Vort

Perhaps. But that is what the man claimed.

Genesis, especially the first ten or so chapters The entire Pearl of Great Price, especially Moses and Abraham The Doctrine and Covenants, especially sections 84, 88, 107, 109, and 132 Nibley's stuff is very interesting and perhaps useful later on, but the temple covenants are extremely basic and fundamental, the kind of thing that you start studying as a child and never fully master in this lifetime.

I believe that the word "Christian" has no eternal meaning. I am happy to let it be a self-defined appellation. In the very strictest interpretation, only Latter-day Saints would qualify as Christians (because only Latter-day Saints have made the baptismal covenant), and on a spiritual level, most of them probably wouldn't make the grade, either. But I don't find that, or any other, definition to be particularly useful. On a personal level, I could hardly care less whether some religionist somewhere thinks I'm a Christian. It bothers me only insofar as it tends to deafen otherwise sincere seekers after truth. Which I think is exactly why some in the larger Christian community say it -- to ward off the evil conversion attacks of those darned Mormons. Much easier to poison the well than to make actual reasoned arguments.

Do you think a completely sinless man would walk away from his covenants? I agree that we are all sinful; sinfulness per se does not make one unrighteous. I think milkbone's point is well-taken: We abandon the Church ultimately because of our own shortcomings, not because of someone else's. I suppose because I'm something of an omnivore, reading-wise, coupled with the car-accident phenomenon of not being able to look away. Agreed. Of course, this was part of my point. If you keep picking at the scab, the wound won't heal. Those who complain at or about the Church do so because they are trying to "fix" something that they think is "broken". The Church is not sufficiently enlightened about blacks, or women, or homosexuals, or unmarried mothers, or the realities of adolescent sexuality, or the depressive effects of temple construction in suburban neighborhoods, or the importance of fitting in so we aren't shunned and can do more good, or whatever else they are carping about. They insist on heroic intervention, Uzzah-like, when their "help" is outside their responsibilities. And what is the result? We witness it in the state of the erstwhile "faithful but liberal" blogger, who has apparently renounced the testimony she once felt and now stands on the precipice, ready to abandon her covenants because of the hateful ignorance of the Church and its members. The gospel and the Church's progress are much bigger than we are. We think we "see" some truth or another, and we want to harmonize our worldview with the Church's teachings. Nineteen hundred years ago, this same sincere effort resulted in what we now call "the great apostasy", where neoplatonistic ideals such as the corruptness of matter, the necessity of "uncreatedness" of God, creation ex nihilo, and other such beliefs, sincerely held, were forced into the simple purity of the gospel and resulted in the corruption of Christian beliefs for almost two millennia. Today, we are so darn sure that homosexuality isn't that big a deal and a fetus isn't really a person, anyway, and women need to be out making money in order to be "fulfilled" that we miss the simple yet profoundly deep truths offered us, and instead insist that all our vain and foolish "wisdom" be incorporated into the actions of the kingdom of God on earth. There is a reason the Church is called the "kingdom" of God and not the "representative democracy" of God. Change comes from the top, not from grassroots movements. If you have interpreted my words somehow to mean that I think we should shun or expel or otherwise cut off those reaching out for help, then you have badly misunderstood me.

I wasted about thirty minutes an hour or two ago reading through a blog from some Latter-day Saint woman who styled herself "liberal but faithful". Her blog was a series of rants (many rather foul-mouthed) about what she perceived as shortcomings in Church actions and doctrine, including Proposition 8, Elder Mark E. Peterson's 1960s-era expressed opinions about "negroes" (does anyone besides me even remember Elder Peterson? a truly great and intelligent man, but as with the rest of us, a man of his era and culture), women's subservience in the Church, etc. etc. ad nauseam. To the surprise of absolutely no one except, perhaps, herself, a year or so ago she found herself no longer "faithful", but unbelieving and on the verge of leaving the Church and its ignorant members. (That's where she stopped her blog, so I have no idea what has happened since then, and I suppose I don't care enough to go looking.) I just finished reading mormonmusic's update about his home teachee. Here is a man with enough Church service that he has actually served on a high council, yet his testimony is so fragile and brittle that he has become inactive because he thought the stake presidency and high council talked too much about tithing. Did these people fail to read Alma 32, or did they just fail to understand it? Like Bette Midler's , the word is a living plant, not an anchor or a tower or a boulder or some such thing. You have to nourish it. You have to protect it. You have to nurture it, just like you would your baby, or your marriage, or any other precious living thing you care for. How does writing screeds against "the corporate Church" nurture the word within you? How does a man grow up in the gospel and reach middle age without having a testimony strong enough to lean on? I'm not really appalled or aghast, just sad for these people.I do not think myself anything special. I never use myself as an example of righteousness (except to my children, and then only by how I try to act in front of them). I expect there are many on this forum who have far greater spiritual maturity than I, and I expect even more would agree with that assessment :). So how is it that I can see this and so many others seem blind to it? How is it that even in my own (extended) family, I have so many relatives who insist on finding fault with the Church and its leaders and members? Can they not see the damage they do to themselves and their dependents? Of course leadership is not perfect! So what? I am asked to sustain my leaders, where "sustain" means "help make them successful in their callings". I am not asked to sustain them when it's convenient for me, or sustain them only when I think they are making good decisions. I am not called to police them. If my son were called to be the bishop, would I be sure to point out all his flaws and problems? Is that how I would show him my solidarity? What do people expect of our leaders? They are truly great men and women, but they are not God. Why do we expect that of them? They aren't allowed to make a mistake? Many non-Mormons, even on this forum, think that a "prophet" should be someone who literally cannot make a mistake. Are we Latter-day Saints really so childish that we believe such nonsense? I can sort of understand such ridiculous beliefs from non-members; they have no background in restored truth, only traditional legends and their own understanding of the Bible. But we should be far above such silliness. If you feel your testimony is weak and fragile, then heed that feeling! Take steps to strengthen your testimony! Read and really study the scriptures, and pray a lot! (Yes, that's two words.) And do not give into the temptation to find fault: If you really, truly just cannot help but think that your leaders are just dead wrong about this or that, then KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! If that's too hard, then talk with your bishop/quorum president/group leader/RS president. But for heaven's sake (literally), protect your testimony. I realize there are a few who style themselves as "open-minded" who will take offense at what I have written, claiming it's "mind control" or against the First Amendment or anti-Mother-love or blinkered GoodThought or some such. Whatever. If that's you, then I am not talking to you, because you have no ears to hear. This is to those who have the heart to understand what I'm trying to say, perhaps even in spite of how I have said it. [/frustrated_rant]

Sometimes the best response is silence.

Snow is a Mac True Believer®, bearing his testimony about the Only True Operating System. Whatever. If he thinks the celestial kingdom runs on OS X, he is free to pay triple what others pay and get Snow Leopard or whichever the latest and greatest is. Good for him.

Why? He doesn't care. He says what he believes, **** the evidence, and people writing to him to tell him he's wrong will have exactly zero effect.

I have found Mountain Death^B^B^B^B^B^B Dew to be the gateway drug of choice to lure Mormons into the wicked world of caffeine. Unless, as with me, God blesses the users with terrific headaches to encourage them to turn from their evil and repent in sackcloth, ashes, and large bottles of aspirin.

I can't answer your question. I am so sorry for your position. If it were me, I think I would marry the girl. Selfish? Perhaps, but if a righteous action (marriage) feels right, it seems the thing to do. I cannot answer the eternal marriage/multiple sealings question, but I do not believe that God gave us this knowledge to prevent us from marrying, nor do I believe that following the Spirit into marriage could result in eternal bad things. My feelings, for whatever they are worth to you.

I am not a big fan of Fox News, except that I think they are the least slanted of a slanted lot. But if they lean, they lean left, not right. Only by comparison with the other major news outlets can Fox be considered right-leaning. Can you provide specific examples of Fox "leaning right"? Btw, PC, your assessment is much kinder than mine. Anyone who claims that MSNBC is more credible than Fox News has just proven his opinion utterly useless and irrelevant.

Then why worry about trying to describe his nature? If he is infinitely above us and ineffable, the LDS explanation must be exactly as correct as the Roman Catholic explanation.

That doesn't look like a $2.61/ hour raise. IF the profits are 14.3 billion and current employees make 2.1billion. Every employees wages would be multiplied by 7. Wow what a massive wage!!!Tyler, we already know spelling isn't your strong suit. Add math to the list. ($14,300 million profit) / (2.1 million employees) = about $6810 per employee each year $6810 per year / 2080 hours per year = $3.27 per hour After all taxes and other withholdings, I would be surprised if it were even as much as $2.61/hour, as Dravin first suggested. So if we totally wipe out Wal-Mart's profits (and with it, the incentive Wal-Mart's owners have to keep the company in business), we could offer each employee an extra two and a half bucks an hour. Tyler, if you are honest and reasonably intelligent, you will quickly admit that you are wrong. Refusing to admit your error means you are not honest or not intelligent. If you insist that you are honest and intelligent and still dispute the above, it is up to you to show the math that makes your argument believable. (By the way, it's 2.1 million employees, not $2.1 billion in employee salary. The latter would mean that Wal-Mart employees make only $1000 per year. Much as you might like to believe that, it's absurd. Perhaps reading is yet another weak point for you?)

You want a single source to get balanced news? Good luck. Fox News comes closest, despite the outcry from the left. Unbiased it is not, but its biases are not nearly as evident as those of, for example. CNN (not to mention leftist rah-rah sites like MSNBC, or the right's equivalent such as Drudge Report). The Economist is far from unbiased, but it does give a reasonably balanced perspective on many international topics. Actually, I often go to Yahoo! for news. It is not necessarily better than any of the above, and obviously slants leftward as basically all major news outlets do, but somehow seems a bit less overtly biased to me. Stays fairly current, as well.

The ordination circle is purely a side-effect of the fact that our heads are not very big and people can't stand in mid-air. If our heads were twelve feet long, we would have two ordination lines facing each other (I suppose with overlapping heads among those in the lines). If we could stand in mid-air, we would have an ordination hemisphere instead of a circle. There is technically no maximum number, but common sense and the ability to reach the man's head dictates that no more than a dozen or so stand in the circle. I have seen two-deep circles, but they are not usual. My local leaders counsel those receiving ordinations to limit the number of participants to a half-dozen or so.

The Church makes a site available for people to do genealogy. Likewise, the Church accepts name submissions for work under the assumption that the people submitting those names have done their due diligence. The Church cannot possibly verify every name it receives, either to the Ancestral File or for temple work. In a way, it's sort of like Wikipedia: An awesome, amazing tool, and a great place to get started, but you certainly don't want to base your final essay on what's written there.

Welcome back!

Joe versus the Volcano. 1990. First Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan light romance, only it wasn't really a light romance, more like a light philosophical fable/fairy tale. Got hot-and-cold reviews, didn't make much money at the box office. Anyone else love this movie? I've gotten so I can't stand Tom Hanks, but this movie is a saving grace for him, in my estimation.

It's actually pretty simple: If you are married to her, touch away. Knock yourselves out (so to speak). If you are not married, keep your hands off each other.

'Bye. As they say, don't leave mad...

Again, I have to agree. I get so tired of people talking bad about Dog Poop Cookies. I mean, hey, all right, there's ONE STINKING INGREDIENT that crosses the line!!! How about all the sugar and flour? The cookies are just amazing! As Antonio il Tigre says, They're GRRRRRREAT!

How true. I can think of little that's more fun than a musical that curses God in the vilest language imaginable. Whoo hoo! What a blast!

Sister_Kimbe is a middle-aged man, assuming you can trust 'his' profile.

One 'm' too many.

qaStaH nuq?