Vort

I remember talking to a lady whose very beautiful young daughter, who looked to be around twelve, was listening patiently. After a bit of conversation, I turned to her and asked, "And how old are you, sweetheart?" "Nineteen."

Smile knowingly, thank them kindly for their perceptive insight, and change the topic.

This equivalency does not work. If it were the case, there would only be one Mordecai, or at least no more than one per family. People would never speak the name of any dead outside their family, because such would be a desecration of the name. A monument listing the names of the dead would be utterly out of the question. This is fundamentally a matter of bigotry. They don't like our religious rites when applied to "their" names, when in no tangible sense can they claim "ownership" of such names. You can dress it up as a persecution complex forged by the horrors of the Third Reich and/or by centuries of discrimination, but ultimately it is what it is. They might as well get in a snit because we claim to be adopted into the descendency of Abraham; after all, Abraham was their ancestor, not ours, so how dare we claim kinship?!

Someone, typically a Church investigator, will mention how nice all these Mormons are, how polite the children are, how it seems like no one ever gets in trouble -- no cops at the door at 2:00 am, no tales of kids getting suspended from school or bailed out of the hoosegow for a drunken teen party, no worries about high school pregnancies. And then in comes. Almost invariably, seemingly like clockwork, someone has to pipe up: "Hey, now, Mormons aren't perfect! Yeah, we have lots and lots of problems! You just don't see them, but believe me, they're there! Fact is, we're just like everyone else!" What is up with that? First off, it's obvious that Mormons aren't perfect. Duh. You might as well say the sun rises in the east. No new information there, so why say it? Secondly, it's a false statement that "Mormons are just like everyone else". Mormons are manifestly not like everyone else. Statistically, Mormons are ahead of the curve in physical and mental health, in education, in life satisfaction, in kids not getting in trouble. To say otherwise is simply false. Thirdly, what's the point? Are they trying to talk people out of joining the Church? Is this some deeply embedded effort at sabotage? I mean, seriously, these people say, "Hey, you Mormons are nice people," and the response is, "No, we're not!" I can think of a few possible explanations: False modesty. Avoiding bragging and other obnoxiousness is so ingrained into us that we have a knee-jerk response of avoiding legitimate praise. Unfortunately, this backfires when people (who after all are not stupid) see the ridiculousness of our denying these things and decide that maybe we're telling the truth after all -- because who would bother denying something so obvious? Overambitious avoidance of hypocrisy. Many Mormons buy into the lie that "hypocrisy" means "saying one thing and doing another". Since Mormons (like any other mortal people) fail to live up to their own lofty standards every waking moment, some are afraid of being tagged with the scarlet 'H', and so are only too willing to deny the good that is done for fear of being "found out" as less than perfect. The irony here is that the deception itself is hypocrisy. Refusing to acknowledge merited praise or truthful recognition of good deeds or works is an intentional putting on of a false face -- and an ugly face, at that. It's as if a beautiful woman, upon being told she's beautiful, immediately scratched up her face, cut off her hair, and spread mud all over her features, then said, "Why, no, I'm not!" Inoculation attempt. We see the imperfections in ourselves and our fellow Saints, and we are desperate not to disillusion others who might be looking into the Church. We fear the devastation they might feel upon learning that the Saints are actually human beings and not perfected angels walking among the mortal. So, some of us go a bit (or a lot) overboard in an attempt to make sure our friends and acquaintances don't make the error of overestimating the Saints. Of course, the predictable result is that they will instead underestimate the Saints, deciding (based on our own words) that Mormons are hiding something, that they cannot possibly be as happy as they seem, that it's all just a fraud and that Mormons really are hypocrites. Mission accomplished!I don't know. I think that, just maybe, we would be much better off learning how to respond to a sincere compliment by saying "Thank you", or maybe even with a short explanation of what our teachings are that help us to be as happy as they perceive us to be (which, in the main, is probably a true perception).

If your ex-husband suffered from some of the same emotional and mental issues that now challenge your children, it is possible that, at least in part, he's not so much a "jerk" as he is a victim of his own genome. This is true for all of us. Your children now have the opportunity to learn to overcome the weaknesses of the flesh that, perhaps, their father didn't succeed so well at. Your children are as much his as they are yours. Had you married someone else at first, you would not have had those children. Accept them as they are, help them to be better, and never let them think that they are deficient on their father's side. Let me repeat that for emphasis: Never let them think that they are deficient on their father's side. I speak from indirect but painful experience. I have a relative that divorced her first husband after producing two children. She and her mother told the children at various times that they "didn't inherit anything from him" and that their DNA was "pure" or some such thing. But of course, this was nonsense; they looked very much like their father. And when one of them began acting like his father, my relative was distraught. But as they say, the acorn doesn't fall far from the oak. Much better to say, "This is your father. Here are some issues he had to deal with and maybe didn't do as well as he might have." By the same token, it would be useful to say, "I am your mother. Here are some issues I've had to deal with,and I hope you can do better than me." PLEASE NOTE: I'm not talking about confessing sins to your children, which is always a bad thing. NEVER CONFESS YOUR SINS TO YOUR CHILDREN. I am talking about discussing personality traits and areas of weakness that might apply to them. As for why you received a "Yes, you can marry this guy" answer: That one is easy. Whom you marry is your choice, not God's. You made a decision, and that choice was acceptable to God. The divine approval for your choice didn't mean you wouldn't have any issues in your marriage. It did not negate your ex-husband's agency to exercise his own choice. It was not a sign that all would be ever well. It was permission from your Father to go ahead with your desire.

I would not watch The Passion of the Christ if you paid me. From everything I have heard, it was a pornography of violence. I have much better things to do with my time and thoughts than to watch such crap, such as picking scabs and posting on internet forums.

If I have put words in your mouth, I apologize. Let me point out what you wrote that I was talking about: I don't think it sounds like an indictment of the legislation at all. The statement did not say that enforcement provisions were inappropriate; rather, it said that legislation that only contained enforcement provisions was "likely to fall short of the high moral standard" referenced. That doesn't mean the legislation was bad, only incomplete. You stated your opinion that the legislators were "wrong, wrong wrong" in their efforts, quoting the Church's statement as support of your opinion. But it does not support your opinion. Apropos of nothing: Why? How would you know this? Are you sure your "anglo friends" are really that much more lazy and undeserving than your latino friends? You find debate on a discussion board to be despicable? Do you see a problem with this? It is not at all obvious where one's duties as a citizen end and as a Church official begin. You object to those who question the Church's stance on immigration status vs. temple worthiness to be "offensive and despicable", yet feel free to call on the Church to release those called of God to serve, merely because you don't like their political opinions or actions. To me, this seems contradictory. Your stance seems to partake of the very attitude you so despise.

Welcome back, Elder! Tell us about your mission.

As one who has long sympathized with the immigrants and abhorred much of the overreaction of the "Anglos", I could hardly disagree more with your post, rubondfan2. In it, you appear to partake in that very same spirit of which you disapprove. Only a fool or a traitor (or a non-American who hates the US) could dispute that the US should police its borders far better than it does. Porous border == national security issue. People of goodwill can hold opinions that illegal immigrants should be deported, and that doesn't make them evil people.

For a moment, please put aside your prejudices and look at things realistically. I was pulling for Shane Carwin. There. I said it. But watching Junior Dos Santos make ground beef out of Carwin's face in three rounds of solid domination -- I mean, seriously, is there anyone who will dare to deny that, in watching that epic beatdown, he or she had the words come clearly to mind straight from D&C 89:13?

The Bible says that Christ, who is God, created all things. But Mormons teach that Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS! {cue ominous organ music: Dum dum DAAAAAAH!!} Dontcha know that ol' Joe Smith seduced/raped/deflowered young girls? Brigham Young hated African Americans, the racist scumbag. Mormons say that women will be eternally pregnant! Joseph Smith didn't "translate" the Book of Mormon; he stuck his head in a hat and read the words that Satan gave to him. Mormons are all a bunch of hypocrites anyway. Didn't you read that Utah has the highest rate of suicide/antidepressant use/domestic violence/pornography addiction/halitosis in the US/Western world/entire earth/Milky Way galaxy?

They shoot off fireworks in commemoration of the time the Mormons almost burned down SLC to keep it from Johnston's Army.

Agreed. The division of the world in the days of Peleg was traditionally understood to mean a political division, as in, "In the days of Peleg they divided up the world." Only with the advent of the theories of continental drift did anyone get the bright idea to apply that ancient wording to the very modern concept of land masses separating. The time frame is all wrong, anyway. The continents have not all been interconnected since very, very long before any hominids were found on this planet.

Not really. The word "****" has its roots in the idea of "loss" or "harm" (hence the word "damage"). The basic idea of "a damned soul" is one that is lost or eternally damaged or destroyed. A limit such as you describe can be approached arbitrarily closely just by tacking on more terms. In contrast, a damned soul is by definition remote from God. Spiritual death, which is damnation, means removal from the source of spiritual life, who is God.

The law of consecration is as much in effect now as it ever was. As others have said, you are probably confusing the law of consecration with the united order, an exercise in communal living that was intended as an expression of the law of consecration. I believe you misapprehended President Eyring's teachings. The law of consecration is not the same thing as the united order, and neither of those is the same as church welfare. That is similar to saying that the law of chastity, plural marriage, and marriage enrichment seminars are all the same thing.

Yes, it is true. There is no such thing as immaterial matter. Latter-day Saints have never believed in ex nihilo creation. "The elements are eternal" (D&C 93:33).

Tell the truth, always. Worse comes to worse, you transfer somewhere else and finish up. Realistically, it's unlikely you would have to do that. Maybe you'll have to stay an extra semester. But for the sake of your integrity, do what is right and let the consequence follow.

Not taking a position on this, but I would note that this is exactly what many Latter-day Saints already believe and even teach at Church: God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit, even while knowing that they had to do so in order to progress. Satan tempted them and told them that they had to eat, despite God's clear commandment. Eve ignored the counsel of God and hearkened to the voice of Satan, and as a result they fell. Said Latter-day Saints proclaim that Eve did a wonderful and insightful thing in disobeying God and hearkening to Satan, while stodgy, stupid old Adam would just have stayed uselessly in the Garden forever.So it should come as no surprise that some might simply conclude that God lied and that Satan told the truth. For the record, while I do not believe the series outlined above, I do believe that the Fall was necessary and that our first parents' choice in the matter was ultimately laudatory. But I do not believe the "conflicting commandments" theory. I do not know what the "tree of life" was (though I'm pretty certain it wasn't a tree) and I don't know what "eating of its fruit" entailed (though I'm pretty sure it didn't involve eating anything). Until such things are understood, I don't think we are likely to comprehend the symbolism and significance of the Garden of Eden story.

BrioCyrain's equation: "Saying the words 'He chopped off the guy's head'" == "Watching a filmed rendition of him chopping off the guy's head" I disagree.

All of my children learned to read before the age of five, and all of them learned by reading the Book of Mormon. So I would have to disagree with your assessment. Now excuse me while I go try to raise bail for my kids.

Well, either you're closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the year 2011. You got trouble, my friend, I say, trouble, right here on LDS.net. 2+0+1+1=4, which is one more than 3, and that rhymes with P, and that stands for POOL!

I appreciate your intent, but am sorry to say that you are clearing up nothing. Those with ears to hear have already learned this. Those of ill will, who wish to claim harm (or at least hurt feelings) over our practices, have no intention of listening to or understanding any such thing, as we have constant witness of.

Can't speak for Traveler, but I learned about sexagesimal in public schools. The Sumerians used it, the Babylonians adopted it, and we still use it indirectly in measures of degrees in circles and units of time.

I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.

Perhaps "Abinadi" is some form of "ab'n Adi", "son of Adi", or something similar. Abinadi may not have been a person such as we are familiar with, but a name title such as was common among many American aborigines. Thus, he comes among them in disguise but them immediately, it seems, identifies himself. Maybe we aren't reading it right.