Vort

And Acts 5:5, 10.

This is true. As I wrote, I am not a moderator. I simply gave my opinion, which might have been somewhat misconstrued. I have no objection to discussion of doctrine or doctrinal differences. I do object, rather strenuously, to the "LDS Gospel Discussion" forum being used to criticize or find fault with LDS doctrine. But as I wrote before, I am not a moderator. I do not pretend my opinion is of particular value in this.

You're *^$(%$! right I didn't mean oath-taking! Using smileys or other emoticons is against my religion -- specifically, the Religion of Those Who Despise Emoticons. (Want to hear our articles of faith? Would you read this tract?) The phrase "I swear" is, as Dravin says, an intensifier that more or less means, "This here is really true, and I totally and competely mean it." And I swear, I have never heard it used facetiously.

Oops. Trust, not understand. My bad. I should have said, "Juan, sometimes I just can't trust you!" And here I thought I was being so clever.

1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16, 29, 33, 36, 40, 41, 49, 52, 58, 81, 87 That's 17, and does not include those I have read partially but not cover-to-cover (e.g. several of Austen's books) and those that I may have read as a child but don't remember well enough to count (e.g. Hamlet). And I am not particularly well-read; I know many people who have much more extensive literary exposure than I have (doubtless several on this forum). Most people don't read English, so doubtless the BBC is right. Among those that do read English, most are not very well-educated, so the BBC claim probably applies generally in that case. If you are talking about educated English speakers -- for example the participants on this list -- then I doubt very much that the BBC's claim is true.

Can't what? Can't stand? Can't eat? Can't play with? Can't smell? Can't lavish with praise and affection? WHAT CAN'T WE DO TO WOMEN?! I swear, Juan, sometimes I just can't understand you.

I appreciate your introspective views and tend to agree more with the initial part of your post. I hope that I would not have participated in the murder of a wagon train, but how can you ever know such a thing? It's not like there was a vocal minority who stood firm and said, "No, this cannot happen! It's murder! We must not do this thing!" Well, why not? Are we to believe that in a community of dozens of faithful Latter-day Saints, NOT A ONE felt that the murders were wrong? Or is it more likely that they may have felt it, but they decided that everyone else probably wasn't wrong, so they should just go along? It isn't like they didn't have reason for suspicion and (what we might consider) paranoia: Haun's Mill was a not-very-distant memory, and Johnston's Army and the so-called "Utah War" was an immediate, present concern. These are people who had seen family and friends murdered, had suffered rape and pillage, had been literally driven out across a continent and lost people along the way. Now they hear that another wagon train is coming from Missouri, and that they've been breathing out threats against the "Mormons". How sure are you, really, that you would not have been involved? Not necessarily you specifically, Mamas_Girl, but everyone reading this? How confident are you that, under such circumstances, with the leading men of your group preparing for invasion and hostilities, you would have been the clarion call of reason amid the fog of confusion? Seriously, don't flatter yourselves. Hindsight may always be 20/20, but foresight is not. It would behoove us to keep our judgments lenient, or at least reasonable, toward those who faced a situation few or none of us have ever suffered. I am content to let God judge those who participated in the atrocity at Mountain Meadows and, for my part, simply thank him that I have never faced such a situation and pray that I and my descendants never will.

About 93% of people believe this.

So you think this is simply a matter of Church leaders not taking your feelings into account? What you are saying does not make sense. It's like saying you want to build a snowman without using snow -- impossible by definition. Your children CANNOT be sealed to you alone. They can only be sealed to PARENTS. That means two, a husband and a wife. It is meaningless to have children sealed to an umarried woman (or man). The children's sealing exists within the marriage covenant between husband and wife. No marriage covenant means no sealing of children.

I believe both are correct. The problem is that you do not understand how the Lord teaches us. When it's incomprehensible Catholic doctrine (e.g. the Trinity), you safely retreat behind the idea that "it's a mystery, so we can't understand it anyway, so don't worry!" But while we Latter-day Saints acknowledge that some things will be simply beyond our ability to comprehend in this state, we categorically reject the Catholic idea of "mystery". There are indeed things that are a mystery, but that simply means they cannot be understood by the carnal mind. Only the spiritually minded can grasp them. This forum is called "LDS Gospel Discussion". In my opinion (and I am not a moderator, merely a forum member), it is for discussing LDS doctrine. It is not for debate or for seeking to establish the supremacy of some other doctrinal system. If you wish to understand LDS doctrine, this forum is an appropriate place for your questions. If you wish to dispute LDS doctrine, then in my view this is the wrong forum. In fact, this may be the wrong web site altogether; there are plenty of antiMormon web sites dedicated to disproving the doctrines of the cult of Mormonism. (Personally, I'm more attracted to the cult of the Blue Öyster, but there is no accounting for taste.)

When we first moved into our present stake almost exactly sixteen years ago, we soon attended a stake conference where the stake president lectured at length on the importance of forgiveness and the futility of holding grudges. After several minutes, I whispered to my wife, "Okay, I'm sold! Now tell us how to do it!" I think perhaps more instruction on the specifics of "how" are not given because it's too individual a thing. It may be that a hundred people have a hundred and one ways of letting go of past hurts or offenses or slights. Possibly, constant prayer and attention to one's duty, coupled with scripture study and sincere striving, is the surest way to discover how best to forgive others.

It's a killer band, Pam.

So this is purely a word game, then. There is no real, underlying truth under debate. You don't like the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each "God"; rather, they together form "God". Okay, whatever. But as I understand Trinitarian theology (and I do not claim to understand it well), that is in fact what they believe. I have little interest in pursuing a discussion about whether one man's word description of a concept makes him heretical in another man's eyes when he believes essentially the same thing as the other man. Words can be useful tools, but I don't worship them.

How is that picture different from LDS theology, where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all God, but are three distinct personages?

So very true and inspiring. I wish more people can realize how quick we are in assuming things about others when we really do not know them or their hearts or intentions.How humorously ironic.

Thanks for your post, to which I will try to respond, since you're obviously talking to me. By the way, this forum is moderated only after the fact. You can post whatever you want, and the moderators will only remove it if it's openly offensive (e.g. profane) or otherwise violates the agreements of the site. And I'm not a moderator, so my opinion carries no special weight, anyway. There are two issues to respond to in your post: First, your specific situation; second, your claims and perceptions about what I wrote. The first is the most important, of course, but I will concentrate mainly on the second. It is clear that, whatever I write, you're not going to be particularly open to my opinions or insights, so it's probably best that I limit my response to your perceptions of what I wrote. On the contrary, if I can be of help, I very much want to know. But I do not want to know in a voyeuristic sense. Obviously, I have plenty of my own problems and am perfectly happy not to be burdened with those of others, unless I am in a position to do something for them. Then we are very different. I do not have any "higher" calling, and probably would not be very good at it if I did. This would be of interest to me. Which issues do you think have been "veneered over"? I often hear this, so obviously it's an issue of common concern. But in 48 years of active Church membership, I have found amazingly few issues that look "veneered over" to me. I wonder if it's a matter of difference of interpretation, or if somehow I have not been exposed to whole realms of faith-shattering reality. I tend to doubt the latter, but I do not dismiss the possibility that I've simply led an unusually sheltered life. Is it a surprise? If I spent my time identifying and pointing out all the flaws (real and imagined) I see in my wife, would you then be surprised when, a few years down the line, I divorced her? If I produced a constant stream of criticism against my employer, would it be a big shocker to find out later that I had left my job? This woman kept a public blog wherein she detailed her disaffection with the Church, from its doctrines to its leaders to its rank-and-file members. Why do you suppose it's callous of me not to be even a tiny bit surprised that she has decided to leave the Church, or at least is seriously contemplating doing so? I could see that my comments might be interpreted as a bit cynical, but I cannot understand how any reasonable person could see them as callous. On the contrary, I was mourning her state and the road she had traveled to get there. There was no callousness in that. As far as not caring to go looking for her -- what, you think I should be eager to go find her on a Mormon Recovery list or see if she's bad-mouthing the Church or its members somewhere? How ghoulish! No, I have not the least desire to investigate the charred remnants of what was once a living, growing testimony of truth. If she had deserted her path out of the Church and come back, that would be wonderful -- but then, she would surely have put that up on her old blog. So yes, I did (and do) not care to go looking to find out where she's at now, and no, I don't think it's uncaring. If anything, it's quite the opposite. If she were my blood relative, then perhaps I would keep tabs just in case I could offer assistance. But she is not. She is an anonymous, nameless person whom I do not know and probably never will, whose situation I am utterly powerless to change. The idea that I should expend emotional energy and time worrying about someone I do not even know and have not the least power to help is, to me, utterly absurd. That I sometimes do exactly that, even to some extent with her, does not invalidate the absurdity of the idea. People I have some actual possibility of being able to help in some way. I assumed none of these things. This is your own inference, and incorrect at that. Where on earth did you ever get the idea that I think they want my pity? I don't pity them because they want me to pity them; I pity them because I find their situation pitiable. Please point out my condemnation of these two people, ignorant or otherwise. I am responsible for what I write. If I have written badly, then I must accept responsibility for having done so. But interestingly, there appear to be many people who have read and understood my meaning without imputing to me judgmentalism or intolerance that I neither felt nor implied. They seem largely to agree with what I wrote, without any hint of disdain for those who fall away or who are struggling, and without assuming I meant any such thing, either. What do you make of that? I don't understand your hostility and the offense you have taken. You are not utterly alone; Snow has openly (and falsely) accused me, as well, and I have received a bit of profane hate mail as a result (I assume, anyway) of what I wrote. Why a minority of people have misinterpreted what I have written, I don't know. I expect that a few have chosen to misunderstand so they can stand and bray on their personal rameumptom. I doubt you are among them, since your response is not as strident or condemnatory. But how is it possible that I can try so carefully to communicate what I'm feeling, and have the result be that some understand me and others totally misunderstand me? I have a theory. I expect that those who understand me and do not impute evil motives are those who see things like I see them, and thus understand where I'm coming from. Those who misinterpret me probably are starting from a point of defensiveness, or else from an assumption that anyone who sees things the way I see them must be a judgmental SOB who is seeking for self-glorification. Thus, they see in me what they expect to see in me, whether it's really there or not. Anyway, that's my working theory. It's the best I can come up with to explain the phenomenon. Truth is self-existent, not individually determined. People might perceive this or that as "true", but that doesn't mean those things really are "true". For example, just because some LDS member somewhere thinks that Proposition 8 was evil and that the Church should not have been involved, that does not mean that Proposition 8 really was evil or that the Church really should not have been involved. It really just means that the person disagrees with the Church. Yes, but not in the way you seem to be implying. The blogger I brought up: What good did it do her to broadcast her disaffection to the world? Did it build her testimony, or those of other people? Did it bring her closer to Christ? My friend (and I mean that sincerely, not condescendingly, though I know we don't actually know each other), we all have issues and areas where our personal beliefs or prejudices or worldviews or norms simply do not line up with Church practice. All of us. Every one. Are we to spend our time loudly announcing to whomever might listen what our problems are? Or would we be better served to KEEP OUR MOUTHS SHUT, work, study, and pray, and finally grow through our problems? I suggest the latter. Many Saints before 1978 disapproved of the Church's doctrine (or policy, if you prefer) of not ordaining men of black African descent to the Priesthood and of not allowing members of black African descent to participate in temple ordinances beyond baptism for the dead. Some of these people openly rebelled, and were promptly cut off out of the Church, which quite frankly is where they belonged. Others stewed and steamed and privately (and sometimes not so privately) expressed their disaffection and disagreement with such "racism", as they styled it. Many of these left the Church, weak in the faith, having allowed their dissatisfaction and prejudices against Church practice to destroy the miraculous testimony they once had; many others just sort of limped along, inactive or semiactive, unwilling to relinquish their share in the kingdom of God but equally unwilling to step up and be counted. But some of this group kept their feelings to themselves, continued to enjoy the fellowship of the Saints, and fasted and prayed and quietly waited for the time that had been promised, when ancestry would not be an issue. In his biography of Hugh Nibley, Nibley's son-in-law identifies Nibley himself as one of these. Which group do you suppose was happy and strong and fully participating in the gospel, enjoying the fruits of eternal life and growing in their service in the kingdom of God, when the promised day finally came in June of 1978? It certainly wasn't those who just couldn't help but express their harsh feelings toward the Church. How have I found fault with you? So your opinion of me is set. Too bad, but I have little interest in begging for your good opinion. I have passed personal judgment on no individual, as you have done on me. Yes, I guess so. Fair enough. Of course, I could say the same, based on what you have written. Perhaps you are right. I wonder on what you base your highly personally directed judgment?

On the TV series Cheers, I believe Frasier Crane's wife Lilith was named for the "Adam's first wife" legend, but I never understood the humor of naming her that. I think maybe the legendary Lilith didn't like sex, or didn't like sex with Adam, or some such, so maybe that's the joke.

Now you are speaking on a purely legal level, not ethical or moral. I do not know whether you are a lawyer or even know what you're talking about. I certainly am no lawyer, and have only the most tenuous of legal opinions on this. But on a moral level, if she knew (or should have known) the belief system expected of her on hire, I do not see where she possibly has a leg to stand on.

Yes, you can rejoin. No, you would not be ostracized, nor your children.* Yes, you could regain your temple blessings. *If you have been particularly vocal or nasty in antiMormon activities, it is possible that some ward members might harbor hard feelings toward you. This is too bad, and is explicitly antiChristian, but I would hope you might understand where they are coming from and give them a bit of a break. If you simply gave into the lies and mischaracterizations of the antiMormons and asked for your names to be removed, I doubt anyone would hold that against you if you returned. Most probably would never even know it. That's my take, for what it's worth.

While I don't quite agree with RM's analysis, I fully agree with his (and everyone else's) bottom line: You have to tell the bishop, and you should do it as soon as possible. Do it tonight, if you can.

A few years ago, we started calling our local corn maze "the amazing maize maze". Years later, my kids still call it that every year. I'm just so...so...proud! *sniff*

My sympathy for the plaintiff evaporated as it became clear that she knew exactly what she was getting into in taking the job. If the setup was not clear, she might have retained my sympathies, because she seems a sympathetic character based on the description provided. But assuming that she should have understood the nature of her "employment" contract -- and it seems fairly cut and dried, based on the article's description -- I do not believe she has any moral standing to dispute what happened. I am sorry for her, and I think the local Lutheran Church Synod's policies in this case kind of suck. But that was the acknowledged agreement in the contract, and throwing a tantrum about it is not the correct way to settle the matter. I could see this having a direct bearing on the Church. A man gets hired to do, say, custodial work in the temple, where he has to have a current temple recommend. He loses the recommend, and thus his job. When he regains his temple recommend, he demands "his" job back. In such a case, my sympathies stay with the employer. I think the above situation is somewhat similar.

Visions are not literal? Really? Is this standard Catholic doctrine? Yet Christianity has no "unclean beasts". Guess the vision was literal, after all. Of course they were literal. That they were used as symbols does not make them less than literal. Your question does not make sense. How does having a vision from God of literal things mean that we have glimpsed and/or heard and/or conceived of God's plans for those who love him? Of course it does. Please give other scriptural examples of the phrase "standing at the right hand" meaning "power and glory" to establish your point.

Nope. Thanks anyway. P.S. I know next to nothing about hats.

The Church is the vehicle of the gospel. I think that you cannot abandon the Church without abandoning the gospel, to some extent. Can't argue with you there.