Vort

Using a false or unproven assertion as an example is not a good way to use examples. I could make up all sorts of false and slanderous things about you and then say, "Hey, it was just an example." But I doubt you'd appreciate it. On the contrary, focusing on Washington's purported halitosis or Franklin's youthful sexual experimentation distorts their pictures, ignoring the very real and very substantial contributions they made and making them look like something they are not. I was not "demeaning everything [you] said"; I was demonstrating that you were getting your knickers in a knot over the wrong things. You brought up "affairs"; I simply wondered what you were talking about. Maybe I was a bit too overt. Anti-Mormonism and tearing down the Church and its leaders are severe pet peeves of mine. I apologize if you were not trying to do this and I reacted as if you were. To quote Elder Callister from this most recent General Conference: Suppose for a moment someone told you these three facts about a New Testament personality and nothing more: first, the Savior said of this man, “O thou of little faith”; second, this man, in a moment of anger, cut off an ear of the high priest’s servant; and third, this man denied knowing who the Savior was on three occasions, even though he had walked with Him daily. If that is all you knew or focused upon, you might have thought this man a scoundrel or a no-good, but in the process you would have failed to come to know one of the greatest men who ever walked the earth: Peter the Apostle. Similarly, attempts have been made by some to focus upon or magnify some minor weaknesses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, but in that process they too have missed the mark, the man, and his mission. Joseph Smith was the Lord’s anointed to restore Christ’s Church to the earth.

I read something a while back that suggested that the average smoker tries to quit seven times before succeeding. I'm with Taldarin; just don't give up.

Yes, I've noticed the PMS thing. Very weird.

The real American Camel:

We listen to Pavarotti's O Holy Night Christmas CD all year 'round. Go for it.

Grits == Cream of Wheat, but using corn instead.

Words of wisdom.

Baptisms of children of record are handled by their parents and the bishop. They are not convert baptisms, so they are not handled by the missionaries.

Well then, that resolves that question. Thanks for the authoritative word. Not sure how this would affect anything, since the missionaries are fully capable of baptizing and witnessing by themselves.

I agree with what you say, but in this case, it is a distinction without a difference. In his epistle to Moroni, Mormon made crystal clear the depravity inherent in baptizing those who do not need and are unable to make the covenant. Baptizing an infant is no baptism -- the infant cannot make the covenant. The same would be true of a person deeply in the throes of Alzheimer's. Not sure I agree. I think the situation is quite obviously addressed, based on what I said above. The woman in question is unable to make that covenant; therefore, she cannot be baptized. That is my supposition, as well.

Those who are not accountable for their actions cannot be baptized. Baptism is a covenant, and only those capable of understanding the covenant and taking responsibility for themselves can make that covenant.

Depends on how far progressed the Alzheimer's is. Only the mission president could make this call, and only through revelation on the particular issue.

As others have already said, it's geographical. A couple of years ago, we were told that it's fine to invite friends to Church, but that if any of them show interest, we should attend Church with them in their ward. This sounds like a wonderful idea, though I haven't (yet) had the opportunity to give it a shot. Want me to take you to a Federal Way ward, PC? Just let me know and we'll go. :)

And what, pray tell, is the "preponderance of historical evidence"? Or are you comfortable citing Wikipedia as your primary source? Does the fact that Jefferson's brother was known to have sexual congress with slave women while Jefferson himself was never shown to have had any such relations, except as imputed to him by his political enemies, have any bearing in your estimation? The exact same thing as what? You are apparently intimating that some important figures in Church history (one can only imagine you are talking about Joseph Smith himself) was guilty of having sexual affairs. Are you claiming that you are not suggesting such things, or are you saying that sexual affairs are not awful, merely surprising? Yes, I tend to be rather impatient with enemies of the Church and with those who equivocate about their intentions. It's a failing of mine, which I openly admit.

Theo, if you really are respectful, I think you will find yourself welcomed whole-heartedly here. Some of our most respected list members are not LDS, but have mastered the art of agreeable disagreement and respect for LDS beliefs that they don't hold.

What leads you to believe that "we" have forgotten about these?

This is nothing but slanderous gossip. No such thing has ever been shown, historically or genetically. As people they weren't? You mean that Franklin didn't invent the Franklin stove or bifocals, or write Poor Richard's Almanac? History also does not record George Washington's bad breath or John Adams' chronic diarrhea. Those things are not germane to the important role those men played in history. It is not "romanticized" or "whitewashed". It's relevant. So here we reach the telling part of your rant. What awful things do you believe are being hidden from the Saints in the whitewashed, romanticized, untrue teachings in Sunday School?

According to LDS doctrine, the heavenly Father is the only God. There is no such doctrine in the LDS Church. Anyone who says otherwise is preaching false doctrine. You may assume anything you like. Many others before you have done so. But it isn't doctrine, just idle speculation, little different from a three-year-old's speculation of what life will be like when he's the mommy and mommy's the little boy.

You are probably right. Since the bishop controls the sacrament meeting, it seems he could certainly nix the confirmation during Church. But the confirmation need not be done in sacrament meeting, so this is just a procedural trick. If I understand the administration of the Church correctly, the bishop has no authority to stop any convert baptism including confirmation, procedural tricks notwithstanding.

I think you're right as far as the bishop interviewing a potential member, but the mission president has the authority to approve convert baptisms. As far as I know, the bishop has no authority to stop any convert baptism, though I can't imagine that a mission president would just ignore a bishop who said, "Hey, wait a minute, something's wrong here."

This is not the bishop's affair. It is for the missionaries to decide, not the bishop. That said, if the bishop is concerned, he should make his concerns known both to the missionaries and to the mission president. Fwiw, the word "apostle" (Απόστολος, "apostolos") just means "one sent forth". This man who calls himself an apostle may not have delusions of grandeur, just ideas that God has called him to proclaim the gospel.

Once again, your humor escapes me, Moksha. It seems you are mocking those who question global warming because of the recent revelation of overt data tampering. But why you would mock such people, or what humor there lies in mocking them, I can't tell. I concede that I may be totally misreading you and thus missing your cleverness. Can you explain it to me?

Here is what I remember about your "dear friend and brother" Hugh Nibley: He never once spoke against the Church or its leaders. Not a single time. No matter that he was twice as smart as many of them (and pretty much everyone else); he knew their station, and he knew his own place. He looked up to them as the Brethren and followed what they had to say. And when he had a disagreement with them in policy or in doctrinal interpretation, he kept his mouth shut. Of course, if you're talking about Fred Nibley down the street, then that may be different.

Llamas are related to camels, and were used by some indigenous peoples as pack animals.

Mike, in the LDS Church, we follow the lead of our prophets. Any explanations we give to explain ourselves beyond that are pretty much post hoc rationalizations, as has already been pointed out. In any case, it's a symbol of the underlying reality. We accept and cling to that underlying reality, even if we don't use exactly the same symbolism. Isn't that the important thing, after all?