Vort

It would seem unusual to me if they were to keep pressing the point. If I sensed hostility or an argumentative agenda, I would simply stop responding altogether, saying something like, "I see we have different views on this, so I'll just bow out of the conversation."If they were sincere, I would continue to explain to them what they don't understand. That we "don't wear anything special" to remind ourselves of our baptismal covenants is not relevant. We do take the sacrament every week for that purpose, but the fact is that God has given us the blessing of the garment as part of our temple covenant with him. God sees it as necessary and desirable, whether or not we share that vision.

If he were anything less than a good friend, I would probably respond by saying, "Why are you asking me about my underwear? That's kinda creepy." (I have actually done this before, to an antiMormon who thought he would embarrass me. Didn't quite work out that way.)For a good friend, I would simply explain, "The garment is a reminder of the covenants I have made with God. It's under my clothing because my covenants are personal, not something I parade around, but they are very intimate to me. The garment functions as a sort of spiritual shield and protection, constantly reminding me of the promises I have made to God and what he has promised me."

Ha! "Bonnet movies"! Good one! Never heard it before.

The 1995 version of Persuasion is the best Austen adaptation I have ever seen. A beautiful, flawless film. Why it didn't get more press, I'm sure I will never know. Persuasion is certainly not my favorite Austen novel, but this film is my favorite Austen adaptation. Much moodier and less fun and frothy than P&P, but ultimately just as satisfying. Seriously, if you have not seen it, queue it up on Netflicks or go rent it from Blockbuster or borrow it from your visiting teacher. You do not want to miss it.

In another thread, Jamie123 mentions the very funny performance of Mr. Collins by David Bamber from the 1995 A&E/BBC version of Pride and Prejudice. I thought it might be fun to compare the various versions that I have seen. 1980 BBC and PBS: not rated. Honestly, I don't remember this one, though I know I have seen it. I suspect I would like it, but I don't know enough about it to give it a rating. Lots of people say it's good. 2005 Focus Features: 3 out of 10. Swing and a miss. Pity, really. The film was beautifully made and had its charms. Donald Sutherland was a very different but ultimately satisfying Mr. Bennet; similarly, Mrs. Bennet (Brenda Blethyn) was somewhat less of a ditz than her book counterpart, but on the whole I enjoyed her character and was touched by that character's relationship to her husband and daughters. Jane was well-cast, possibly the best Jane of the lot.The problem was with two things: the writing and Lizzie's acting. I like Keira Knightley and think she's very pretty (and with a name like "Knightley", you knew she would have to be in an Austen film eventually), but she was far out of her depth playing a confident young woman like Lizzie. In Knightley's hands, Lizzie came off as something of a spoiled brat, certainly not the mature young woman fully capable of matching wits with Mr. Darcy. Knightley was not helped by the writing of her character, which used Hollywoodish cliches and apparently followed the "less is more" school of dialogue. This problem affected not only Lizzie's character, but to some degree all of them. Who can forget Charlotte's plaintive whine, "Don't you judge me, Lizzie!" I mean, seriously? Come on. A sad waste of an honorable effort. I could barely sit through it once, and would be unlikely to do so again. (Let it be known that Sister Vort enjoyed it and found it far less deficient than her husband did.) 1940 MGM: 6 out of 10. This version certainly had its charms. Laurence Olivier lent a bit of gravitas to the cast; Greer Garson was without doubt a beautiful woman; and as long as you are satisfied with a light, frothy P&P, this one does okay. Collins is suitably idiotic, Lizzie is sufficiently clever, and Mrs. Bennett is ditzy but not scene-stealing. Lady DeBourgh is, of course, completely wrong, but within the parameters of the film her character works reasonably well. The completely anachronistic "period" dress is slightly distracting, but not as much as the 1940-era camera work and stage-type acting. It's unfair to judge the movie based on these latter two things, of course. But in the end, this movie is a very lightweight film that makes little attempt at fidelity to Austen's novel, except in broad outlines. Enjoyable but probably not something I would care to watch twice. 2003 Independent "Latter-Day Comedy": 7.5 out of 10. This was not really an adaptation, more of a retelling of many of the essential elements in the book, set in Provo among BYU students. Well written, well cast, well acted, and well directed. It does not aspire to greatness, but it does aspire to entertainment, and it succeeds very well. I have enjoyed watching this film a couple of times. Definitely recommended. 1995 BBC/A&E: 9.5 out of 10. Honestly, this miniseries is probably as close to a perfect adaptation of P&P as we are likely ever to see. It's not perfect, but by golly, it comes within spitting distance of perfect. It was meticulously authentic, or at least seemed so to my (admittedly unsophisticated) eye. Jennifer Ehle is a radiant, beautiful Elizabeth (lending a bit of comedy to her line about how Jane, played by a very attractive Susannah Harker, is "quite five times as pretty as the rest of us" -- uh, yeah, okay, I suppose we can suspend our disbelief for a bit). Colin Firth, though not a natural "Darcy", completely owns the role in a highly entertaining, impressive, completely believable performance. Bingley (Crispin Bonham-Carter) is earnest and likeable, a good friend and a good man but out of his depth next to his best buddy Darcy.Actually, I could go through every role and extol how well it was brought to life. Special mentions ought to be made of Mr. and Mrs. Bennet (Benjamin Whitrow and Alison Steadman, who I understand was given the role without even auditioning), Lydia (played with abandonment and gusto by Julia Sawalha), Anna Chancellor's wonderfully serpentine Caroline Bingley, and of course David Bamber's incomparably unctuous Mr. Collins. Seriously, what's not to like about this adaptation? Even men who don't like chick flicks like this.

One more praise for the A&E/BBC version: While no adaptation of Pride and Prejudice captures the charm and beauty of Jane Austen's prose, I find this version by far the most faithful in writing and in spirit to the book. If the book were not available, I would always point people to this movie/serialized version as the definitive representation. (But the book is better.)

Elder McConkie's actual words were, "He died and she did, and it was a total and complete waste of time." They nicened it up a bit for the transcript, but you can listen to the original.Many people don't realize that McConkie was a very funny guy.

David Bamber and Colin Firth were both cast against type, but each made his character work so well that an entire generation of schoolgirls pictures the character as the actor. In Miss Austen's book, Mr. Collins was tall and thing, which gangliness emphasized and caricatured his buffoonish personality. Bamber made the character his own, however, and in the end it didn't bother the viewer at all that he didn't bear great physical resemblance to Austen's character. He nailed the most important part. (As did Firth.)

I'm not an NBA fan, but I had to laugh at this:

Indeed. I would add that it's not quite as mechanistic as all that, either. What constitutes "a real opportunity to accept the gospel"? I cannot answer that, and I suspect few (or no) other Latter-day Saints can, either. Such things are God's to deal with. We know only what has been revealed to us in the scriptures, primarily the Doctrine and Covenants,and some things that we individually may have been taught by the Spirit.All will have the opportunity to come unto Christ and to receive him, if they will. If they will not, then they will receive whatever portion they are willing to receive. There is no favoritism from God toward Jews, Mormons, or anyone else. All are equal before God, and all will be given the opportunity to come unto him through Christ. We Latter-day Saints are simply in the happy and enviable position of being a part of God's kingdom on earth -- happy and enviable, that is, to those who love Christ. I fear that for the majority of the world, such a position is neither happy nor enviable. As Brother Nibley taught, the joy of God is a fearsome thing, something we are not ready to experience. What is the greatest joy the human mind can conceive of? Why, to behold the face of God and dwell in his presence. And what is the most painful horror that can be inflicted on devils and wicked men? To behold the face of God and dwell in his presence. We can become ready to experience the presence of God and the unfathomable joy of his countenance as we live the gospel, for it will teach us how to experience, cope with, and enjoy such eternal happiness.

You are mistaken, PC, though I can hardly blame you. Many Latter-day Saints believe exactly this: Jesus' atonement is necessary only for those who gain their exaltation.The scriptures very clearly teach otherwise. EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, and ALL who do not accept the atonement are cast off. The meanest, most sinful person in the "telestial kingdom" will have accepted the atonement of Christ. That is a minimal prerequisite for any salvation, for any of God's glory.

It appears you're looking for opinions, after all. So with the caveat that tithing is defined as I originally responded and that the matter is between you, God, and your bishop, I'll weigh in with my opinion.Taxable status has exactly ZERO to do with tithing. You receive income from <insert source -- government, inheritance, random people off the street, whatever>. That income is increase for you, so therefore you pay 10% of it for a tithe. If you do not pay 10% of it, you are not paying a full tithe. Period. You may dance around and justify it however you like. It makes no difference to me. But in my opinion, your government income most certainly is increase, and therefore should be tithed, the same as any other increase. There ya go. My opinion. Ask me again, and perhaps I'll provide another.

Is this the book where Rick remembers his grandmother's ill treatment of his grandfather, but the grandfather feels so guilty because of the one time he responded with a snippy comeback to her continued unkindness? If so, I'll say the book left me cold. But I admit that may be a result of my own spiritual immaturity.

The apostle Paul called the then-current high priest "thou whited wall" for his blatant hypocrisy. Paul was right, but he recanted when he learned the high priest's station. Paul recognized the high priest's authority, despite his open hypocrisy and obvious unworthiness. Common sense tells us that if perfection were required to officiate in Priesthood ordinances, precious few such ordinances would ever be performed. God allows us to officiate in the Priesthood even when we are not completely worthy of that privilege.

A postscript of sorts: I walked into the building a few minutes ago and greeted the receptionist, who welcomed me with a friendly smile (and no noticeable mockery). I told her I didn't have too much fear of being spotted back again in this building. When she asked why not, I told her I doubted most of the people would recognize me with my clothes on. She laughingly agreed.

Tithing means paying one-tenth of your interest annually. That is the only definition of tithing. Anyone who says otherwise is not speaking with divine authorization. How does this apply to you, in your circumstances? What constitutes your annual interest? That is a matter between you, God, and your bishop. Now, if you want opinions, we have a hundred people who will offer you a hundred and ten different opinions on the matter. I'll even pipe up, if that's what you're looking for. But those opinions and two dollars will buy you a cup of hot cocoa at your local Starbucks. The bottom line on the matter is what I quoted in the first sentence.

No, it is not euthanasia. Let me repeat. It is not euthanasia. When a person dies in the way you have described, his/her organ systems shut down one by one. Appetite is generally the first thing to go. It is true that, in some circumstances, you can force a person to live a few more hours or even days by force-feeding him, but you don't get "good" life out of that. You just prolong the dying phase and briefly (and painfully) postpone the inevitable. Your father and mother-in-law did not die of starvation, in any sense. Whatever strength they may have gotten (in your father's case) or might have gotten (in your m-i-l's case) from the food would at most have prolonged their lives a very short time. As we learn more about end-of-life issues and hospice care, many things we used to do and considered them loving gestures show themselves as needless and even painful. When we do our best, we have no need to feel guilt, but neither should we feel guilt when we allow dying people to complete their journey.

Moral: The Nazis weren't the only ones who were barking mad.

I'm pretty sure that all of us don't say that. Many of us say that love is an attitude toward someone else. If you serve them selflessly and watch out for their well-being, you are loving them. I believe this is the basis of any loving relationship, including marriage.

I'm sure my quorum brethren would be deeply touched by my spiritual enlightenment from this experience.

Hi, James,I just discovered this thread. Very touching to read it. Remember Winston Churchill's words: "Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never." I'm sorry you got drunk. That doesn't make you a bad or worthless person. It means you need to stop getting drunk. Keep working toward that goal. Just do not give in. Keep fighting the good fight, and you will eventually win. Pray to God and ask him to help you. Then do all you can. You will eventually win.

Welcome, melbee.

I believe I know exactly what you're talking about. For whatever it's worth, here is my take on the matter.I believe that feeling God's love for us is a spiritual gift. Not all spiritual gifts are given to all of us; feeling God's love for me in a personal sense is not one of my spiritual gifts. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love me individually; on the contrary, I'm sure he does. I just don't feel it. But I see his love for me in my life. I see his hand moving in my life, and from that, I know he loves me. I see it in my relationship with my wife and my children, with my situation regarding employment and housing, my interactions with my wonderful ward members, and a hundred other ways. It's not the same as feeling God's love in a personal way, but in some ways it's probably much better. I do feel my wife's love for me; isn't that much the same as God's love for me? Isn't that at least as important and immediate for my life? So my advice is: Don't worry about not "feeling" God's love for you. You know he loves you, so just recognize his hand in your life and go on enjoying the blessings he has given you, secure in the knowledge (if not the feeling) of God's love.

You had better not.

It would be completely inappropriate for you to call your former stake president and tell him you lied to him about fornicating. He is no longer your stake president, so he has no authority to hear confession and no reason (and, very probably, no desire) to know the intimate details of your sins. Talk to your current stake president.