MarginOfError

Happy Hannukah Fianananianaian

I'm not sure if my words will be as clear as this is in my head, so please bear with me. The criterion is having a perfect knowledge of the existence of God and the truth of the Gospel. I won't claim to know all the ways such knowledge can be conferred, but the most obvious would be the immediate presence of a member of the Godhead.

Would a joke about how my father could beat up your father be appropriate right now?

Paul Newman's half Mormon Goldie Haun's half too Put them together What a FINE looking Saint (hmmm...doesn't rhyme anymore)

Statistically speaking, I thinkt he odds may be against single moms. But let's hope you can beat the odds. I've dated a few women that had kids. Didn't work out with any of them, for various reasons (in one case, the girl was a stripper! Talk about an awkward date). Anyway, I once even tried getting a girl 8 years older than me with two kids to go out with me. Apparently she wasn't into 23 year olds. So, there are good guys out there. Be careful with checkers though, he'll jump all over ya. :-)

Okay, I started reading it yesterday, and after only 30 pages, I'm in stitches. I was standing at the bus stop and reading yesterday, and read about how 1969 was a momentous year. I laughed so hard (in humor and shock) that I almost fell off the curb into the street. Hopefully I survive the rest of the book. I also love the literal translation from Russian into English. I can hear a lot of these phrases in Russian as I read them. So far, my favorite is, 'there are many women who are wanting to be carnal with me.' Classic! Now, don't dub me that! And now for something completely different.... 100 posts! My life dream has come true.

Your friend may have been sent to the Stake President because the Bishop might have recognized potential for Church Disciplinary Action. Disciplinary Action against Melchizedek Priesthood holders (even if the sin was before they had it conferred upon them) falls under the jurisdiction of the Stake President.

I often find myself coveting Pam's ginger bread man

I may be reading too much into this, but it looks like we may have annoyed you a little. I apologize for that, and assure that wasn't my intent. You are correct that meetings are not supposed to be video taped, recorded, or photographed without prior written consent. My comment popped into my head when I read what you'd said and it amused me enough to make me want to share it. Now, lets start looking for all the holes in stuff I say! :-)

Great comments by many! I will also echo that baptism itself does nothing to for remitting sins. Repentance is the process by which sins are remitted and baptism is the way by which we obtain Christ's guarantee that he will forgive them. I'll respectfully disagree. I think we'd all be surprised how many people are capable of committing this sin.

You may want to check out the Eternal Marriage Problems?? thread, as it deals with this topic (and a few tangents).

We used to use the only diplomatic way to solve such a dispute: rock/paper/scissors! The winner got to say the prayer!

I wouldn't be surprised if the Church's view on cremation changed over time, as the currently stated policy doesn't seem to have any foundations in doctrine, it could be that it changes as social mores within the Church change.

That's true, unless you're speaking about alternative energy. :-)

It's a done deal then. Everything Is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer is July's book of the month! All the cool people are reading it! And then there's me

You failed to mention if you are categorically opposed to members of the Church wearing crosses or not. In a playful spirit, I submit the following to you. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Matt. 16:24) But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart. Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart; For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell. (3 Nephi 12:28-30) And he that will not take up his cross and follow me, and keep my commandments, the same shall not be saved. (D&C 56:2)

I was making satire on the talk of divination from the cards. What's so different from laying out the cards in front of someone and asking, "what do you see" and using their response to analyze what's going on in their heads...much like psychologists do with ink blots.

Gwen, I wish I had your eloquence.

So, I'm about to finish reading The Kite Runner (Khaled Hosseini)...I thought it might be fun to pick a book now and see if anybody wants to read it simultaneously. I was thinking about Everything Is Illuminated as I've wanted to read that for a while now, but not sure how many people on this board would appreciate it. Any thoughts?

You mean like the pulpit in the Conference Center? Or the pulpit at any of the Institute Buildings from which the CES Broadcasts are filmed? :-)

Grunt

The way I see it, wearing a cross is really no different than wearing a CTR ring. It's an external display of what your values are. While President Hinckley's comments are reasonable there may be some historical reasons to avoid using the cross, since over the centuries it has accumulated a set of meanings and symbolisms among different faiths. For a church trying to distinguish itself as unique from other churches, it makes sense not to embrace the symbol of faith used by other churches. That being said, while I see some wisdom in the Church as an organization not to utilize the cross, I have no problem with individual members using it to communicate their faith to those around them. Sorry to hear you're leaving the Church, but wherever your path takes you, I sincerely hope you find happiness there.

The thing that entertains me about the Global Warming controversy is everyone picks a side and assumes that there is a right and a wrong side. I find that in spats like this one, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. In this case I would guess that the earth is experiencing a climate change that is in fact natural, but that the climate change is being pushed to a new extreme because of human behavior. Interpretation: There may not be much we can do to alleviate the effects of global warming, but that doesn't mean we should sit back and do nothing. Throughout this century, environmental responsibility is going to play a big role in how the world shapes out.

So, a rough translation and interpretation: tarot cards could be used like ink blots? If so, I agree.

In a completely speculative and non-doctrinal fashion, I'm going to throw these ideas out to be kicked around: In the scriptures, it seems that plural marriage has only ever been permitted by the Lord in the circumstances that a) He needed to do some nation building (children born into the covenant), or b) He needed to take care of people. Or sometimes both. In the case of nation building, it doesn't make sense to have women have multiple husbands because each woman can only be pregnant by one man at a time (barring multiple eggs being released at the same time, but let's keep the argument simple, shall we?). But one man can impregnate multiple women. So for nation building, the many woman to one man idea makes sense. In the case of taking care of people, I suppose it doesn't matter which way it goes. Anciently, and even in the 1800's it would have defaulted to the one man to many women because, due to cultural morals of the time, women wouldn't be able to produce enough income and resources to support multiple families. Men could...particularly in an agricultural society. Now that cultural norms have changed, if this were the state purpose for plural marriage, then I see no reason it couldn't follow a one woman to many man model. At the same time, I think that one way or the other has to be defined. If a man can have several wives, and each of those wives can have several husbands, essentially what you've created is a system of sanctioned adultery. You just go marry the next person you want to sleep with and it's all legal. The only ways out of this is to either choose one gender to have multiple spouses, or eliminate the multiple spouse thing entirely. One thing that I am sure about is that plural marriage, as practiced under God's law, was never about sexual pleasure. Men who were given additional wives were men who had the means to support multiple families, and the spiritual strength to preside over that many children. I suspect they were also men that understood that it was the women who truly made the arrangement work. According to prophecy, Mary was a virgin, who gave birth to a son. Ergo, sex is not requisite for procreation. It wouldn't be heaven without sex, would it?