Vort

The state of Washington in both cases. I was mostly an eastern Washingtonian, though, while they have been raised near Seattle. East/west makes a difference in WA, not unlike northern vs. southern CA.

I'd love to see it, too. I added my answers under the original post, but I'm not an authoritative source.

5 to 19.

The rule about "the sealing follows the mother" does not have anything to do with the mother's current status in the Church. It is a rule used to determine whether a child is born in the covenant or whether that child needs to be sealed to parents. Future (or for that matter, current) parental worthiness has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Or so it has been explained to me.

My kids say tiger. I wonder if it's just my generation that said "pigger" as a sort of transitional thing? It's an obvious substitute word, and the original was used the generation before mine -- I remember my father telling me that while growing up, he always called Brazil nuts "n*gger toes", with no real thought as to what that might mean. It was just what the nuts were called.

I never meant to criticize you or anyone else on this thread, saintish. This was meant to be fun and interesting, nothing more. Criticism or condemnation would be out of place.

I believe this is a very important point. Blasphemy against the Roman gods was against established law, and at times may have been punished. Blasphemy against the gods of Roman-occupied countries was not against Roman law. The Sanhedrin basically fabricated a charge of sedition based on Jesus' supposed claim to be the king of the Jews, because they knew that sedition was a capital crime in Rome, punishable by crucifixion. Remember that the Jews of the time (especially the Pharisees) viewed God's law as a set of rules which, if followed with precision, would save the Jew who followed them. As long as they could get someone else to kill Jesus for them, then that wouldn't "count" against them. Jesus had done nothing worthy of death under Jewish law; even proclaiming yourself the Messiah was not a capital crime, and given Jewish history and scripture, calling yourself God's son could not possibly qualify, either. Jesus interfered in the power structure of Jewish society, and the leaders in that society wanted to be rid of him. Rome was their convenient out, and Pilate their flunky, a man who cared little or nothing about the people he ruled, and despite the protestations of his own conscience allowed his legions to carry out the wrongful wishes of the Jewish leadership.

I was originally going to use letters as name placeholders, e.g. Brother B marries Sister S in the temple, they divorce, Brother B marries Miss T (next letter after 'S') and Sister B marries Mr. C (next letter after 'B'), etc. The kids were going to be at the end of the alphabet, e.g. Brother C and his wife T have baby X, Sister S and her husband C have baby Y. But it all seemed so impersonal that I thought it would be nicer to attach names to them. Thus we have Bart, Suzie, Therese, and Charlie. The babies were Xavier and Yolanda. But wait! "Xavier" is a man's name, and "Yolanda" a woman's. For someone with a lifelong interest in biology and genetics, I thought, "This will not do!" We cannot have X represent the man and Y represent the woman! That is just so...wrong. So I re-genderized the names to my liking, and doubtless to everyone else's.

I was only teasing anyway. RescueMom did give answers, not just a dodge.

Here is the counting rhyme we used as children in the late 1960s and early 1970s: Eenie, meenie, mynie, moe, Catch a pigger by the toe. If he hollers, make him pay Fifty dollars every day. My-mo-ther-told-me-to-pick-the-very-best-one-of-all-and-you-are-not-it, Peaches, pears, apples, plums! (Loser goes out; counting starts over, and the cycle continues until there is only one person left, who is "it".)I always wondered what in the world a "pigger" was. Some kind of a pig, I guessed. I was probably in my twenties or later before I realized the word's etymology.

I do not believe this is how it works. I don't believe that after death we suddenly have all things perfectly revealed to us. Now, it may be that we simply don't have enough knowledge now, and are awaiting further light on the matter. That's fine; I have no problem with it. But this situation has been dealt with for many decades now, so it's not exactly new. There currently is a procedure in place, and we do have current knowledge on this to some degree. I am interested in discovering what this current state of knowledge is, which is why I specified no comments along the lines of "Don't worry, it will all be worked out in the Millennium." That is a non-answer, a dodge.

You tell her, Backroads!

Great quote. I need to add this to my scriptures. I have always attributed the "ignorance" reference to the preceding verse: The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood.

This is the crux of the matter. When is it appropriate to voice our opinions? If we think our bishop is doing a crappy job, is it appropriate for us to get up in testimony meeting and announce our opinion? Clearly not. How about in gospel doctrine class? Again, clearly not. Well, then, is it appropriate to carp about his failure at a ward party? How about at a gathering of ward friends at a non-Church-sponsored party? How about just between close friends at lunch? How about to spouse and family only? The whole discussion seems to miss the point: We should not be carping about our bishop at all. To do so is to fail to sustain him in his calling, which we are under covenant to do. If we see a true failing in our bishop or his actions that must be addressed, the appropriate person to talk to is the stake president. Other than that, the only time we are justified in complaining about the bishop is when he is threatening clear and present harm to someone -- and even then, we need to be sure. What is true for our local leaders is true for our general authorities, as well. We are under covenant to sustain them. Complaining about their efforts and decisions is not sustaining them; rather, it shows a rebellious spirit that seeks to establish its own will above that of those who are called to lead. (It also shows massive ignorance about the realities of leading a huge organization and motivating people to do the right thing.) Do you have the right to your opinion? Of course. Do you have the right to state your opinion? Legally, of course you do. But is that a course of action befitting a Saint? You also have the right to smoke, but that doesn't make it a worthy activity.

Because facing such questions later on will be much easier than facing them now?

I believe you are mistaken. I have been taught that in such cases, the policy was, "The sealing follows the mother". That is to say, if the mother was sealed -- to anyone -- then the child was considered born in the covenant. The father's sealing had no immediate relevance. I have no proof of this, however; it is just what I have been taught, and I don't expect anyone to believe any such point based solely on my say-so. So if you have some evidence showing a child born to a non-sealed woman who was still considered BIC, please show it for the education and edification of all. :)

I suspect that much of the discomfort many feel on reading your posts is that you insist on telling what the Church "should" do or how its leaders "should" act. As you have no authority to direct the affairs in the Church, this strikes many as a faithless exercise in ark-steadying. Criticizing the actions of individual Church members may be appropriate, but criticizing the leadership efforts of the Church and the policies it adopts (and does not adopt) is not.

Suppose, back in the plural marriage days, a man had two wives, one to whom he was sealed and one to whom he was not sealed. Would you then agree that all children born to either wife were born in the covenant?

You are not misunderstanding the scenario. And now, Vort attempts the rare quadruple negative... You fail to lack in not misunderstanding the scenario.

Maureen is not LDS. Her words were meant as a sarcastic criticism.

My understanding is that her child will indeed be born in the covenant. What that means for your situation, I have no idea. Probably nothing.

It's easy to say "your friend should not feel cheated". Talk is cheap. The fact is that the friend does feel cheated. Saying "Well, quit feeling that way!" is probably of limited use. Better would be an explanation as to why he need not feel cheated.

On a philosophical note, which of us is worthy by his own merit to perform ordinances in the place of the Lord? The Priesthood functions only because the Lord allows it among men. He has made it clear that a lawful ordinance done by an authorized man is valid, even if that authorized man is sinful and unworthy. So the baptism is as valid as if Christ himself had performed it. That said, I have sympathy for someone in that position. Could the ordinance be redone? Yes, if the relevant authorities approved. Would it be? I don't know. The problem is that redoing the ordinance suggests that such ordinances are valid based on personal worthiness of the authority. This is false. None of us is perfect. When you find out that the next person to baptize you had a porn addiction, do you get rebaptized yet again? When you discover that that guy was billing hours he had not actually worked, do you get rebaptized? He cursed at his wife; rebaptism? Where does it end?

I gather that Big Love casts the same idealistic light on Mormonism that The DaVinci Code casts on Catholicism.

CAUTION: This quiz requires legalistic parsing based on the incomplete knowledge we possess at this time. It is therefore not advisable for you to base your future actions or testimony on a silly internet quiz, this or any other. RULES: Please make acceptable comments and avoid unacceptable comments. ACCEPTABLE COMMENTS address the quiz choices, e.g.: "I believe choice X, and here is why.""I disbelieve choice X, and here is why.""This issue is more complicated than a simple choice, and here is why."UNACCEPTABLE COMMENTS avoid addressing the quiz choices, e.g.: "Don't worry, it will all work out in the Millennium.""God is perfect, so we can just leave judgment to him and not discuss such things.""Are you some faith-stealing apostate that you would ask such a question?!"Brother Bart is sealed to Sister Suzie in the temple. Tragically, they divorce some time later, but do not get their sealing dissolved at that time. Bart then marries Therese in a civil ceremony, and together they produce little Xaviera. QUESTION 1: Is Xaviera born in the covenant? Yes, Xaviera is born in the covenant of her father Bart and Suzie, to whom he is sealed.No, Xaviera is not born in the covenant.During this time period, Suzie also remarries in a civil ceremony. She and her husband Charlie welcome a new baby, Yolando. QUESTION 2: Is Yolando born in the covenant? Yes, Yolando is born in the covenant of his mother Suzie and Bart, to whom she is sealed.No, Yolando is not born in the covenant.After some time, Bart and Therese are sealed. Suzie has her sealing to Bart cancelled, and then she is sealed to Charlie. QUESTION 3: Can little Xaviera be sealed to her parents? Of course she can be sealed to her father Bart and to her real, biological mother Therese. She was never sealed to anyone else in the first place.Of course she can be sealed to her father Bart and to her real, biological mother Therese. Her sealing to Bart and Suzie is of no effect, since the sealing between them no longer exists.Of course not; she was born in the covenant of her father Bart and his first wife Suzie, so another sealing is meaningless.QUESTION 4: Can baby Yolando be sealed to his parents? Of course he can be sealed to his real, biological father Charlie and to his mother Suzie. He was never sealed to anyone else in the first place.Of course he can be sealed to his real, biological father Charlie and to his mother Suzie. His sealing to Bart and Suzie is of no effect, since the sealing between them no longer exists.Of course not; he was born in the covenant of his mother Suzie and her first husband Bart, so another sealing is meaningless.Yolando and Xaviera grow up, meet, and against all odds fall in love and are married. QUESTION 5: Isn't this kind of like, um, incest or something? This is totally just wrong.Hmmm. No, not incest, because they aren't related by blood. Just weird.Oooh, yuck, I can't think about this!QUESTION 6: Who pays for the reception? Bride's parents.Groom's parents.They split the cost.Let the darn kids pay for it themselves.Bart and Suzie's long-lost daughter Wanda comes back one day. QUESTION 7: How is she introduced by Yolando and Xaviera at Church? "This is my sister and, um, Yolando's sister, too"?"Xaviera and I have a sister in common, and, well, here she is.""Hi, we're Wanda, Xaviera, and Yolando, and we're visiting your ward today."EDIT: My answers, in case you're interested (select to view): Is Xaviera born in the covenant? ( B ) No, Xaviera is not born in the covenant.Is Yolando born in the covenant? ( A ) Yes, Yolando is born in the covenant of his mother Suzie and Bart, to whom she is sealed.Can little Xaviera be sealed to her parents? ( A ) Of course she can be sealed to her father Bart and to her real, biological mother Therese. She was never sealed to anyone else in the first place.Can baby Yolando be sealed to his parents? ( C ) Of course not; he was born in the covenant of his mother Suzie and her first husband Bart, so another sealing is meaningless.Isn't this kind of like, um, incest or something? ( B ) Hmmm. No, not incest, because they aren't related by blood. Just weird.Who pays for the reception? ( D ) Let the darn kids pay for it themselves.How is Wanda introduced by Yolando and Xaviera at Church? ( C ) "Hi, we're Wanda, Xaviera, and Yolando, and we're visiting your ward today."