Vort

The OP is not interested in reasoned exchanges or enlightenment. He wants to call us to repentance by pointing out how "Smith" is a liar and a false prophet. I admire those who respond softly and politely to such things. I want to incorporate more of that attitude into my own responses. But let's not ignore the obvious here: TheR0USes does not give a flying fig about LDS doctrine. He wants to tell us how wrong we are. Period. And I would bet dollars to donuts that TheR0USes has been on this list before, probably multiple times, under different pseudonyms.

Congratulations!

By the way, Joseph Smith absolutely did order the destruction of that press. There is no doubt about that. What is in doubt is whether that constituted an illegal or criminal act. Several modern legal scholars (including Oaks in Carthage Conspiracy) have suggested that, according to the practices of the time, destroying a press and scattering the type of a libelous publication may have been completely legal and justifiable.

Their plan is cloyingly simplistic, their stats bogus, their references non-existent. If the exact same web site were made targeting boys instead of girls, it would be dismissed as sexist claptrap. That's not to say they are wrong. They may well be right, or at least have a good idea. But the presentation is somewhere between laughable and outright stupid. Interestingly, in the Church we find that the adult men are key to long-term solutions. If we can get the father interested, the family follows suit. Of course, adult men are not as easily molded as little girls, and little girls are certainly a more sympathetic target for most people's pity and well-wishing. But something about what they say, or perhaps the way they say it, just rubs me the wrong way.

I would guess that Jesus quoted from the Hebrew source from which the Septuagint was translated, rather than from the Greek Septuagint itself. I know there are some who firmly maintain that Jesus spoke primarily Koine Greek, but that seems preposterous to me. (Not that my opinion on the matter is actually worth anything.)

Good luck. I think you might be wise to accept that, however well you try to prepare yourself, you will need to attend the temple regularly for some months before you get a basic idea of what's going on, and probably for a lifetime before you gain all the insights you want. Unless you are unusually intelligent and/or spiritual, which I grant you may be. Very reasonable question. Answer: Use the restroom right after you get dressed and before you get your "new name" and go to the chapel to wait. You will probably receive your washing and anointing right before going to the chapel; that break is a good time to use the restroom. These days, the entire endowment presentation, even for a so-called "live" presentation (meaning it's being done for live people, as opposed to strictly for proxies), should take no more than three hours as an outside maximum. Two hours is more likely for a live session. You will have an escort, either a friend or someone assigned to you (if no friend is available), who will go through the endowment session with you and help you with elements of dress and such. You are receiving your own endowment, but she will be acting as proxy for someone else while she goes through with you. Congratulations! I have not been to Nauvoo since they rebuilt the temple, so I would love to go. Several of my ancestors received their endowment in the original Nauvoo temple, so it's a special place for me, too.

I will see what I can come up with, DKM. It will not be until at least tomorrow night, since I am late for bed myself and have a busy day tomorrow. But I will look for something. Please note that I am pretty literal-minded. I will search for exactly one unflawed argument made by the Maxwell Institute and will provide that to you. I understand that is what you want. Please inform me if that is incorrect.

So you contend that the word "know" has no actual meaning in English? If this is the case, is it wrong for the LDS Church to co-opt a meaningless English word and assign it a value that has actual meaning within the context of the religion?

Let me understand you correctly. You are saying that if I provide for you one single argument from FAIR/The Maxwell Institute that is not flawed, you will withdraw your accusation and admit that you are wrong?

Then let me help you. I answered your question ("I only seek to humbly yet firmly ask the questions that I can help but wonder about. Any help or takers?") with two possibilities: "If you are truly seeking to understand and not to impose your preconceived understanding on everything anyone says, then sure, there are many of us who would be more than willing to take some time explaining our beliefs to you.""If your intent is to prove the supremacy of your self-proclaimed "Christian" beliefs [...] then we will have little or no interest in engaging you in conversation.Not sure which part you found confusing. Please feel free to specify, if it's not clear. What if they said, "You are a Catholic, while I, in contrast to you, am a Christian"? Now, that is not exactly what you said. It may well not be what you meant. But what you wrote was, "My wife is LDS. I am Christian." Obviously, you were trying to differentiate between the two of you, by identifying your wife as one thing (LDS) and yourself as something else (Christian). It would be like saying, "My wife wants to own a horse. I prefer a mammal." In that example, you would have used a term ("mammal") that includes the previous term ("horse") rather than differentiates from it. In the actual case, you used a term to describe yourself ("Christian") that is a superset of the term you used to describe your wife ("LDS"). Hope that is clear. Look, we get a lot of traffic going through here, and a not inconsiderable number of them are antiMormon rabble-rousers. Perhaps you are not one of those; I certainly hope not. I did not mean to offend you. But when you start out saying, "I want to ask some 'tough' questions" -- well, in my experience, the "tough" questions are typically the antiMormon tripe that is so commonly heard, and unfortunately, the "sincere questioner" is typically just another antiMormon looking to peddle his scum. I did not wish to discourage you, just to inform you that if you are one of the antiMormon scum peddlers, your questions would likely be recognized as such. I am sorry you took offense. I did not mean to offend. But I cannot control your responses. Seriously? Someone called you a hacker? What I wrote was, "by separating LDS from Christian, you are in effect saying that Latter-day Saints are not Christian". If you did not intend any such thing, then I apologize. Are you speaking of mordorbund's post? Was it inaccurate? Even if it was, it didn't seem "horrible" to me. Don't know. You have taken offense where none was intended, but that doesn't mean I did not give offense. Wouldn't be the first time I unintentionally drove someone away. Not my greatest virtue, but I'm working on it.

Okay, but before I do, I want you to give me a number. Tell me how many unflawed arguments from FAIR/Maxwell Institute I have to provide and how many pieces of non-farfetched evidence from FAIR/Maxwell Institute I have to cite before you will admit that you are wrong. I don't want to provide, say, three examples, and then have you say, "No, those three aren't enough." You made a statement, and your statement is flawed. I am willing to provide the evidence you claim to require, but first, give me a firm number of items I need to provide after which you will freely and fully admit that you are wrong.

Obviously, your read-through was not a very thorough job.

They don't refer to Side B. The cultural context argument has some value, but the "release of sexual tension" argument is pure bull malarky.

I'm going back to the Icelandic chick.

Sorry, I did miss the sarcasm. I actually still don't see it. Why were you being sarcastic with an investigator?

It's just you.

This is not true. Actually, you CAN pee standing up. Not saying it's a good idea...

Lavell Edwards Stadium.

Huh? Wha'd I say?

No pun intended. I am sorry this has been your experience. As a man, I have a different perspective. But I have known few men who think themselves better than women because of their maleness. Frankly, I have probably known more women who think themselves superior to men than vice versa. But either case is disgusting. This is false. Antimale "jokes" are no more funny than their misogynistic counterparts. Too bad you added this. Until this point, your answer was reasonable and helpful. The part you added above is false. If not, then I am sure that Jesus Christ will be shocked to learn that he has the Priesthood just so that he has something to do, but that if he were a woman, he wouldn't need it.

In what way are these things illogical? Can you demonstrate their illogic?

Interesting that Paul did not try to talk the Greeks out of their pantheon, but instead used their altar to "an unknown god" as a springboard to introducing Christ. Wow. Talk about "another Jesus"! Yet so many modern so-called "Christians" want to exclude Latter-day Saints as Christians because they don't understand or like our doctrine. Pretty anti-Paul of them.

You have the right to be angry, but that does not mean it is right for you to be angry. Your mother-in-law overstepped her bounds and broke your confidence. Shame on her. But she did not do it out of spite or maliciousness. The graceful thing for you to do would be to forget about it, don't bring it up any more, let it go. But in the future, do your best not to make her privy to your private goings-on.

Among many other things: I learned about how God had acted in a brother's life to help his family situation.I learned that my Priesthood group brethren accept and sustain me.I learned my own reactions to the above.I learned that Elder Perry's address in General Conference seven years ago that a Priesthood quorum was a fraternity, a class, and a service organization has not been explicitly remembered, but the teachings have been and are being incorporated into the larger Church consciousness.I also learned that Elder Perry is still giving this instruction on a local level and that Priesthood leaders are heeding his teachings.All in all, it was a valuable experience for me, and quite typical of my experience at Church.

Sorry, I assumed the answer was clear from the context given in the cited chapter (Alma 40). Here is an abridgment of Alma's doctrine concerning this matter: Now there must needs be a space betwixt the time of death and the time of the resurrection. And now I would inquire what becometh of the souls of men from this time of death to the time appointed for the resurrection? [...] Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life. And then [...] the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow. And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil [...] shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil. [...] [T]here is a space between death and the resurrection of the body, and a state of the soul in happiness or in misery until the time which is appointed of God that the dead shall come forth, and be reunited, both soul and body, and be brought to stand before God, and be judged according to their works. It seems evident (to me, at least) that at death, we immediately return to God for a debriefing of sorts, at which point we gain access to our temporary postmortal waiting room, where we await the resurrection. Whether we recognize our Father as the Being he is probably depends on our own spiritual state: Those who are righteous see him as he is, because they are like him. In any case, the incomplete doctrine of "heaven and hell" believed by much of larger Christianity is of little consequence. We have been given the truth, and it is available to all who have ears to hear.