Vort

I regularly use dihalogenated DHMO (both fluorine and chlorine). Every month I will go without for about a day, but I have to say I don't think I could do so for very long. Not sure if I need to talk with my bishop about this. I will say that the stuff gets into every fiber of your being. And yes, it does give me a good feeling that might be described as a "high", especially when I'm really craving the stuff.

What is the nature of our premortal life? Does anyone know? Answer: No, and if they do, they are not saying. Did we live in families before this life? I have never heard that taught explicitly, but it certainly makes sense to me. I don't see why we would not have lived as families. What is the relationship of our hypothetical premortal family to our mortal families? I do not know. But I don't think it's beyond reason that some aspects, and perhaps even relationships, from our premortal existence(s) find continued flower today. Just my opinion.

Pretty sure this was The Kinks. What has nine arms and sucks?

This is a fair question. The only answer I have is from the handbook, but I admit up front that this begs the question. Services That Involve Only One Ward [...] For Converts. If possible, a member of the bishopric attends each convert baptismal service. When the services involve only one ward, he presides unless a member of the stake presidency attends. [...] Services That Involve More Than One Ward [...] For Converts. A member of the stake presidency usually presides over baptismal services for converts when the services involve more than one ward. However, the stake presidency may authorize a high councilor to preside. A member of the bishopric from each of the wards involved should attend. The stake presidency may assign a high councilor or a bishop to oversee planning of the services and to conduct them.

A stake president may hold the keys to the exercise of the Melchizedek Priesthood in his stake, but when he crosses the street into another stake, he is JAMPH (just another Melchizedek Priesthood holder). Similarly, within his assigned duties, a mission president holds the keys of the Priesthood, but outside of those duties, he is JAMPH. It appears that the ordinance of baptism in a stake is a function of the local congregation who accept the new member into their ranks. Thus, it is the bishop who presides, and not the mission president, who at that point is JAMPH.

*(Assuming it were rated PG-13 or better)

Agreed. Much better to be acute. Or you could just follow my example and be right.

I don't understand. The man's sealing to his former wife is of no moment whatsoever to his situation now. He can even be sealed to his current wife, if they wish. Once you are ordained to the Priesthood, it isn't meaningful to be "reordained". You have already been ordained; the question is whether your Priesthood authority is instated (or reinstated). If his authority is reinstated, that includes all the covenants he had made, obviously including his sealing to his former wife. If it makes him feel any better, no one will be sealed in the eternities to someone he does not wish to be sealed to. Furthermore, sealings are of no efficacy unless both parties live up to their covenants. So he is worrying about nothing -- literally, nothing. If he is planning to leave the Church again over this, that suggests that his commitment to the Church and gospel is extremely weak and that he really has no idea what's going on in his situation. He needs desperately to talk turkey with his stake president.

What fun are facts when you can get rumor and innuendo?

If this is the dream where she rips your head off and eats it, you don't want to know.

How on earth does this apply to whether or not you are extended a certain calling?

No, I don't agree with the "hole in the board" theory of atonement. True, there are consequences to our actions, and repentance does not make those consequences magically vanish. But when we are forgiven, I believe we are truly forgiven, and not with a hole left in the board.

What does serving in a Church calling have to do with forgiveness?

I suppose so, yes. I think of someone standing before God who has murdered a girl. Then I think of her father, with anger still in his heart, standing before God. Am I truly to believe that the father is more culpable in the eyes of God than is his daughter's murderer?

Sorry, Traveler, but this is simply absurd. I do not believe it, and I don't think you believe it, either.

I have taken this as a time when the Lord wanted support from his closest earthly friends, and was asking for their help.

Which is like the juror who acquitted the defendent of wife-beating saying, "I admit I missed the part where he beat up his wife, but I stand by everything else I said."

saintish, to use battlefield parlance that you can understand, you are losing badly. You need to admit defeat and cut your losses. Let's review this part of the thread that saintish is so caught up in. It began when curiousheathen made the following remarkable statement: My response was obvious and, I daresay, predictable: saintish then baffled everyone by openly taking up for the losing argument: Let's review yet again what just happened in the exchange above: curiousheathen: Questioning is never wrong. Vort: Bad generalization. Of course it sometimes is wrong, as in a battlefield command. saintish: No it is not! I'm a US military officer, and I am telling you that it is never wrong to question a superior's command! Everyone else: <dumbstruck> At this point, FunkyTown quotes from the military's own web site the word-for-word answer to the issue: Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp. saintish's response: All the dancing around in the world won't hide the fact that you are firmly on the wrong side of this debate, saintish. Your best course of action would be to admit that you got sucked into standing up for your position, no matter what, and that in fact you realize that you are wrong. Or you can just keep on pretending that you're right and trying to find linguistic loopholes that, in your mind, somehow justify your absurd stance. Your choice.

On the contrary, I have suggested no such thing. Honest questioning is not a cover for any other thing. Dishonest questioning, however, is often a cover for trying to tear something down. Even things that people might think need to be torn down... By the way, I'm still waiting for the evidence you said you would provide from this site for the following statement: Some have suggested that to question any facet associated with the church is tantamount to treason and hypocrisy.

To reiterate: Trying to tear something down under the pretense of questioning is simply dishonest

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that I would refuse them or that I announced how much I disliked them. On the contrary, I would gladly serve in any position, and I enjoyed the years I spent as a counselor in various elders quorum presidencies. The point is that the callings themselves are unimportant for eternal life and spiritual progression. Until about eight or so years ago, one over-50 quorum member came every week and even sat in quorum with his oldest son. Today, I think the oldest elder that attends the elders quorum is in his mid-40s, a few years younger than me. Yes. A couple of years ago, the stake president instructed me (through a bishopric counselor) to attend the high priest group. I was prepared to politely decline an invitation, but I was not willing to refuse a direct request. So now I attend the high priest group. This is at the discretion of the stake president. He holds the keys of leadership over all the Melchizedek priesthood holders in his stake, and he decides how he wants them attending their meetings. I have been told that there is no formal decision procedure for such things. I have never spoken with my stake president about my own case -- indeed, I have not spoken with the stake president at all since he was called except to say hello as we pass in the halls or briefly chat about my oldest son's mission preparation -- so I don't know what his decision criteria are. But I'm not worried about it. Just as I enjoyed meeting with my quorum, I enjoy meeting with the high priests; they are a great group of men.

woundedknee, this is what I'm talking about. One does not "make" the calling of apostle. It's not an achievement. It's not a prize to be won. If the Lord offers you the same gift of eternal life, then it makes no difference to what station you are called in the kingdom. It is possible that certain transgressions or actions, including excommunication, result in the inability to be called to certain positions in the kingdom of God for this life. Again, so what? If I accidentally kill my neighbor by my thoughtless foolishness, then even if I successfully repent of that foolishness and gain forgiveness, my neighbor is still dead. I can't bring him back. The consequences of my actions will follow me for the rest of my life, even if the moral stain is completely removed. Similarly, if I lose an arm or a leg because of some childhood irresponsibility, repentance from that irresponsibility and growing into a responsible man doesn't magically grow me back my missing limb. Repentance doesn't mean that everything is exactly as it was before. Repentance means the stain is removed and we can again progress toward God.

To clarify: I have never desired or sought after a "high calling". I am just fine holding more "menial" callings, and do not begrudge the bishop his respected calling and the numerous headaches accompanying it. But many Saints mistakently use the world's measuring stick in the kingdom of God. A "successful" man, they think, is one who holds "high" station. Thus, to be a successful Latter-day Saint, a man must be a bishop. This attitude extends even to some in the highest leadership positions; witness how often a General Conference speaker illustrates the sincerity of someone's repentance or the good effects of a hard choice made by citing that person's or his children's Church callings ("...and of his six children, three became bishops, one served as a stake president, two were Relief Society presidents, and all six married in the temple..."). This attitude must be recognized and acknowledged, but it does not have to be accepted. We can recognize that leadership callings neither define nor indicate spiritual worthiness. If you are coming back into the Church from excommunication and you find (or think) that such callings are not available to you in this life, then what of it? Your intent in coming back is to become a Saint and join the body of Christ, not to impress your friends and relatives with your callings.

I agree with the above, especially applepansy. If you're 27, you should still respect your father and listen closely to him, but it's time to be a man and live your life (which probably includes moving out of Dad's basement if at all possible). If you're only 19, you may legally be considered an adult, but you are barely more than a high schooler. Do as your father advises. In the adult world, and especially as a missionary, you need to learn adult negotiating skills and how to talk with other grown-ups. This is a wonderful time for you to practice such skills with your father.