Vort

Anyone still playing?

Does D&C 1:38 have any bearing on your statement? What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

:) EQP has no authority to make such a request...

Assume you felt quite certain that the bishop was not "off his rocker", and that up to this point, the bishop was a man who had proven trustworthy.

The Church. He didn't mention anything about Church authorities. He didn't say. No. Are you under covenant only in that situation?

There's a poll, too, LM.

What would you do if your bishop instructed you to sign over your house, your car, and everything else you own of value to the Church by tomorrow?

If the characters in the Christian book series Left Behind got swatted on their aforementioned left behind, would they turn the other cheek?

In a strictly legal sense, dogs cannot give consent because they are not human, and only human beings (and not even all of them) can give consent. This is purely a definitional matter. Canophiles would argue that the law in this area is clearly deficient. I doubt anyone disagrees with this. Interesting that your love of freedom and choice does not extend to the business owner or apartment landlord. I don't know what the best answer is, but I think there is enough muddy, shallow thinking all around to leave plenty of room for the idea that "discriminating" against people for their overt sexual practices is as much a protected right as those sexual practices themselves.

Vort is not offended.Vort has had many past instances of open-mouth-insert-foot, and expects to have future incidents as well.Vort is not a young and beautiful Icelandic girl. That is, Vort is not young (46), not beautiful (except to spouse), and not female.

How long was it between king Noah's fleeing/execution and the return of the Nephites (both under Limhi and under Alma) to the main group at Zarahemla?

I am mildly surprised by this. I am not unhappy, but I am a bit bewildered. Suppose a group of people who like to have sex with dogs starts demanding that their right to equal housing and job protection not be abrogated. Hey, they like sex with dogs, they're going to speak out about the wonders of canine love, and they are not ashamed! They are loud, proud, and won't be cowed! (Just dogged.) Do we also support them in their noble struggle for equal rights? Or do we tell them, "Look, deviant sexual practices are not a cause for legal protection"? Or do we understand that deviant sexual practices are in fact a cause for legal protection?

The author has written a fascinating read. How can we doubt it? He says so himself. Coincidentally, I have just finished my own magnum opus, "The Beer and the Host". It's a review of medieval Catholic sacramental practices among the regular clergy.

I find it humorous, but not in a laugh-out-loud way. I know many Christians of various denominations, including Latter-day Saints, who get quite worked up over issues like evolution, and who insist on a level of literalism in reading the Bible that would probably have been dismissed by the ancients themselves as childish -- yet who pinch a nickel until it screams and would likely never consent to dividing their property among the lazy, undeserving nogoodnicks who sit around all day waiting for their government check to arrive. For such people, religion ceases to be a battle for self-improvement and a sanctuary from the fleshy, money-grubbing concerns of the world, and instead becomes a structure for reinforcing their preexistent worldview and prejudices. I personally believe that Christ had exactly such behaviors in mind when he condemned as "hypocrites" those who lived outwardly religious and even pious lives, but who in reality sought to cover their sins, not abandon them.

Agreed. And my question was not directed toward you, PC, but toward those Latter-day Saints who have covenanted to do, in effect, as Christ directed the rich young man to do. I am curious how seriously Latter-day Saints take that covenant, and how many of them would willingly give up everything they "own" if directed to do so by one properly authorized to give such instruction. I fear the answer is, "Not very many," but I hope I am wrong.

I have always thought of Ishmael's oldest sons as being already married at the time Ishmael left Jerusalem with them, ostensibly to women unrelated to Lehi. But even if they were married beforehand, maybe they were married to Lehi's unnamed, unmentioned (at least on the Small Plates) oldest daughters. Maybe that's why Lehi directed his sons to invite Ishmael. Maybe, maybe, maybe. In any case, as you point out, I think we can confidently assert that Lehi had at least two daughters.

I find this interesting. Can you detail what you did and what the effects were?

I like your reasoning, but I don't agree with #2. 2 Nephi 5:6 details how Nephi left his brothers and their families: Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. The only sisters he would have taken would have been (a) those married to sons of Ishmael who followed him, and who would probably have been identified as such, and (b) unmarried sisters that were still his responsibility as the leader of his father's household. Interestingly, I am not sure that #1 means what we think. Ancient Hebrew included a dual number in addition to singular and plural. If the term "sisters" was dual, then that would mean "both of them", limiting the number to two. But if it was in the regular plural, that would suggest at least three. There is no way to know, of course, so "two" is the correct answer. But it's interesting to note (at least I find it interesting) that the term may well have suggested three or more rather than two or more.

Second part: Can you give your scriptural reasoning for this? :)

Maybe I'm reading it differently, but I don't see any hostility directed toward PC. On the contrary, he is probably as respected and well-liked as anyone on the board. I do see (as, for example, from Vort) confusion about how and why some people believe as they do, but I suspect the other participants join me in thanking PC for his clear explanations. Questioning or even railing on the beliefs that PC is so patiently explaining to us is much different from railing on PC himself.

Can you put a lower limit on the number of daughters Lehi had?

What, no one's playing any more? I can think of two others besides those I mentioned before: Pahoran, whose son Pahoran took over the judgment seat in his place (briefly, before being murdered), and Lachoneus, whose son Lachoneus took over the judgment seat in his place (briefly, before being murdered). So that makes six: Alma, Helaman, Nephi, Pahoran, Lachoneus, and Mormon. Any others?

RipplecutBuddah, How did I do?

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, I think the commandment the Lord gave the rich young man is indeed universal -- at least, universal to all endowed Saints, in the sense that we are merely stewards of what the Lord owns and will account to him for our actions. A Latter-day Saint ought to be prepared at any moment to give everything s/he owns to the Church (or the poor, or whoever) for the furthering of the work of God. It's one of our covenants. If your bishop called you in this evening and told you to sign over your house, your car(s), and everything you own to the Church, would you do it?

Name some other Book of Mormon father/son pairs with the same name.