Vort

As an experiment, ask the aforementioned young folks what they think is hypocritical about churches. Really dig for their fundamental answer (in a polite way, of course). I guarantee that you will quickly find that the large majority believe religious people and organizations are hypocritical simply because that is what they have been told all of their lives. Ask for examples, and you won't get many. Perhaps the most popular will be "homophobia" among religious people; but of course, "homophobia" itself is a lie, a term made up not to explain anything but to smear people who hold to certain beliefs and moral standards. Explain that considering homosexuality to be an immoral act is no more intrinsically evil than considering demonstrations against abortion to be an immoral act. If you wade through the levels of argument to reach the core idea of living by a moral standard, they will simply drop the topic rather than grapple with their own inconsistency and hypocrisy. Prepare to be called lots of names, because that's their idea of solid argumentation against evil. I'm painting with a broad brush, and you will certainly find exceptions, but what I have described is what I have found to be the rule. Today's young adults are no smarter than their parents, and have the added handicap of having been indoctrinated with a much worse, more vile background ideology.

I think I do not agree with this assessment. Some side got the tar beaten out of them, that's for sure. Retreated with tail firmly between legs after carrying on an unjustifiable proxy war for twenty years. Satan laughed and his angels rejoiced; of that, you can be sure. Meanwhile, back home in the US, political hay was diligently being made, and not just by one side. Had it not been for this horrific "police action", the entire counterculture movement may have fizzled to nothing and decency may have won the day. In recounting the evils of the 1960s that were set in the concrete foundation of our modern society, the impact of Vietnam cannot be overestimated.

Greater than the sin his brother committed against him. At least, that's how I've always understood it. I've always wrestled with this doctrine; it's so unfair. But when I decry something as unfair, in almost all cases it means I don't understand what's really going on. And so I think is the case here. We in our mortal state dutifully strain out insignificant gnats while swallowing whole camels, and often don't even realize that's what we're doing.

The post had the letter "s" in it. Which is to say, the post consisted solely of the letter 's', thusly: s

Ewwwww!

We need an "Ewwwww!" icon.

I recommend caution against making this a definitive characteristic of what true Scotsmen faithful LDS believe or don't believe. Can a faithful, believing Latter-day Saint maintain that the so-called Priesthood ban was not inspired by God, but solely by racial bias of Church leaders? I could be wrong. More importantly, I have an opinion, but am not in any position to judge another's standing in faithfulness (aside from some obvious cases). Let me amend my statement above by excluding the parenthetical addendum. I will stand by the modified statement, with the understanding that "Church leaders" refers to apostles, not to any old leader in the Church (e.g. bishops, stake presidents, Primary presidents, RS/EQ presidents, SS class presidents, Area Authorities, etc.), and "said" means preached to the world, not merely voiced a personal opinion at some stake conference or family get-together somewhere.

Excepr the Church doesn't say that. The Church says (through the aforementioned essays) that those explanations are not accepted AS DOCTRINE, not that they are not accepted in principle or unacceptable to LDS belief or something of the sort. Let's pretend that God his six feet seven inches tall. I mean, he must be some height, right? So let's just pretend it's 6'7". Now, does the Church accept AS DOCTRINE that God is 6'7" tall? No, of course not. Does this mean that God is not in fact 6'7" tall? No, of course not. God is whatever size he is, no matter than such a trivium is no part of our doctrine. In the same sense, God did what he did for his own purposes. The fact that those purposes form no part of our current teachings (aka doctrine) doesn't mean God didn't say or do what he actually said or did. It just means that's not a part of our doctrine. Honestly, this is not a hard concept. Why so many pull against it and insist on obfuscating what should be a clear issue confuses me. The only answer I can arrive at is that such people seek to obfuscate because they don't like the teachings and they want to supplant them with their own ideas. But if that's the reason they are having problems with the Church and leaving it, I think there could be things that could be done on our part to change that. Agreed. And here's what we could do: Tell them that they are misrepresenting Church teachings and preaching falsehoods when they say what they say. For any honest and humble seekers, that will suffice. For those who are not honest or humble, nothing will suffice.

Having thought about this a bit, I wonder if we need to clarify a potential misunderstanding. Latter-day Saints (if I understand correctly) believe that everyone is a child of God, and is therefore loved by God. Now an alternative view (to which I have been somewhat exposed) is that the Natural Man is not a child of God, but can be "adopted" by accepting Christ - by being "born again". Inevitably, many people will not be born again, and that will include many who are (by our earthly standards) "good people" whom we would respect and love. We teach our little children in Primary (an organization that lays a base-level "primary" foundation of understanding of the gospel and the Restored Church) that we are all children of our heavenly Father, to whom we pray. When our children are teenagers, we introduce the idea of "becoming" children of Christ; that is, there is a sense of accepting God as our Father that goes beyond the Primary picture of "Father in heaven", a state we actively pursue. I suspect that most adult Latter-day Saints are in the process of discovering what it means to become a child of God and how they can implement that in their own lives and actions. I might say that, but I would probably try to avoid the issue as a semantic discussion that doesn't really shed much light on the important topics we try to deal with day to day. I mean, if God hated the Lamanites (Helaman 15:4), then I think it's a foregone conclusion that he hates Satan. But what does that even mean? Here is what I think it means: God's love is demonstrated, in fact measured, by his blessings to us. In the so-called Love Languages, God is not a Words of Affirmation or a Physical Touch kind of guy (those would be me). God is most definitely in the Giving and Receiving Gifts camp. We show our love to him, not by word or touch, but by giving him the gift of our broken hearts and contrite spirits. In return, God shows his love to us by giving us the gift of his Spirit, the covenants we make with him, and eventually, eternal life itself. But God's gifts are received only by those who choose to receive them. Thus, in this most practical of senses, God literally cannot "love" those who reject his gifts to them. And since Satan is the very prototype of rejecting God, he receives none of God's gifts except for those he has already received, such as his very existence after his spiritual creation. So saying that God does not "love" Satan, at least in this sense, is true by definition. So if you define "hatred" as the opposite of "love"—a definition I probably would not agree with, but for purposes of this discussion is fine—then it would be axiomatic that God hates Satan. I realize I often come across as pedantic, usually when I'm stating the obvious. My only justification is that I have found that it is often helpful to state beliefs or ideas very plainly and very simply, because by doing so I both clarify my thoughts and find deep connections between ideas that maybe should have been obvious to me, but were not obvious until I explained things in simple terms.

I haven't used that guide in years, but I just checked. Sure enough, they have zee-EZ-rum. I figured out a few decades ago that Zeezrom was Ze + Esrom, at the same time that I figured out that Zenephi was Ze + Nephi, Zenos was Ze + Enos, Zenoch was Ze + Enoch, Zeniff was, well, probably a variant of Zenephi, Cezoram was probably Ze + Zoram, and so forth. I had started taking a real interest in linguistics, and this bowled me over that the Book of Mormon showed a very realistic, believable evolution or extension of naming practices, without fanfare or drawing attention, just presented naturally, with no explanation. These are the kind of things that provide a testimony of sorts to me, but that I don't preach to others nor expect that such things are convincing to those outside the Church. If I were not LDS but were looking into the Church, I suspect that I might find such a thing mildly interesting, but hardly something that would convince me to abandon my previous philosophies and whole-heartedly embrace this new religion and book of scripture and philosophy of life. But as someone on the inside, I do find it one more small brick in the wall of my testimony.

I look forward to the Grecian Urn portrayals.

This goes contrary to what was originally stated and believed. This was not the justification given. If we want to say it, this is actually very close to gaslighting what actually happened in my lifetime. "None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church" is completely different from saying "None of these explanations is true". The latter has never been said by apostles or prophets. Moreover, as my original point was, the Priesthood ban itself, apart from any explanations for it, has never been said by Church leaders (or faithful members) to be uninspired by God or to have arisen from the racial bias of men. They can see it however they choose. They can call a gold ring a plastic Crackerjack prize. That doesn't make it so.

I took this attitude for most of my adult life. I finally decided (perhaps like partaking of the sacrament) that I should just assume that my efforts to follow God are sufficient. That is, God's grace is sufficient for my meager sacrifice to be enough to accept Christ's atoning blood, so long as my efforts are sincere. Hasn't exactly changed my life, but that's one less thing I spend time worrying about. Those who will be destroyed will be, for the most part...well, those who will be destroyed. That is, those whose will it is to say and do and preach the things of destruction. If that includes any that I love, they will have made their choice, because that is their desire. I also believe that God is more merciful than we can even comprehend. So, as above, I try not to spend any time worrying about this. The only meaning I can attach to this is that you might love Satan. And that would not make you more loving than God; quite the opposite. So I think you're okay.

Not yet.

Voldemort => model Vort

Haven't you heard South Americans (and some Mexicans) pronounce "ll" or "y" sounds with something approaching an English "j" sound? Surely you've heard this. "Yo" sounds like "Joe", "yes" sounds like "Jess", and so forth.

Lleimi. Give a good South American flair to that Ll.

I don't know Jaime Summers, but I remember very well Jaime Sommers, the Bionic Woman. She was only ever a knock-off of the incomparable Six-Million-Dollar (such a vast sum of money!) Man, but hey, she was pretty, and I was like, what, thirteen or fourteen? When it came to TV, I was never a picky eater, so I was happy to spend evenings watching her exploits and amazing feats of strength and hearing. (I always thought the bionic hearing thing was a little lame compared with Steve Austin's super-eyesight, but hey, you work with what you got.)

There was a time when this was a very important concern for me, so important that I ended up consulting with my bishop. Apparently, I'm not the only one who has had this concern. The bishop's counsel to me was along the lines of "earnest effort". If I'm unrepentant and/or currently engaged in covenant-breaking activity, then no, I should not partake. But if I'm sincerely striving and giving honest, earnest effort, I should not let my own weaknesses and imperfections prevent me from accepting the gift Christ offers. Since that event, I believe that I have not skipped partaking of the sacrament when the opportunity has arisen. (No promises about that, though.)

To be honest, if you hear the gusto with which the Saints usually don't sing the hymns of Zion, lung expansion is not a top priority.

It's an alien concept to all but Catholics and High-Church Protestants. I did not realize the Church of England accepted the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Even more irritating to me than playing everything at funeral dirge tempo is that Organists. Can't. Count. I mean, how hard is "ONE-two-three-four-ONE-two-three-four"? Seems simple enough, right? Yet wherever I go, whatever ward I visit, almost every time the organist cuts off the sustained notes a half-beat too early. Every freaking time. Is it really so hard to hold the note out for the entire count? Did the note do something to offend you? Kick your dog, maybe? I mean, counting the beat is pretty much the most basic possible part of music, more even than hitting the correct tone. How can this be so universally badly done? Seriously, I don't get it.

I sing loud. Does that count?

FWIW, I wouldn't recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury. Maybe if he had a name tag. I'm very sorry to hear that. I sincerely wish you the best of luck, or perhaps better stated, God's blessings in that issue.