Vort

Welcome. What is "an A-level Religious Education student"?

Or: Approaching Zion by Preston Nibley while a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles Or how about: Doctrinal New Testament Commentary by Joseph F. McConkie while in the First Presidency Reminds me of: Or better yet:

This is false. This is questionable. Such a thing has never been done. So far as I know, scripture becomes "authoritative" in the administrative sense when it is presented to and accepted by the body of the Church, something that has not been done since 1978. Of course, scripture becomes "authoritative" in the spiritual sense when the Holy Ghost testifies of it, which has nothing to do with First Presidency approval. Incorrect. These are the "standard works" of the Church and the only standing scripture we accept, but they do not completely define "official doctrine". For example, certainly what is done in the temple must be considered "official doctrine of the Church", yet many of the specifics of temple ordinances are found nowhere in scripture.

We had a spelling bee in the fourth grade covering our assigned vocabulary words...which I literally never studied. (Just an early example of Vort's poor academic hygiene.) The word I was given was "aloud", which I dutifully spelled "A-L-L-O-W-E-D". I was humiliated to have to sit down, but I knew I had spelled it right. The teacher realized what had happened within a few seconds, explained the situation to me and the rest of the class, and let me back in the competition. (I felt relieved and vindicated, and was somewhat pleased with myself -- at least until I got the next word, which I legitimately misspelled. D'oh.)

The only limit is yourself!

Quite the opposite. You are new to the community, so you will be welcomed with open arms. The ward members will likely think, "What a find!" I hear many complain of just the opposite: That they can't go back to their ward because everyone knows them, so they would be embarrassed. Seize the opportunity that a new ward presents of making a fresh start.

The fact that God does not presently treat abortion as murder does not mean that he does not see abortion as murder. This is a faulty inference on your part.

The basic organizational unit of the Church is and always has been the stake, ever since stakes were first introduced. Even today, the full program of the Church is experienced only within a stake. Districts and missions are ersatz stakes at best. As you know, the Melchizedek Priesthood must be present in any organized congregation. For this reason, elders are ordained in missions and districts. But the only regularly ordained high priest in a mission is the mission president himself; all other Priesthood holders are elders, unless a high priest or patriarch happens to relocate into the mission boundaries. Since all Priesthood actions take place on a local (branch or district) level, it makes sense that the quorums exist at the local level, as well. Once a stake is formed, a lot of men are ordained high priests. This is because the office of high priest is required for all Priesthood leadership positions within the stake, aside from non-high-priest-quorum presidencies. The high priests always function on a stake level within their callings as high priests. (They can, of course, be called to local-level callings, but that is not explicitly a high priest calling.) Thus, to my mind, it is only reasonable that the high priests quorum exist on a stake level. It would make no sense for the quorum to exist at the level of individual wards. On the contrary, elders always function on a local level within their callings. Thus, it is reasonable that the elders quorum, like the various Aaronic Priesthood quorums, exists at the ward level. Btw, speaking to john doe's point: In my experience, the number of active high priests in a typical ward is roughly equal to the number of active elders. There may be a slight preponderance of elders, but I don't think it's a hugely disparate number outside of student-heavy wards.

Mission AP married a sister missionary who served with us. I believe he's a dentist now in Issaquah, and as far as I know they have been very happy. As long as you are not actively looking for a spouse during your mission service, I cannot see anything bad about marrying another missionary who served with you. I briefly dated a cute, highly intelligent, and very friendly girl who had served as a sister missionary in my mission and whom I had considered a pretty good friend -- as much as you can be friends with an opposite-sex missionary in your mission. Never saw the problem with it, then or now.

A couple of thoughts: The fact that public schools educate children using some certain system does not mean you must, or should, use the same system. I see no reason to have a formal classroom period with little desks for the children to sit at, for example. Find and use what works well for your family. Home schooling should be as natural as breathing. It's communal schooling that is artificial, not home schooling. Let that work to your advantage. Consider your home school to be simply a natural outgrowth of your family time and relationships. Just as family time is not 100% sweetness and light, neither will home schooling so be. That does not mean you have failed. And just as you need to figure out how your family dynamic responds to various situations, the same is true with your home school. Home schooling is not a walk in the park. It is much easier to farm the kids off to tax-funded daycares and let them assume the responsibility for teaching your children how to read and how to be good people. You do it yourself, not because it's easier -- it certainly is not -- but because the rewards to your children and your family greatly outweigh the difficulty of the added complexity to your life. Don't give up! If it's something you want to do, don't throw in the towel. Lots of people stand ready to help you. Look for local home schooling groups who can give you support.

You know what? I don't hold you in contempt. But I do hold in contempt the attitude that Joseph Smith (or "JS") was an ignorant amateur who just did not understand all the sophisticated nuances of interpersonal relationships that you do. What makes you think that your understanding either of Priesthood keys or of the administration of the kingdom of God is sufficient for you to offer criticism of how the Church is organized? Do you seriously believe that it is your place to offer a public lecture on how Priesthood keys should be distributed? Because I, personally, don't. To me, it seems rather disloyal.

Again, because the stake president is the president of the high priests quorum. You cannot have a high priests quorum president at the ward level, because the high priests quorum does not exist at the ward level. It is a stake-level quorum. Yes, I understand that you think you are much more intelligent and spiritually in tune than old "JS". Not everyone agrees, though. And in the end, your opinion and two bucks will buy you a cup of hot chocolate at Starbucks.

They hit him with a spike chain? Wouldn't that leave marks?

Please point out to me the scriptural passages warning us against blind obedience to the prophets. Recent (say, within the last fifty years) General Conference teachings establishing this important point are equally acceptable.

The reason is that he presides over the quorum of high priests. The presiding authority always has the keys. They are what makes him the presiding authority.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (1 Cor 2:9) Them Mahrmans wership "Uh Diffrunt Jesus®".

Also a second time in that same General Conference by Kevin R. Duncan.

I can tell you from personal experience that this is a bad idea. I tried it on my mission once, and my companion just looked at me funny and then requested a transfer.

Every time I see this thread title, I think of something like this:

Your Priesthood line of authority is not personal like a patriarchal blessing. As MoE says, it is perfectly acceptably, even necessary, to share it. When you ordain someone, you need to give him your line of authority, because now it's his. Of course, if you go bragging about this or that person in your line of authority, people will look at you funny and wonder if you brag about who makes your socks, too. And since Jesus Christ is atop the list in any case, other names pretty much pale in comparison, no matter who they are.

Yes, you can go back. You have made some mistakes, even some rather serious mistakes, but you have done nothing that you cannot repent of. If only perfect people were allowed to go to Church, the Church would just stand empty. It's a long and very joyful journey, but you can't make that journey until you get on the path. Go get back on the path and start along again with your fellow travelers. We'll be glad to see you. :)

Just out of curiosity: Without looking back at that conversation, tell me what you think my (Vort's) part in that exchange was and how I reacted to what you wrote. Again, just out of curiosity: Do you think me part of that "core group of people"? For the record, I think you're being paranoid. I doubt there is any "core group" here who dislikes you. I would be surprised if there is even one person on this list who actually dislikes you, much less a "core group".

Not really. He was given a second-hand report. In retrospect, it seems obvious that he should have pushed harder, but at the time he did exactly what he was required to do. College sports is all about compliance with rules, and when you get in that mindset, it can be difficult to step outside it. Paterno himself says that in retrospect he wishes he had done more. But his firing is pure political posturing. It does not help the raped little boy, it does not help the school, it does not help the justice system. It's a political reaction against the outrage caused by the appalling accusation. Frankly, it's cowardly, and I'm disgusted with my alma mater's reaction. Or at least, the reaction of the board.

Which option better represents your views on Joe Paterno's firing?