Vort

I think we show a lack of awareness of both sexuality and sexual social mores in ancient societies that prohibited extramarital sexual contact. A woman's primary virtue was her virginity, so much so that even today among the Saints, the term "virtue" is synonymous with "chastity", and sometimes even "virginity". (Not that I like this identification, but unfortunately, I don't get to make the rules about how people use language.) Any time an unmarried woman in such a society was found to have engaged in sexual intercourse, she would plead rape if she could. (Still happens today, folks, and in fact is not that uncommon.) The result was a social understanding: A young woman could plead "rape" and society would sort of wink at her indiscretion. The rape could not be proven, so the man (if he was known) could not be punished for rape. And since most societies put a premium on male libido, the man might even be more respected among his peers for his sexual conquest. In such a case, both parties could essentially walk away with a relative minimum of damage. In such a situation, even the very concept of "rape" changes dramatically, both from the male and from the female perspective. Of course, because female sexual conquest was considered ugly and perverted rather than the sort of wink-and-nod positive granted to male sexual conquest, the woman took the brunt of whatever social punishment befell the couple. But the alternative -- branding a man a rapist and executing him for the crime, even if the sex was consensual -- was deemed even more repugnant. The unfortunate consequence was that women really did get raped, but since they were unlikely to be vindicated when coming forward, they typically just kept quiet about it. (The modern western feminist movement, largely a vomitous, anti-family collection of man-haters, actually hit the nail squarely on the head in pointing this out. Of course, they perverted it into the feminist doctrine "A woman claiming rape never, ever, ever lies," demonstrating that feminist organizations and spokeswomen ought never to be trusted. But that's another issue.) Now, I realize that few (probably none) of us on this discussion list subscribe to these mores, and it all sounds pretty perverted and tawdry. I certainly neither subscribe to nor support such mores. I am a westerner and have a much more western (and LDS) view of femininity, sexuality, and the responsibilities of each sex toward the other. But the point is, when reading such a story, we ought to withhold judgment a bit and realize that these people are coming at the issue from an entirely foreign perspective -- and that our view is just as alien to them as their view is to us. In such a society, marriage to the rapist may well be the best option open to all parties.

I reject the idea of sin being a score below some threshold on a divine morality test, just as I reject sin being a list of items we must not do. Sin is knowingly acting in defiance of God's will, or knowingly failing to do what one knows God desires. Any time we have agency, by definition we can choose wrongly -- else we have no agency. That is sin. This is false. I never said anything remotely resembling this. You do not comprehend the nature of the Holy Ghost, something that has not been publicly revealed and is not likely to be revealed in the near future. So asking about personal characteristics of the Holy Ghost is a non-starter in every case.

Do you live in Oregon, Hala?

Nah. I wasn't referring to you at all, Dravin.

Perhaps I'm wrong -- I haven't followed the thread that closely and don't intend to go reread it -- but I thought his point was that Joseph Smith translated the Bible. Someone objected to this terminology, claiming that the Prophet didn't translate it. I pointed out that the Prophet called it a "translation", and it is still referred to as such in the LDS edition of the scriptures. The thread then took a rather silly turn, with people arguing what constituted "translation". I'm all for linguistic precision, except when the Lord or his servants use a word in a non-standard way or context and someone feels the need to prove his brilliance by calling the prophets or the Lord to task for their shameless abuse of the Queen's English. At that point, I pretty much lose all sympathy for the complainer.

This is the first season I've missed. Kind of busy, kind of uninterested in TUF. Waiting for Bones Jones...

I deny everything. I'm pretty sure I could lose my temple recommend for that.

The milkman looks like .

I expect people to flock to the atheists' organization in droves because of their awesome crucified skeleton Santa display.

“The devil is a gentleman who never goes where he is not welcome.”—John A. Lincoln

Good riddance to WorldStart, I say.

Don't apologize for calling Joseph Smith's Bible work a "translation", Justice. Joseph Smith himself referred to it as that. The current LDS edition of the scriptures refers to it as the "Joseph Smith Translation". If others want to quibble and whine that the Prophet's efforts don't fit their own definition of "translation" closely enough to suit them, let them whine.

Elder Oaks explained this seemingly contradictory phenomenon in our use of "thou" in prayer: Modern English has no special verbs or pronouns that are intimate, familiar, or honorific. When we address prayers to our Heavenly Father in English, our only available alternatives are the common words of speech like you and your or the dignified but uncommon words like thee, thou, and thy which were used in the King James Version of the Bible almost five hundred years ago. Latter-day Saints, of course, prefer the latter. In our prayers we use language that is dignified and different, even archaic. [...] The special language of prayer that Latter-day Saints use in English has sometimes been explained by reference to the history of the English language. It has been suggested that thee, thou, thy, and thine are simply holdovers from forms of address once used to signify respect for persons of higher rank. But more careful scholarship shows that the words we now use in the language of prayer were once commonly used by persons of rank in addressing persons of inferior position. These same English words were also used in communications between persons in an intimate relationship. There are many instances where usages of English words have changed over the centuries. But the history of English usage is not the point. Scholarship can contradict mortal explanations, but it cannot rescind divine commands or inspired counsel. In our day the English words thee, thou, thy, and thine are suitable for the language of prayer, not because of how they were used anciently but because they are currently obsolete in common English discourse. Being unused in everyday communications, they are now available as a distinctive form of address in English, appropriate to symbolize respect, closeness, and reverence for the one being addressed. Reasoning for prayer is very different from reasoning for scriptures, however. For scriptures, I vastly prefer the KJV over any other version, if for nothing else than that it does use "thou", "thee", and "thy/thine". Consider the following New American Standard Version rendering of the Lord's words to Peter in Luke 22:31-32: Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers. Who does Satan desire to "sift...like wheat"? Peter? The apostles? For whom has Jesus prayed? Not really clear in this translation. Now, compare the KJV's beautiful version: And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Here we can clearly see what's going on: Satan desires to have "you" -- that is, Christ's disciples -- but Jesus has prayed "for thee" -- Peter, personally -- who is then personally commissioned to "strengthen [his] brethren". How vastly more impressive is this revelation of the Lord regarding his personal care for Peter and subsequent expectations! The NIV does a reasonable job of preserving this meaning: Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers. but, in my estimation, it preserves overall meaning at the cost of a clunky and ungraceful phraseology.

I pretty much agreed with you until this point. Suggesting that marrying outside the temple, especially due to fornication, is some sort of risk avoidance procedure strikes me as the very opposite of what we are taught. There is safety in making and keeping covenants. All things being equal, marrying for time only is always a worse alternative than marrying worthily in the temple. The only possible exception might be people already sealed to other (deceased) spouses. I could agree that a time-only marriage might be the best alternative available, certainly better than continuing to fornicate. But to suggest that a time-only marriage somehow avoids "the up-front risks" of eternal marriage seems not merely a short-sighted attitude, but a dangerous one.

anatess appears to have taken my words very personally, and not in a way I intended them. The fault is to a large degree my own; I did not write as clearly as I might have. Though of course anatess is perfectly welcome to continue hating me and saying nasty things, as others have done and will continue to do, I want to clarify my meaning. Better to be despised for what I actually meant than for something I didn't mean. In my quote above, the bolded words ("such people") appear to refer to those referenced at the beginning of the preceding paragraph, namely, "Those Latter-day Saints who have seen [the musical under discussion]." This is the natural interpretation, especially since I essentially made an equivalence between those Latter-day Saints who watched (and, implicitly, enjoyed) the musical and those who "want to see it as positive, and want to let everyone else know how open-minded and non-uptight they are in appreciating such a great artistic endeavor." It is the latter group -- those who insist on letting everyone know how open-minded and non-uptight they are in appreciating the musical under discussion because they want to be viewed that way -- whom I perceive as being disloyal. Merely enjoying the musical under discussion does not, in my estimation, necessarily make one a member of the disloyal group, notwithstanding the fact that I made the equivalency. I might question the taste of any Latter-day Saint who allows himself or herself to enjoy a mocking diatribe against the restored gospel, but I do not question their loyalty based on that point alone. Okay, anatess, go ahead and continue your blast of hatred. I'm sorry for it, because I haven't known you to be like that, but I accept it. Please just make sure it's because of what I actually believe rather than because of what you think I believe based on my poorly worded previous post.

Welcome home, Brother Ray.

You take the sacrament every week. How can eating a tiny piece of bread and drinking a little cup of water matter when the Savior is the Savior? God gives us truths in symbolism to allow us to learn to understand things that we don't have words or ideas for in our normal language and lives. If you think the temple endowment is all about robes and tokens, you are entirely missing the point. These symbolic elements are important, even necessary, but not because they secure salvation in themselves -- any more than a tiny piece of bread and sip of water have any saving power in themselves.

My own weaknesses and self-betrayals. By far.

The primary duty of a missionary is to bring people to Christ through baptism. A missionary is not called to be a friend to everyone, at least not in the normal sense of the word. A friend is there for you to help you, even when you are not walking the path he thinks you should walk. A missionary, in contrast, should be there to help those in need, but focuses his time on those who benefit from his efforts. A missionary is a spiritual guide, and there is no use in "guiding" people who don't want to go where you're guiding them. That said, your description does sound like the missionaries may be a bit overzealous in "pushing" you toward baptism. Baptism is your decision, not theirs. So if you've said, "I don't want to get baptized right away because I'm dealing with a few things in life," and their response is, "Then we won't come teach you any more," that sounds like something is fishy. Not sure what, though. Internet-based diagnoses of personal difficulties are notoriously inexact. I want to encourage you in your efforts, but I don't want to condemn missionaries I've never even met based on a short, anonymous note on an internet forum, either. I'd say you should just keep pushing on, be honest with the missionaries, let them make whatever decision they feel they should. Pray, read the scriptures, and maybe get back in touch with mormon.org missionaries, if that goes better for you. Missionaries typically serve in an area only for a few months at a time, so soon enough there will be other missionaries in your area.

You mean "interpreted"? Yes, they are angels.

The point is that they are scriptures that say that angels have wings.

All such taxes that I'm aware of tax the marginal amounts, so that you only pay (using the example above) 50% of your earnings above $50 million. Not that I'm trying to defend such tax schemes, but they ought to be understood and criticized for what they are rather than for what they aren't.

You know, in my 48+ years in the Church, from infancy to middle age, I do not believe I have ever felt the need to report anyone else's activities to the bishop -- except for one time on my mission, which I detailed in a post a month or two ago. In retrospect, I wish I had not told the district presidency member what I did. I wish I had kept my mouth shut and written a letter to the mission president, letting him deal with it. Definitely not my greatest moment, but I did the best I knew how at the time. I admit to my own naivete and the blessings of having lived in really exceptional wards, so my experience may not generalize as well as others. But except for that one occurrence on my mission, I have never found need of sharing my concerns with the bishop about anyone else's spiritual state, in almost a half century of active Church membership. If this is something that some people feel the need of on a regular basis, my own suspicion is that the problem lies with them and not with the people they're reporting on.

Incorrect. The fact that Elder Maxwell's book is quoted demonstrates that the institute manual is not attempting to announce doctrinal interpretation. Rather, it provides the standard interpretations given through the years. This may seem a small point, but it is not. We do not believe in the inerrancy of tradition, as for example Catholicism tends to do. More or less. Of course, I would not put it in those terms. If you believe the First Presidency personally reads through every manual and carefully cross-checks its facts and doctrinal presentation, you probably have a naive view of how the First Presidency spends its precious time. And you are free to conclude whatever you want. But of course, neither my beliefs nor your conclusions establish truth.

Actor's motto: "Every time a line gets flubbed, somewhere a baby seal gets clubbed."