Vort

If I recall correctly, it's a four-letter acronym hedging whatever is being said based on potential lapses in memory. But don't quote me on that.

There are 52 Sundays in this year (as with most years). Two Sundays each year, the first Sunday of April and of October, are taken up by General Conferences. Each stake also generally holds two stake conferences per year. Thus, there are usually 48 Sundays in which classroom instruction is given.

According to Instructions for Sunday Quorums and Classes: Nothing there about the lessons being mere guidelines. On the contrary, absent specific instructions from the bishop or stake president to the contrary, it seems as though the expectation is that we will teach from the approved materials.

If people don't value what's valuable, for whatever reason, there is not a lot to be done. She gets to make her choice, and if she has chosen to believe that human relations are not valuable and act accordingly, she gets to do that. Perhaps you could talk to her about some human relationships she has had that she does value, such as a special friend (you?) or something. Then somehow generalize that to explain that, for most people who aren't burdened by awful abuse early on, human relationships are the most valuable thing in the world, the ultimate expression of which is our relationship with our Father in heaven. Even without earthly family or close friends, she can surely gain that divine relationship, which might help more than anything to teach her what she needs to know to fulfill her longings.

Bless you, mordorbund. Whether or not you agree with me, it's nice to know there is at least one person who actually understands what I'm trying to say.

I rest my case.

I apologize for my previous, overly curt answer. We have an image of Moroni lugging 60 pounds worth of gold plates around with him from Zarahemla in Central America to the hill Cumorah in the North American northeast. This popular image is riddled with problems, though: There were many, many, many more plates than just those from which Joseph translated the Book of Mormon. From the very beginning of Lehite civilization, a record was kept on what Nephi called "the large plates", doubtless because they were so much more numerous than his smaller, more intimate spiritual history that he called "the small plates". The small plates were kept updated in detail only for the first generation, by Nephi and his brother Jacob. After that, they were added to only in increasingly smaller (can you say that?) amounts, although they were actively kept for a few hundred years before being filled.The large plates, in contrast, were apparently kept in detail for almost the entire 1000-year history of the Nephite nation before they were destroyed. Mormon and his son Moroni almost certainly knew more about the details of the Nephite civilization than any other person or people before or since, because they (primarily Mormon) had access to the extensive history of the large plates and actively abridged and condensed them down to the narrative we have today as the Book of Mormon. Brigham Young described an account given him by Oliver Cowdery (Journal of Discourses 19:39-40): "Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates [back into the hill after the translation was completed]. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls." It is not reasonable to expect that one man, or even two, could possibly have carried this entire record written on gold plates around with them while fleeing murderous, savage hunter-gatherers. Whether Mormon carried all these plates by hand, alone or with the aid of his son and perhaps others, or whether he used pack animals of some sort, or whether the plates were transported to the New York location through miraculous means, we don't know. But this account as well as the narrative of the Book of Mormon itself suggest a large number of records, not merely one fifty-pound set being lugged around. The plates that Joseph Smith had were never actually stated to have been made of gold. Joseph said that they had "the appearance of gold"; David Whitmer called them "gold plates", but that does not necessarily mean they were made of gold, only that they were gold in color. The plates are uniformly described as weighing 40 to 60 pounds, which would accord roughly with a codex-type book with leaves of hammered gold alloy of the dimensions described. Some LDS scholars suggest that the plates were made of tumbago, a gold/copper alloy that looks like gold but has much better wear characteristics, not being as soft as gold. However this may be, the point is that we know perhaps somewhat less about the nature of the "golden plates" than we sometimes think. There is no very strong evidence that Joseph Smith himself ever referred to the hill where he got the plates as "the hill Cumorah", though his mother Lucy records that he referred to his local area as "Cumorah" and the large hill as "the hill of Cumorah". Many LDS scholars and apologists today suggest that the Book of Mormon "hill Cumorah" was a completely different place, probably located in Central America, with no attachment to the upstate New York location. (This is known colloquially as the "two-Cumorah theory".)

I expect he whittled his cross into a pole and vaulted across.

Probably, but that is not relevant to my point. The same could be said about, for example, torture. I think torture is wicked, but someone might respond, "But isn't it really our reaction to the torture that matters? Aren't we supposed to have opposition in all things? Torture serves an important purpose. Therefore, torture isn't wicked per se."

Not exactly. I'm saying that the goal of all competition is to beat the other competitors. It's not to be your best self or to refine your skills, it's to be recognized as better than the other guy. In many cases, this manifests itself as pride; in others, it is perhaps merely a manifestation of the desire to survive. In all cases, it is telestial behavior.I do not believe anyone can give an example of our Father in heaven striving to be better than someone else at something. Perfection? Yes. Being better than someone else? On the contrary, the Father and the Son strive for exactly the opposite. I think our lives are defined by competition. I think competition is the natural order of things in this fallen sphere. But I also believe the natural man is an enemy to God.

Reading scriptures is not like reading novels. If I read a page of scripture in under three or four minutes, it's a sign that I'm not reading carefully enough or paying enough attention, both to the words and to the Spirit. With note-taking, cross-referencing, and pondering, five to ten minutes per page is probably more realistic.

I suspect this is not true. It is not obvious to me that being prideful is better than being lazy. Then by definition, you're not competing. That isn't competition.

If "winning" is not good, then it's not winning.If "losing" is not bad, then it's not losing. This is the essence of competition: 1. You define a winner or winners and a loser or losers, then you strive to be a winner. 2. It is zero-sum; as Anatess so clearly pointed out, competition is such that if everyone wins, then no one wins.

Somewhere between a few moments and a few decades -- assuming he buried the plates in New York, a point of which I am not entirely convinced.Seriously, how would we ever know such a thing? Again, how might we possibly know? It's very doubtful he had a horse, since horses appear not to have existed in the Americas during the Nephite civilization. The animals identified as "horses" in the Book of Mormon could be any number of large mammals used as beasts of burden and/or food. Again, how might we know that? I would assume from wherever the Nephites lived, around Zarahemla. Seriously, not to sound like a broken record, but how would we know this? You might as well ask what color his eyes were or if he was left-handed or had bunions.

What, exactly, is this an example of? Obviously, I am completely unable to make my point. This is frustrating, but before I despair completely of making the point, let me try one more time.Vort: I believe that death, by its nature, is bad. Christ himself said that he overcame death. Eternal death is the ultimate punishment. Were there no redemption from death, we would all be forever lost. In the celestial realms, there is no death. I am convinced that death is a fundamentally bad thing, even if it's necessary in the realm we live in. If someone has other insight into why death per se is not something that we must overcome and that will not exist in the celestial realms, please enlighten me. Everyone else: No! You're wrong! Death is WONDERFUL! Maybe not ALL death, but death is really great! Look, everyone dies in this world! That's how it's supposed to be! Vort: Well, yes, everyone dies, because that's the nature of this fallen world. But I don't believe that death is instrinsically a good thing. Death is separation from life, either physical life or spiritual life. That, in its essence, is a bad thing. Everyone else: No, it isn't! Death is great! What's your problem? Are you deaf? What about when someone is suffering from cancer? Isn't death a blessed relief? What about Jesus? He HAD to die to atone for our sins! It's a very good thing he died! Vort: Well, yes, but the point is that Christ overcame death. Everyone else: Look, my grandmother died, and she would be the first to tell you that it was necessary and good. There is clearly nothing wrong with death. It's great! Why can't you see that? Vort: Never mind. Or so the conversation seems to me. I don't consider schoolyard survival an appropriate comparison to life in the celestial kingdom. On the contrary, many or most of the "skills" I learned to survive public school have made me a smaller, more petty, more sinful man, further from God than if I had never learned those "lessons". If that were the case, they would never have competitions with trophies and everything. You would just go to class and roll with others. People who take judo or BJJ or whatever solely for self-improvement with no desire at all for competition don't go to tournaments. So to live successfully in the celestial kingdom, we need to prepare for the schoolyard bully? The scriptures suggest that there will come a time when our children will learn war no more. Whatever will they do without those vital survival skills?! Why? It's not a championship trophy. It's a participation trophy.Shall we ask God to award us based on our head-to-head results with each other?

So, RescueMom, just curious:If a woman posted to the forum complaining that her husband surfed the web all day after work, playing on Facebook and reading ESPN.com instead of helping out with kids and housework, would you respond by asking her why her husband is trying to escape from her? Would you suggest she give the poor guy a break and try loving him for once, instead of constantly hounding him? Or would you sympathize with her plight, being married as she is to a good-for-nothing parasite? Uh-huh. That's what I thought.

I'm sorry to hear this. Here are my thoughts:There are two separate but related issues at stake. One is your son's declaration of homosexuality; the other, his renouncing his religion. At 18, your legally adult son is still impressionable, but he has made a choice. The often-scummy world we live in portrays homosexuality as both acceptable and desirable. Perhaps he has always felt some inclination toward homosexuality, or maybe he experimented with it at a younger age. Whatever the reason, he has chosen to embrace that identity. That is not your choice; there is nothing you can do about it, at least directly. It seems highly likely that your son's renouncement of his LDS religion is tied to his self-identification as a homosexual. The Church teaches that homosexual actions are wrong. If you wish to engage in such actions, then you either accept that you are consciously and willingly disobeying God's will and doing wrong, or else you claim that you don't believe the Church's teachings. It is logically impossible to believe the Church's teachings about homosexuality and simultaneously believe that homosexual relations are acceptable. This is a tough situation for you, and I'm sorry you find yourself there. I am also sorry for your son. My advice, for whatever it's worth, is to hold tight to your son. Your attitude toward him can tell him that while his choices and actions may be unacceptable, he is loved by you. It's possible that at some future date he will return and try to change his life. In any case, you can love and care about him even while you hold to your own beliefs.

If US Jews "see more angry rhetoric from the other side" (meaning the political right), they are selective in their vision.

Seriously? You're saying that surviving an automobile accident with a pelvis so badly crushed that you can no longer engage in sex again FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE is not bizarre? Is it common? Lots and lots of women have badly crushed pelvises that prevent them from ever again engaging in sex, but still manage to survive and go about their everyday lives?I don't believe you.

Welcome, cmom. This is an unofficial discussion list. Better "official" sites might be lds.org and mormon.org. But if you have questions, ask away.

Hi, James. I believe the official stand is to consult with your Sunday School president or bishop.

Then I suppose she would be unable ever to have sex again (though that would be one bizarre auto accident).

Moon, you have made the cardinal error of posting while male. Had you been a woman posting equivalent questions (or, I daresay, confessing adultery), you would have been met with somewhat more understanding and compassion. Among certain on this list, men are welcome only insofar as they speak about women solely in reverential tones and gladly accept all blame for everything awful and foul-smelling in the world.Having said that, I must agree that your post looks like you're angling for self-justification. If this is the case, you and your wife would both be better served by worrying less about the specifics of your role and your spouse's role and more about helping your spouse be happy.

Welcome back! May your renaissance continue to unfold.