Vort

Don't you mean "Mater Dei"?

I heard that today's missionary junior companions were lance corporals in the premortal existence. I also understand that bishop's storehouses have quietly been stocking up on compact fluorescent light bulbs and padded coat hangers, though I hesitate to draw the obvious conclusion from these items.

Good start. Nice use of trimeter. You need more internal rhymes. Also, a strong first person presence and referencing oneself is always helpful. References to "baby daddy"s and "ho"s would be stylistically appropriate, but in this case irreverent and best avoided. Me and Mary are beat, I'm a man on the street, And I'm lookin' for some cookin' and to get off my feet This sweet inn, let us in Don't be tellin' me no room 'Cause we're beat, kid is comin' I ain't askin' indoor plumbin' Take the stable, need a broom Whazzat Chrismas song you're hummin'? Okay, I admit it, I'm not a rapper.

Eleven cubed!

No, I'm not saying that at all. Rather, I'm saying that, generally speaking, you can't prosecute someone ex post facto -- that is, you can't prosecute them for breaking a law that did not exist at the time they committed the supposed crime. So it appears you did in fact understand my point. ??? In what sense am I "rigorously defending" anyone? The totality of my statement was: Even if we accepted your implicit claims at face value, I believe that the ex post facto nature of such enforcement would render the arrests you suggest illegal.

Banning, though I'm working on the other as well.

I think I'm already well on my way even without your kind assistance, thankyouverymuch.

Read it with a Hebrew accent. At least Yiddish. That'll add some spice.

Specifically, I wrote: Language by its very nature is imprecise, so we do well to accept that words can be misinterpreted. But inventing non-existent meaning and assigning it to what someone says seems beyond the pale, to me at least.

I have always been uncomfortable with end zone prayers. Personal prayers are for closets.

The problem with this is that communication becomes impossible. For example: John: I don't like brownies. Jane: What do you have against chocolate? John: Huh? I never said I didn't like chocolate. Jane: You most certainly did. [After extensive back and forth...] John: Here is what I said: "I don't like brownies." Jane: Yes, I was thinking about that. Truth is I see this as saying that you don't like chocolate. What is John to do, when meaning that simply does not exist in his words is being assigned to him anyway? Language by its very nature is imprecise, so we do well to accept that words can be misinterpreted. But inventing non-existent meaning and assigning it to what someone says seems beyond the pale, to me at least. Most generous of you. But it sort of invalidates much of the thread, based as it has been on the misapprehension that some folks were claiming you shouldn't pray in the temple.

To clarify: In the eyes of both the law and the gospel, there is no infidelity involved when a widow remarries.

Note that the quotes you provided from myself and MoE do not say any such thing.

Just to be clear: There is nothing unfaithful about a widow remarrying.

You said that I had no sense of humor?

This thread has, unintentionally I am sure, become quite comical. -Blue. -Why did you say "blue"? -I didn't say that! You said that! -Huh? Where did I say "blue"? -Look, several people here have been saying "blue". Don't make me go back and find them. -No, you're the only one who said "blue". -I never. -Yuh-huh. Look! [ quote=thefirstperson]Blue.[ /quote] -Right. You said blue, just like I said. etc.

Friends of mine were in a similar position. She married, had a child, and was widowed after a very short time, a year or so. She then married her deceased husband's best friend. How would it be to be married to a woman who is sealed to another man (your close friend, to boot), whose child you have legally adopted and yet "belongs" not to you but to him -- and, if our understanding of the doctrine is correct, YOUR OWN CHILDREN are born, not in your covenant, but that of your wife and her first husband? I don't know. But I do know that God is good, kind, and just. I do not believe, even for a moment, that a righteous man who marries a woman, loves her and cares for her and her children, and brings children into the world with her, will be relegated to some sort of divine consolation prize.

That really isn't very fair, anne. If you make a claim, you should be willing to back it up or else retract it. You are always free to say, "Nah, I don't want to", but that's not very nice, nor is it conducive to the discussion. And it's quite unfair for you to tell those who dispute your claim to go back and dig up the evidence that you're right. That's your job, not theirs.

Huh? I never said any such thing.

My oldest, now 19, is leaving on his mission in a few weeks. We homeschooled him from his earliest childhood. Stories like these had very little to do with our decision -- though I admit it certainly does provide confirmation bias.

And here I thought it was going to be in Meridian, Idaho. Oh, wait...

Did I suggest otherwise?

On the contrary, the brother of Jared saw the finger of God, fell down in fear, then was granted the privilege of seeing the premortal Christ. Read all about it. Ironically, the appearance itself of the Lord to brother of Jared did not prove that God has a body, since the Lord was in his premortal state and, thus, a being of spirit. But the Lord did tell the brother of Jared that he would take upon himself a body of flesh, and that "even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh." This particular passage does not say anything about the physicality of the Father, however.

I'm pretty sure that MoE stated he didn't feel the Spirit while working in the temple. I find this statement slightly unusual, perhaps, but hardly scandalous. He did follow up by saying he felt the Spirit greatly after he had finished. I'm just not seeing what is so inappropriately personal or horrific about this.

How is it off topic, s_i_f? Your original post was about the propriety of public prayer, and your first example was of praying in the celestial room. Then you asked what people thought, and people have been giving their thoughts. This thread seems perfectly on topic. I don't understand why some feel the need to close down threads for being "off-topic" when they clearly are not.