Vort

Of course the Church isn't true because Utah beat BYU. Rather, the Church is true because, even after a disaster of that magnitude, there were no confirmed fatalities in Provo last night and there is still a stadium on the northwest corner of campus rather than a smoldering crater.

The doctrine is to sustain the leaders. If they ask you not to listen to music, don't listen to music. If they ask you to wear a pink tie clip, wear a pink tie clip. If they ask you to cut your fingernails every week, cut your fingernails every week. We do not sustain our leaders by deciding we don't like what they ask.

There is no consensus. However, there is a rough understanding that, it seems, most in the Church agree to. (Translation: This is how Vort sees things.) Iced tea/coffee: No. The Word of Wisdom has been interpreted as referring to tea and coffee when it speaks of "hot drinks", whether or not they are actually hot. Iced tea or coffee is a blatant violation. Coffee/tea flavored ice cream: Marginal, but probably not a Word of Wisdom violation. I avoid it for Word of Wisdom reasons, and also because I think coffee and tea taste nasty. Cooking with alcohol: Not a problem. Adding some vanilla extract to your cookie recipe is simply not the same as partaking of "strong drink", even though (in the US) vanilla extract is typically made by soaking vanilla beans in pure ethanol or very high proof whiskey or vodka. There you have it -- Vort's Last Word on the subject! (Until I speak more words, anyway.)

Here we go!

Ah. Please forgive me; my TICmeter is in the shop for maintenance.

"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your tea." "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." (Yes, I realize the exchange probably never occurred, but it's too good to pass up.)

Not sure about the math, but it is estimated that there have been about 100 billion (or 10^11) humans in total that have ever lived on the planet. If this is wrong by a factor of ten, that still gives only 1E12, which is about six billion times less than your estimate for the descendants of some guy 1500 years ago...

It is my experience that God never works this way. To approach instruction with a rebellious heart and then to have a bargaining session with God is contrary to my understanding of the order of heaven and of heavenly things.

"I snort the nose, Lucifer! Banana! Banana!"

If your husband wants children and you don't, then that's a big problem. Otherwise, it is not. If you don't want to have children, don't. Yes, you might indeed regret not having them. And that would be tragic. But it would be a far greater tragedy for you to have these precious human beings and resent their very existence and their drain on your resources, financial and emotional. Because that will never, ever go away. And you should welcome it, or you shouldn't have children. One man's opinion, for what it's worth to you.

The best answer is: It varies from mission to mission. The next best answer is: Leave your iPod at home. Don't bring any such thing on your mission. Devote your time, energies, and thoughts to the work before you. Don't allow yourself any such distractions.

Don't be absurd. Pat Robertson's statement does not prove the Church is true. BYU's victory over Utah on Saturday proves the Church is true.

It's a larger cultural thing. It's fun and funny (to some people) to make fun of the obese or overweight or those who dress poorly or appear slovenly or who buy a lot of chips and soda. It's fun to call them "white trash" or the non-white equivalent and mock their very existence. I can only guess that those who enjoy this sort of "humor" somehow feel better about themselves, saying to themselves, "I'd never be like THOSE losers!" The best I can figure to do about such things is to make my distaste for them known and to teach my children not to take pleasure in them.

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. Doing baptismal and other proxy work for the dead does not magically give them the option of eternal life. Rather, if they are repentant and receptive, it allows them to progress. Can John D. Lee progress? I have no idea. He can if he repents, assuming he can repent of what he did. That goes equally for those who were complicit with him but who were not excommunicated by the Church (and executed by the state). The making of a covenant is of use only if the person is in a position to make and keep the covenant. For others, it may just be wasted effort. To answer your question: I assume that if Brother Quinn does not repent and return to the fold during his lifetime, his work will be done for him, just like for anyone else. Whether it will be of any benefit to him is not something I can answer. I hope I would have done no such thing. I do think we're too quick to exculpate ourselves and say nonsense like, "If it had been ME, well, *I* would certainly never have done such-and-such." Easy to say sitting in front of your computer screen. And I'm pretty sure we're all appalled by it. Nope. His question was: I fully understand the reasons behind John D. Lee's excommunication. I have a tough time comprehending the logic behind his posthumous reinstatement. Any ideas? When he was told what the logic was, he decided that wasn't what he wanted to know, after all: What are your feelings? Should he have been reinstated? What sort of standing does this man REALLY have in the Church? Tell me, levrafsgirl: How are we supposed to answer whether he "should" have been reinstated? Do you or I know the mind of God? Since the ordinance has meaning only if Lee can repent, what sense does the question make, anyway? If he can't repent, it really doesn't matter whether his work is done or not, does it? And if he can repent, well, then, who are we to stand in the way of his repentance? Then you must be pleased to have received them. How so? Do you think God will ask his opinion before rendering judgment on Brother Lee? I do not believe anything in my response was unkind or uncharitable. Can you say the same? You are bearing false witness, levrafsgirl. I have done no such thing. I have pointed out absurdity and judgmentalism when I saw it, but I have answered as best I can. How disappointing to find out people are human. Well. I suppose I consider myself told, then. A threat? Seriously? That's sad indeed. I am sorry you are incapable of reading what someone writes without imputing false motives. Your opinion makes no difference -- zero, zip, nada, goose egg, zilch -- to Brother Lee's status in the eternities. As I wrote before, your opinion along with five bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Nothing more. If you think your opinion has some supernatural ability to influence the destinies of the dead, well, more power to you.

The obvious example is how the Nephites accepted and protected the people of Ammon.

Vort in a few decades:

No, that would be Mr. Collins, the comedy relief, writing in "condolence" to the Bennets: The death of your daughter would have been a blessing in comparison of this. I don't think it's either meaningful or instructive to compare prophetic words to those of a fictitious blithering idiot.

Then you don't understand what the words mean. The Church is indeed true.

Interestingly, the apostle Peter disagreed with you: Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, according as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. The Catholic idea of seperable, unique natures is not Biblical. You are trying to apply a false paradigm over LDS doctrine. Please note the name of this forum: "LDS Gospel Discussion". It is senseless for you to come onto this forum and try to preach your own non-LDS doctrine. That is not what this forum is for. Since Latter-day Saints are Christians, your distinction is meaningless, your neoPlatonic meanderings notwithstanding.

So clearly, you believe that a 100% human can be 100% divine. That's what we teach. So what's your beef with LDS doctrine?

Someone said it was okay? Where did that take place? I happen to agree with your summation, but your complaint is not well-founded. Do you think it unreasonable that a smoker might condemn crack cocaine usage? I mean, he's busy polluting his body with all sorts of bad things, so what's he complaining about? Eschewing one form of evil is a good thing to do, even if you are partaking of another. Moral: Avoid R-rated movies at all times, and while you're at it, avoid PG-13, as well.

Hmmm. Did you perhaps mean "an unrelated question"?

Someone's TICmeter needs maintenance.

I think the bottom line here is that most of us see things like your mission leader, but ultimately the decision belongs to your bishop. His say is the important one, not ours.

But that is not the point, Stephen. As has been stated numerous times, the point is: We are to be one, even as Christ and the Father are one. Whatever "oneness" you attribute to the Father and the Son is the same oneness that we are to have. So the Catholic "mystical unity" just does not fly as an explanation. At least, not for those who don't already accept it as a "mystery" -- in other words, those who are not already believing Catholics.