Vort

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.

Such lines cannot easily be drawn, I think. Suppose Jesus mismeasured a table leg while building a table on order from someone. Then suppose the mismeasured table leg was the root of an accident that caused injury. Jesus might well be held legally responsible for the injury. Would he not, at least to some degree, also be morally responsible for the injury caused by his neglect?

I bet Brother MorningStar gets all hot and bothered. And if he doesn't, it's a sure thing you do.

With all the waiters dressed in Speedos.

Heck, yeah! A guy like that would be a real weiner!

Which politician will you get to hawk your wares?

A bit more specific, please? I have listened to all of Elder McConkie's General Conference speeches, and all of his BYU devotional speeches as well, and I don't recall anything remotely like this. Please cite the specific address. If you can just name the General Conference, that would probably be enough to find the reference, if such a reference exists.

The law of consecration was never discontinued. It is just as applicable to us as it was to the early Saints. Each person who receives his or her temple endowment is bound under that law. President Snow changed nothing. The word "tithing" means "tenth", and has since the English language evolved from lowland German. The law given to the Church through Joseph Smith is that we pay a tenth of our annual interest to the Church in tithing. This has never changed.

All we must do, we are told, is to do our best. God requires nothing more -- but nothing less. Serious question: What does this mean? Because I think it cannot be taken at face value. Does anyone ever do their best for more than a few moments at a time? Ever? I do not believe I have lived a single day of my life wherein I have done "my best" throughout the whole day. Not once, at least not since very early childhood. If I am required to do no less than "my best", then I am already damned. I do not, and I believe cannot, maintain peak performance for more than a short period. Now, I admit this may be just an excuse. For example, I have spoken with people who openly mock and disbelieve the idea that a person can be chaste, especially an unmarried person. They believe, as far as I can tell quite sincerely, that it is not possible for someone of normal sex drive to remain chaste past some arbitrary age (usually about 20). Now that's pretty pathetic. You have to wonder what kind of person would actually disbelieve in the very possibility of exercising a modicum of sexual self-control. But I have met people, more than one, who believe just that. So perhaps this is just a reflection of my own sad state. Maybe lots of people out in the world very literally live up to their potential every moment of every day, or at least most moments of most days. So I don't deny the possibility. But looking at myself and my own sad track record, I find it difficult to believe. I have a hard time going a single hour, much less an entire day, doing "my best". In every case, I always could have done at least incrementally better than I did. Commentary welcome.

beefche + dravin = have bird fence

Thus saith the noble MorningStar In stalwart phrase and ringing tone: "Oh, hear, ye near, and those afar! Truth to your minds I shall make known! "Until ye learn and comprehend, I'll never flag; I'll never rest And tell you truth, if ear you'll lend -- The Hooter's owl's eye's a breast!"

Then this leads to a dilemma. There are exactly two possibilities: The LDS ordinances for the dead are efficacious.The LDS ordinances for the dead are not efficacious.These are the only two possibilities. (If there is a third, please let me know.) Let us examine each in turn. The LDS ordinances for the dead are efficacious. How can this be possible? It can be possible ONLY if the following two conditions are met: God himself authorizes and approves of the LDS ordinances.The individual for whom the ordinance work is done personally approves of and desires to receive the ordinances.By #1 above, the rites have divine approval, so therefore no man or woman can reasonably object to them. By #2 above, the individual has given consent and expressed desire for these ordinances, so it can in no possible way be claimed that they are being "converted away from Judaism" (or from anything else) without their consent. The LDS ordinances for the dead are not efficacious. In this case, the LDS ordinances do nothing whatsoever to the dead person, to his family, to his memory, or to anything else in the entire world (except perhaps to the persons performing the ordinance). The worthless ordinances cause no effect; therefore, they do not in any sense touch the dead, and cannot be considered a desecration of the dead.In other words, whichever of the two possibilities above is correct, neither constitutes a desecration of the dead. This has little or nothing to do with particular religious beliefs of Jews. This has to do with simple, obvious reason. Very interesting. What have I written that suggests I find it important to submit such names? I have made my beliefs on that topic clear, I think. My beef is not with the agreements or decisions of the Church's leadership; it is with the undisguised bigotry of those who rail against us for practicing private forms of worship that they don't like. Naming their bigotry for what it is does not constitute passing what Elder Oaks described as "final judgment" on people. By any 21st-century American measure, my grandmother was racist. She would certainly qualify in word and expression as a bigot today. Yet I have little doubt that she calmly awaits her resurrection and subsequent exaltation while she pursues the work God has for her. We all have weaknesses. I daresay we all have prejudices and even bigotry. I hope not to be condemned by God for my weaknesses, prejudices, or bigotry. I do not condemn the Jews who rail against the Church for their ignorance; rather, I hope they eventually lose their hatred and bigotry. But that doesn't mean I will refuse to identify their bigotry for what it is. Where did you get the idea that I call out their bigotry "for the sake of...feeling superior in [my] thinking"? That is a false statement.

Your husband works for Rapa Scrapple? Cool!

I thought it was a clever anagram of "amp". Figured you were an electrical engineer or a shred guitarist.

Btw, PC, my questions are sincere. I'm not attempting to lead you down the garden path. I rarely have the chance to dialog with an informed member of another religion who gives thoughtful replies, so I'm taking advantage. While I'm at it: What did Paul mean in Romans 8:16-17, when he spoke of us being "joint-heirs with Christ"? In what sense are we joint-heirs with the Lord? Is not Paul specifically equating us with Christ under the Father in these verses? For the record, I don't particularly care to convert anyone to the idea that "We Can Become Gods!" I believe the idea, but I also believe it does not mean what too many careless Latter-day Saints claim that it means, and that it does mean something beyond what we're now able to see. I suspect that if I understood it clearly and could explain it clearly to you, you would agree with it, too.

Is it possible for us to be perfect, even as the Father is perfect? If so, what does that mean?

What has that to do with offense at temple ordinances? Abstain from pork: Jewish religious belief. Temple work: LDS religious belief. I am criticizing those who would interfere with legal and ethical religious practices because they don't like those practices. You are criticizing me because you don't like my opinions. Correct. I understand that our actions are "perceived as disrespectful". My point, which I have made exhaustively, is that such perception is not reasonable. So what? If Jews want to circumcise by proxy for my dead relatives, let them. It is not offensive and cannot be considered so, except to a bigot. And in the minds of anyone, those rituals mean absolutely nothing, and do absolutely nothing to the dead person whose name is being pronounced. (Unless you're a believing Latter-day Saint, which offended Jews are not.) How interesting, volgadon. Do you understand why I feel the way I do? Such as? How so? Seriously? You really want me to prove a negative? The onus is on you to demonstrate that it does involve the Holocaust victim. I think you're a thief. Prove me wrong. Following that line of reasoning, we can conclude that we should never name a child the same name as someone who is dead, because we are taking his name away. So far, you have done nothing at all except assert that LDS temple ordinances are offensive. You have produced not a single argument to substantiate that assertion. So what? In what way does it touch the dead, incinerated individual? But I'm not performing an ordinance that THEY consider valid for their ancestors. Ergo, nothing offensive is happening. Because the individual is not present, is not in any way affected by what takes place, is not placed in a position of public mockery, or anything else of the sort. If you are not a believing Latter-day Saint, there is no possible way that you can believe the LDS ordinances touch the person whose name is on the card.

Ah, there goes jealousy, rearing its ugly head. No, wait, that's just Blocky. My bad.

1. Take your pick of the following excuses: Due to my refusal to pick a major, BYU labeled me "variably oriented, reluctant to major", or VORTmajor.It represents my tendency to get sucked into the vortex of debate and noise around me.My parents didn't like me very much.2. Yes, it identifies me to this group. No one else, just me. Very particular. 3. Everyone else's screen name sucks. (When you're named "Vort", you can pretty much criticize with impunity. What are people going to do? It's like being named "Butkus"; no one can add much insult to that injury.)

This thread was started less than a week ago. It can't be considered a zombie in any sense. I don't understand. People are still commenting on this thread, so it's obviously of some interest to them. Why should it be closed?

PC, what do traditionalists make of Matthew 5:48?