."

Yes, it is. It's also a line many of you like to brush aside and ignore because you can not deal with the truth of it.

"Otherwise you're setting yourself up to fall for any teaching whatsoever"

You really don't know much about us, I wish you could see that for yourself. God wants us to know the truth, he promised to reveal the truth of things to us if we ask in faith and sincerity. I've done so and I know personaly from God that these things are true. I am not blindly following some teacher, I am relying on God.

From my POV, it is YOU who are relying on some human teacher, or your own intellect, to guide you. Man's understanding is not sufficient, and heaven is not just for those with the intelligence to corectly sort out truth from error on their own. Heaven is for anyone with faith sufficient to ask God and follow his answers.

No need to reconcile anything, only to inform you of your mistakes. The Journal of Discourses is not scripture, revelation or doctrine.

For anyone interested, the Journal of Discourses (26 volume set) is available on the New Mormon Studies CD-ROM.

Making the claim that the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine doesn't mean it isn't Mormon doctrine. Brigham Young said: "I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good as Sripture, as is couched in the Bible..." Journal of Discourses, VOL 13 p. 264.

You may be told the Journal of Discourses isn't doctrine, but Brigham Young's own words directly contradict what you said. Was Brigham Young wrong? Even a Mormon web site calls the Journal of Discourses doctrine with additional quotes from Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and others. Note the web source.

The following books list the Journal of Discourses as an official publication of the Mormon Church:

Essentials in Church History, by Joseph F, Smith, LDS Church p. 674
Desert News 1989-90 Church Almanac p. 188.

Even if the record is accurate however, it is still the case the the speakers were speaking for themselves and their words do not represent anything other than their own opinions.

We're not just talking about anybody, we're talking about Joseph Smith (Founder of the Mormon church), Brigham Young (the second president and prophet of the Mormon church) and Orson Pratt, who was a Mormon apostle and has an observatory named after him at BYU. That's three leaders of the Mormon church including the founder referring to the Journal of Discourses as Mormon doctrine.

Did you know Mormon doctrine has changed over the years? This site documents some Mormon doctrine that's been altered.

the Bible itself shows that even prophets can be wrong at times.

Where does the Bible show that prophets can be wrong? I can show you what the Bible says of false prophets:

Deuteronomy 18:20-22
But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

If a prophet is wrong they're not a prophet of God. Matthew 24 warns us of false prophets. So where in the Bible does it say prophets can be wrong? How do you know when a prophet is wrong?

Regarding the Alpha and the Omega, what it meant to first century and previous Jews, and how it refers to Jesus.

Revelation 1:4 says:

To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come...

Verse 8 continues with:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Who is speaking here?

We see here the Alpha and the Omega is also He who is, who was and who is to come. The Alpha and the Omega are the first and the last, respectively, and this in reference to the Greek alphabet.

Isaiah (41:4) refers to God as the first and the last:

Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD -with the first of them and with the last-I am he.

As does Judaism in Josephus and Philo. Some Jewish teachers came to call God the 'Aleph and the Tav, the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

Revelation 21:6 says:

He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.

Who is speaking here?

Verses 12-13 continue with:

Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Who is coming soon? Who is the Alpha and the Omega, First and Last, the Beginning and the End?

Verse 16 continues with:

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

Hmm. "I, Jesus..."

Verse 20 continues with:

He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

The Bible refers to both God and Jesus as the Alpha and Omega, the First and Last and the Beginning and the End. And now we know what the Alpha and the Omega meant to the audience of the time.

"Making the claim that the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine doesn't mean it isn't Mormon doctrine"

It isn't a claim, it's a fact. There is a process by which doctrine accepted into the cannon, and the JoD NEVER ever bagan to go though it.

"Brigham Young said: "I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good as Sripture,...Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve."

And if you read what I posted before better, you would see that he NEVER reviewed and verfied the content of the JoD, you can not use that quote to claim the JoD is accurate, the JoD doesn't meet the conditions BY listed.

"Even a Mormon web site calls the Journal of Discourses doctrine with additional quotes from Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and others. Note the web source"

Unofficial web sites do not set doctrine either, and no quotation from any memeber, no matter how glowing in it's praise, establishes it as doctrine. There are many wonderfull truths in the JoD, but it is not scripture, it is not doctrine, and nothing you have posted establishes that it is.

"We're not just talking about anybody, we're talking about Joseph Smith (Founder of the Mormon church), Brigham Young (the second president and prophet of the Mormon church) and Orson Pratt, who was a Mormon apostle and has an observatory named after him at BYU."

And that doesn't matter one bit. Prophets are not meat puppets of God, they are free to form and voice their own opinons on things that have not been revealed, and those opinons are no less fallible than those of any other man. You might carry some superstious belief that prophets never make mistakes or something, but we don't. Any member is free to disagree with their opinions without consequence, it is when they reject the revelations of God that come through them that they risk excommunication.

"That's three leaders of the Mormon church including the founder referring to the Journal of Discourses as Mormon doctrine. "

I don't see any quote where they call it doctrine. I see it called interesting, gratifying, beneficial, profitable, etc. etc. but not doctrine. About as close as you can come is the quotes that indicate doctrines are discussed or contained in the JoD, but the same thing can be said of this very thread, and it surely is NOT scripture.

What is and is not doctrine is very well defined. Nothing becomes doctrine without the unanimous consent of the the entire Frist Presidency AND the entire Quorum of the Twelve, after that the doctrine would be presented to the general body of the church. This was never done with the JoD, the JoD is by definition, not scripture, not part of our cannon, not doctrine. It is a fact.

"Did you know Mormon doctrine has changed over the years? "

No doctrine has been changed, dishonest people only try to make it look so by confusing the practice of a doctrine with the doctrine itself. I only have time for 'in a nutshell' relies right now. It was fortold at least as far back as BY that at some time the priesthood would be given to all worthy men, and what we did was no more a change in doctrine than it was when the gospel was finaly allowed to go to the Gentiles. As for plural marriage, the doctrine is that a person can only take a plural wife with God's approval. A man who takes a plural wife without God's approval is sinning, just as one who was commanded to take a plural wife and refuses. God has withdrawn his consent and so by not taking plural wives, we are living in harmony with the unchanged doctrine.

Again you seem to show that you have never looked at more than one side before making up your mind. If you want to be fair and look at both sides the information is out there at places like: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ and http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml and other sites.

"Where does the Bible show that prophets can be wrong?"

Jonah comes to mind. Jonah 2: 3-4 "So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days journey. And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." It didn't happen, and on top of that, Jonah was rather ticked off that God would forgive them. All this of course AFTER he tries to run away from his calling. Then you have Peter denying Christ (3 times!), Judas betraying Christ for money, Eli turned a blind eye to the evil his sons did etc. etc. Does any of this strike you as being right?

"But a prophet who presumes to speak IN MY NAME anything I have not commanded him to say..."

And what YOU are doing over and over is taking things that they said when they were NOT speaking in God's name and treating them as is they were speaking in God's name.

Peter James and John most likely believed the world was flat like everyone else. So what, it wasn't christian doctrine that the world was flat untill long after they died. Men with no revelation and using their personal understanding of the Bible as a guide, rather mistreated some people who belived otherwise.

"If a prophet is wrong they're not a prophet of God."

Prophets are not perfect. The very verse you try to use against us says that it is only when they speak in the name of the LORD that he is speaking as a prophet. Outside of that he can be as wrong as anyone.

It isn't a claim, it's a fact. There is a process by which doctrine accepted into the cannon, and the JoD NEVER ever bagan to go though it.

Here are direct quotes just from the Mormon website I previously listed:

Referring to the Journal of Discourses, Founder Joseph Smith said:
"We feel confident that the important instructions on principle and doctrine therein contained...

The "Journal of Discourses:"

"...ought to prove a valuable acquisition to all those who love the truth, and long for redemption of scattered Israel.The "Journal of Discourses" is a vehicle of doctrine, counsel, and instruction to all people, but especially to the Saints." (Daniel H. Wells. Journal of Discourses. Preface. Vol. 10)

And to top it all off:

I think though, that I would agree with Elder Peterson on his first point, that the Church does not, today at least, accept the "Journal of Discourses" as an official organ of Church doctrine, which in some ways is strange, because doctrines or principles cannot change, they are eternal, and those principles and doctrines which leaders of the Church taught 150 or so years ago, should still be true today.

So here we have Mormons talking about how some Mormons reject the Journal of Discourses as doctrine today but they don't know why because doctrines are eternal and do not change.

Obviously some Mormons are confused as to why other Mormons no longer want to use the Journal of Discourses as doctrine. You can tell me you don't consider the Journal of Discourses as doctrine and it may not be considered doctrine today by some Mormons, but it was considered doctrine at some point and still is by some Mormons. Denying this fact won't make it false.

And if you read what I posted before better, you would see that he NEVER reviewed and verfied the content of the JoD, you can not use that quote to claim the JoD is accurate, the JoD doesn't meet the conditions BY listed.

That doesn't align with Brigham Young's own words regarding the Journal of Discourses:

I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good as Sripture, as is couched in the Bible..." (Journal of Discourses, VOL 13 p. 264.

The Mormon website I listed has the following to say about Brigham Youngs above words:

Obviously, Brigham Young approved and supported the Journal of Discourses and anybody who reads them with the Spirit of God as their guide "will know for themselves, and not for another," that the talks contained therein are truly the word of God to all who have "ears to hear."

Here the Journal of Doctrines are referred to as "the word of God."

If you want to be fair and look at both sides the information is out there at places like: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ and http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml and other sites.

I have looked at both sides of the issue. I know some things may be misrepresented at other sites - there's no way around that. The problem is that you seem to think the "anti-Mormon" sites don't carry a shread of truth about the Mormon church, when Mormons and non-Mormons know they do.

Prophets are not perfect. The very verse you try to use against us says that it is only when they speak in the name of the LORD that he is speaking as a prophet. Outside of that he can be as wrong as anyone.

I completely agree and never said otherwise.

Regarding false prophets in the Bible:

Jonah comes to mind. Jonah 2: 3-4... </I.

You mean Jonah 3:3-4. I guess you've never read verse 10:

When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.

Then you have Peter denying Christ (3 times!), Judas betraying Christ for money, Eli turned a blind eye to the evil his sons did etc. etc. Does any of this strike you as being right?

Um, you have to use the same standard you said above: "only when they speak in the name of the LORD." Neither Peter, Judas or Eli were speaking "in the name of the LORD".

So according to you, a false prophet is one who while speaking "in the name of the LORD" says something that doesn't come true. Is that right? If I demonstrated to you that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, when speaking "in the name of the LORD" said something that is false or didn't come true, what would you do with that information?

If you are trying to say that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testement,

That's pretty obvious from the context, isn't it.

that is our doctrine too

Um, maybe, but that's not the same as Christian doctrine. The Bible teaches that Jehovah and Elohim are the same God, not different Gods. A major problem for your doctrine is Genesis 2:4:

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

Notice the "LORD God" reference. That's LORD (Yahweh/Jehovah) God (Elohim). So the verse says: "When the Jehovah Elohim made the earth..." (I wish I could find the thread on the Documentary Hypothesis some months back.)

If you were to study the names of God you'd realize each name carries with it an attribute of God. The names Jehovah and Elohim have semantic overlap - Elohim is what God is and Jehovah is who he is.

So yes, I'm saying Jesus is the Jehovah in the Old Testament and he's also the Elohim of the Old Testament. That differs greatly from Mormon doctrine which says Jehovah and Elohim are separate Gods. To argue against this you would have to introduce some Hebrew literary device that somehow destroyed everything we know of the Hebrew language and created some new rules from which to understand the Hebrew language, which you can't do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.