Vort

Then call her right now. Call her tomorrow morning. The point is, call her the first chance you get. Don't put it off or say, "I'll talk to her Sunday." Baloney. Call her NOW.

You want advice, friend? I will give you advice. Ask this girl out tonight. Not tomorrow, not Sunday. Tonight. Call her up at 7:00 sharp and ask her out for Friday. Make sure you plan out something reasonably nice and fun -- say, dinner and a movie. Not creative, but you're not looking for creativity here. You're looking for time together.Develop a relationship with this girl over the next few weeks.Never, ever, ever hide your age from her. But don't volunteer it up front, either. If she makes an age-related comment, you can slip in that you just recently reached the Big 4-0 milestone.If you have not had a chance to mention your age after two or three weeks, you should tell her straight up (but casually) how old you are. "Bernice, I don't know if I ever mentioned it, but you know I'm an old guy, right? Don't let the elder's quorum calling fool you; I'm old enough to be a GA!" That sort of thing: light, mildly self-effacing, but not embarrassed. Just straightforward truth.If she shows less interest in you, so be it. She is young and is probably better suited to some guy in his 20s. By the same token, if after a few weeks you find her so callow that it starts to get irritating (or, heaven forbid, you don't understand all her Tweeting and texting or whatever newfangled nonsense them thar kids 'r doin' these days), maybe you decide to look for someone a little more your age. No harm, no foul, no bad feelings.On the other hand, if things do work out between you, enjoy it! Eighteen years is a lot, but so what? You might help her get a more mature view on things, and she can help you stay young at heart (and body). Such marriages are historically common (if not so much in today's society) and can be very good. You'll have to learn to laugh at or ignore all the "cradle robber" comments, but if you two form a good relationship and truly love each other, then that's really not a big deal.Now, start doing some research so that WHEN (not if) you call her tonight, you have a nice evening planned for Friday (or Saturday, if she's not available Friday, or at any other time of her convenience). Send me a wedding invite and I'll send you a toaster.

There is no mention of 24 hours. Sure, if you're a hobbit and eat six meals per day, fasting only lasts about four hours. Seriously, two meals MEANS 24 hours. I don't see how anyone in our culture doesn't understand this. For example: The law to the Latter-day Saints, as understood by the authorities of the Church, is that food and drink are not to be partaken of for twenty-four hours. (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, as quoted in the Family Home Evening Resource Book.) President Hunter further explained President Smith's remarks: Members of the Church may fast at any time as they have a need, but the fast contemplated on the day referred to as fast day, as defined by President Joseph F. Smith, 'is that food and drink are not to be partaken of for twenty-four hours, 'from even to even." ' From even to even has been given the meaning of going without two meals—from the evening meal on the night before to evening meal on fast day. (Howard W. Hunter, as quoted in LDS Gems.) Bottom line: A regular, two-meal fast is 24 hours.

Alma 3:19 - Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation. Alma 3:27 - For every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey, and this according to the spirit of prophecy; therefore let it be according to the truth. Snow's contribution: Ether 12:26 - Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek... I would also add: Ether 12:27 - I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

Every man that is cursed brings upon himself his own condemnation. Every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey.

I absolutely cannot believe that Trixie isn't on your list.

Pepsi is not good for you. Neither is 7-Up or Sprite. Soda pop in general is just bad juju. In that sense, it certainly violates the spirit of the word of wisdom. However, drinking soda pop is not contrary to the word of wisdom, even if the soda pop is caffeinated. Nasty? Yes. Bad idea? You bet. Contrary to the word of wisdom? No. Tell him that I had constant headaches while I drank Mountain Death, er, Dew, and went through awful withdrawal headaches getting off of it. Caffeine is not good for you. Better to avoid it. But it still isn't against the word of wisdom, so don't tell him it is.

Which is another way of saying no one is. Thanks, Dash!

Funny. That's almost exactly how I feel about Meryl Streep. Watching her act is like watching an acting teacher give a seminar on acting.

I can't disagree with any of this. Well, except maybe for the "majority of environmental scientists" part, since that is a self-selecting and self-policing group. But otherwise, I find your reasoning solid.

Yet this is not at all parallel to what I wrote. Why? Not at all. We are questioning the status quo. Or do you think it was simply paranoid delusion to question Bush's Iraq involvement?

The larger monotheistic world tends to view God as "I Dream of Jeannie", a being who folds his arms, blinks his eyes, and causes things to pop into and out of existence. Strangely, many of the Saints seem to believe this same doctrine. I glanced at another recent thread with the provocative topic of why we can't get everything at once. Why line upon line, precept upon precept? What's up with that, anyway? (Incidentally, I think it's a marvelous question.) To me, the answer seems obvious. Things are that way because THAT'S REALITY. We learn line upon line because THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. Couldn't God just will us to have all that knowledge, and then we would have it? No. Why not? Because God is not "I Dream of Jeannie". I believe this absurd "Jeannie God" idea is responsible for more misunderstanding in religion than any other single doctrine. God cannot do "anything", simply because "anything" includes unreal, self-contradictory ideas that cannot exist. P.S. I'm putting this in the General forum because I am curious to know the thoughts of non-LDS list members on the topic as well as those of Latter-day Saints.

When you claim they bring up "monetary concerns", you make it sound as if their only concern is paying off the boat or updating the Beemer. What we are talking about is potentially destroying the economy of our society, resulting in untold misery. Of course, if it's a choice between destroying our economy or destroying our ecosphere, I'll choose the former. But so far, I have not seen convincing evidence, just endless wind. Let us pretend for a moment that a significant number of environmental scientists in fact disbelieved anthropogenic global warming. Let us also pretend that these scientists were human beings, with spouses and children and a concern for status within their own society. Then let us suppose that these all-too-human scientists found themselves in a system that in essence provided them a choice: Fall in with the "global warming" crowd or be marginalized and prohibited from doing research (because of lack of grant funding). What would be the result? I will tell you: The result would be one of two things: They would fall in with the "global warming" crowd despite their personal views. They would be marginalized within the scientific community and their funding would dry up, thus effectively destroying their ability to continue in the scientific arena.Now, what do we see?

Requoting D&C 76:50-54: And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. I count five conditions, bolded above: Receive the testimony of Jesus.Believe on Jesus' name.Be baptized as specified by commandment.Overcome by faith.Be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.Requirement #3 explicitly enumerated baptism and thus membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or its equivalent in other dispensations). God's earthly kingdom today is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The purpose of proxy temple work for our deceased is precisely to allow them to "join it after death". True enough. As I wrote above, they must be a member of the kingdom of God, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its equivalent in other dispensations. As for the "personal visitation" part, I have no idea about that. In Elder McConkie's final General Conference testimony delivered days before his death, he talked of a future time when he would bathe the Savior's feet with his tears -- but proclaimed that he would not know at that future time any better than he knew at the time of his testimony that Jesus was the Christ. I believe the Spirit testifies of Christ's reality and divinity even better than our senses.

Then you are not reading it differently. My point is that the "Church of the Firstborn" refers solely to those who are members of God's kingdom (aka the LDS Church) and who come forth in exaltation. It manifestly does not refer to some "universal church of believers".

No, this is demonstrably incorrect. And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. (D&C 76:50-54) The Church of the Firstborn, who will be those raised to celestial glory in the resurrection of the just, are members of the kingdom of God -- aka (in this dispensation) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Millet might have a point. There is no doubt that Section 10 was received well before the LDS Church was organized. What, then, did God mean by "church"? Was he speaking to some future time? No, in context, it is clear he meant something right then. I am not yet ready to accept Millet's idea that the Lord intended the so-called "universal church". I don't know if etymology sheds light on this or not, but perhaps it is worth noting that the Greek for "church", ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), literally means "calling out of", and was used originally to denote an assembly of people. Might the "church" of D&C 10 refer to "spiritual Israel" in the wilderness? That is, might it refer to those sincere souls of the time "who [were] only kept from the truth because they [knew] not where to find it"? If so, then it is not a huge leap to get from this point to Millet's thesis. At this time, I reject the idea "that the Lord's Church is also that universal fellowship of true followers of Christ". This is explicitly contrary to what I understand the LDS Church to teach. But I also acknowledge that my understanding might be faulty, and that Millet may have a point.

In this context, it might be worth noting that under the law of Moses, the penalty for adultery was death by stoning. The penalty for (unmarried) fornication was that you had to marry the girl. Some might question why the penalty for fornication should be more severe than that for adultery. But not me.

Married.

This is the topic under discussion. Making an assertion is not the same as providing evidence. I have. It is far more likely that habitat destruction from river damming and usage is behind the coho problem than some phantom global warming.

I always thought he was an unusually good actor, not merely a pretty boy.

Sure. God created the world and all that is in it, including us. Adam was the first man, and Adam and Eve are our primal parents, the common ancestors of all human beings. Other than this, I know of no LDS doctrine on these subjects.

Laws exist so that society can live peaceably. No laws = no society = savagery.The basis of society is the family. The basis of the family is the married couple. Therefore, there is little that is more destructive to society than adultery.In point of fact, anti-adultery laws have existed through the ages of human society, but have rarely been enforced against women and almost never against men. The existence of such laws, even when not enforced, is an open acknowledgement of the society that adultery is a bad and destructive thing that ought not to be tolerated, even when it is.A society that tolerates or, especially, encourages adultery will reap the whirlwind, as we see daily.

I understand Chanukah (or Hannukah) to be a relatively minor holiday in the Jewish calendar, made more important only by its proximity to the western Christian tradition of celebrating Christmas. Is this so?

Yes, by definition, Creationism explicitly denies evolution. The two are therefore utterly incompatible. But then, I don't believe in Creationism, and it surely is not LDS doctrine. I do believe in the divine creation of the world; but I see no contradiction between that idea and the current theories of organic evolution.