Vort

As others have said, ask your bishop. However, I feel very confident in stating that the bishop would never, ever tell you not to pray in your own home, either by yourself or with your family. Those are private, not public, prayers. I am 100% certain the bishop had no idea of limiting you from praying at home.

I don't understand, Vanhin. President Lee, a prophet of Jesus Christ, stated that "undoubtedly" many of the less valiant premortally were born into handicapped bodies (or races). What happened to your deference to the teachings of the prophets that you so courageously exhibited when speaking of whether revelation teaches that Jesus was born "on April 6" (whatever that means, which you cannot or will not answer)? Does that only apply when you happen to agree with the specific prophetic teaching?

le_Metis banned in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

More likely they were dropped on their head in infancy or inherited a genetic disease from their parents. There are all sorts of reasons people are mentally challenged. Looking for divine reasons for their handicap based on premortal life is futile and potentially very harmful. Should we then never try to help these people achieve a level of "normalcy" of mental acuity? After all, what a horrible disservice we would be doing them to deprive them of their exalted, special state of mental retardation! Poppycock. Some people are mentally retarded because we live in an imperfect world with lots of injuries and diseases. We should treat them just as we should treat anyone else, with perhaps more leeway give their limitations, and continue to try to find ways to bless them to overcome those limitations, just as we wish help in overcoming our own. (Plus, whenever anyone talks about someone being "a general in the preexistence" or "escorting Satan and his angels from heaven" or "suffering from a grievous wound received in the war in heaven", I cringe as my BS-o-meter gets pegged to the max reading.)

Nope, I don't. In fact, I don't think "April 6, AD 1" is meaningful without a great deal of further clarification. You can't simply walk the date back, since the Gregorian calendar is not well-defined for earlier dates. The Julian calendar is likewise not precise (moreso than the Gregorian). So what does it mean that "Jesus was born on April 6"? You made the claim, so please elucidate.

If that is how you see it, then you are a fool not to know "which one to go with". Please explain to me what "April 6, AD 1" means.

These are not revelations presented to the Church.

Much worse than it is presently, without doubt. People have been preaching "Be excellent to each other, and party on, dude!" since long before Paul, Bill, or Ted. The gospel is much more than good advice and a warm fuzzy feeling.

You may be right. I do not have a strong defense of my position. My best defense is this: God did not command us to engage in "eschatology". Rather, he said to watch for the signs. These are not synonymous, at least not in my mind. But my thoughts on this are rooted in my perceptions. As you note, I have not seen any good come from "eschatological studies", just wasted time. If you disagree, I won't spend much effort to try to convince you I'm right. But if at the judgment bar God says to me, "Vort, why didn't you spend more time studying eschatology?!", then I will humbly admit that PC was right, after all. :)

Granted, but that is a tautology, so it doesn't give us any new information.

How explicit do you think the details of administrative organization were made in the gospels and epistles that survive from that time? Are you looking for a handbook of Priesthood organization? The office of stake president is a logical, obvious administrative necessity. I have no doubt that such an office or its equivalent existed in the primitive Church if it grew to the size that such was needed before its apostasy. That it is not mentioned in the New Testament is irrelevant. It's like saying that Thomas wasn't married because, hey, his wife was never mentioned, or that Simon Peter and his wife didn't have any children because, hey, they are never mentioned.

Infants and children under the age of eight.

No, this is a false argument. You might allow your child to lose money, or perhaps burn himself on the stove, so that he can learn an important lesson. You would not allow your child to be hit by a truck so that he would learn a lesson. If you did, you could not reasonably claim that you allowed your child to be killed because you loved him. The idea that God loves us soooooo much that he allows us to destroy ourselves is absurd. (Besides, I don't believe that allowing your child to pursue a course that leads to harm is really "the hardest thing [you] have to do as a parent". Other things are much harder, such as watching helplessly while your child self-destructs and you are powerless to do anything about it.)

Thanks for the charitable assessment, but in fact, I rarely or never take positions just for the sake of argument. If I do, I preface it with something like "Let's suppose for the sake of argument that..." I agree with Snow that people tend not to think very hard about much of what they believe, and I consider that to be A Bad Thing®. But I seldom if ever lay claim to a position that I don't believe. (I will sometimes push a position much harder than I actually feel about it, e.g. Don't lie to your kids about Santa Claus.)

I really cut loose at about 2:20. Here's my other version, with pictures of some fat bearded guy.

Names? I thought you were asking me about winter sports. Strictly speaking, no. "Feeling" something is right constitutes evidence in many instances. Consider Alma 32. More generally speaking, as a child I used to go with whatever I wanted, because it felt right (even when it was wrong). As an adult, I have tried to reign in my impulsiveness and think things through. However, one thing I have learned as an adult is to "trust my gut" in decisions like jobs and child discipline. But again, I consider those gut feelings to be a sort of evidence, so I experience no cognitive dissonance. Yes; see above. But such examples are invariably about how I conduct my life, not about scriptural glosses.

Just curious. I started working these into my regular General Conference listening rotation two or three years ago and found them to be generally excellent, almost like another (short) session of General Conference. Just wondered how many others do so, or if most people are like I was and simply didn't think about them.

Don't be afraid. It's a private poll.

Do you listen to the General Relief Society Meeting and/or the General Young Women's Meeting? The General Relief Society Meeting (GRSM) takes place the week before the October General Conference, and the General Young Women's Meeting (GYWM) takes place the week before the April General Conference.

I believe that 99% of philosophy is argument about word definitions. How could it be otherwise? The miracle and the curse of all token-based communication, including speech, is the assigning of meaning to the tokens. When the tokens do not represent the same idea in each mind, confusion results. This is why I have repeatedly asked for definitions of God's love that give meaning to the statement "God's love is unconditional". I can think of no useful definition for God's love that provides meaning to that statement.

How does this demonstrate "unconditional love"? It is not immediately obvious to me that allowing someone to be damned is a loving act. I don't think that playing around with the definition of "love" and splitting up into several different "kinds" a la the Greeks is the answer to this dilemma. I do agree that the answer depends on what you mean by "God's love", which is why I have asked numerous times what "God's love" means that gives sense to the statement "God's love is unconditional."

Then remove the word "false". The question stands, unbegged.

Not sure what to say, PC. I have known people who have devoted their lives (at least their free time) to tracking all the signs of the times and drawing up charts to predict the day and hour of the Savior's return. I do not believe, not for the smallest moment, that the Lord wishes us to do any such thing. I personally suspect that the call to watch for signs of the times was directed toward those who led (and lead) his Church. It is they who lead the preparation for the Lord's return. For most others, eschatology seems to turn into an especially obsessive and unhealthy gospel hobby (to use Joseph F. Smith's terminology). We are in the last days. This we (LDS) know by revelation. But the day and the hour, no man knoweth. When I was a teenager, I firmly believed that the Lord would come again by the year 2000. How could he not? Such a remote time -- I'd be 37 by then! -- was so far in the future and so numerically significant that it was just obvious to me. Obviously, I was wrong. I now see no reason to believe that Christ will come again during my lifetime, though praise be to God if he does. I would love to live at that time and see what happens next, with the establishment of the personal reign of Jesus Christ. But it really makes no difference, does it? I will grow old (if I'm lucky) and die (in any case), and then I'll stand before the Lord and account for my doings. Perhaps the Lord will let me have a part in his kingdom, either in the flesh or afterward. God grant that I come forth with him at his coming. But in any and every case, dwelling on the eschatological nuances of scriptural phrase and speculating about how many more years/decades/centuries must pass before the prophecies are fulfilled is pointless. I need to love and protect my wife, love and discipline my children, love and serve my fellow man, and get my home teaching done.

Actually, my children have shown exceptional leadership skills. I doubt that disbelieving in Santa or the Tooth Fairy will negatively affect that. As for being entertainers...I'm entirely okay with them avoiding that whole area of employment.

Please quote from someone in this thread who has said such a thing. This shows nothing. I specified that you back up your claim to show that God acknowledges Satan as his son since the fall of Adam, using scriptural proof. Quoting some questions for discussion at the back of a teacher's manual doesn't do that. The fact that you don't understand this is not the issue. I already know you don't understand it, and apparently refuse to believe it's true despite myriad and manifest evidence that it is so (cf Alma 1:4). The question is not whether you understand that this is so. The question is, Of what benefit is the (false) belief that God's love is "unconditional"? I note that you continue to ignore my clearly specified questions. It would make for better conversation if you actually responded to those points.