Vort

It's easy to say "your friend should not feel cheated". Talk is cheap. The fact is that the friend does feel cheated. Saying "Well, quit feeling that way!" is probably of limited use. Better would be an explanation as to why he need not feel cheated.

On a philosophical note, which of us is worthy by his own merit to perform ordinances in the place of the Lord? The Priesthood functions only because the Lord allows it among men. He has made it clear that a lawful ordinance done by an authorized man is valid, even if that authorized man is sinful and unworthy. So the baptism is as valid as if Christ himself had performed it. That said, I have sympathy for someone in that position. Could the ordinance be redone? Yes, if the relevant authorities approved. Would it be? I don't know. The problem is that redoing the ordinance suggests that such ordinances are valid based on personal worthiness of the authority. This is false. None of us is perfect. When you find out that the next person to baptize you had a porn addiction, do you get rebaptized yet again? When you discover that that guy was billing hours he had not actually worked, do you get rebaptized? He cursed at his wife; rebaptism? Where does it end?

I gather that Big Love casts the same idealistic light on Mormonism that The DaVinci Code casts on Catholicism.

CAUTION: This quiz requires legalistic parsing based on the incomplete knowledge we possess at this time. It is therefore not advisable for you to base your future actions or testimony on a silly internet quiz, this or any other. RULES: Please make acceptable comments and avoid unacceptable comments. ACCEPTABLE COMMENTS address the quiz choices, e.g.: "I believe choice X, and here is why.""I disbelieve choice X, and here is why.""This issue is more complicated than a simple choice, and here is why."UNACCEPTABLE COMMENTS avoid addressing the quiz choices, e.g.: "Don't worry, it will all work out in the Millennium.""God is perfect, so we can just leave judgment to him and not discuss such things.""Are you some faith-stealing apostate that you would ask such a question?!"Brother Bart is sealed to Sister Suzie in the temple. Tragically, they divorce some time later, but do not get their sealing dissolved at that time. Bart then marries Therese in a civil ceremony, and together they produce little Xaviera. QUESTION 1: Is Xaviera born in the covenant? Yes, Xaviera is born in the covenant of her father Bart and Suzie, to whom he is sealed.No, Xaviera is not born in the covenant.During this time period, Suzie also remarries in a civil ceremony. She and her husband Charlie welcome a new baby, Yolando. QUESTION 2: Is Yolando born in the covenant? Yes, Yolando is born in the covenant of his mother Suzie and Bart, to whom she is sealed.No, Yolando is not born in the covenant.After some time, Bart and Therese are sealed. Suzie has her sealing to Bart cancelled, and then she is sealed to Charlie. QUESTION 3: Can little Xaviera be sealed to her parents? Of course she can be sealed to her father Bart and to her real, biological mother Therese. She was never sealed to anyone else in the first place.Of course she can be sealed to her father Bart and to her real, biological mother Therese. Her sealing to Bart and Suzie is of no effect, since the sealing between them no longer exists.Of course not; she was born in the covenant of her father Bart and his first wife Suzie, so another sealing is meaningless.QUESTION 4: Can baby Yolando be sealed to his parents? Of course he can be sealed to his real, biological father Charlie and to his mother Suzie. He was never sealed to anyone else in the first place.Of course he can be sealed to his real, biological father Charlie and to his mother Suzie. His sealing to Bart and Suzie is of no effect, since the sealing between them no longer exists.Of course not; he was born in the covenant of his mother Suzie and her first husband Bart, so another sealing is meaningless.Yolando and Xaviera grow up, meet, and against all odds fall in love and are married. QUESTION 5: Isn't this kind of like, um, incest or something? This is totally just wrong.Hmmm. No, not incest, because they aren't related by blood. Just weird.Oooh, yuck, I can't think about this!QUESTION 6: Who pays for the reception? Bride's parents.Groom's parents.They split the cost.Let the darn kids pay for it themselves.Bart and Suzie's long-lost daughter Wanda comes back one day. QUESTION 7: How is she introduced by Yolando and Xaviera at Church? "This is my sister and, um, Yolando's sister, too"?"Xaviera and I have a sister in common, and, well, here she is.""Hi, we're Wanda, Xaviera, and Yolando, and we're visiting your ward today."EDIT: My answers, in case you're interested (select to view): Is Xaviera born in the covenant? ( B ) No, Xaviera is not born in the covenant.Is Yolando born in the covenant? ( A ) Yes, Yolando is born in the covenant of his mother Suzie and Bart, to whom she is sealed.Can little Xaviera be sealed to her parents? ( A ) Of course she can be sealed to her father Bart and to her real, biological mother Therese. She was never sealed to anyone else in the first place.Can baby Yolando be sealed to his parents? ( C ) Of course not; he was born in the covenant of his mother Suzie and her first husband Bart, so another sealing is meaningless.Isn't this kind of like, um, incest or something? ( B ) Hmmm. No, not incest, because they aren't related by blood. Just weird.Who pays for the reception? ( D ) Let the darn kids pay for it themselves.How is Wanda introduced by Yolando and Xaviera at Church? ( C ) "Hi, we're Wanda, Xaviera, and Yolando, and we're visiting your ward today."

If you insist. You are crazy, FT. That did indeed seem to be the point of the story. But I doubt it was the point of JAG's posting of the story, which is what you were responding to.

The comment makes no sense. Ignore it.

Pretty sure I said nothing of the sort. That isn't what I got from his post.

And old timer? You mean like this?

I assumed he was saying that it is sad that we have created a system where people have systemic incentive to commit bank robbery.

Shenanigans. Evidence, please.

You keep saying this, but you are mistaken. It IS a choice, even if a young man wants to follow God's commandments and even if he wants not to disappoint leaders and parents. It's still a choice. He is still choosing. His choice is his.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to hold the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. That opinion is wrong, too, but you are entitled to it. Nor did I suggest that it made you so. I simply remarked that your opinion does not change the facts.

I am painfully aware of most of my unsavory traits. I do not need a well-meaning brother or sister to point them out to me. On the contrary, such a thing would weaken our friendship and put me on the defensive in all future encounters.

I got the idea from these posts: The "pressure" that has been continually mentioned in this thread originates from the Church's teaching that missionary service is a Priesthood duty. You put the word "choice" in quotation marks, presumably to call into question whether it is actually a choice. This is absurd. Of course it is a choice. Your clear implication is that, by teaching the doctrinal fact that full-time missionary service is a duty, the Church is somehow guilty of removing a person's choice, or perhaps of helping parents to remove that choice by their incessant pressuring. This is pure nonsense. If parents put inappropriate pressure on their sons to serve, that does not mean the Church's teachings or efforts are therefore wrong. And I doubt that you (or I) are in a position to judge whether that parent's efforts really are inappropriate. Which "over-expectations" are those? The "over-expectations" that teach the simple truth that full-time missionary service is a Priesthood obligation? Why ought I to believe some random discontented internet person who champions the idea that young men wait until their early to mid-20s to serve a mission instead of trust that the Lord's anointed leaders know what they are doing when they urge 19-year-olds to serve? Can you provide me any possible inducement to believe and trust you over them?

Welcome. Patrick. I loved Utah. You need to learn how to ski; then you'll enjoy the winters.

No, of course not. My daughter's suitor need not be a man of wealth. But I do want him to be a man of honor, a man who strives always to fulfill his Priesthood duty. Serving a mission is an obvious, highly visible duty performed. While I agree that not serving a mission should not permanently disqualify a young man from a potential pool of suitors, surely you can understand why a young woman and her parents would put so much importance on that as a shibboleth of faith.

I would avoid it.

No. I suggest that if all of the best people you know are women, you need to get to know a different class of men than you apparently do. I don't know that you insulted anyone. If you did, I don't think you insulted me. I'm not sure I qualify as one of "the good guys" in any case. I have known some truly great men, not perfect, but men I look up to, including my father, my father-in-law, my mission president, and other Priesthood leaders. When I look at them, I see some semblance of my Savior. Apparently, you know no such men. I am sorry for you. True enough. But I also have been privileged to know some truly great, Christlike women. I would certainly never suppose that all the best people I know are and have been men. Other scriptures give this as "many" (e.g. Matthew 24:12). I think the word "men" in this passage refers to the sex-neutral "mankind", and not specifically to the male of the species. And at least one comment that the young women, too, should quit wasting their time and their lives and commit to a good man. Perhaps, though probably no moreso than "good women". Even those women who "hit the jackpot" married imperfect men. Interestingly, all the married men I know foolishly married imperfect women. What were they thinking? Perhaps because the courts through the past decades have consistently refused to acknowledge the father as anything more than an ATM? Indeed, I have read the Proclamation on the Family numerous times. I recall nowhere that it said that men do not understand how to nurture, to take care of those around them in a nurturing capacity, or to bond with others like women do. I'm not trying to rag on you. Just pointing out that your disappointing experiences with men don't generalize to everyone else. Men are not lesser beings of inferior spirituality, whatever you may have heard to the contrary.

This I agree with, and I find it regrettable. There is something wrong with vilifying a young man who, for whatever reason, hasn't fulfilled his duty to serve a mission. Even if the vilification is subtle, it's a shameful thing. If it's my son being marginalized, I'm not the least bit happy. But then...do I want my daughter to date and possibly marry the guy who refused to serve a mission? Or would I rather she date men who have fulfilled that Priesthood responsibility? All other things being equal (and I realize they never are), the choice is obvious.

Though I don't have much interest in this thread's topic, my eye was caught by SS's sentence above. I actually disagree with him, in that I believe that we carry in our bodies and also in our spirits the marks of the actions of those who have gone before. We think of ourselves as autonomous individuals, entirely separate from those around us, even our ancestors. I suspect this is grossly wrong. We without them cannot be made perfect, neither can they without us be made perfect. There is a deep spiritual intimacy between us and our progenitors (and descendants). Our good efforts literally lift past and future generations closer to God. Similarly, our rebellions and poor choices have negative consequences far beyond the borders of our own souls. We cringe at this idea and wish to believe it false, that we are responsible only for our own selves and cannot be held responsible for anyone else's situation. But this is manifestly false. We are truly our brother's keeper.

The Church accepts the appelation "Mormon" as a historical reality. Indeed, it would be foolish to give up such a recognizable word or "brand", the kind of thing corporations spend literally billions of dollars trying to create. Looks like the Church is trying to leverage some of that. But our leaders have consistently instructed us to refer to ourselves as "Latter-day Saints" and the Church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", as designated in revelation. Whatever the Church's PR efforts, it is our place to obey the requests of our leaders (and indeed of the Lord) in how we refer to Christ's Church and to ourselves as members of the kingdom.

I was going to respond with something about how those "paid clergy" aren't really paid very much and how we should be very cautious about making such comparisons...but then I thought about what you wrote, and I changed my mind. I think you're right. When you have a "paid clergy", however much or little that pay might be, the natural tendency on the part of the "flock" is to assume that it's the clergyman's job. Hey, that's what we pay him for! Whereas on the local LDS level, such feelings are much diminished. Sure, some will still say, "It's the bishop's headache." (Or RS pres, or whoever.) But most members realize that these men and women are donating their time. I think you're right; that does engender more of a spirit of volunteerism.

Perhaps you know of Church doctrine of which I am not aware. Please point out the Church policy of sending out as missionaries 19-year-olds who don't want to be there. On the contrary, for years now the Church has increasingly emphasized preparedness for missionaries. A few years back, they "raised the bar", expecting ever more of the young men who serve missions, not merely in chastity issues but in other spiritual preparation. I am confident that "not wanting to serve a mission" was not on the list of requirements; quite the opposite, I expect. And so, your solution to this problem is...don't tell young men that the Lord expects them to do their Priesthood duty? Sorry, you will have to explain how your "solution" actually solves any problems. I'm not seeing it.

lol. I would have "laugh"ed your comment, but unfortunately there is no such button there.

Speaking for myself, PC, I do not find it overwhelming. I appreciate it. In the LDS Church, you tend to hear the phrase "ward family" a lot. In some wards, these are just empty words, but my ward really does feel like a family. I suppose you could draw the parallel out further and talk about family squabbles and "dysfunctions", but the bottom line is that I feel that I am among friends and siblings when I'm at Church. They know my idiosyncracies and weirdness, but somehow they accept me and act glad to see me. They embrace my family, ask about how my kids are, and congratulate them on achievement. I do not believe these things are uniquely LDS. I certainly hope they are not. But I appreciate your recognition that the Church tries to foster such feelings, and I agree with you. For my part, I think the effort is well-received. I see little pretense and a lot of sincere effort on the part of the ward members -- and not only from the fabled 20% who do 80% of the work.