Vort

Clearly, the "side" teaching their kids that there is an actual Santa Claus is wrong. Or do you think there really is a magical obese philanthropist living at the north pole? As for condemning such parents: I do not condemn them. That is not my place. But I find it interesting that you would be so explicit in justifying them. Would you likewise justify those parents who teach their children that men (or women) are intrinsically evil and not to be trusted, or that sex is primarily a recreational tool, or that getting drunk is an acceptable pastime? Would you say that they are not "right or wrong", or that they should not be condemned for teaching their children such things? Does it matter an ounce? Perhaps most children derive no harm from belief in Santa, as it is claimed that most people derive no harm from drinking alcohol. But clearly, some are harmed. How many cases of children being damaged by belief in Santa Claus would you require to rethink your position? Or is no number too large a price to pay for the wonderful fun of believing in Santa?

A true story: *********** PARENT: Let me tell you something: There is a being who loves us dearly, who watches us, who wants us to do good, and who rewards us for our good efforts with gifts. His name is Santa Claus! CHILD: Oh, goodie! I love Santa Claus! PARENT (Years later): Just kidding! There is no Santa Claus! It's all just pretend! But let me tell you something else: There is a being who loves us dearly, who watches us, who wants us to do good, and who rewards us for our good efforts with gifts. His name is God! CHILD: Uh-huh. Right. PARENT: No! Seriously! No fooling this time! *********** Not my kids. I may tell them things that are not true, since I'm only an imperfect, ignorant mortal man. But I will never intentionally tell them falsehoods like this.

Yes, I think it's wrong. Now I'll go read all the other responses here and find out how grinchy everyone doubtless thinks I am.

In America it is generally the case that "toilet" means "privy", but many other English-speaking areas, including England, use "toilet" to mean "lavatory". This usage is actually closer to the original French word toilette, "little cloth", the small towel or cloth on which one laid out one's grooming items. So her usage was correct, if nonstandard for Americans.

Oh, my goodness. I'm pretty much speechless.

Ouch. Sorry to hear it. How would I proceed? I suppose I'd go roughly as follows: Ask the bishop to call the youth family history consultants - perhaps giving him a list of people I think would be qualified. Then get a list from him of those who have been called.Talk with the youth and their parents about what you want to do (take them to the college campus and train them on the new program). Find a best time to go.As a part of the previous step, explain what the youths' responsibilities will be before and after the training, so that you don't end up with a bunch of youth trained on the new program who have no idea what they are supposed to do with the knowledge.Set up that time with the computer lab.If/When everything is worked out, do the lab session and teach the program.Report back to the bishop how everything went.I assume you did something like the above and it "blew up". Care to elaborate?

Sorry if you find this frustrating, LS, but what else are we to do? Your needs go well beyond anything we can help with. If you want to overcome this, I see three possibilities: Find someone locally who can help you.Go someplace where you can find someone to help you.Receive a miraculous healing such that the desires for evil habits are taken from your heart.In my experience, #3 never, ever happens until #1 and #2 have been fully exhausted. God seldom does for us what we can do for ourselves. Just my opinion; take it for what it's worth to you.

If this is the case, then LS is wasting his time asking us for help. He needs to get counseling and start working on psychotherapeutic remedies. I assume his bishop could recommend a counselor through LDS Social Services, and perhaps even help with (or pick up) the bill if LS doesn't have the means to do so himself.

I am so very sorry for the loss of your brother. As far as I know, your question is not answered in revealed doctrine, though LDS "folk doctrine" has long held that such communication between premortal and postmortal spirits takes place. Personally, I doubt it, but I don't think it's completely out of the question. My reasoning is as follows: Our premortal spirits dwell with the Father. We assume that means they dwell in the celestial kingdom, the realm where God dwells. This does seem a reasonable assumption. In contrast, postmortal spirits dwell in what is often called the "spirit world". This is manifestly not the celestial kingdom. However, the righteous who have made the baptismal covenant dwell in a part of the spirit world sometimes called "paradise". Might there be some sort of spiritual communication between paradise and the celestial kingdom, something beyond normal prayer? I think that's possible. Of course, this is all highly speculative and is not in any sense a part of the teachings of the gospel.

Soul: spirit and body together Spirit: the animating essence of a person, separable (for now) from the body Ghost: synonymous with "spirit", but often used in a more vulgar or secular way Body: physical, living container of our spirit Exalted body: the kind of body God has

Using a false or unproven assertion as an example is not a good way to use examples. I could make up all sorts of false and slanderous things about you and then say, "Hey, it was just an example." But I doubt you'd appreciate it. On the contrary, focusing on Washington's purported halitosis or Franklin's youthful sexual experimentation distorts their pictures, ignoring the very real and very substantial contributions they made and making them look like something they are not. I was not "demeaning everything [you] said"; I was demonstrating that you were getting your knickers in a knot over the wrong things. You brought up "affairs"; I simply wondered what you were talking about. Maybe I was a bit too overt. Anti-Mormonism and tearing down the Church and its leaders are severe pet peeves of mine. I apologize if you were not trying to do this and I reacted as if you were. To quote Elder Callister from this most recent General Conference: Suppose for a moment someone told you these three facts about a New Testament personality and nothing more: first, the Savior said of this man, “O thou of little faith”; second, this man, in a moment of anger, cut off an ear of the high priest’s servant; and third, this man denied knowing who the Savior was on three occasions, even though he had walked with Him daily. If that is all you knew or focused upon, you might have thought this man a scoundrel or a no-good, but in the process you would have failed to come to know one of the greatest men who ever walked the earth: Peter the Apostle. Similarly, attempts have been made by some to focus upon or magnify some minor weaknesses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, but in that process they too have missed the mark, the man, and his mission. Joseph Smith was the Lord’s anointed to restore Christ’s Church to the earth.

I read something a while back that suggested that the average smoker tries to quit seven times before succeeding. I'm with Taldarin; just don't give up.

Yes, I've noticed the PMS thing. Very weird.

The real American Camel:

We listen to Pavarotti's O Holy Night Christmas CD all year 'round. Go for it.

Grits == Cream of Wheat, but using corn instead.

Words of wisdom.

Baptisms of children of record are handled by their parents and the bishop. They are not convert baptisms, so they are not handled by the missionaries.

Well then, that resolves that question. Thanks for the authoritative word. Not sure how this would affect anything, since the missionaries are fully capable of baptizing and witnessing by themselves.

I agree with what you say, but in this case, it is a distinction without a difference. In his epistle to Moroni, Mormon made crystal clear the depravity inherent in baptizing those who do not need and are unable to make the covenant. Baptizing an infant is no baptism -- the infant cannot make the covenant. The same would be true of a person deeply in the throes of Alzheimer's. Not sure I agree. I think the situation is quite obviously addressed, based on what I said above. The woman in question is unable to make that covenant; therefore, she cannot be baptized. That is my supposition, as well.

Those who are not accountable for their actions cannot be baptized. Baptism is a covenant, and only those capable of understanding the covenant and taking responsibility for themselves can make that covenant.

Depends on how far progressed the Alzheimer's is. Only the mission president could make this call, and only through revelation on the particular issue.

As others have already said, it's geographical. A couple of years ago, we were told that it's fine to invite friends to Church, but that if any of them show interest, we should attend Church with them in their ward. This sounds like a wonderful idea, though I haven't (yet) had the opportunity to give it a shot. Want me to take you to a Federal Way ward, PC? Just let me know and we'll go. :)

And what, pray tell, is the "preponderance of historical evidence"? Or are you comfortable citing Wikipedia as your primary source? Does the fact that Jefferson's brother was known to have sexual congress with slave women while Jefferson himself was never shown to have had any such relations, except as imputed to him by his political enemies, have any bearing in your estimation? The exact same thing as what? You are apparently intimating that some important figures in Church history (one can only imagine you are talking about Joseph Smith himself) was guilty of having sexual affairs. Are you claiming that you are not suggesting such things, or are you saying that sexual affairs are not awful, merely surprising? Yes, I tend to be rather impatient with enemies of the Church and with those who equivocate about their intentions. It's a failing of mine, which I openly admit.

Theo, if you really are respectful, I think you will find yourself welcomed whole-heartedly here. Some of our most respected list members are not LDS, but have mastered the art of agreeable disagreement and respect for LDS beliefs that they don't hold.