Vort

Somehow I'm not making myself clear. Not sure what other words to use. Let me try again. The term "Mormon" is a term invented by non-Latter-day Saints to describe Church members. (I believe "Mormonite" was more common early on, until the shorter version took over.) The religion was thus referred to as "Mormonism". This took place quite early, and by the time the Prophet was murdered, it was obviously common; see Section 135. Note that while the early Church accepted the appellation as a sort of "nickname", they never embraced it, because the Lord had given the actual name of the Church by revelation.Takeaway: "Mormon" was not invented by the "Mormons", and was accepted by them only as a nickname. Early splinter groups appeared after the Prophet's murder, e.g. the Strangites and, later, the RLDS. Like the "Brighamites" that went to Utah, these may have been referred to by others as "Mormon". They typically did not accept the appellation, wishing instead to make clear that they were not "Brighamites". The only one of these groups that survives in appreciable numbers today are the RLDS, now called the Community of Christ. I have never heard anyone refer to the Community of Christ as "Mormons", but it's possible that some do.Takeaway: Early splinter groups were even less fond of the term "Mormon" than the Latter-day Saints, and took special pains to distance themselves from it and the "Utah Mormons". The only major surviving offshoot group, the Community of Christ, is not (as far as I know) called "Mormon". If they were or are, I suppose they have as much claim to the term, if they want it, as does the LDS Church. After arriving in Utah, the early Latter-day Saints openly practiced polygamy. After a time and much threatening and persecution, the practice was abolished. It took probably a full generation for the abolition (from President Woodruff's so-called "Manifesto") to take hold, with polygamy continuing to be practiced by at least some Latter-day Saints, primarily in Mexico and Canada but also in Utah and other US-based colonies.Takeaway: Polygamy was practiced, then abolished, among the Utah Saints, but it took a generation for the practice to disappear from the Church. Some Saints decided that doing away with plural marriage (aka polygamy) was tantamount to apostasy from the revealed truth. Others (primarily men) decided that they fancied the idea of a man having more than one wife. These Saints left the Church or were excommunicated and formed their own groups, with names such as "Fundamentalist LDS Church". They did not call themselves "the Polygamous Mormon Church" or any such thing. They are breakaways, and in the minds of Latter-day Saints, apostates from the truth. They have no affiliation with the LDS Church except for the history of polygamy. Since the LDS Church is identified as the "Mormon Church", these offshoot organizations cannot be considered any part of the "Mormon Church". And since they do not self-identify as "Mormon", it is both technically incorrect and confusing to refer to them as "Mormon polygamists". They are not "Mormon polygamists"; they are members of an offshoot (apostate) organization who attempt to continue the practice of polygamy.Takeaway: Apostate Latter-day Saints took it upon themselves to continue the unauthorized practice of polygamy. These people either left the Church or were excommunicated, and formed their own church organizations. Those organizations were not named "Mormon", and were (and are) in no way affiliated with the so-called "Mormon Church". To refer to them as "Mormon" anything is incorrect and confusing to the public, who associate the term "Mormon" with the LDS Church. This is why the term "Mormon polygamist" as applied to modern splinter groups is incorrect and why the Church has tried many times to clarify this issue. There is nothing in the least hypocritical about this; the Church is not attempting to deny the use of the term "Mormon" to those who wish to self-identify as such. It is not the polygamous groups who use the term "Mormon"; it is the media that uses (or misuses) the term.If you still can't understand what I'm trying to say, I guess we'll just have to leave it at that. Unless someone else can do a better job of explaining.

I recall one older couple proudly recalling how "all of our children were conceived within the bond of the sacred garment", something that would be nigh impossible with today's two-piece design...and that, in any case, doesn't seem to me something to take pride in...

As personal opinions go, that's a fine one to have. However, those organizations do not self-identify as "Mormon", and have not historically been referred to as "the Mormon Church". That distinction belongs to the LDS Church. So regardless of how one may wish that people used the language, people continue to use the language as they will. In that context, it is perfectly reasonable for the Church to call attention to the distinction and suggest that the splinter groups not be referred to as "Mormon", which serves only to confuse the issue in the minds of most of the public.

This is a different matter: A Latter-day Saint clandestinely pursuing a wicked lifestyle, the very definition of hypocrisy.The Church was not referring to such people. Rather, they were differentiating the LDS Church, commonly called "Mormon", from the polygamous splinter groups in Utah that call themselves things like "Fundamentalist Church of etc." but not "Fundy Mormons". The "Mormon" label was applied to those groups by the media, not by the groups themselves. The Church was simply noting, correctly, that the term "Mormon" historically applies to the LDS Church and its members, and that by misusing the term "Mormon", the media was incorrectly leading the public to think that the lawbreaking polygamists were LDS. There was not the least whiff of hypocrisy in the Church's actions in this matter.

At our stake conference this past Sunday, a counselor in the stake presidency described a technique he uses during prayer to make his conversation with God more personal and meaningful to him. Once many years ago, a friend of his who worked in the Church Office Building offered to take him to see President Kimball's office while President Kimball was away. He went and was greatly impressed by the very large and beautiful desk there. He said that, in his mind's eye, he could see President Kimball sitting at that desk. He then said that he imagined God sitting behind the desk. When he prays, he imagines God seated at that desk; and when he addresses God in prayer, he imagines that God turns his head to look at him and listen to his prayer. I thought the idea was brilliant; such a thing had not occurred to me to try. Does anyone here have a like visualization technique that s/he would care to share? What do you do and how does it work for you?

Not annoying at all. Let me rephrase:The scriptures say nothing about how our society should punish its transgressors.

Yes. Repentence is a religious concept, not a legal concept. There is nothing intrinsically unjust about a permanent (lifelong) punishment for transgression. Why not? Having pity for them is fine. Having compassion for them is fine. Neither of those means we need or ought to restore full societal rights to them. This is not obvious. I don't see any compelling evidence that a rapist deserves "a second chance" by having his crime in effect forgotten. Scriptures say nothing about how society should punish its transgressors. That is left up to us.

I have no opinion re: Marie Osmond. In general, we make sacred covenants and then we keep them. Wearing the garment night and day is a small part of our temple covenants. Perhaps it seems like a large sacrifice. If you make that covenant and keep it faithfully, I am confident that you will find it a minor inconvenience at most. Compared to, for example, wearing a yarmulke at all times, I would think that wearing knee-length underwear is a minor inconvenience at worst. My advice would be: Continue in your present path back to full activity. When the time comes for temple attendance and covenants, cross that bridge at that time. You will indeed need to make (and hopefully keep) that temple covenant; but I believe your faith and the gift of the Holy Ghost will strengthen you to make that sacrifice, however large or small it may seem to you.

I, for one, totally believe him! I'm not Jesus, and he's just like me!

Welcome back! I hope you enjoy worshipping with your fellow ward members.

I have something of a lukewarm attitude toward Scouting. On the one hand, I think it tends to be exclusionary by its very nature, emphasizing as it does outdoor activities. I think that, in general, LDS troops tend to be poorly run. I think that Scouting ends up being yet another checklist for us to try to run through. I think it's easy to allow Scouting to go on autopilot, thereby losing the good it might do. On the other hand, Scouting has done my sons a lot of good. One of my oldest son's real life landmarks was working to finish his Eagle Scout project and requirements at (literally) the last minute; he finished minutes before midnight the day before his birthday. It was a huge and difficult push, but I think it did him a world of good. It might well serve as a turning point in his life and a foundation upon which his imminent mission and future life accomplishments will be built, at least in part. My other sons, too, have benefited from the guidance and care of very good men in leadership positions. They are comfortable handling knives, tying off ropes, and other basic camping stuff, which skills ought not be underrated. And once they turn 14 and enter the Varsity program, the camping emphasis very greatly lessens, and they have the chance to do all sorts of other stuff, including some very cool things. I think the weaknesses of LDS Church-sponsored Scouting are most or all due to the failings of the leadership, either to set the program up or to lead and inspire the young men to push it forward. If the program ran as it should, I think it would be a stunning success. And as long as it doesn't run as it should, I see no reason to believe that any other program would fare better.

I'll drink to that.

This is false. As far as I know, the Church never told any splinter groups that they were not allowed to claim the title "Mormon". Rather, the Church told the media that their [the media's] sensational headlines and stories talking about "Mormon polygamists" were misleading, and that the polygamists weren't Mormon. So far as I know, no polygamist group has ever called itself "Mormon"; that term has pretty much been reserved for members of the LDS Church. Do you know differently? A double standard per se is not hypocrisy. In any case, I don't believe the Church is guilty of using a double standard in this case. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

"Hypocrisy" means putting on a false face; that is, pretending to be something that one most definitely is not. In what way is the Church putting on a false face?

Maybe. Or perhaps you fail to make your wording clear. Interesting how your impulse is to blame the other person... Yet "how Huntsman defines his Mormonism" was never the topic. Rather, the topic was "whether you believe he was being forthcoming in his answers or if he was trying to hide." Perhaps. To you, at least. But what you find interesting is irrelevant to the question.

Certainly. I'm just not sure why you consider it to be hypocritical.

How is it hypocritical?

And yet here you are...

100%? No. I must claim my interpretation as my own, but by the same token, the speaker has the duty to make himself clearly understood to the listeners. This is especially true with someone running for public office, and triply true for someone who would be POTUS.Reread Huntsman's answers, and then honestly tell me whether you believe he was being forthcoming in his answers or if he was trying to hide.

As I said before, I would prefer never to see a Latter-day Saint US President than to see a Latter-day Saint compromise his integrity to get the necessary votes.

The problem is, I suppose, in my interpretation. It seems to me like he's either refusing to admit that he is not a believing Mormon for fear of losing his LDS voting foundation, or refusing to embrace his religious faith for fear of losing the antiMormon Evangalical voters. I want to see the man act with integrity, regardless of how he might feel about the LDS Church.

This is fine. (Well, not in an eternal sense, but in the sense of showing integrity.) This person is clarifying his Church membership and affiliation: His name may still be on the rolls, but he does not consider himself "Mormon" any more. If that is Huntsman's positions, let him say so.

You're avoiding my question. When the reporter asks you about your LDS Church membership, do you say, "Oh, well, I'm kinda sorta Mormon, in a way, not really, but you could maybe say so technically..."? Or do you say, "Yes, I'm a Mormon; I may not agree with everything that most Mormons say or do or the political opinions they tend to hold, but by golly, I'm LDS, no bones about it"? You may judge yourself however you see fit. I have judged actions, not individuals. You don't disagree with his refusal to own up proudly to his Church membership? Except, apparently, yourself. According to your words, you are. Sorry, mightynancy, but this is a crock.You think I don't "ask tough questions"? You think that you and other "liberal" Mormons are the only ones who actually think about things? Please. I admit that I have never quite understood the hubris of the left that makes them think that they, and they alone, think about things. Many of the questions from "liberal" Mormons seem to me to be something on the level of teenage angst; yet, like teens, they insist that they have found deep, dark, never-before-revealed "secrets" that would disrupt the foundational fabric of testimony of all those lesser folks, who surely have never considered such things. If Brother Huntsman is ashamed to own his Church membership, that is loathesome. If he avoids mentioning or defending his Church membership because he's afraid it will cost him votes, that is loathesome. Whether Brother Huntsman himself is loathesome is another matter, one I don't care to explore.

Like what? So you're considering running for President of the United States. A reporter asks you, "Are you a believing Mormon? What of your Mormon heritage?"What's your answer? So...what? How does this make his waffling any less loathesome?

It is only unfair and ridiculous because the test doesn't actually test proficiency in the subject. Rather, it tests your ability to take the test.This is tautological to some degree; all tests by definition test your ability to succeed on the test. But some tests carry over quite well to actual application or demonstration of the knowledge you've learned, while other tests do a very poor job of measuring how well you can use the subject. If a test could perfectly measure your command of the subject, it would be entirely "fair" to base 100% of your grade on a single test. That is, ideally, what a grade is supposed to represent: Your mastery of the subject. The fact that most grades are not based entirely on a single test is a concession to the fact that tests are, at best, a rough and not altogether accurate measure of mastery.