Vort

You're both wrong.

Or pick out names for your children. That's always a fun second date.

Actually, I think it was the final talk of the Sunday morning session, not the final talk of General Conference. Oops. Mistake on my part. (Does that make my whole poll untrue?)

I agree with this, though I draw a distinction between matters of procedure and matters of structure. Nevertheless, I did not provide nor imply any criticism of mormonmusic (though he appears to think I did). We were asked for our opinions, and I simply voiced my opinion that we are not in a position to instruct God on how best to organize the leadership of his kingdom.

Perhaps you're right, and the poll was unwise. I thought it would give people an opportunity to express an opinion incognito that they wouldn't wish to express openly, and the rest of us a chance to see how others perceive a story that we believe to be an example of true divine revelation.

For the record, and as I have already tried to clarify, the first option was intended for all those who accept the prophet's words at face value. I was trying to include those who accept what the prophet said verbatim ("more") as well as those who accept what he said but think there may have been minor details that were perhaps gotten wrong in the telling, without affecting the substantive truth of the overall story ("less"). It appears that you cannot please everyone. Or at least, I cannot please everyone.

I'm sure the atheists will be only too happy to agree with that assessment. Any example is just that: An example. God is not really 1³ or -(i²) or any other such mathematical construct, simple or complex. God is God. Believers of all stripes, including Latter-day Saints, are constantly guilty of boxing their idea of "God" into a confined, understandable space. So we say "God is love", then we generalize to say that any position we suppose to be "loving" must be Godly, and any that we suppose not to be "loving" must not be Godly. Then we wonder in amazement how it can be that a God of love can allow such terrible things to happen as <insert random terrible event or condition>. For example, someone in a recent thread mentioned how he cannot believe a loving God would have allowed such a large percentage of living species to be parasites. Catholic theology at least attempts to deal with this conundrum by frankly saying, "It's a mystery that we cannot understand." There is some honesty to this approach; it frankly acknowledges our position of ignorance. The problem with it, of course, is that it leaves infinite hedge room for any old doctrine one cares to foist on it. What is "the Trinity"? Don't know; it's a mystery. Why are innocent children who die in infancy condemned to hell? Don't know; it's a mystery. Why are good people who are non-Catholic condemned to hell while wicked people who perform the Catholic sacraments and have people pray for them and light votive candles eventually to end up in heavenly bliss? Don't know; it's a mystery. And the other problem is, while Catholics may say that something or other is a "mystery", they still tell fables about children digging holes in the sandy beach or some such in order to explain, as they suppose, these inexpressible doctrines. Yet if the doctrine is truly inexpressible and above our comprehension, why would anyone waste time constructing examples with must by definition be wrong? As Latter-day Saints, we approach things differently. We acknowledge that many things are "mysteries", but we define that word much differently from others. We say that a "mystery" is something that cannot be comprehended by the carnal mind -- thus the need for spiritual inspiration and the revelations of the Holy Ghost. We acknowledge God as a man, though we do not know exactly what that means. But where the rubber meets the road, too often we are in the same position as the Catholics and other non-LDS Christians: We guess and tell fables because we don't know what we're talking about. In my opinion, the whole "God is like a number raised to a power" analogy just does not have legs. It does not effectively illustrate anything about God's attributes, no matter whether we make the numbers negative, imaginary, or transcendental. Not to criticize anyone's input, just giving my own.

"More or less" means, "I believe the story exactly as told" OR "I believe the story pretty much as told, but concede that unimportant details might have been accidentally changed." I was seeking to avoid someone saying, "Well, I believe the story, but he might have gotten some details wrong! Where's the choice of 'I believe the story except possibly unimportant details?'" Looks like I can't win for losing.

The poll is anonymous, but I would be interested to hear comments from those LDS who pick something other than the first option (why do you consider yourself LDS while believing the president to be delusional and/or dishonest?) and those non-LDS who pick their first option (how can the leader of a denomination you believe to be false receive authentic inspiration of this sort?).

During the final talk of the most recent General Conference, President Monson told the following story of a miraculous occurrence. Which of the poll choices best represents what you think of this story? I am always humbled and grateful when my Heavenly Father communicates with me through His inspiration. I have learned to recognize it, to trust it, and to follow it. Time and time again I have been the recipient of such inspiration. One rather dramatic experience took place in August of 1987 during the dedication of the Frankfurt Germany Temple. President Ezra Taft Benson had been with us for the first day or two of the dedication but had returned home, and so it became my opportunity to conduct the remaining sessions. On Saturday we had a session for our Dutch members who were in the Frankfurt Temple district. I was well acquainted with one of our outstanding leaders from the Netherlands, Brother Peter Mourik. Just prior to the session, I had the distinct impression that Brother Mourik should be called upon to speak to his fellow Dutch members during the session and that, in fact, he should be the first speaker. Not having seen him in the temple that morning, I passed a note to Elder Carlos E. Asay, our Area President, asking whether Peter Mourik was in attendance at the session. Just prior to standing up to begin the session, I received a note back from Elder Asay indicating that Brother Mourik was actually not in attendance, that he was involved elsewhere, and that he was planning to attend the dedicatory session in the temple the following day with the servicemen stakes. As I stood at the pulpit to welcome the people and to outline the program, I received unmistakable inspiration once again that I was to announce Peter Mourik as the first speaker. This was counter to all my instincts, for I had just heard from Elder Asay that Brother Mourik was definitely not in the temple. Trusting in the inspiration, however, I announced the choir presentation and the prayer and then indicated that our first speaker would be Brother Peter Mourik. As I returned to my seat, I glanced toward Elder Asay; I saw on his face a look of alarm. He later told me that when I had announced Brother Mourik as the first speaker, he couldn’t believe his ears. He said he knew that I had received his note and that I indeed had read it, and he couldn’t fathom why I would then announce Brother Mourik as a speaker, knowing he wasn’t anywhere in the temple. During the time all of this was taking place, Peter Mourik was in a meeting at the area offices in Porthstrasse. As his meeting was going forward, he suddenly turned to Elder Thomas A. Hawkes Jr., who was then the regional representative, and asked, “How fast can you get me to the temple?” Elder Hawkes, who was known to drive rather rapidly in his small sports car, answered, “I can have you there in 10 minutes! But why do you need to go to the temple?” Brother Mourik admitted he did not know why he needed to go to the temple but that he knew he had to get there. The two of them set out for the temple immediately. During the magnificent choir number, I glanced around, thinking that at any moment I would see Peter Mourik. I did not. Remarkably, however, I felt no alarm. I had a sweet, undeniable assurance that all would be well. Brother Mourik entered the front door of the temple just as the opening prayer was concluding, still not knowing why he was there. As he hurried down the hall, he saw my image on the monitor and heard me announce, “We will now hear from Brother Peter Mourik.” To the astonishment of Elder Asay, Peter Mourik immediately walked into the room and took his place at the podium. Following the session, Brother Mourik and I discussed that which had taken place prior to his opportunity to speak. I have pondered the inspiration which came that day not only to me but also to Peter Mourik. That remarkable experience has provided an undeniable witness to me of the importance of being worthy to receive such inspiration and then trusting it—and following it—when it comes. I know without question that the Lord intended for those who were present at that session of the Frankfurt Temple dedication to hear the powerful, touching testimony of His servant Brother Peter Mourik.

The best thing about it is your alliterative subject line.

What could be objectionable about Daddy's Homecoming?

If you do so passionately while pretending to be their girlfriend, then I agree with you.

Please understand that, to us, this too is a distinction utterly without a difference. Catholics venerate Mary. Catholics pray to Mary. The distinction between venerating and praying to someone and worshiping someone is nonexistent to us, as meaningless as the doctrine of the Trinity. We accept that you don't believe you worship Mary. But to us, if it looks like worship and sounds like worship and feels like worship and smells like worship and tastes like worship, then...

You also do not believe God to be the literal biological father of humanity, yet you call him Father. I know that many Catholics call Mary "Mother Mary", and I have never heard a Catholic say this is incorrect. This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. If Mary is "our mother", even metaphorically, and if she is in heaven, and if we are supposed to pray to her, then in what sense is she not "our mother in heaven"? If I recall your prayer "Hail Mary" correctly (and forgive me if I don't; I'm going from Christmas songs I've heard): Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui Iesus. Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostræ. Amen. Seriously, how is this not a prayer to a heavenly mother? Latter-day Saints would say Jesus, the Great Intercessor.

annewandering is Amy Lee on steroids? (And with a bad batch of spray-on tan?)

When I was in Italy, I asked some Catholics why they prayed to Mary. They looked at me, wide-eyed and somewhat bemused by the naivete of my question, and responded with what, to them, was a self-evident and exceedingly obvious truth: "Well, she's the mother of God, and thus the mother of us all." If that is not a doctrine of a "heavenly mother" -- a being of supernatural power to whom we pray for grace and who is indeed our very mother -- then I don't know what is.

Though I obviously reject the idea of the "holy Trinity" and tend to take a jaded view of anything explained as an "unknowable mystery", I feel no compulsion to correct or dissuade those Christians who hold to such views. What puts me in an eye-rolling mood is to hear Mysterious Trinitarians mock and revile LDS doctrines because "they don't make any sense". Uh, okay, talk to me after you've reconciled the admittedly irreconcilable problems in your own doctrinal beliefs.

So then, the following hypothetical conversation makes perfect sense to you: Vort: Why do people beat their children up? annewandering: Maybe because they think they're doing their kids a favor. "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Vort: Well, I would stand between you and them to prevent you from beating them up, annewandering. Because to me, the personalization is more than a little bizarre. So if: we lived in a country where witchcraft were expressly illegal,the other woman were a self-proclaimed witch, andI were the designated executioner and had a gun pointed toward her chest;In the above situation, you are saying that you would literally step in front of the admitted witch to shield her when I was about to pull the trigger?

Not sure what "legitimate speculation" means. Apart from the bare fact of her existence, we Latter-day Saints have no revealed knowledge at all about "heavenly Mother". Any speculation thereto is thus illegitimate.

A couple of problems with this: Why are you applying this to me personally? Did you fail (again) to read what I wrote?If I were of a mind to "murder" a woman for witchcraft, how would your standing in front of her prevent me from doing so?

Why? To catch her head?

Exodus 22:18 - "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Not saying I agree, but that's the reason.

His name is Thomas Monson.

A man with the athletic prowess, divine insight, and sheer genius of the god-man Kim Jong Il is not subject to murder by lesser beings.