Vort

No, this is demonstrably incorrect. And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. (D&C 76:50-54) The Church of the Firstborn, who will be those raised to celestial glory in the resurrection of the just, are members of the kingdom of God -- aka (in this dispensation) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Millet might have a point. There is no doubt that Section 10 was received well before the LDS Church was organized. What, then, did God mean by "church"? Was he speaking to some future time? No, in context, it is clear he meant something right then. I am not yet ready to accept Millet's idea that the Lord intended the so-called "universal church". I don't know if etymology sheds light on this or not, but perhaps it is worth noting that the Greek for "church", ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), literally means "calling out of", and was used originally to denote an assembly of people. Might the "church" of D&C 10 refer to "spiritual Israel" in the wilderness? That is, might it refer to those sincere souls of the time "who [were] only kept from the truth because they [knew] not where to find it"? If so, then it is not a huge leap to get from this point to Millet's thesis. At this time, I reject the idea "that the Lord's Church is also that universal fellowship of true followers of Christ". This is explicitly contrary to what I understand the LDS Church to teach. But I also acknowledge that my understanding might be faulty, and that Millet may have a point.

In this context, it might be worth noting that under the law of Moses, the penalty for adultery was death by stoning. The penalty for (unmarried) fornication was that you had to marry the girl. Some might question why the penalty for fornication should be more severe than that for adultery. But not me.

Married.

This is the topic under discussion. Making an assertion is not the same as providing evidence. I have. It is far more likely that habitat destruction from river damming and usage is behind the coho problem than some phantom global warming.

I always thought he was an unusually good actor, not merely a pretty boy.

Sure. God created the world and all that is in it, including us. Adam was the first man, and Adam and Eve are our primal parents, the common ancestors of all human beings. Other than this, I know of no LDS doctrine on these subjects.

Laws exist so that society can live peaceably. No laws = no society = savagery.The basis of society is the family. The basis of the family is the married couple. Therefore, there is little that is more destructive to society than adultery.In point of fact, anti-adultery laws have existed through the ages of human society, but have rarely been enforced against women and almost never against men. The existence of such laws, even when not enforced, is an open acknowledgement of the society that adultery is a bad and destructive thing that ought not to be tolerated, even when it is.A society that tolerates or, especially, encourages adultery will reap the whirlwind, as we see daily.

I understand Chanukah (or Hannukah) to be a relatively minor holiday in the Jewish calendar, made more important only by its proximity to the western Christian tradition of celebrating Christmas. Is this so?

Yes, by definition, Creationism explicitly denies evolution. The two are therefore utterly incompatible. But then, I don't believe in Creationism, and it surely is not LDS doctrine. I do believe in the divine creation of the world; but I see no contradiction between that idea and the current theories of organic evolution.

You're welcome. Those are just two examples off the top of my head. You can find many more, if you like.

A few thoughts for your consideration: Every normal boy experiences masturbation at some point in his life. Every normal boy. I would be surprised if there are any exceptions; and even if you can find the one in a million who somehow avoids it, that does not invalidate the general rule. When your equipment is all external and just happens to be at hand level, it's unavoidable. Even girls often masturbate, for the most part without the overt mechanical or chemical inducements that boys deal with. It is part of the human condition. Masturbation is not the end of the world.That said, you are right to acknowledge that it is not a good thing. Consider this an opportunity for you to learn some important self-discipline.I have it on very good authority that masturbation among adults (especially men), like porn usage, is primarily an outlet for stress rather than a sexual expression. Because of this, you can even find married men who masturbate (!). Reducing stress and/or redirecting the stress coping mechanism can help you with such things.There are people who are unable to experience or enjoy sexual things. You are among the fortunate folks who can. Part of that blessing is the responsibility to deal with the care and use of your equipment. Don't fret about it, just figure out where you want to go. Sometimes, it is as easy as saying, "This I will not do." Other times it might be more difficult, but it's still the same general principle.

For the record, getting the parents involved really and truly is not about public humiliation, although at this age that might be a side effect. This is about the parents taking responsibility for their children's discipline and the children experiencing the consequences of their actions.

Talk to the Primary president. She should be made aware of exactly what is going on. She might have suggestions, or she might just come in to help at times (or send someone in). In any case, she should be in the thick of this. If you cannot get the kids to quiet down, you MUST get the parents involved. This probably will mean that the parents sit in class with their little darlings, or might mean that when they misbehave you take them to their parents. This is fundamentally the parents' problem.Admittedly, if the parents are sort of borderline inactive or otherwise shaky, this might not be the best thing to do. But it is their responsibility, whether or not they're up to the task.

Do you really think that I usually spew out a lot of hot air?

Agreed. And not very good Jews, either, since they will reject everything after Deuteronomy 4, which includes all of the "prophets" and the "writings".

I'm pretty sure there is nothing "official" about this site. The problem here is in those people who see the truth of the gospel proved by convert baptisms, and who moreover see the reverse -- that lack of convert baptisms somehow disproves the veracity of the gospel. Yes, we baptize lots of converts, but it's entirely possible that after the Church has "filled the earth" by baptizing a lot of people (but still a substantial minority), we will see convert baptisms tail off dramatically. If and when this eventuality occurs, it won't matter a bit; the gospel will still be true, and the Church will still be the kingdom of God on earth.

It's not difficult.

This brings up an important point regarding ghost sightings. If you see a ghost near a nudist colony, you should hide the children's eyes. A good practical joke is to invite the ghost into your hot tub with you, then open the drain. It sounds cruel, I know, but the ghost will actually not be harmed, and if he has a good sense of humor, he'll get a good laugh out of it, too. Of course, there is the possibility that he will take offense and will haunt you forever, but sometimes you just have to deal firmly with people who lack any sense of humor. A stiff dressing-down might just teach the ghost a thing or two about loosening up.

Actually, I heard 2012 is far, far worse.

Here are examples of the type of scriptural stories you might use to illustrate the importance of missionary work. "The apostle Paul thought missionary work was important. In pursuing his missionary work as an apostle, he reports (in 2 Corinthians 11) that: Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. The sons of king Mosiah also thought missionary work was very important. After they repented of their wickedness, they "traveled throughout all the land of Zarahemla [where the Nephites lived], and among all the people who were under the reign of king Mosiah, zealously striving to repair all the injuries which they had done to the church, cconfessing all their sins, and publishing all the things which they had seen, and explaining the prophecies and the scriptures to all who desired to hear them. And thus they were instruments in the hands of God in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth, yea, to the knowledge of their Redeemer." (Mosiah 27:35-36) After this, they spent fourteen years doing missionary work among the Lamanites. God has spoken to us in our day and told us the same thing. In D&C 18:15, he says, "And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!" This has been my experience, too. I prayed to the Father for help, and in answer to my prayer he provided me a great friend who has given me a great missionary opportunity... [Etc., you go on to tell the specifics]

A talk is a testimony. Giving a talk is really not much different from bearing your testimony, except that you have about 15 minutes (if you're an adult -- more like five minutes if you are a teenager) to flesh out your ideas and thoughts. So instead of simply saying, "I know that such-and-such a principle of the gospel is true", you get to tell WHY you know it's true. You can tell of your revelatory experiences if you think it's appropriate to do so. You can illustrate it with some stories from your own life, or stories of friends or family. You can reference and quote from recent (or even old) General Conference talks. Above all, you can teach from the scriptures, citing the teachings, stories, and parables of Christ that best illuminate the topic you're covering. All other class instruction in our Church is based on discussion. Sacrament meeting talks are one of the few regular times when we offer a lecture, a more or less traditional sermon. Don't worry about whether your talk is interesting enough. Don't shoot to "fill time". Your job is not to entertain. Your job is to testify. Bear your testimony and talk about what you have learned. That's all you need to worry about.

You're just jealous of my cow eyes.

For those of you who think "locomotive breath" refers only to a song by Jethro Tull, I present forthwith my leading candidate for Vort's Next Avatar.

Not a huge Sarah Palin fan, but I have been appalled by the continuing vitriol hurled her way, even a year after the election. Not that she's free from any poor judgment in what she has said, but the hypocrisy from the media has been breathtaking -- even more blatant than usual.