Vort

I thought Stevie Wonder was baptized at the same time as Steve Martin?

You are inferring a tremendous amount just in this one sentence that simply is not LDS doctrine.

That is certainly not my experience.

How do the men's suits deal with nipple exposure?

It was too great a picture not to steal. Forgive me, Pam, for I have sinned.

Understanding Women, Volume 1:

Perhaps it depends on what you mean by a "scar". I mean a visible mark or reminder of the past transgression, especially (but not solely) if that reminder impedes action or freedom going forward. Consider Alice and Beth. Both fornicate as teenagers. Alice gets pregnant; Beth does not. Both then repent of their fornication and turn to Christ. Are both healed spiritually? Yes. But Alice has a child, a tangible reminder of her fornication. Does she need to give the baby up for adoption in order to be forgiven of her sin? No, probably not. Whether or not she gives up the baby for adoption is a separate issue from her being forgiven. But Alice's fornication will be widely known, since she had a baby. Beth might be able to fly under the radar in that regard, but that doesn't make Beth's sin any less grave. None of us want to think of a child as a "scar", so consider another example instead. Suppose your sin was that you beat your child until he got brain damage. Can you repent of your sin? Yes. Will that magically cure your child's brain damage? Uh-uh. The effects or scars caused by your sin may well live on throughout your life, both externally (as in the brain damage) and also internally. In Elder Christofferson's recent General Conference address, he quoted D&C 20:30-31 to establish that "justification" means forgiveness from sin, while "sanctification" means the removal of sin's effects: “We know that justification [or forgiveness of sins] through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true; “And we know also, that sanctification [or purification from the effects of sin] through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, to all those who love and serve God with all their mights, minds, and strength.” So in this life, we are justified by being granted forgiveness, but we struggle to be sanctified, a process that doubtless will take long after this life to fully achieve.

The difference I perceive is that an engaged couple is fornicating if they have sex. They are committing a grave evil with very heavy consequences. Such an action would defile them and pollute their intended marriage. On the contrary, the married state of Joseph and Mary precluded any such thing. They were perfectly free in a moral and religious sense to engage in sexual relations; they simply had not yet done so, for societal reasons. To my mind, this is a vitally important distinction. Mary was absolutely not merely "engaged" to Joseph. They were husband and wife in every legal and moral sense, even if their marriage had not yet been consummated.

I see no compelling evidence to believe this. On the contrary, in my experience, some sins leave deep spiritual scars that may never fully heal in this life. And like deep bodily wounds, many sins seem to leave incidental scars that may not impede action, but certainly stand as markers for what happened.

I do not know exactly what he is referring to. But clearly, sin leave spiritual and emotional scars. I assumed he was talking about that.

They were indeed "fully married". They had not yet begun cohabitating, it is true; Joseph had not yet "known" Mary (a Hebrew euphemism for having sex with her), and as the Bible says, he did not "know" her until after she had given birth to Jesus. So yes, she was a virgin. But had Joseph and Mary engaged in sexual relations, there would have been no religious punishment associated with it, nor any formal public shame. They were married, husband and wife, as the Biblical account makes clear (e.g. "...to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife..."). Ancient Hebrew social customs differed from ours, obviously; Joseph and Mary had not yet (in modern terms) consummated their marriage. But make no mistake, they were fully, 100% married. Joseph contemplated divorcing Mary for her assumed fornication; obviously, no divorce is necessary when a couple is merely engaged.

Not to be pedantic, but (here comes the pedantry) Mary was not an unwed mother. That is a false tradition. Mary and Joseph were legally married at the time Mary became pregnant -- hence Joseph's thought to "put her away [divorce her] privily".

Those "odd stares from the 'old gang'" may actually have been surprise and happiness at seeing you coupled with an unsureness of how to go say hi to you. I expect the stares to decrease and the "hi"s to increase for you next week.

Actually, I would argue that through the efforts of the Prophet Joseph Smith, we have gained access to a great many blessings. We do indeed honor Joseph Smith as the greatest prophet of the dispensation of the fullness of times. It's not for nothing that we have "Praise to the Man" as one of our Church hymns. But your larger point is correct. We do not worship or pray to Joseph Smith or expect he will act as an intercessory in any sense as the Catholics view Mary and the Catholic Saints. Joseph, great as he was, was a mortal man afflicted with the sin and vicissitudes common to mortal men, and we do not worship or pray to any mortal man.

Just my opinion, but I seriously doubt the bishop is going to ask the stake president to be present while he talks with a young woman about masturbation. It simply is not that serious an issue that he would need the stake president there. I can think of only two reasons why he might: He has never done it before and he's afraid he might get it wrong, so he wants the stake president there to guide him. (doubtful)He does not want to be alone with a young unmarried woman talking about sexual things, in order to protect himself from charges of molestation or such. (less doubtful)If that's the case (especially #2), try to take a compassionate view of the bishop. He has to protect himself, even if YOU don't mean to do him harm. I hope you can get past such feelings. The bishop can share such things with his stake president if he feels the need. If, as I suspect, the bishop wants or is required to have another adult there while talking with you about sexual topics, the stake president is the obvious -- and perhaps the only -- choice. We cannot possibly answer this. But if your problem is masturbation, I have never heard of anyone being disfellowshipped for masturbation. Try to approach this with an attitude of hope rather than dread. Your bishop is there to help you achieve your spiritual goals. He is your friend and ally, not your nemesis.

I appreciate your insights, PC. Mostly, I appreciate your willingness to judge us for what we actually teach, say, and do, rather than for what Ed Decker and his ilk claim we teach, say, and do.

That was President Kimball, who called me on a mission. A great man of faith, indeed.

What does it mean? Foxoak St, Cradley Heath, West Midlands B64, United Kingdom - Google Maps

You get BILLS on LDS.net?! I'll take the hate mail.

Or get reading glasses.

I am featured in several of these lists precisely because I am so popular on LDS.net. People here say my name with a smile and with pleasant anticipation of stimulating and fun conversation. And I never, ever get hate mail. And should I ever feel the need for absolute universal approval, I will simply switch my avatar back to the big-eyed Icelandic girl.

Actually, when I "fold my hands", I typically do more of a thumbs-out Gable grip. Sometimes I intertwine my fingers. Most often in Church, I hold my wife's hand.

Only God can forgive sin. The bishop is not authorized to extend forgiveness. However, the bishop is the "common judge in Israel" and has the authority to determine that person's status in the Church. He also has the authority and duty to receive revelation regarding what that person must do in order to repent of his sin(s) and restore his status in the Church. This may sound similar to Catholic penance, but my impression is that there is a different underlying attitude. Self-mortification plays no part at all in the LDS theology of repentance. We must do our best to make up for the injuries we have caused others through sinning. Past that, we must turn our hearts to God and turn away from our sins. The Dantesque Purgatory of suffering as a method of showing God how sorry you are for your sins, or of somehow paying some divine price of humiliation and pain to make up for your sins, is almost entirely absent from the Latter-day Saint mindset. What does the conversation entail? I have never been a bishop, so I have never been privy to any such conversation. But I imagine it's very straightforward, if tender and difficult: The person sits with the bishop and tells him (the bishop) about what they've done, what sins they feel they've commited, and so forth. It's a conversation with the bishop, and can extend for week, months, or in some cases even years.

Interestingly, I have always thought of the "praying hands": http://prayinghandsclipart.com/prayinghands_left/prayinghands_1.bmp as a very "Catholic" thing, somehow a bit strange and unnatural. I guess it's all just what you're used to.

Hala, I would encourage you not to give too much ear to those who seek to tear down other religions. I am not an expert on Islam, but I had a close friend who was Muslim and who was one of the most virtuous and admirable people I have ever known. Films like this, purporting to "tell the truth" about Islam, seem to me much like the anti-Mormon films that claim to "tell the truth" about the evil cult of Mormonism. The anti-Mormon efforts are patchworks of outrageous lies and out-of-context teachings, so I suspect the same might be true of the anti-Islam films.