Vort

I agree that God is a God of order. Nevertheless, remember Paul lamenting how "now we see through a glass, darkly". Many divine things are hidden from us in this state. The doctrine of the veil of forgetfulness illustrates that God actively keeps things from us until his own due time has arrived to accomplish his purposes. A&A stole my Pauline thunder. I guess I should have read further. Not a single point I made above was not made earlier, and probably better, than my effort. Story of my life.

I don't believe the Priesthood is "jointly held", any more than e.g. motherhood is "jointly held". Men have parental responsibilities, just as women do. But "motherhood" is not synonymous with "parenthood". Just so, I believe that "Priesthood" is not synonymous with "acting in God's name and with his authority". As has often been pointed out, women act under Priesthood assignment and in God's name, but that is not the same as holding the Priesthood. I think it's worth noting that the highest (known?) "order" of the Priesthood, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, requires both a man and a woman. Without the woman, that order does not even exist. But again, holding the Priesthood seems different to me from being a member of its highest order. I am not even sure exactly what it actually means to "hold the Priesthood", but I feel confident that it does mean something. Whatever it means, it seems to apply only to worthy men.

By definition, angels are messengers from God. Angelic visitations recorded in scripture are almost always to prophets and devout believers (with Paul, Alma, and the sons of Mosiah standing out as stark exceptions). These visitations seem to me to have the quality of a Priesthood assignment, which might therefore be considered a Priesthood responsibility. This would explain why the angels we read of in these visitations are male.

I posted this to the thread 5½ years ago, but it's still as relevant and funny as ever.

A Neapolitan friend told me about this a week or two ago. I believe she's a pizza con ananas aficionada. There aren't many in Naples.

"To me, this is like a Wright brothers moment," said Walter de Heer, Regents' Professor of Physics at Georgia Techde, who led this development. Interestingly, this newly built tech could be used to advance quantum computing. Is everything written by AI these days? Is this the future we leave to our posterity? I'm cringing at the thought.

Note that this is the ecclesiastical full moon ("Paschal full moon"), not the astronomical full moon. In some (relatively rare) cases, this might not be the same date. The ecclesiastical full moon is a calculated point in time based on very old calculations, while the astronomical full moon is an actual event, a moment in time which can be calculated to a small fraction of a second. But again, these two moments are not (necessarily) the same day.

I'll have you know that when I graduated from high school at 18, I was a bit over 6'4" (193 cm) and weighed just under 165 pounds (75 kg). Zil's sketch may not have been flattering, but it's not a bad representation of what I looked like. Except for the wing. And my horns are not that prominent.

That's because he stutters. Any fellow stutterer immediately recognizes the coping mechanisms.

Some months ago, my seventeen-year-old told me that his classmates mock Elon Musk for being stupid. One, a close friend of his and a member of our ward, said that Musk isn't superrich because he's smart or innovative, but because he sells carbon credits. (My son and I shared a good laugh at the time, and several times since, at this idea. I'm going to miss him when he graduates from high school and leaves to serve his mission.) Since the time my son told me this, I have noticed this meme among many, that Musk is no genius, but rather the opposite. I have chalked it up to envy. But this morning I suddenly realized why this meme exists, this idea that arguably the most brilliant businessman and engineer of our time is actually an idiot. The perception of the Left is that they, those on the Left, are smart. Specifically, they are smarter—much, much smarter—than those on the Right. This is not merely a quiet, self-satisfied idea. This is absolutely central to the Left's self-perception. Left smart, Right stupid. Those on the Left are smart enough to see the benefit of [insert Leftist causes: socialist policies, destroying The Patriarchy, slavery reparations, tuition reimbursement, etc.]. And the reason those on the Right oppose the Left's policies is because they (those on the Right) are too stupid to perceive the benefits of those policies. Now, no rational person of sense and judgment considers Elon Musk a politically right-wing person. He's not, not in any real sense. But he's opposed to many left-wing causes. Therefore, by the Left's thinking, he's a right-wing Fascist. And being a part of the Right, he must therefore be Stupid. So how is he so rich? Because he's corrupt! That's why he's rich! Not because he is a hardcore businessman who invented new technologies and has worked extremely hard. That's all just a fluffy narrative written by his fellow right-wing devils. It is impossible for those on the Right to be smart, because they are not enlightened (or "woke"). Musk is a part of the hated Right, so it is impossible for Musk to be smart. So Musk isn't smart. So he's rich for some reason other than that he's smart. Absurd? Well, yes, this is utterly absurd. But the more I think about it and the more I reflect on comments I have heard, the more I realize that it is exactly this kind of thinking that is responsible for the meme of Musk's stupidity.

What if it's a different High Wizard, only they start getting convinced that maybe it's they that are wrong about the High Wizard? ...or maybe they really are wrong?

I fear this will get much worse before it gets any better. My own son was in such a stake and such a ward. He carefully recorded what happened and informed the area authorities, who seemed very sympathetic and sounded like they were going to take action. They took no action at all, except to release the stake president at the end of his ten years and then call the ward's bishop (who had been at the center of all the weirdness, not only in his own ward but in the stake), as the new stake president. My son left Chicago and now lives in Houston, so he's away from that particular cancer. But I have reason to believe it's not contained to a mere handful of stakes. Our general authorities need to learn some hard and important lessons about administration (and ministration) in a world-wide church of tens of millions of people. I wish I had some wisdom to offer them; sadly, I do not.

The Saints will be required to give all they have. All. There are no exceptions. Their fortune, their family, their very lives will be required at the hand of God. Just as certainly as Christ told the rich young man to give all he had to the poor and follow him, and just as surely as king Lamoni's father offered not only his sins, but all he had, even to forsake his kingdom—an offering he was in fact required to make—and just as surely as Christ required Amulek to forsake his fortune, his family, and his very life (only the last of which he was saved from), so Christ will require us to offer everything we have and everything we are on the altar of his worship. Those who fail to give all, those who value possessions or titles or honor or glory of the world or even their own parents or siblings or spouses or children above Christ, will lose their exaltation and will instead receive what they are willing to receive. Those who are faithful despite their own weaknesses and imperfection will gain all that the Father hath, and in the end they will find that they lost nothing—unless you consider the abandonment of venality, pridefulness, selfishness, and corruption to be a loss. Don't think you will escape the test of sacrifice. You will not. Embrace it. Thank God for it. Then live it.

Make sure you video it and let us see.

Just so we're all on the same page, I think @Jamie123 is talking about something like this:

There is a Facebook page corresponding to his claims, so this appears to be real. My first impulse was to doubt it was true; it reads too much like a Reddit post. But if it's false, someone has gone to a fair amount of trouble to make it look real.

I wrote a response to exactly this part. I deleted it before posting because I decided it didn't add much of value to the conversation. But this bothered me: If he's trying to live an LDS lifestyle and keep his covenants, why is he allowing himself to crush on a friend? If he actually cares about his friend, why wouldn't he celebrate (at least privately) when his friend reveals his heterosexuality? I mean, that's good news, right? If this young man is actively pursuing (or "exploring") his homosexual impulses, why on earth is he representing Christ and serving a mission? What kind of active, believing, testimony-holding Latter-day Saint young woman would approvingly nod at the idea of a friend's homosexual crush, then express disappointment because she thought the two of them would be "cute together"? It's not that I doubt that a young LDS woman could be so callow and immature as to say such a thing. I know better. But that is just, I don't know, despicable.

I read the whole thing, though I lightly skimmed through some parts. (It's 43 pages long. That's not a quick ten-minute read.) I had a lot of thoughts while reading it, a few positive, some negative, and many quite ambiguous. At the moment, I agree with mikbone: Not a fan. Not an enemy, but not a fan. The author went on about how wonderful that he didn't feel judged. He told about the first seven hundred times he "came out", and every report was positive. Then he mentioned one time when he was talking (or texting, or somehow communicating) with a guy who asked an eminently reasonable question: Would a gay couple who adopted a child be likely to try to convince that child to follow a homosexual lifestyle, like their own? The author's snarky response was: "In a world where conversion therapy exists, gay people would not do that." This is a snarky, contemptuous response, not an honest answer to a perfectly good question. It's also false. Which world is it where conversion therapy exists? Not in the world of the western democracies such as the US, where conversion therapy is openly frowned on and even illegal. So this is a bullcrap answer just from a perspective of an honest representation of reality. Assuming for the moment that conversion therapy in the US is actually a viable option (it is not), are we really expected to believe that all homosexual couples literally would not teach their children to pursue and value intimate homosexual relationships because of the threat of conversion therapy? This is absurd. No one with an IQ above tap water temperature would believe this. I openly and enthusiastically tried to model a good, healthy, heterosexual relationship to my children and let them know what a fulfilling thing I thought my relationship to be. But we're supposed to believe that conscientious homosexual couples would never, ever do the same with their children? Well, but this is a young man, not even yet of missionary age, who has no experience with adult topics like child rearing, so he can't be blamed for spouting of some ridiculous stuff. We all do it. ...eh, maybe. I've certainly said my share of stupid things, so it's hard to point the finger of blame. But consider that this is not an off-the-cuff discussion list post. Rather, it is a carefully considered, very long essay designed to present his ideas and beliefs to the world in what I can only assume to be an attempt at a positive way. Inviting honest dialog and then responding with contempt to an honest question does not offer a positive portrayal. The topic, given so much front-and-center attention in our society for the past two decades, may elicit a knee-jerk negative response from many who, like myself, are really tired of hearing nonstop blaring about the evils of those who do not wholeheartedly embrace homosexuality and who continue the benighted, unforgivably hateful practice of considering homosexual intimacy to be a violation of God's will and a destructive, harmful practice. (So much for tolerance from the homosexual lobby. What ever happened to live and let live?) On the other hand, as I read the essay, I considered how I would feel and how I would respond if he had been my son. I concluded I would probably have responded as his parents did, because what else am I supposed to do? Cut my beloved child off? Tell him I think he's horrid? Withdraw from him and leave him to his problems? I see no other choice than to hold him, kiss him, and tell him that I love him and admire his wonderful qualities that I have enjoyed since he was born. And if he began following the path that this young man seems to be taking, what am I to do then? If I have misgivings about what he's doing, maybe I tell him if he asks my opinion. But I'm no expert on homosexuality (and I don't recognize anyone else's supposed expertise on the matter). I do not understand the spiritual roots of homosexuality. I don't understand the biological roots of homosexuality, though I'm of the impression that prenatal cerebral development is an important factor. In the end, I suppose that I would likely see no other choice than to offer my son love and encouragement, and make sure he understood both that I love him (and that would not change) and that I believe what has been shown to me by God and the Spirit (and that would not change, either). The OP's question was about "the forum's opinion [as if there is only one consensus opinion] on this type of belief system and behavior from an active missionary." My opinion is that a belief system that adopts homosexual practice as acceptable is wrong, though I don't see that is necessarily what has happened in this case, and that this behavior (that is, writing and publishing an open letter like this) strikes me as greatly unwise and potentially troublesome for the rest of one's life—though if, as he seems to suggest, this has actually been encouraged or approved by those with authority in these matters, then I guess I can't really raise an objection to it. I believe that if I were the father, I would counsel my son not to expose himself publicly like this, because it would raise issues that would follow him for the rest of his life.

The very best way to hear the word of God is to ask a bunch of random people on the streets.

Not sure if you meant what you typed or the opposite. I'm thinking you meant the opposite. My mother-in-law is from Alsace, between France and Germany. (It's part of France, but on the border of Germany.) The Alsatian language is a German dialect, but the people strongly consider themselves French and definitely not German. My mother-in-law was a girl, maybe six, when the Nazis invaded France. Her older sister, my wife's aunt "Tata", was kidnapped and unspeakably abused by the Germans, and spent the rest of her life unmarried and unable to conceive children (and mostly unable to form intimate attachments, especially with men). My mother-in-law was not kidnapped, but was forced to participate in the Hitler Youth. Her father was made to serve the military, though I don't remember in what capacity. It was a five-year-long living nightmare. My mother-in-law is currently in her final months or weeks, and looking back on her life, she was very seriously negatively affected by her experiences. They changed her life and the lives of her parents and (especially) sister very much for the worse. Those evils live on in the lives of her children, especially of my wife's older sister (who died suddenly a week ago) and of her daughters. It is easy, and largely correct, to comment on how evil many of the Allied soldiers and governments were, participating in war profiteering and positioning themselves for power positions and payouts after defeating Germany. But it is very difficult to overstate the evils of Naziism to those involved. Though to be fair, my mother-in-law often noted that many of the German soldiers were kind to her, even solicitous. But not the SS or the officers.

Happy, sad, or thumbs-up. I'm going with the second, but it could be any of the above. Hope your wife enjoys the service. Hope you do, too.

When I was young, I heard that the Canadian singer Gordon Lightfoot was an eighth Crow Indian or something like that. Only a year or two ago, I learned (from listening to Lightfoot himself) that he had no American Indian blood at all that he knew of, and that his surname was actually from the north of England.

I didn't grow up in the East of the US, so a lot of this "melting pot/immigrant" stuff that I have heard about and seen portrayed on the screen is not a part of my own experience. I can imagine people of my generation saying something about "the Mexican lady down the street", but in that case it would probably be in reference to an actual Mexican woman, someone literally from Mexico rather than just of Mexican descent.

I don't understand. What does Jamie's question, which was whether an American of German descent would ever be referred to as a German (the answer being "probably not"), have to do with the Baby Boomers' supposed penchant for referring to their friends with ethnic jokes and stereotypes (which I as a very late-born Boomer have never seen)?

I was thinking more along the lines of the eminent scientist Klaus Fuchs.