Vort

Yet I learn new things in Church almost every single week. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps I'm just not as bright as you?

You have the wrong attitude. BYU is not the Major Leagues, with you competing against the best of the best. BYU is a gigantic candy store with every possible type and flavor, all for just pennies, and you've been turned loose. There is plenty to go around! You are not competing with anyone! Now, if you just walk the aisles looking at the candy, thinking how sweet it would be but fearing to do any actual work of reaching out and getting it...well, that's a shame. Your mission, should you choose to accept it (and you should choose to accept it): Buy a piece of candy by the end of next week. Look over the girls in your ward -- use the shopping list^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B ward directory, if necessary -- and pick out a few that you like. Then ask one of them out. Go to a movie, or go to the Cougareat for [insert whatever it is the Cougareat has these days -- Subway sandwiches, maybe], or hike up to the Y (make sure you bring a picnic lunch), or heck, just walk around Kimball Towers and talk about the awesome BYU football victory at Ole Miss, the game at Texas, and the upcoming slaughter of the Utes. Then, rinse and repeat next week. Ask the same girl, if you liked her and want to try something new. Or ask another. Whatever. The point is, have fun socializing with the wimminfolk. They're soft and they smell nice. BYU is truly (and I am being serious) one of the most awesome, beautiful, heavenly places in all of God's green earth. Take advantage. Don't be like the New Yorker who has never gone up the Statue of Liberty.

Sounds like pure LDS doctrine to me, substantiated in Alma 40:11: 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.

Everything I have heard suggests your girlfriend is right. Reestablishing your commitment to living the law of chastity in the eyes of the Church seems to require at least a year, sometimes longer. But I'm not in Church leadership and do not have any direct experience, so take my view for what it's worth.

Snow, I don't get you. You are obviously an intelligent person, yet you seem determined to pick a fight. You seem to have much to offer, yet you get caught up in trying to show people how stupid they are. Why? Your responses range from thoughtful to dishonest (or obtuse). The best I can figure is that it is extremely important to you to "win" each confrontation. Is there some other dynamic going on here? To answer your question, it's not working out all that great for me. But I keep plugging along.

Are you being intentionally untruthful, Snow, or just obtuse? Your statement: If any such authority came to Church, he very obviously would be given the utmost respect. Or perhaps you're saying that if Thomas Monson put on a clown suit and a rubber nose and came to Church, the attending bishop would not recognize him and thus would not allow him to officiate? If this is your point, then perhaps you are right, but it's a stupid point.

I did not mock you. I answered as clearly as I could that you are welcome to pray to whomever or whatever you want. "Your Mother Goddess" is inferior to the Father only in the sense that "your Mother Goddess" does not exist. "She" is a false god. The Father is a living being, our eternal Father. Since you list your religion as "LDS", I can only assume you know this most basic truth. Okay, that's nice of you. Because you replied, I only inquired to see if there was a part of the scriptures you could refer me to. I don't understand. Have you ever read the scriptures? Because it's set out quite clearly throughout scripture. A very few examples: Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 3 Nephi 18:19 Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my [Jesus'] name 3 Nephi 19:6 And the twelve did teach the multitude; and behold, they did cause that the multitude should kneel down upon the face of the earth, and should pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus. I am interested in how you arrive at this idea. Do you have some divine revelation on the matter? Because scientific evidence does not connect up modern peoples with those Ice Age inhabitants of the Americas. That is pure conjecture. Again, I'm not sure what you mean to assert here. "My religion" has existed for all time. It existed before the world itself was created. If "your religion", whatever that means, is 32,000 years old, then it is vastly younger than mine. And therefore...? Are you suggesting that the reality of divine beings is established by majority vote? You may read my words however you wish, of course. But don't expect to understand them if you intentionally misread them. Hard though it may seem to believe, I have never actually inquired of God through which orifice he created Adam. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say the same one I used in creating my own children. But that's not a doctrinal teaching, just a speculation. Not sure who or what "Man God" is. Man gives woman the ability to procreate, as woman gives to man. God created men and women. So I am not understanding your point. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are suggesting that, to be forgiven for (let's say) rape, a man needs first to say to his rape victim, "I'm very sorry, but I'm going to rape you now. I beg you to forgive me for this act." If you believe this, you have little understanding of LDS theology. Killing and eating an animal is not a sinful act. There is no sin to be pardoned. You don't need to ask an animal's "forgiveness" -- as if an animal even had the ability to forgive! If killing an animal to eat its flesh is something for which you need to seek forgiveness, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T KILL THE ANIMAL IN THE FIRST PLACE. This is so blatantly obvious that it ought not even need to be said. For this reason, I keep thinking that I am not understanding you correctly. You surely cannot be asserting what it sounds to me like you are saying. So your Mother Goddess is the animal you slaughtered? When you pray to the animal to forgive you for the "sin" of killing it and eating its flesh -- an act for which you feel no actual sorrow whatsoever and that you fully intend to repeat the next time you want to eat some meat -- then you are actually praying to the Mother Goddess? Not sure why you list your religion as LDS. If your statements here are any indication, your beliefs are no more LDS than those of a Buddhist or Hindu. Less, probably.

My MTC district consisted of eight members. It was a bit large for a typical Italian MTC district, but not overly large. Which is fine; we all have our moments of stupidity, Yours Truly included. What baffles me is that the man openly solicited our questions, assuring us that we could ask anything. Apparently, he meant anything but what I asked. Learning to answer "I don't know" seems a basic foundational step on the path to wisdom. I am surprised that the brother in question could be called as a counselor in a temple presidency without having learned this most basic and obvious skill.

How would you know whether it has a basis in fact? The OP said he was 15 years old. Few fifteen-year-olds have a mature understanding of the privilege of serving in God's kingdom, perhaps particularly those raised in the Church. It may or may not be true that the poster had in mind what you claim. If you are right about the poster's intent, then his claim itself may or may not be true. But it is not absurd. Within the bounds of modesty and decency, attire and hairstyle at Church may indeed be "merely a matter of social convention". But that is entirely beside the point, as I think you well know. This is a blatant falsehood, of a kind with those spewed by antiMormons. I am surprised, perhaps even a bit shocked (naive me), to see you make such a ridiculous and false statement.

For that matter, I dare you to set up a Windows 97 machine. Go ahead. I dare you.

Whoever he is, he's engaged to a cheerleader who looks to be about 4'11".

In my tiny experience, such meetings are of very limited usefulness. While a missionary in the MTC in December 1982 and January 1983, I and my district were privileged to speak with a counselor in the Provo temple presidency. He invited us to ask him any question about the temple, the endowment presentation, the symbols, and so forth. I volunteered to ask him a couple of very specific questions about the meaning of some of the symbols -- nothing wherein I might reveal anything I ought not, mind you, but just some pointed questions. His answer was to become offended that I would ask such questions, suggest that my faith might not be where it should be, and dismiss us. My poor fellow district members looked shell-shocked, and I felt like I should apologize to them for taking the man up on his offer. Since that time, I have kept such questions very close to the vest, so to speak, and have asked them of few or no other people. It appears that some questions can damage the faith of others, even members of a temple presidency, and ought not to be asked except in private prayer. It was an uncomfortable lesson for a 19-year-old to learn, but one I needed.

You can pray to whomsoever or whatsoever you choose -- a tree, a lamp, a cloud, a particularly attractive idea. But to pray to an actual Being who will hear you and bring you to him if you seek him humbly, you must pray to the Father. There is no other being to whom you need (or ought) to pray. This doctrine is taught uniformly throughout all scripture, indeed throughout all Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam. I realize that Catholics pray to beings other than the Father, but as far as I know, they are alone among Christians (in fact, among monotheists) in doing so.

Why would you pray with gratitude to the Father for the food you are to eat? To show gratitude, I suppose, and to acknowledge that God is the source of life, both physical and spiritual.

So as long as they use rubber genitalia or digital effects, that mitigates the evil effects of pornography? Btw, I would guess that any porn actress's virtue has been ransacked long, long before the particular film was produced.

To properly sanctify animal flesh, pray to the Father with gratitude for providing the food. That will do the job, far better than petitioning the slaughtered animal's spirit for pardon will ever do.

Think about that for a moment.... that someone's understanding of the sacred nature of the sacrament is either determined by the ratio of the length on the top of their head to the length on the side, or that their understanding can be deduced by it.Nonsensical! Yes, but also incorrect. slamjet did not suggest that "someone's understanding of the sacred nature of the sacrament is either determined by the ratio of the length on the top of their head to the length on the side, or that their understanding can be deduced by it." Rather, slamjet said that to anyone who understands the sacred privilege of sacrament participation, such questions would not even rate to be asked. It's like being told to put on new underwear before entering God's presence and complaining, "But why must I put on new underwear? I just put on new underwear yesterday! They're still clean! Why isn't my underwear good enough? Am I to believe that God discriminates against tighty whiteys?"

I live in the Seattle area. You can't get away from the trees, even in your closet.

"Benevolent" --> "love Bennet" Benevolent people are those who read Jane Austen.

Welcome! Tell us about your island. As far as your spelling goes, I am willing to excuse it on Mondays and Thursdays. I hope those times are sufficient.

It's hard to argue with this, MoE. Why, you're so lazy, I bet you can't even finish the

There isn't. That is why the wards meet in the same building at various times staggered throughout the day, from morning until late afternoon. The building simply would not fit everyone at once. Perhaps the people could congregate in large buildings, as for stake conference. Indeed, this is exactly what we used to do in the old days before home availability became common. But if you think the listening experience was enhanced by such conditions, you are mistaken. Rather than subject themselves and their children to such an uncomfortable and artificial experience, many people chose to avoid General Conference altogether, or (in many cases) to attend only one session. Cable and internet availability for General Conference has changed the experience, almost totally for the better. It might not be an overstatement to say that participation in Genera Conference has been revolutionized. If you really want the social "worship together" aspect, invite friends over and watch it together with them. Dress up in white shirts and ties, if you like. But those who choose to watch in their bathrobes ought not be criticized for the choice.

Some years ago, in an exceedingly rare fit of snark, I wrote in the margin beside Mosiah 2:6: "Ancient Nephite drive-in". Every year when we read that verse, my wife politely ignores the comment.

I agree with skippy in disagreeing with this. We use so-called "Arabic numerals" to represent numbers. Do you suppose that in order to have a deep understanding of mathematics and the nature and use of numbers, one ought to research Arabic linguistics and culture? The two are almost totally disconnected. True, in ancient times the Arabs were the greatest mathematicians (thus we have "algebra" from al jabr "putting back together broken pieces"), but other than getting some historical perspective on some mathematical developments, it won't help you to be a better mathematician. In the same way, there are Masonic elements that comprise some of the endowment presentation. Studying the origins of these elements (insofar as we are able) may be interesting and even in some sense illuminating, but it will never help us understand the sacred, eternal realities behind those symbols. We use those elements as symbols in the endowment presentation just as we use Arabic numerals as the symbols in mathematics. The origin of the symbols, though interesting, is almost completely unrelated to their use in the presentation.

Yeah, well, you're not the only one. My wife teases me about being a closet tree-hugger.