Vort

Welcome, Thomas60. I don't know the first thing about christianchat, but my totally prejudiced, biased, uninformed guess is that they hate Mormons worse than they hate atheists. I see some real strength in the intellectual position typically adopted by most atheists; I'm somewhat intellectually inclined myself, so I naturally gravitate to that way of considering things. But in my experience, most atheists are glaringly weak in a sort of meta sense; they typically don't realize the foundation of sand upon which all their beliefs are built. In rejecting God, they have rejected any possible recourse to any standard higher than human intellect. Seeing how our modern concepts differ so radically from those of ancient Greece -- arguably the pinnacle of recorded human philosophical achievement -- should, I think, be enough to convince any honest and clear-thinking person of this fact. Seeing the radical changes in our own society within a single generation underscores that fact. Anyway, welcome. I look forward to hearing from you.

This is a prime example of the weakness of those who claim the so-called sola scriptura position, holding that the Bible is the perfect Word of God, and that anything and everything we will ever need to know is contained therein.The Bible is a collection of ancient writings, many or most of them inspired of God. But not all Biblical writings are divinely inspired (note Joseph Smith's comment about Solomon's Song), and those that are inspired are not all of equal reliability or worth. Many things were common among ancient pagan religions; for example, circumcision. In this case, God apparently used an existing practice -- one that many clear-thinking persons today consider utterly barbaric -- to impress the importance of a covenant on his chosen people. While I do not for a moment believe that the true and living God ever required and accepted the blood of an innocent as a sacrifice to him, I can easily believe that stories, real or invented, that show the importance of covenant-keeping among God's people were used to establish this truth, even if the stories were somewhat overboard in portraying innocent girls being killed and cut up. I may be wrong, but I rather suspect the ancients mostly understood this. I would guess that, when they heard the story you reference, they didn't think, "Hey, lookie there! God sometimes requires is to slit our children's throats and cut various organs out of their dead bodies!" Rather, I would guess their takeaway was, "When you make a covenant with God, it is a holy and binding thing, and we must fulfill our covenant regardless of the personal cost to us." (Remember that children were considered an extension of the parents, especially the father, and that sacrificing your child would not have been viewed so much as a brutal, vicious, and probably psychotic crime as it would have been seen as the ultimate sacrifice a person can make.)

Depends entirely on your definition of scripture. Three obvious answers might be: Last General ConferenceThe 1995 Proclamation on the FamilyThe 1978 Priesthood revelation This morning, perhaps?

Ah, the joys of a lay ministry!What I write here is unauthoritative. That's true for all of us, of course, but it's ESPECIALLY true for me. I have no direct experience in this area, and am drawing on general knowledge and the experience of family and friends. The immediate answer to your question is: You can't marry civilly and then get sealed because the Church authorities have said that you can't. Obviously, this begs the real question: Why is the policy as such? It seems to me that the Church's policy is designed to underscore the importance of the sealing by making sure that it's not done as a sort of afterthought: "Oh, well, now we're married, let's make sure we get sealed, too." Rather, the sealing is the important ceremony. To make this explicit, the Church says that if you're going to get married civilly, you need to prove your marital commitment by waiting a year before receiving the blessings of being sealed. Of course, that's just my opinion, not an official statement. I have been told that this is designed to be a protection to the woman. The sealing itself provides protections, or so I am told. A man might be sealed simultaneously to more than one woman, but a woman (I am told) cannot be sealed to more than one man, or at the very least not more than one living man. So to insure that the woman enjoys the protection of her sealing covenant, she remains sealed to her divorced husband until such a time as she can make that sealing covenant with another.This has application in another context that seems very unfair to the man, and was more common when polygamy was being lived. I have been told that the "rule" with respect to children being born in the covenant is: The children "follow" the mother. That is, if the mother is sealed to a man, any children she produces (whether or not they were fathered by the woman's husband) are born in the covenant of the woman and her husband. But the children that a man produces are not sealed to him unless he is sealed to the mother to whom that child is born. So if a woman is sealed in the temple, divorces, then marries another man civilly, and that couple has a child during their "waiting year", that child is born in the covenant of the woman and her ex-husband, and NOT in the covenant of his or her actual father. If I were that second husband, do you suppose I might not be totally pleased by this turn of events? Because you have chosen to feel that way.In saying that, I'm not trying to bag on you or even criticize you. It's important that you realize and "own" how you feel. No one else is "making" you feel any way -- not the Church, not your bishop, not the general authorities. You alone are responsible for your feelings. The policy is what the policy is, and the practices are what the practices are. Your reaction to them is totally yours, however. Sealing is not denied you; rather, you are being offered a choice. You can marry now in a civil ceremony and then wait a year to be sealed to your husband, or you can start the process of having your previous sealing cancelled (however lengthy that process may be) and then be sealed as soon as that clears. No need to get upset about it; no one is saying that one choice is right and the other wrong. Either choice is probably good, so your task is to determine which is better. And undoubtedly, one of those choices IS the better choice. But no one here is qualified to make that determination. That is between you, your fiance, and God, with input (if you wish for it) from your bishop. Hope that offers you some perspective.

A worthy and worthwhile effort. Glad someone's attempting to do this. But the reported fascination of some Evangelicals over this reminds me of Nibley's observation that it's ironic to see religious archaeologists searching in the dust of death and decay to find out about eternal life. Those who reject continuing revelation must of necessity try to find the purest fountain of revealed truth on which to base their lives; but of course, the very nature of the teachings of the gospel prevent it from being transmitted primarily by ink on paper. It is a dynamic process of teaching from heaven, the text serving as nothing more than an aid. Such efforts as these are interesting and even useful. But from the perspective of one who follows revealed truth as given through living prophets, they seem woefully inadequate to give any real, important insights into life-changing truths of eternal import.

Long ago in my childhood, I realized that I'm the only real person around. Everyone else is just here for my amusement and edification. So whether you have a life or not, I don't worry about it, because you just vanish into thin air when you're not around me, anyway.

Connie: Been fine, thanks. Hope the same for you. MorningStar: <intense stare> Can I get voice lessons? <more staring> I'll probably have to cancel out at inopportune moments. Hope you're okay with that. <staring intensifies>

Thanks, JaG, Ram, MOE, Beefche. Nice to see you again, too. I came back because I wanted to ask a question of the august members of this list, but after posting it, I decided it probably wasn't the sort of thing to be discussed openly, so I asked for the thread to be deleted. Maybe I'll stick around for a little bit before taking another 18-month hiatus. Or not. The conversations and friendships here are appealing, but addictive personalities like Vort's need to exercise great caution.

My father ordained me to every Priesthood office I have ever held, most recently as an elder in March of 1981 while I was finishing high school. I have always valued having his line of authority. Silly, perhaps; the Priesthood is Christ's, not Dad's. But I still prize that fact. Dad died at the beginning of this year, leaving me a middle-aged elder who has been asked (read: instructed) to meet with the high priests for the last year or two. I may well never be ordained a high priest, but it saddens me to think that if and when I am, I will no longer follow my father's line of authority.

Because the alternative is infinitely worse.

What makes you say this? I see no real evidence for this idea. The bare fact that his name was "Lucifer", meaning "light-bearer", tells us nothing. Perhaps you were a Lucifer, too. Does that mean you were "high in authority"?

You are building a foundation for eternity. Every time you study your scriptures, every time you pray, every time you go to Church, every time you do your home teaching, every time you offer selfless service to your fellow beings -- in each case, you lay another brick on the foundation. After a time, your foundation begins to become strong, and the edifice begins to rise. But you will never, ever, ever see the completion of that edifice in this life, no matter how long you live. The best thing you can do is to continue to build the foundation. You never grow beyond that.

I wouldn't worry about playing with dolls and dress-up at five. At ten -- maybe so.

But Wingnut! This is the BEST FREAKING MOVIE EVAR!!!!@@@!!11!!!!one!!!!!@!1!!

That's fine. I remember a whole lot of teenage girls saying the same thing about another James Cameron movie not long ago.

??? Gollum aboard the Titanic, perhaps?

From the ScreenIt writeup: *edit* please go to the link that Vort provided if you would like to read the information concerning profanity/sex/nudity provided. Nah, I don't think I will be exposing myself or my family to that garbage. Thanks anyway, James Cameron.

At least in Joe Vs. the Volcano, they threw themselves in, not just some cheapo ring. The chicken might celebrate Thanksgiving, but the turkey is committed to it.

I appreciate Trixie's candor (and her name: But I digress.) I think that we sometimes lose sight of where different people are at in their progression along the gospel knowledge continuum. To one person, it's obvious that you just look at the chapter of scripture, skim through it, and figure out how far you want to read before you get where you want to go. To another, the scriptures are a mysterious unknown, foreign territory where angels fear to tread, or at least s/he does. The problem is that our life here is so short, that just when we finally start getting things figured out, we get old and die. I guess that it therefore behooves us to be patient with our fellow travelers, as we hope for patience from others. PS Hey! There's my new avatar!

I keep forgetting that I'm old.

My opinion: If your husband has been unfaithful to you, you can divorce him without remorse. That is your "Get Out of Jail Free" card, if you care to exercise it. This is incorrect. No one can strip you of your agency. You may have been given counsel you didn't like. You may even have been given bad counsel. But your agency is yours. It is intact. You can exercise it right now, if you like. If you despise this man and he has been unfaithful to you, I see three possibilities: Divorce him.Stay with him and make his life a living hell.Stay with him and try to build a celestial relationship.Of these three choices, I suggest #3 as the best. However, #1 is certainly better than #2. It sounds as if your attitude is firmly in the #2 camp at the moment. One problem with #2 is that when you make sure his life is hell, yours is, too. As a general rule, I'm against counseling people (especially people I don't know) to divorce. "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." But infidelity and the hatred it can generate (and apparently has, in your case) can be soul-destroying. If it is a choice between losing your marriage or your soul, I would counsel you to keep your soul. That said, your idea of remaining for all eternity with someone you despise is false. Celestial relationships are built on love and worthiness, two things utterly lacking in the marriage as you describe it. At this point, worrying about your marriage being eternal is like a morbidly obese patient worrying that if he lifts weights he'll start looking like a bodybuilder. Ain't gonna happen.

Joe Vs. the Volcano -- pretty much the whole movie. What a great movie. Even if it did star Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan (and Meg Ryan, and Meg Ryan).

You never used MS-DOS 6.22?

Not looking for apologies or concessions. Just chatting.

I could not agree with you more, and I think you have gotten my point exactly.Joseph Smith was famously friendly and courteous, even to enemies. Some may call him arrogant, brash, aggressive, and inflexible. They can call him a potted plant, if they want. I do not believe history bears out such a view, nor do I believe that anyone 160+ years after the fact can possibly give an accurate gauge of the man. Contemporary historical records, at least the believable ones, do not bear out any such description of Joseph Smith. I can appreciate an effort to maintain an unbiased viewpoint, but I have little patience with stretching history and known facts around in an effort to look broadminded. Joseph Smith was not "fantastically flawed", unless you want to apply that description to every other man and woman who has ever lived on the earth (besides Christ).