MarginOfError

While I appreciate your kindness, I can't help but chuckle. If you really want to apologize, using the meetinghouse locator on mormon.org, you can probably find the phone number of the meetinghouse those elders attend. Give the number a call on Sunday during the services and someone will be able to find them. Then you can apologize to them yourself. That seems like a lot of work to me though. I'd suggest just chuckling about it and being happy that you gave several of us here a chuckle too. Welcome!

I just want to point out that I'm a Windows user, and I hate Windows.

The intent of my comments was 1) we are no better at not demonizing other religions than those you claim demonize us, and 2) the demonization occurs because we interpret other's beliefs using a self-referential lens. I will concede that perhaps your comments do not qualify as demeaning, but they are diminutive in that you've effectively ignored the rationale for a belief in infant baptism or the absence of modern day prophets. You are adamantly opposed to their conclusions, but you fail to recognize that it is not their conclusion that is incorrect, but their conjecture. This is the same error others make in attacking our beliefs. Yet, surprisingly, if you truly study and come to an understanding of the foundation of another religion's creeds, you find that their conclusions are all very logical. So, before you go saying things like, "why do they ridicule us for waiting to baptize our children until they have a clue about life" -- and thereby showing great insensitivity and intolerance toward their belief -- perhaps you should investigate why they believe we should baptize our children earlier. For the record, if others showed our religion the same courtesy, we wouldn't have to talk about this nonsense.

Could it be that when we talk about their beliefs we phrase it in such a way that is demeaning and diminutive of the things they hold sacred? Or does that fact just mean that we really aren't much better than they are?

We once built a jump at the side of a road for our sleds. The road was at the bottom of a big hill and the idea was to get enough air to be able to jump over a car. We never had the guts to actually take the jump when traffic was coming, but in theory, it would have worked.

You're jogging again? I'm sorry! :) I ran cross country and track in high school. I've never been able to run since then without getting hyper competitive. That's why I'm the tub of lard I am today.

Since no one has mentioned it, we also expect you to give your first born child to the Church. You'll have to report to the Church when your child is about to be born, and men in black suits with black shirts and black ties (and neon green socks) will show up at the hospital to collect your child. I'd hate for you to get blind-sided with that one.

In other words, Don't worry, Be happy:)

My eyes bugged out of my head when I saw this because I thought you'd said a 'naughty bedtime routine.' I think I may need glasses finally (I'm the only one in my family who didn't have glasses before age 20). However, a naughty bedtime routine might help. Statistically speaking, it works for most men.

You should be ashamed for not mentioning the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Indeed, your friends are correct--you failed to bare an honest and true testimony if you missed these elements. I'm also guessing you failed to follow the Church-wide accepted protocol of proper testimony baring. These protocol are: 1) Thou shalt begin your testimony with "I would like to bare my testimony that I know the Church is true" 2) Thou shalt state in unambiguous terms that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God 3) Thou shalt state that the Book of Mormon is the word of God 4) If any fewer than two Articles of Faith are quoted, it is not considered a testimony 5) If no tears are shed, your words will be considered "comments" instead of a "testimony" 6) At least 1 mention to family must be given, preferably with regard to how many quilts your mother made. If you failing to meet these requirements for your testimony, I also will assume that your prayers are inadequate. For this reason, I recommend you practice reciting the following prayer: Please check back and update us on your progress toward an appropriate testimony.

First, let me reaffirm what Elphs just said. Perhaps I'll say more when I get to work.

At some point, and I can't tell you what this point is, you might want to take a break from going after them. If you go after them for too long, it will just become the ritual to throw you off and they may even come to resent the unwelcome persistence. Sometimes it helps to stop trying for a month or two, then resume your efforts. You might also ask them specifically what things they like to do, and plan activities that are obviously intended to get them to come. It probably won't work, but they'll notice that you went out of their way to plan something for them (even if they don't show any sign that they noticed).

I'm not sure I could think of anything my wife's done for me that doesn't involve lingerie:whistling: Okay, that's exceptionally not true. But she humors me when we go camping and I want to do all the cooking over the fire and in the dutch ovens even though hot dogs and foil dinners would be easier. She talks about how pretty our rose bushes look even though I bought the wrong color. Well, so much for exceptionally not true...I honestly can't think of anything else she's done. As for stuff that I like to do...geez, if the bathroom is clean and the dishes are put away I'm a happy happy man.

The temple was reserved as the place to perform ordinances for those who have passed on. That's the only reason. Before the Nauvoo Temple was completed the Lord did allow baptisms for the dead to be performed outside the temple, but only until the temple was completed. I think that the more appropriate question you should be asking is if a living person can be baptized outside the temple, why can't he or she receive the Endowment or Sealing outside the temple. But again, the answer comes down to, "because we were told to." Allow me to hijack the thread for a minute: I once was asked why we perform baptism by immersion. I simply said, "Because God said so." Someone else decided I should be corrected and explained all the symbolism of baptism by immersion. When they were finished, I pointed out that there was a difference between the reason and the choice of mode. The reason we are baptized by immersion is because Christ said we should do it this way. The motivation for the choice of immersion was driven by the symbolism. But if Christ had designated that baptism by goose feathers in a pie plate, it would still hold the same covenants and purpose. It's Christ's atonement, so we get to play by his rules.

How much more would it cost to get one printed upside down?

Congratulations on having received such a prestigious honor!

Since when do you have any humility in your Catholicism?

When the Law of Consecration was first put into effect in the 1800's, it was a commandment that was expected of all of the people that accepted the Gospel and joined the Saints in the gathering places (it wasn't established in areas where the groups of Saints were smaller, but these areas also didn't typically have bishops). In essence, at the time, Consecration was a more generalized commandment than it is now. As it turned out, the general body of the Church couldn't seem to live by Consecration, and Tithing was instituted instead. So let's look at the relationship between Consecration and Tithing with an analogy: Tithing is to Consecration what the Aaronic Priesthood is to the Melchizedek. After sufficient preparation under the law of Tithing, an individual may accept the Law of Consecration. This covenant is accepted in the Temple during the Endowment. However, contrary to popular opinion, those who lived by Consecration in the 1800's did not simply deed everything they owned to the Bishop and hope they got enough back to support themselves. Consecration was not quite like communal living. Detailed records of consecrated property had to be kept, and anytime property was consecrated, two contracts had to be signed. The footnotes in the second volume of The History of the Church give an example of these contracts. The first enumerated in detail everything that an individual was leasing to the Bishop. The second enumerated in detail everything the Bishop was entrusting to the individual's stewardship. Both contracts had to be signed together in order for them to be valid. The interesting thing about these contracts is that they were negotiated. It was intended that the bishop would meet with a family and they would work out what the family's needs were and compare that to their resources. Nothing was consecrated until both parties came to an agreement. Furthermore, if it was determined that a family had a surplus, the surplus was not taken unless the Bishop had a need for it. Instead, the surplus was granted back to the family's stewardship, and if necessary, the bishop could ask for it later. So, yes, those of us who have made the Temple Covenants are under obligation to live the Law of Consecration. However, if the bishop asks for the deed to my house, I won't be giving it up until he and I are both satisfied that my family's needs will be met.

There is a lot of confidential information that gets passed through the office of a Bishopric or Stake Presidency. If someone in the office were to leak some of that information, and some of that information were then used against the person, then the person might have grounds for suing the Church, as this was information that is trusted to people serving in an official capacity for the Church. The information could be personal or financial. However, the grounds for legal action could only be maintained if the Church did not take action against the person who leaked the information (as far as I understand).

Depends on if you take a literal or metaphorical interpretation of the words you are quoting.

So we've got Ben, with a gun, going against Carl, with an Inquisition. I'm putting my life savings (abou $37) on Carl.

I think you'll find greater clarification on this question if you look in D&C 139.

And it just always feels so good to stick it to the French. :-)

I used to love watching the women's gymnastics. Then I turned 18 and felt like a pedophile. Now, I've graduated to beach volleyball. What a great sport! Men's basketball sure looked good. And the US soccer team managed a tie. And holy crap men's 4x100 Freestyle. I'm still in shock.