Vort

By Western cultural dictates, the remains of an individual belong to his family, for them to dispose of as they see fit (and in keeping with local laws). So frowned upon is desecration of a corpse that it is a criminal activity in all Western countries. (I suspect the same is true all over the world, but I am not sure of that.) "Desecration" means violating the sanctity of something. For a group to unearth or otherwise take some of the remains of the deceased without the express permission of the survivors is a gruesome theft, not to mention illegal. To subject those remains to religious rites without the permission of the survivors violates the sanctity of the resting place of the remains and of the family's determination of the state of those remains; ergo, a desecration. Note that none of these principles applies to someone's name, especially in the context of a non-public ceremony.

I would have a problem with others digging up the remains of my loved ones, or for that matter taking their ashes, and doing some religious rite with them. That is far beyond the pale. Most people would agree that such could be interpreted, in fact would be interpreted, as a desecration of someone's remains. The same cannot reasonably be said about someone's name. I can name my chid, or my boat, or my dog, after someone who is dead. Using that name in a private worship ceremony cannot reasonably be considered offensive. It can, however, unreasonably be considered offensive, as we have constant proof.

(Btw, "eternal life" = "exaltation" = "celestial kingdom".) So you are suggesting that I can get greater glory or reward if I do more? How much more? Does it have to be...my best? If I wish to be exalted, what is required of me? To "give my all" to the Lord? I don't ever "give my all" to anything, not even to my own wife and children. How can I "give my all"? Or does "giving one's all" just mean saying the words, "Lord, Lord"? What if I go to work every day and try to get my work done so my employer gets his money's worth? Is that sufficient? How much do I need to be involved with my wife and kids? The questions themselves are ludicrous, because being with my wife and kids is the reward of good living, not merely the process. I suspect that herein lies the answer to my seeming dilemma. But when the bishop asks, "Are you completely honest in all your dealings with your fellow man," how can I answer "Oh, yes, bishop, certainly I am!" with a straight face? "Is there anything in your conduct toward your wife or children that is not in harmony with the gospel?" What would he say if I answered, "Oh, other than about three dozen times per day when I fail to be the man I should be, no, there's not a single thing wrong at home"? Here is a quick, short list of times we are told in the Church that we must do our best: Boy Scout oath (as taught to our young men among LDS congregations): "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country..." Cecil O. Samuelson of the Seventy, What Does It Mean to Be Perfect? (BYU devotional): "If you always do your best with realistic expectations and understanding of both your strengths and weaknesses, you will be able to be an important part of this great work." L. Tom Perry, third-senior apostle, Staying Power: "First, consistently do your best with the talents your Father in Heaven has given you." Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the Quorum of Twelve, in General Conference (quoting from an Aaronic Priesthood manual): “You have a responsibility to learn what Heavenly Father wants you to do and then to do your best to follow His will" Elder Uchtdorf again, from a Friend article last month: "You don’t have to be perfect to get a temple recommend. You just need to do your best to keep Heavenly Father’s commandments." President Hinckley: "If you do your best, it will all work out." Anthony Perkins of the Seventy, in General Conference: "As you do your best to be obedient and repentant, you too can receive a place in the celestial kingdom through the Atonement and grace of Jesus Christ."This short list should suffice to demonstrate that our leaders have consistently urged us to do our best, saying that such is needed for the plan of salvation to take effect in our lives and gain us eternal life.

Then I need not worry. All the striving and endless coming up short are useless. I can just sit back and relax, not worrying about giving my "best effort". I know Christ will save me. Hallelujah!

Don't apologize. I appreciate your feedback. I'm asking very literally, what do the words "do your best" mean? Because it is my opinion, or rather my observation, that we never actually "do our best" for more than a very brief period. That is the case for me, and from what I have observed with others, it appears to be the case with everyone. Some work closer to their potential than others, of course; but as far as I can see, no one consistently does their best for weeks or days or probably even hours at a time. So if gaining Christ's grace rests on us doing our best, we are lost for sure. I do not believe that we are lost for sure. Thus my question: What does it mean to "do one's best"?

Perhaps you are right about the contention. My apologies. The other thread, specifically volgadon's personal attacks, have me feeling a bit peckish about the whole topic. I think you are also right about asking Jews rather than Mormons. Good luck with that. I have spoken with quite a few, and their reactions so far have always boiled down to volgadon's diatribe: Basically, the actions are offensive because they are offensive. If you don't see them as offensive, it's because you're closing your eyes. They never offer justification for their taking offense beyond "we are a persecuted people, and such things offend us". That's it. I wish you luck getting any more response from them. Even volgadon, who is (or claims to be) LDS, does not get past that response. If you manage to get something more, please let me know, because I'd love to have a bit more rational reason than "it offends me because it just does."

Thank you for the link. I am quite familiar with that talk having listened to it at least half a dozen times. It is one of the bases for my understanding on the topic, and a foundation for the question I pose: What does it mean to "do one's best"?

I don't disbelieve you, but I am not convinced. Or perhaps more correctly, I don't understand. I know many "Christians" who maintain that they are "saved" because they "believe in Jesus". I find such proclamations ignorant and, truth be told, more than a little insulting. Merely crying out "Lord, save me!" is not sufficient to gain Christ's grace. It is a bedrock principle of LDS theology that Christ extends salvation to all who will accept it, but accepting Christ's grace is not a matter of words alone. We have been taught, repeatedly and by the highest authorities, that we must do our best. Taking those words at face value, I don't believe it's possible. Therefore, the words must mean something else. What do they mean? For many years, I chafed at those who talked of "unconditional love". It was perfectly obvious to me that no such thing as "unconditional love" exists. Even God's love is conditional, if "love" means anything. It is only quite recently that I have learned that "unconditional love", like "eternal punishment", is not necessarily meant to be understood literally. Rather, it points the way to a concept that we need to understand and accept. It worketh upon the hearts of men, altogether for God's glory (which, as we know, is our immortality and eternal life). It is my theory that "do your best" is like "unconditional love" and "eternal punishment", and means something beyond what the mere words denote. My question is: What does "do your best" mean? Because it clearly does not mean "do your best", and more than Godly love is truly "unconditional".

I haven't practiced judo in some years, so I don't know that I qualify any longer as a judoka. But I have enough experience in judo to know that when you hit someone with an awesome harai goshi, or nail them with a kata guruma or a perfectly executed seionage, or when you're cranking on their elbow with a juji gatame, or when they're passing out from your hadaka jime or the the cool scarf choke you learned a couple of weeks ago -- sister, there ain't nothing gentle about it. Unless you're comparing judo to, say, shooting or stabbing the guy. Then I suppose it's gentle by comparison. The so-called "traditional" martial arts promise that you can walk the streets confidently, knowing that if you are physically assaulted, you stand a good chance of being able to defend yourself and possibly even get the better of your attacker. The "traditional" martial arts lie. Except for judo; it's the real thing, and stands (almost) alone in the "traditional" martial arts marketplace.

saintish, you aren't getting the answers you want, so you keep changing the question. People already answered you. They said that the idea of proxy conversion would not bother them. Your switch to "devoting their souls to Satan" is specious and utterly irrelevant. If you just keep changing the question around, you'll eventually arrive at the answer you want. But if your point is actually to learn something, maybe you would do better to pay attention to the responses rather than recraft your question to evoke the desired response.

As any actual judoka can tell you, there is very little about judo that is gentle.

I don't get it. People are willing to discuss their preferred lovemaking techniques, yet they don't want anyone knowing how much money they make? Can someone explain this morsel of bizarreness to me?

As my ward's HPGL noted, I'm always good for getting the low-hanging fruit.

I appreciate the responses so far. I think people don't understand the seed at the core of this thread. Maybe I did a poor job of explaining it, or maybe people just aren't reading my initial post. I suspect that no one ever does his or her best for more than a few moments at a time, perhaps a few minutes or hours. To go through an entire day, doing one's best, both in deed and in thought? Is that even possible? And if we are required to do our best to qualify for Christ's blood to cleanse us, what hope do we have? I go to work every day, but I don't do my best. I don't concentrate as I should. I take longer on assignments than I would if I simply concentrated better. When my employer pays me for an hour's work, but I spend five minutes thinking about something else, then that's not my best, is it? I love my wife. I try to provide for her and show her that I love her. But sometimes I feel impatient. Sometimes I don't help out as much as I should. Sometimes I stay late at work (see above), leaving the home responsibilities to her. That's not my best, not by a very long shot. I love my children. I often say to myself that I would do anything for them that would not compromise my integrity or morality. But this is a lie. Because I don't. When I'm tired, or headachy, or crabby, I don't go play with them. When my daughter asks for the ten millionth time if someone will drive her to the store so she can buy a trinket she's been wanting forever, or at least since she got the idea for it this morning, I do not jump to volunteer. I want to be a good Saint and brother. I do my home teaching, usually, and I try to do it before the end of the month. I love and care about my assigned families, or at least I tell myself I do. But where's the real effort? A thirty-minute visit per month, and that's my duty? I have been fortunate, both past and present, to home teach people I consider friends and that I truly care about. Yet I do not give them a substantial fraction of the service or care that I ought. I want to be a son of Christ, so I pray and read my scriptures. But I don't converse with God as if he's in the room with me. I try, but it's very hard, and my prayers often end up perfunctory, or else more like a meditation session. I hear of people spending an hour at a time in prayer. I would be surprised if I spend an hour praying in an entire week. And on and on and on and on and on. As a husband, father, son, brother, Saint, employee, leader, teacher, student, member -- you name it -- I never, ever, ever do my best consistently. Not in a single thing. Never. Yet I am told there is hope for salvation even for such as I am, and I cling to that hope. So what does it mean to "Do your best always"? Because apparently it doesn't mean to do your best always.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith is the obvious starting place. History of the Church and the Documentary History often pass for primary sources. Journal of Discourses is a priceless collection of early sermons, speeches, and lectures. Hugh W. Nibley had a lot to say about early Christianity vs. the restored Church, much of which is still relevant and all of which is interesting.

What estradling said. I am sorry your wife is getting pushed into the deep end on her first day at the pool. I wish those in charge would be wiser and more judicious in making such assignments. But in some wards, where the 20% of the volunteers are constantly carrying the other 80%, assignments just make more sense than volunteering. Hopefully, your wife can understand the reason behind the efforts and try to accept the situation gracefully. Of course, if you have prior commitments then you can't take the assignment. But you should at least try to find a replacement. And never use "prior commitments" as an excuse to avoid doing something you don't like. No one else particularly likes it, either, but it needs to be done. When we share the workload, everything gets done without anyone having to be a martyr.

My understanding is that children under the age of accountability are saved because of the atonement of Christ. Without that atonement, all mankind would be lost, including little children. I am forced to conclude that Christ committed no wrongdoing of any sort, even in infancy. But not really. What I really conclude is that we don't understand what constitutes sin, what makes us unfit before God, what the atonement really is, why it's really necessary, and how it works. These are mysteries of Godliness that are revealed only through much study and prayer, and for many of us, probably not in this lifetime.

This is my point. The two are not easily and cleanly separable. Except that we could find situations where such mistakes do indeed hurt people. Based on our current ideas of "sin" and "culpability" and "imperfection", I don't believe such a statement makes sense.

It's like Christmas every day! Complete with the sotto voce grumbling, "Who wrapped this #&^$@ thing?!"

No, that is incorrect. A mistake is not a sin, per se. But harming another person through your own negligence is a sin of some sort. There is moral turpitude involved when another is injured because we neglected to do what it was our duty to do. Of course, we fail to live up perfectly to our full duty a hundred times per day. That is part of the human condition, and it almost never results in harm coming to another person. But sometimes it does. And when it does, we are liable -- both legally and morally. If you posit that Jesus was burdened with like weaknesses, then it follows that at some point, he was guilty of a moral stain (to some small degree) when his negligence caused injury to another, however slight. (Unless you want to argue that the Father had angels hovering around Jesus all the time to make sure that none of his "innocent" errors ever caused harm to another -- but in that case, Jesus had "special protection" not available to the rest of us, which significantly lessens the idea that his life was like ours.)

The "right thing" would have been for Jesus not to mismeasure the table leg, and thus spare the innocent child from injury or death. How much "moral stain" is there when we, through our "innocent" neglect, injure another person? I do not know the answer to that question, but it certainly seems there is at least some. But if Christ was morally spotless, as I believe him to have been, then there can be no case where he was guilty of such benign neglect.

There is something to it. President Brigham Young is recorded as having taught: There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles. Now what is our duty? To prepare tabernacles for them: to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can. (Journal of Discourses 4:56.) This does not qualify as "official doctrine", but it certainly is the word and mind of a prophet of God to his generation. Whether and how it applies to us today is a matter for each individual to ponder and pray about. I would note that our current leadership, while always speaking positively of child-bearing and never advocating for birth control, has been less forthright and offered more counsel about family planning being a matter between the married couple and the Lord.

And if he didn't notice the mismeasured table leg until after the accident happened? Such "honest mistakes" are brought to a jury all the time.

No, it is not. Elder McConkie gave many hours worth of General Conference addresses. It is absurd to suppose that saying "Elder McConkie said it in General Conference" is enough. If you cannot or will not provide a reference that Elder McConkie taught that the Fall was a result of a Word of Wisdom violation, the reasonable conclusion is that Elder McConkie never said any such thing.

A preposition, I believe.