Vort

Few of us will have seen it, for the reasons LM gives. Those Latter-day Saints who have seen it will almost uniformly say what a great musical it is, how entertaining and clever, and so forth. If they are willing to financially support a production that openly mocks and makes sport of things they claim to hold sacred, it goes without saying that they 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. My opinion of such people is little different from my opinion of the musical itself. I think the two are a matched set and were made for each other. I can sympathize with many a weakness, but I have almost no tolerance for disloyalty.

Interesting article, but the fact that it was authored by Lavina Fielding Anderson greatly reduces its value, in my estimation.

How cruel! The poor victim certainly was not laughing when his butt got blown off. If I were him, I would take advantage of the opportunity to show my wife the wound dressing and say, "Does this make my butt look big?"

But, FT, our point is: You may well regret such ignorance. Better to be overinformed than underinformed. Better to avoid a marriage that you decide you don't want than to go into it, find out some ugly history, then decide to end it (or stay married in bitter resentment).

While I don't always agree with Orson Scott Card, I agree with him more often than not. More than that, I admire his ability to express himself clearly and unambiguously. This is never so apparent as in this column in the Deseret News. I encourage all to read it, especially those non-Latter-day-Saints who may have fretted over their LDS acquaintances' strange beliefs in deification. EDIT: I just made a correction. I had misread the date as 1 December and assumed it was published today. In fact, the date is 7 December 2007, so it is nothing like a "new" column. But I still think it's a good one.

Perhaps not. But what if his response is, "I don't want to marry a woman who has done such things"? Doesn't he have the right to make that decision based on the way things actually are? Should he instead go into a marriage blind to the realities preceding it?

With a name like "May Grace"?

I think mormonmusic nailed the right attitude in this case. You should listen to anything she feels the need to tell you and use that information to deepen your understanding of the woman and of her viewpoint. However uncomfortable it might make you, now is the time for you to be the adult, listen patiently, and understand deeply. Honestly, if you can't do that much, you may wish to reconsider marrying her. I guarantee that, as her husband, you will be hearing a whole lot more (about a bunch of other topics, if not about her partying days).

So there is at least one other person on this board who recognizes "data" as a plural.

Your husband needs to admit his infidelity and face up to it, rather than try to minimize it. Until he does that, things won't go very far. When he is willing to admit what he did and address it, things can start getting better.

Makes sense. No apology necessary.

The problem I see is that the laying on of hands is itself a Priesthood form. As we know, God will not be mocked. Those who exercise Priesthood forms without authority (or authorization) put themselves in the position of mocking sacred things. For this reason, I think a non-authorized person (such as a non-Priesthood holder) should not parrot the Priesthood form of laying on of hands, even if done explicitly as a non-Priesthood function. I believe this was based on an actual experience of Mary Fielding Smith, widow of Hyrum and mother of (President) Joseph F. Smith. I think that the point was that she exercised marvelous faith to produce a miracle, not that her mistaken use of a Priesthood form, and on an animal, no less, should necessarily be emulated by others.

I think PC is probably correct. Consider this small but relevant piece of pure LDS doctrine, from Doctrine and Covenants 130:3: John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false. Accusing us of denying Jesus because we reject the sectarian idea of God "dwelling in our hearts" is as absurd as asking if you have quit raping your son yet, absent any evidence that you ever did so in the first place. Which was exactly my point. And as usual, Dravin's response is spot-on.

You may have enjoyed Justice's explanation, but as I pointed out, it is not doctrinally sound. I think Dravin's response gave the most correct answer yet to what you're asking, unsatisfying though you may have found it.

I do not know the answer to this, but I suspect that yes, we do have such a responsibility. Suppose X and Y, both LDS, are fornicating with each other. X then observes Y performing Priesthood ordinances at Church, or perhaps attending temple sessions (that X does not attend, knowing herself to be unworthy). She must, of course, confess to her bishop and seek to make things right. Must she also "out" Y as an adulterer? Yes, I think she must, and not merely as a by-product of her own confession. She knows him to be unworthy; I think she has a duty to protect the integrity of Priesthood ordinances against someone who would mock God by performing them unworthily. This does not mean it is our responsibility to police everyone else, of course. But if for whatever reason we have actual knowledge of unworthiness and we see that person performing duties for which we know him/her to be unworthy, I believe we are duty-bound to let our leaders know what we know. Once we have given them the knowledge, the onus is on them and our duty fulfilled. At least, that's what I think about the topic today.

For what it's worth, I agree with everything you wrote above (except for the "trichotomy principle", which I have never heard of -- but I agree with the logic of the explanation you provide).

Sorry, Justice. This is simply false. D&C 29:34 reads: Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created. God is a God of spirit, and we must worship him in Spirit and in truth (John 4:24). As for "heavenly Mother", besides the bare fact that she exists, we know nothing at all about her. Nothing. At. All. Without any doubt whatsoever, this is by design. On this topic, my firm conviction is that speculation is most unwise. This is no type of gospel doctrine. It is pure, unadulterated speculation, and one with a slight startrekkian odor to it. You are welcome to such space doctrine, if you choose to pursue it, but please do not mistake it for revealed truth.

Actually, I think that was somewhat her point. If I interpret her correctly, she was saying: You can't just assume that a given treatment option (e.g. hospital birth) is the correct one in all situations, so people should not be immediately condemned just because they choose a nontraditional path. And when others bring statistics up as a justification for their condemnation, those statistics are not always meaningful. For example, 33% of her children died in hospital births, but 0% died in home births. Does that mean hospital births are more dangerous than home births and should therefore always be avoided?

s_i_f, I wrote: "Any other explanation, from the idea that men are inherently superior over women (and thus hold the Priesthood because of that innate superiority) to the idea that men are inherently inferior to women (and thus hold the Priesthood to make up for that innate deficiency), is pure speculation and should be ignored." Unsurprisingly, the next four responses (all men) proved my point: Consider: Jesus Christ himself held the Priesthood. Is it because the Lord was deficient and immature, and needed it to learn how to serve? Consider: During his mortal tenure, Jesus ordained not one woman to the Priesthood. Not one. Are we truly to assume that there were no women of his acquaintance who were selfish or petty or in need of guidance, direction, authority, and process? No women who were natural abusers of power? No women who were weak and unwise? s_i_f, as you begin to reject the idea that women do not hold the Priesthood because they are somehow inferior to men, please do not accept the equally false (and equally poisonous) lie that men do hold the Priesthood because they are somehow inferior to women. Reject all such ideas. Such a belief will not help you in any way, now or in the future.

There is no controversy about the topic among those who enjoy the Spirit. There may be various opinions, but controversy exists only among those who deny the Spirit and try to change doctrines they don't like by attempting to rally grassroots support, as if administrative decisions in the kingdom of God were an initiative to be passed by popular vote. Women are indeed a part of the Priesthood. The highest order of the Priesthood that has been revealed to us is the New and Everlasting Covenant (sometimes casually called "temple marriage" or "eternal marriage"), and that order is entered only by a man and a woman jointly. The wife is as much a part of that supernal order as the husband, even though she does not "hold" the Priesthood in the same sense her husband does. I do not agree with those who equate Priesthood with motherhood, but I do think it's instructive to ask a somewhat parallel question to yours: "What is it about men that makes them 'unfit' to be mothers?" Of course, the question itself is faulty. Men are not 'unfit' to be mothers; rather, they simply are not the right type to be mothers. In a similar sense, women are not 'unfit' to hold the Priesthood; rather, Priesthood is held by men. The safest and most obvious answer is: Because that is how God has ordained it. Any other explanation, from the idea that men are inherently superior over women (and thus hold the Priesthood because of that innate superiority) to the idea that men are inherently inferior to women (and thus hold the Priesthood to make up for that innate deficiency), is pure speculation and should be ignored. Hope that helps.

This is a great example of how people get to choose their spouse for whatever reasons they want, or reject potential mates for whatever reason they want. It is laughably absurd to accuse someone of being "shallow" because he doesn't want to marry someone for being heavy, or short, or dark-skinned, or blonde, or having crooked teeth or unusual body odor, or being left-handed, or having a facial tic or ANY OTHER REASON, NO MATTER HOW TRIVIAL IT MAY SEEM. I have little doubt that, in the eternities, we will view many personality "deficiencies" as being just as trivial and unimportant as we now view weight or skin color. The fact is, we don't really know what's at work in such selections, even with ourselves. There are deep psychological and spiritual factors that we often cannot even glimpse that may well manifest themselves as a seemingly irrational attraction or disattraction (if I may coin the word). The best bet is to teach correct principles on the topic and then let people make their own decision, without hounding them for "shallowness" or "immaturity". I'll tell you what, if a guy doesn't like blondes, I hope he stays well away from my daughter and doesn't decide to "settle" for her in an attempt to rise above his "shallowness". Please, Future Guy Who Might Date My Daughter, do us all a big favor and ask out the brunette instead.

Thanks for the forgiveness, but if I wished to take back my words, I would simply delete them. The words stand as a demonstration of the illogic of what you said.

When you are talking about experimental proof, there is no "agree to disagree". Either an experiment demonstrates something or it does not. That is the nature of experimental proof. There is no squishy middle ground.

The experiment "proved" no such thing. By claiming it did, you betray the fact that you really don't understand what's going on. (Or that you are intentionally misrepresenting things -- but I choose to believe you are honest and simply misguided rather than lying.)

What? Moi? Choosing my words poorly? Unthinkable!