Leaderboard

When I see threads like this, I inwardly cringe and want to close my eyes, plug my ears, and recite nonsense poetry, the periodic table, the states and their capitals, or just about anything else. (I exaggerate only slightly.) I think conversations such as that into which this thread has morphed are why some think we are a bizarre, sci-fi-based non-Christian cult worshiping the god of Planet Kolob. Anyway, I thought I'd respond to one aspect of this discussion. Not in every case. In many old languages, including English, the word for "virgin" (such as the English word "maiden") simply means a young woman or girl, either sexually immature or just coming of age, with the suggestion but not necessarily denotation of lack of sexual experience. I don't know ancient Greek or Aramaic (or any other ancient language). As far as I understand our doctrine, we believe Mary to have been sexually chaste, which for a never-married woman would normally imply virginity (in the sexual sense). Other than the possibly ambiguous use of the term "virgin", I don't know of any scripture that inarguably states that Mary was completely sexually inexperienced, such as is true with e.g. Rebekah, but I also don't know of any scripture that even hints otherwise. Isaiah spoke of a virgin conceiving in what looks like obviously metaphorical language; Christians long ago took that as a literal description. Until revelation to the contrary takes place, I will assume that Mary was a completely sexually inexperienced young bride who was impregnated by the power of God under the influence of the Holy Ghost, and will refrain from public (or probably even private) speculation as to how that event took place. The point being, I agree doctrinally with Anddenex, but I don't think an argument based on the terminology used ("virgin") is useful in this case.

Honestly threads like this are examples of something I find deeply wrong within some of the attitudes of some members. In my mind the line has been crossed. Here's the end-all of what the discussion should be, imo. First, we who know better and reverence our God should not be discussing Him between ourselves in this manner. It's not productive. It's not spiritual. It's not "just for fun". It's not educational. It's simply and plainly wrong. Second, if someone outside our faith who does not know better (or is being intentionally inflammatory) brings it up, our response should be simple. We don't know the mechanics of Mary's conception. What we do know is that there is no scriptural support for God and Mary having physical intercourse. The scriptures call it a virgin birth. There is no reason to speculate beyond that. Wresting with the scriptures beyond that is inappropriate. We know Jesus was God's son. We know Jesus was Mary's son. The scriptures state both plainly. But we know Mary was a virgin. Yes, speculation going beyond that is, in my opinion, line crossing -- and not only line crossing, but disrespectful line crossing. Now I will grant that, finding the subject inappropriate, I have not read through all of the posts here. So perhaps I'm judging unfairly and too harshly. But I've read enough to believe that the line hasn't just been flirted with.

This week while counseling family, I had a rare epiphany. The three temptations of Christ (found in Matthew 4:1-11) seem pretty superficial at first glance, but with further insight they become quite profound. 1) Command that these stones be made bread. - Christ had just fasted for 40 days. No doubt He was hungry. The superficial temptation is to satisfy our physical carnal desires. But deeper, is the sin of Pride. Satan was tempting Christ to use his creative powers to prove that He was God by transmuting stone to bread. Beware of Pride And Christ's response - Deuteronomy 8:3 2) If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down. - Satan even quotes scripture Psalm 91: 11-12 to bolster his temptation. The superficial temptation is to rely upon others, and once again to prove his godly powers. But as I studied this - and recalled the events in Gethsemane, coupled with hardship that occurs during a normal lifetime. I recognized that Satan was going to a much darker place. He was trying with all his might to cause Despair to enter into the heart of our Lord and Savior. Real despair - the type that leads to concepts of suicide or annihilation. Despair is a tool of the Devil, it is the complete absence of Hope. Both of these temptations are of an emotional nature. There are times in our lives when all seems at loss and no forward progress appears as a possibility. We must recognize that Despair is from the Evil One and fight it with hope. Do Not Despair Christ's response - Deuteronomy 6:16 3) All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. On the surface once again we see the temptation for worldly stuff. But it was at the cost of changing allegiances from God to Satan. As I look deeper though, I perceive a common sin that many of us indulge. We seek Shortcuts, the path of least resistance. God wants all of his children to have - all that He has. But He wants us to obtain these gifts, rewards, property, and increase through the process of overcoming all things. Only when we deserve the rewards should we have them. These sins can be somewhat perceived as a spiritual nature. Christ created the Earth. At age 12 He could have overcome Rome and conquered the entire world. When Peter smote off of the Roman centurion's ear, Christ stated, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" A single roman legion is considered 5,000 soldiers. Imagine 5,000 military soldiers invading your hometown. And recognize that a single angel of the Lord killed over 185,000 men in 2 Kings 19:35. Jesus was proclaiming his authority to command a dozen legions of Angels! But He didn't. He bid his time and suffered the will of the Father in all things. How many times do we seek after things that we have not earned. Fornication or adultery, purchasing goods on debt, unjust abuse of power, dishonest dealings with our fellow man to produce lucre we did not earn. God wants us to have everything, but He wants us to earn it, so that we can be a wise steward and use our increase to bless others. There is no heavenly lottery. Christ's response - Deuteronomy 6:13-14 Pride is the root of all sin. Despair is a tool of the Devil, we have no business dwelling with despair. If darkness gathers we must use the light of hope to dispel its effects. In ourselves and others. And we must trust in the Lord to have the patience and work ethic to achieve the gifts and increase that the Lord has in store for us.

An appeal to authority is not per se a logical fallacy, though in classical logical thought it doesn't count as a proof. The fallacy is in saying, "I'm right BECAUSE So-and-so agrees with me, and he's an authority." Saying rather, "I'm right, AND Authority So-and-so agrees with me" is just a buttress to the argument, probably more a rhetorical flourish* than an attempt at proving the point. In a revealed religion, where truth is determined by the word of God and the word of God comes through authorized channels, I think a very strong argument can be made that a legitimate appeal to proper authority is never a logical fallacy. * Really? "Flour-ish"? Meaning "like flour?" I first wrote "fluorish", but that didn't look right, and I got the red squiggly underneath. Normally I hate spell-check, but in this case it saved me from an embarrassing mistake. The "flour-" in "flourish" has the obvious underlying meaning of "flower", something that grows and adds an attractive accent. It is part of a family of words such as "florid", "florist", and "Florence"**, all sharing a common root (npi) in the Latin word floreo "to bloom"***, which itself comes from the Latin flos "flower". Not really sure where that following "u" comes from; my guess would be French. Frenchified words always seem to stick a "u" after the "o", which is why British English talks about harbouring honourable neighbours from humourous rumours of colourful flavours of belaboured splendour****. I wondered why I had thought that the u-first spelling, "fluor-", was correct. In researching that a bit, I found that it's the root found in the words "fluorescent" and "fluorine", and that in English it has a distinctly chemical usage. But get this: It ultimately derives from the Latin root fluor "a flow", which in turn comes from the word fluere "to stream, to flow". I'm reminded of the French word fleuve "river". Since flowers are common on river banks, I'm guessing the Latin words flos and fleure are also etymologically related. It's times like this when I wish I could split myself into different people, one of whom would be some sort of linguistic professor or researcher. ** "Florence", the beautiful Italian city, was called in Latin Florentia, taken from florens "flowering". It's built on a river in a fertile area, where there are (or used to be) lots of flowers. The modern Italian name for the city is Firenze, which sounds slightly but not really all that much like the Italian word for "flower", fiore. In this case, the English (transliterated) name for the city is closer to the original name than the modern Italian name. This is true in quite a few cases, actually; the old Greek city Neapolis (Greek neo- "new" and polis "city"—unsurprisingly, this was a pretty common name among Greek colonies) became "Naples" in English, but in modern Italian it's Napoli. I think the English is closer, but it's a toss-up. When we speak of the three-flavored ice cream, we call it "Neapolitan", which means "from the city of Neapolis", which we call Naples*****. In Italian, the same terms is napolitano, meaning of course "from Napoli". So while our English name "Naples" is arguably closer to the original than the Italian Napoli, their word is a lot more consistent and recognizable across various forms. *** Actually, floreo means "I bloom". For some reason, Latin verbs are identified using the first-person singular present active indicative conjugation (e.g. "I eat", "I sleep", "I gesticulate", "I bloom") rather than the infinitive form that most European languages today commonly use to identify the verb (e.g. "to eat", "to sleep", "to gesticulate", "to bloom"). If you ask a Latin professor, "What's the Latin word for 'to love'?", he will probably answer you, "It's 'amo'." If the professor is a pedant—common enough among humanities faculty members—he might say, "It's 'amo, amas'", giving both the first- and second-person singular (present active indicative) conjugations. Ain't Latin great? At least, as we teach it today. **** Don't even get me started on "foetus". ***** How many of you knew that "Neapolitan" means "from Naples"? Be honest, now. I don't think I knew that until after I had served in Naples. And if getting "Neapolitan" from "Neapolis" seems strange, compare our word "cosmopolitan", which literally means "from the cosmopolis", the "world city".

This is called an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. Oh...wait....we're LDS. Authority counts in this world.

I personally see two issues with this, but only share the main one: Virgin - Virgin means not having sex with "any" and "all" males. The state or glorified state of the man doesn't matter. Virgin is virgin.

No, there were thirty of us meeting in the high council room, sitting around the table in the middle of the room and lining the walls of the room. Basically a circle within a circle. Ten had beards. There were 23 with beards in sacrament meeting but some go to the primary, some to the young men and then there’s those who just sit in the foyer or leave after sacrament meeting. A member of our bishopric has a beard, the ward clerk and two assistant clerks have beards. Two members of the elders quorum presidency have beards and a member of the Sunday school presidency has a beard. Three bearded men teach Sunday school and four teach primary. Our ward family history consultant who is also a school district superintendent also has a beard.

word for word. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method#Question:_Was_every_word_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_provided_directly_from_God.3F

A few weeks back I counted in priesthood meeting. A full 1/3 of those in attendance had beards.

What am I? A dictionary? Anyhow, honestly, I almost regret my reply in that I really have no interest in discussing this particular subject, considering it inappropriate. Whether that feeling stems from an "ick" factor or not isn't something I'm concerned with finding out.

Wednesday weigh-in... 5 more lbs down, for a total of 10.

Blessed be the Wicked by Bartley I never realized how completely nuts you have to be to hate us! This is a detective novel that is set in Utah and is anti. It tries so hard to find reasons to hate us. The idea is that the church has declared that there are ‘unforgivable’ sins. Well, yes. There is one but no one I have ever met, understands it! Okay, back to the plot: So as some sins are unforgivable, this is so nuts, you have to kill the sinner! Can anyone follow that logic? I can’t! Next: Apparently we have a committee that monitors all the communications including emails of suspected apostates. That would have to be a huge committee! I picked this book up with no suspicions and it just started in on this lunacy! I have to keep reading and find out how we are these cold hearted murders!

More than seven decades ago, a Massachusetts teenager found a 1943 Lincoln penny in his lunch change and he decided to hang on to it until his death just a few months ago. That extremely rare one-cent piece could rack up as much as $1,700,000 when it's auctioned off Thursday in Dallas, the New York Post reported. The World War II penny is one of only 20 that were accidentally pressed in copper that year, Sarah Miller of Heritage Auctions in Dallas told Fox News. Read more at: https://www.theblaze.com/news/rare-penny-could-fetch-nearly-2-million

Getting back on topic: Prior to this year I would skim quickly past the genealogies in the New Testament, thinking they were of no particular interest or relevance to the gospel, a meaningless holdover from Old Testament times, except perhaps as an object lesson for saints in the latter days to do genealogy.. That all changed for me when my Sunday School teacher mentioned, last week, that there were women named in the genealogy, and how deeply this moved her as a women. Naturally, I had no idea that women were mentioned, and it caused me to wonder why that might be of significance, and this to the point that it was moving to at least one women. I have since been deeply moved as well from what I have learned (not a little bit through the relevant participation on this thread). I now understand yet another way in which Christ gathers together all things in one--which, as it happens, is the subject-matter for our Elders Quorum meeting this coming Sunday: Elder Bednar's General Conference Talk, October 2018 Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

I am writing an article about the Freedman's Bureau files as part of my calling as a genealogy person (sorry, I'm a terrible callee. I think they changed the name for this calling, but I forget. It's late.). Anyway, the digitization for this project was completed in 2016. These documents are supplemented with other documents held by the Smithsonian and you can volunteer to transcribe these documents. I want the white members to know that they can do this work, too; don't just save it for the black folks. I'd like to say that they would get blessings for contributing to the project, which will help black Americans, who have never had access to Civil War era family history before, to do their family history and temple work. Can you get blessing for doing something like this for other people? Do regular church members have the doctrinal right to say that someone will get blessings for doing a particular thing? Inquiring minds, etc., etc.

Your disappointment is quite understandable. You have high hopes of things going in a certain productive direction, and then the treads take on a life of their own and head in a seemingly counterproductive direction. Who would want that? I say "seeming" because productivity is oft in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but in spite of this thread experiencing some seismic jacks, I have received substantial positive results. I have learned things of value that I hadn't considered before, and I have come to view things from a different perspective that has enlightened my mind and will positively affect my behavior. Even the derailments haven't been entirely void of benefit. As I explained to Zil, my beliefs have been strengthened by some of the exchanges, and perhaps I have been of some help in changing some minds or at least raising some constructive doubts. That, to me, is a good thing. But, there again, that may just be me. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Honestly I don't how the first two are "temptations" other than the plain fact that it came from Satan. Hunger isn't as sin. Being hungry isn't a temptation. So the temptation clearly wasn't to eat (considering the fast over). And, what, exactly, would have been wrong about turning stone into bread, in and of itself? He turned wine into water. It seems to me the temptation here was simply to do as Satan suggested. Same thing with the second. If Jesus so commanded the angels to lift Him up so he flew, why is that a sin? Seems pretty analogous to walking on water, actually, which Jesus did. Once again, seems like it was the following Satan part that was the problem. I'm not honestly sure. The third is clearly a temptation: Worship Satan for riches. But the other two seem sort of the same thing. Do as Satan tells you to do.

I totally forgot to weigh myself this morning. My goal has been to weigh myself every third Thursday, since that's a scheduled day off from work where I can wake naturally. It also allows me to track progress without obsessing over the exact number or being overly concerned with a weight that naturally fluctuates. While in the throes of my seasonal depression, my reward for getting out of bed before 9 is McDonald's breakfast. I'm sure it sounds counterproductive, but I loooove McD's breakfast and there is legitimate concern that if I don't have a reason to physically get out of bed/the house, I don't. Which is worse for my physical and mental health in the long run. I kept the food journal for three days, and on the eve of the second day, I found myself making a choice that intentionally defied it. Namely, getting a burger instead of a salad for dinner. I'm the kind of person who goes in to the first weigh in of a weight loss challenge wearing heavy boots and carrying all my keys and three days worth of loose change. I can be a bit of a stubborn lass and have to outsmart myself sometimes when it comes to which battles I fight. The more aggressive a change is pushed at me, the harder I push back, even if it's me doing it for my own good. Didn't go to volleyball last week, but loved curling and was super excited to play an extra end! My make-shift team (they still don't three teammates for me) made me third, which I appreciated as I was still getting my ice legs back and would have felt much worse Saturday morning if I had swept six rocks per end instead of four. Side note: definitely stretching this week! The yoga has been going pretty well. I've done it three times this week already, and hope to be able to bring myself to get out of bed earlier in the day. All of my roommates are night owls, and I like being a comparative morning person. (They get up at noon; I like to be up by 9; 6 is for the birds.) Again, depression and dark mornings make it difficult right now. The only place there is enough space for it is in the living room, and that is almost always occupied in the evenings. Once our basement gets a little more finished, I'll be able to use that. This is the program/YouTube channel I've found I like best. I may end up doing this particular video for more than two weeks, but I've found I prefer male yogi's and 10-15 minute videos work best for my current circumstances. Maybe once I become more flexible/comfortable in my own body, I can move up to 20-30 minute videos.

"the thread" is what it is -- derailments and all. I certainly understand your defense of the posted topic and the potential value therein. And it is entirely fair to point out that my criticism of "the thread" is for what the thread became rather than the original intent. Along the same lines I have been decidedly disappointed in several threads I have started due to what they became. Certainly, in the fact that I started them, I was not under the impression that what the threads became was due to the original topic.

Wow!!!! Listening right now...... I love how his voice is cracking as he speaks! That is a good and appropriate reaction to all this!

If the Holy Bible was the breath of Jesus Christ first and foremost, why do we accept the Book of Mormon of equal standing? I'm just a little bit confused on why the Book of Mormon is needed when the Holy Bible is God's message to us. I'm new to the faith and still exploring a lot of questions.

What a novel idea!

I’m inclined to believe with you, but the doubt comes from the facts that a) several important folks have thought otherwise, and b) in the OT, “virgin” is not necessarily virgin.

I very much empathize with the social commentary. As a much younger man I was part of the "civilian" group that developed and proposed the Church Handbook policies addressing such matters (under assignment from and for the Brethren's approval). I understand that conception can mean implantation, but I'm not sure, from what i understand of Jewish physician (rather, "healer") or husbandman practices at the time these scriptures were written, that the ancients conceived of it that way... Yes, I think Jesus innately possessed that power by virtue of what He inherited from His Physical Father, and that He fully developed the ability to exercise that power along the way of normal human development, presumably because He remained sinless throughout His life. I think His remarks to Martha in John 11 have to do with the principle of "speaking of things to come as though they had already come," since she had already confessed her faith in the future resurrection. He was clarifying Himself as the source of that resurrection (as He had done in chapter 10 and which served as division / decision point). In verse 41-42, it is still evident that Jesus relied upon the Father to carry out this miracle of raising (not resurrecting) the dead. "Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always..." In 3 Nephi, even resurrected, He prays to the Father for certain miracles, but after His resurrection His particular assertion to Martha was fulfilled.

Yesterday worked. Breakfast: Yogurt. Lunch: loaded brisket potato, hold the butter & sour cream, had coleslaw instead of my usual fried okra. Family had chicken parmesan burgers for dinner, I had mine. And didn't snack or graze or stuff on what was available. Hit my goal on the scale this morning. 3 days of being good, and I'm down 7 lbs. Time for cheat day! Then, back to my newfound strength and habit tomorrow.

Matthew, as a reviled publican among the Jews, must have enjoyed doing this immensely!

With colored shirts?

Happy #LEOAppreciation day to @mirkwood, even if he does prefer this to a Glock.

A casting out of evil spirits has its limitations with the Holy Priesthood and with faith. If you cast wicked spirits out in the name of Christ and then grievous sins are committed in the area the spirits can come back. I heard a situation about someone playing with ouji boards in a house. A blessing was pronounced by the Priesthood and the evil spirits were cast out. A person then began committing fornication in the house. He told me that weird things would happen in his room. Objects would occasionally be moved off a shelf or out of place for no reason. Personages would be seen. Once unclean spirits are cast out do not do things that will open the door to invite them back.

Thanks for sharing. That is a crazy experience. A very wise member in the church once taught me that when you cast out evil, always do so by adding something to the effect of, "and I place you under lock and key until after the Millennial Reign." That way, the same evil spirits can't come back to harass you. With the Priesthood power we have the power to bind and loose things spiritual here on earth. When the apostles “bound” something, or forbade it on earth, they were carrying out the will of God in the matter. When they “loosed” something, or allowed it on earth, they were likewise fulfilling God’s eternal plan.

Why do I have the very strong feeling that this is not the direction the brethren wanted people to go with this week's study?

I’m game. Probably should start another thread. I have already derailled this one. Originally, I was just trying to put forth the idea that Joseph & Mary’s geneology is only there to legitimize His claim. Really.

Because if they weren't married then it is adultery.

Yeah I knew it had been based on a story in Germany but didn't remember the details. This stuff is why the Catholic church is super careful to vet cases like this to completely eliminate the possibility of mental illness before proceeding with an exorcism. I get why they do that, and definitely a vetting process is called for, but I wonder about cases where it's legitimately something supernatural but an effective treatment is delayed... That, plus our knowledge of psychology is still way underdeveloped, yet it's used as the gold standard, even by an organization that's supposed to be entirely spiritual. When it comes to treating someone in such a situation, I can't help wondering, why delay the exorcism? Why not take steps there concurrent with medical treatment? It's what we do, isn't it? Provide blessings before, during and after medical efforts?

Well it certainly hasn't stopped me

And there is the kicker. A perfect glorified body which produced the "egg" could not have produced a body that was mortal and that could die. If so, our earth life also becomes obsolete because Heavenly Father and Mother could have easily born us already in such a manner. I wouldn't need an earthly father and mother to obtain a body of flesh and blood.

Oh, yeah, I get that doesn't work for everyone. My husband gave me the stink eye when I told him this. He thoroughly disagrees with it. And, hey! It works for him to have his cheat days. He's lost a lot of weight doing so. I just have to change my way of thinking of food. I certainly don't ban unhealthy foods, I just have to limit them or try to make them healthier (I still have a brownie or cookie, but the ones I choose are so much healthier than Betty makes or that Mrs. Fields chick). I have a tradition on Superbowl Sunday to eat snack foods or make a decent meal with dessert--I'll probably do the same just make it a healthy meal with a small splurge rather than the day long splurge fest I normally would do.

I vote sleep paralysis.

Something can actually be both. David is a prime example of this, being a type and shadow in representation of the Savior as being a literal King and Savior of Israel from it's enemies. Another thing that probably can be taken as literal and yet is deeply symbolic is the story if Abraham and Issac. Issac was Abraham's only begotten son via Sarah (though he had another, it was not his chosen son...one may even be able to see a symbolism in that via Adam...but that's another story) and Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Issac. This story can be also seen as allegory in regards to the coming Lord and his sacrifice and atonement for us. However, perhaps an easier item to see literally and yet allegorical would be that of animal sacrifice. On it's face, animal sacrifice occurred in ancient Israel. Historically it literally happened. However, there is also a deeper meaning behind it than just a mere ancient ritual. Christianity knows that the real meaning behind animal sacrifice was as an allegorical representation of the Lord. It is full of symbolism and meaning that means a great deal. Allegory is deeply imbedded in the scriptures and the ability to see it is very important for one to understand why the stories are told in the way they are and how many are fulfilled in the New Testament, as well as how prophecy has shown our latter days as well as the millennium to come. In regards to Native Americans, DNA evidence is not yet perfect, and MUCH of it is very questionable. The majority of DNA they are basing their evidence on regarding the Hebrews are the Jews...but the Jews are NOT the ONLY Hebrews. They are Hebrew, but not all Hebrews are Jews. What science has correlated are the similar DNA between the Jewish Hebrews and what we may call the Caananites. For all we know, they are correlating the Caananite or other tribal blood of the region which has NOTHING to do with the genetics of the actual Hebrew tribes. Much of the correlation between the Jews and the majority of the Lost tribes was several thousand years ago, and a correlation that far back is a lot tougher to predict. In fact, much of their statements in regards to where DNA came from is reliant on what is basically guesses on anything over 500 years ago. Various ideas about where the Lost tribes went or where the remnants are cover a vast arena, including several tribal groups that are located in Asia. Thus, if there was a connecting DNA between groups in Asia and North America it would make a LOT MORE SENSE that perhaps these may be the actual Hebrew DNA and related to the actual original DNA of the Hebrews rather than the DNA connected to groups in the Middle East. In essence, we do NOT know what DNA really represents past the 500 year mark except for guesses regarding evidence we have from various sites we have found (and as DNA from the Middle East in some instances they would use would date PRIOR to the Hebrew arrival to that area...one could wonder if it represents those who originally inhabited the area of Canaan or if it represents the Hebrew tribes...science right now COUNTERS the bible and claims that they both were there originally and there was no Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph or even Moses. Right now, scientific ideas are that there is no Hebrew blood with Native American DNA. If we have any evidence (though it is still pretty scarce on this point to be honest) it points that the Native Americans are not related to those from Ancient Israel, but in fact are more closely related to what we have thought in the past with them being DISTANTLY connected to those from Asia. In some ways, the experiments done in this were made with these expectations. However, science is always changing and what is false today could become true tomorrow and what is true today could become false tomorrow. It is a relatively new science, and pinpointing exact items is getting better but there is still a LOT we do not know. Currently what I believe and what I do professionally DO NOT MESH. They cannot intermingle as they conflict with each other. The evidence we possess does not correlate with what my belief is. I CANNOT be a bible literalist as a Historian. Professionally, the evidence does not support such a thing. However, outside of my professional life, I feel that the Bible is literal and that what it tells us occurred in Genesis actually DID happen.

I mean, I know you're right, but this isn't just weird or even unsavory personal behavior. This is someone putting complete cluelessness on display. "I'm gonna have a beer to show how hip and cool I am. Want one, sweetie?"

Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might seem awfully mysterious to those who haven't been inside one before. That's truly unfortunate because it leads many people to believe we're a religion with something to hide. The fact is that there are some things we consider extremely sacred and don't share outside the temple, but we're also anxious for everyone in the world to experience the full mystery of the temple firsthand. It's one of the reasons we have tens of thousands of missionaries throughout the world. There are a few aspects of the temple so sacred we're asked not to discuss them publicly. But sometimes we Latter-day Saints interpret that to mean we can't talk about most anything we do in the temple. That's simply not true. So, while there are a few things I can't won't talk about here, most of what we do in the temple is shareable. In fact, most of the more detailed descriptions of temple worship included in this article are quotes from scripture and... View the full article

I go with my two kids age 5 and 2 on my own as my husband isn't a member. I spend a lot of time sitting in the RS room and have the sacrament brought in there.

Oh, you’ll like mine better—none of mine are gentlemen! (With apologies to Cary Grant . . .) And responding to your larger point—sure, it’s fiction; but when the OP scoffed at the idea that such a committee even existed, the truth was important enough—even in a fictional context—for you to correct the record. Which is fine, IMHO—like it or not, many of our perceptions of the past are heavily influenced by the historical fiction genre, and it’s a great way to get into actual history. All I’m saying is, if we’re gonna correct the record; let’s make the record correct.

Yeah @Vort!! What's the big deal with getting bit by a dog again and again? You're misinterpreting the dog's intentions here. The dog is the victim.

...actually, that's not at all what "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" and its derivative phrases mean...

Did someone suggest otherwise? JAG's objection was not to the fact that people have the right to misrepresent history. Rather, he was objecting to your less-than-truthful portrayal of the Church's supposed "monitoring" of its members. Your response is a non sequitur misdirection.

A happy, healthy, stable child can emerge out of a single parent, a divorced couple, an orphanage, same sex parents, a kidnapping situation, etc. We don’t voluntarily put children in those situations if we can help it. The position that there is ZERO problem with a working mom and a stay at home dad MAY hold the erroneous belief that the role of a Mother or a Father is equally served by either gender. Of course, just like nobody goes to their 3rd grade show and tell and declare, When I Grow Up, I want to be a single mother, I would hope that nobody goes up and declares, “When I Grow Up, I want my wife to work so I can stay home and be with the kids” either. These are things that are supposed to be Plan B’s because the better Plan A did not work out.

The way I look at it is, if I wrote a love letter to my wife on our five-year wedding anniversary, why shouldn’t she want me to write another one on our ten-year anniversary? There’s nothing that says there can only be one love letter, or that inherently makes the one letter of more value than the other.

Nope I agree with you Vort, it is almost a part time job they are fairly compensated. When you add in the pensions and other benefits they are very well compensated