It's true - the Mormons are members of a cult! Most don't even realize it, and those that do want to deny it; it remains utterly undeniable regardless!

See for yourself - this website has the incontrovertible evidence.

Here is the story from KSL's website.

Why are these people doing this? This group, calling themselves "Soulforce,"  "travels to religious universities which, they say, discriminate against homosexuals." Hmm. The word discriminate is too vague to know what they are really after, but if they are really saying "we don't like your school because you believe that homosexuality is somehow wrong as a lifestyle choice and we want you to accept it with open arms" then they are really smoking crack, to put it in a politically-correct way. :P

Hello? The LDS church does not accept homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, and that is that. Non-negotiable. This is a very fundamental thing we are talking about. I hate to do it, because it is so cliched, but it is so true: God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Capiche?

Now, does that mean we hate those that call themselves homosexuals or that feel they suffer from so-called 'same-sex attraction' (SSA)? No. Years ago I was friends with and used to share an apartment with someone suffering from SSA and I didn't treat him poorly or think of him as a freak nor does God. However, when people openly engage in homosexual activity, the act is what is condemned. And that does not mean we are homophobic. Could it lead to homophobia? Sure. And that should be watched. However, the LDS church and the schools it owns are not going to bow to your pressure.

I don't know why, but the agenda of homosexual groups really gets on my nerves and I guess that is why I blog about it particularly. Used to be that all they wanted was tolerance. Then they wanted acceptance and validation for their lifestyle. Now they will not tolerate the beliefs of those that once tolerated them. How nice - that is right in line with something Elder Neal A. Maxwell once said:

"Today, in place of some traditionally shared values is a demanding conformity pushed, ironically, by those who eventually will not tolerate those who once tolerated them."

Just one of the many stories about this.

Good for Gen. Peter Pace! Why should he apologize? He is just as entitled to his beliefs as the very homosexuals that he offended in his statement. Right? Or did that change?

I know people are probably just upset because he represents a branch of the military and can't say those things as official policy statements, but the man is completely entitled to believe what he believes. Homosexuals do so, why can't this man? It's about time someone stood up for their beliefs and let the chips fall where they may. I am not celebrating his opinion, per se, simply the idea that one can say what they believe and not be strung up for it.

Representative Marty Meehan of Massachusetts recently assumed "Chairmanship of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations" and said about Mr. Pace's comments, "General Pace's statements aren't in line with either the majority of the public or the military."

So, the man should align his opions with popular opinion? I like dark chocolate and think it is better than milk chocolate - that is against popular opinion, yet I don't plan on changing my opinion. Mr. Meehan also said that General Pace "needs to recognize that support for overturning (the policy) is strong and growing" and that the armed forces are "turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination."

Maybe he does recognize these things; it doesn't mean it will change his personal opinion about homosexuality being immoral, and I don't think it should.

"...if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land." - Mosiah 29:27

Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda not only claims to be Christ, but that he is the Anti-Christ also. De Jesus claims that, in 1973, Jesus Christ visited and 'integrated' with him.

"In 1998, de Jesus avowed that he was the reincarnation of the Apostle Paul. Two years ago at Growing in Grace's world convention in Venezuela, he declared himself Christ. And just last week, he called himself the Antichrist and revealed a "666" tattooed on his forearm. His explanation: that, as the second coming of Christ, he rejects the continued worship of Jesus of Nazareth."

You have to admit, that is good stuff. From the same story, it is reported that de Jesus preaches that sin no longer exists, and that the devil doesn't exist and that people are predestined to be saved. Wow, that just sounds so wonderful - but I am confused by something: if sin doesn't exist any longer, why aren't we all saved? I mean, if we are no longering sinning, what is preventing us from being saved then? Also, members of his church are expected to pay tithing - but what if they don't? I mean, if people are predestined to be saved, what is the point of paying tithing? I just don't get it. Anyone want to explain these things to me?

If you are going to create your own church, you would do well to make sure the doctrine you teach is at least a bit more consistent than this, right? Obvious to anyone that knows even an iota of the teachings found in the Bible, there are many problems with the claims of this charlatan. If you read the story, you will notice it makes mention of "three burly guys in dark suits with Secret Service-style earpieces" - why does the supposed Lord of the Universe need body guards?

I just thought I would make a statement fraught with gross generalization akin to the one Elton John made...

Hey Elton - just because someone fails to live the religion they claim allegiance to doesn't mean that the religion itself is bad, regardless of it being 'organized' or not; people will be people, and unfortunately, we all make mistakes.

Now, I am sure what you really want to condemn is the fact that many 'religions' (read: Judeo-Christian type religions) have teachings that run contrary to your 'lifestyle' choice - but that isn't open for debate, unless by sophistry you wish to rationalize away said teachings as being mere suggestions or incorrect translations or whatever is currently in vogue among the innumerable philosphies of men.

By the way, as an artist I think you are pretty good and 'Philadelphia Freedom' is one of my faves; see, no hatred coming from this member of an organized religion.