Vort

Connie rocks. (Let's form a mutual admiration club, Connie!)

So are you saying that a mentally retarded, but baptized, 12-year-old young man who has not been given the Aaronic Priesthood will be denied a temple recommend to participate in baptisms for the dead?

I, too, loved Elder Bednar's talk, but I think it's worth pointing out that mere inconsistency is not the same as hypocrisy. For example, the smoker who tells his child not to smoke is not being hypocritical; he is being a concerned and loving parent as best he can. The essence of hypocrisy is the desire to deceive. The Lord's harshest rebukes were for the hypocrites among the Jews who, like whited sepulchers, were beautiful to behold but full of dead men's bones. Note that no such condemnation was issued (publicly, at least) toward prostitutes, various adulterers, and many others who were very clearly not living up to the law of Moses. Certainly they were sinners, and certainly they stood in dire need of repentence. Their behavior was highly inconsistent with the covenant they were under. But they were not seeking to hide their ugliness beneath a veneer of social respectability and pretended virtues; thus, they were not hypocrites.

Shocking! For shame!

There is no credible evidence the Nephites had coinage. Coins are never mentioned anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Coinage as we know it appears not even to have been developed until around the time Lehi left Jerusalem or shortly thereafter. Alma 11 reads better if the various terms are assumed to apply to weights or other measures of gold and silver, rather than as some sort of coinage. While I have a soft spot in my heart for Sjodahl and Reynolds' Commentary, it is hardly authoritative. You may read polygamy into the text based on Amulek's wording if you wish, but that's all it is -- a reading-in of a hoped-for idea.

Stick around and you will see plenty. Any place the true kingdom of God exists, the devil and those who serve him (knowingly or unwittingly) will stir up contention. True enough. I have heard some claim that there is nothing wrong with "lying about the devil", so any distortions they tell about the Church or their own history with it are holy lies. Apparently, these people are absolutely correct when they claim the Latter-day Saints worship "a different Jesus®" from theirs; the LDS Jesus does not condone lies, as theirs apparently does. In no particular order: Why do those who claim to believe in the literal truth of the Bible so often claim not to believe that God has a physical body, since the Bible so clearly teaches that he does?When you get swine flu, do you crave bacon? Because if so, I might have swine flu.Why do we use base 10 for our numbering system? Based on the length of a week, wouldn't base 7 be better? Base 8 would certainly make a lot of calculations easier.If you like heavy metal, does that mean you're iron deficient?Is there a Java web site equivalent to LearnVisualStudio.net?Why do people think that Alma 13:9-10 refers to the modern Priesthood office of "high priest", when that office in its modern incarnation did not exist among the Nephites and, of course, was not even restored in our dispensation until two full years after the Book of Mormon had been translated?If I complain about "global warming", and you note the globe is actually cooling, so I start complaining about "global climate change", and you note that the climate is not changing any more than it has for the last ten thousand years, and I change my wording again without substantively changing my arguments, would you call my argument process an "AlGoreRithm"?Is apparent similarity in belief sufficient reason to give credence to apocryphal writings full scriptural status? If not, what is?If I pack the powder and then use apocryphal writings for the wadding, does that make them cannonical?If Democrats from the 1960s and 1970s expressly disclaimed any intention of establishing or normalizing homosexuality, why ought I to believe them when they now claim no desire to establish or normalize any other kind of sexual deviancy, such as bestiality or child sex?If the adjacent communities of Provo and Orem, Utah, combined to form a single city, would you call the city "Poorem" to reflect the citizenry's socioeconomic status or "Ovo" to reflect the high fertility rate?If you believe that God is "all-powerful", and you believe that "all-powerful" means "he can do anything at all that anyone can say", then why can't God cause himself to cease ever to have existed?If I repent, then God says he remembers my sins no more. But I can still remember them. So does that mean I am more powerful than God?I'm sure there are other things, but that's what's on my mind at the moment.

Because I think it's a possibility that you are not on the level. You may be perfectly sincere. On the other hand, you may be just another of a long line of imposters who claim an "interest" in Mormonism or to have "studied with the missionaries" or to have been baptized and gone through the temple, only to learn "the truth" about Mormonism's horrific doctrines, which until that point they had never before heard. Such transparent lies are hardly damaging, except to the souls of those who tell them, but they do get irritating after the nth repetition.

So in six solid months of attending LDS services, you never learned that "Communion" is called "sacrament meeting", that "Doctrines" is called "Gospel principles class", and that "Mens" is called "Priesthood meeting"?

I have learned that this is a pernicious falsehood, though commonly believed among many otherwise faithful LDS Church members. The Church is nothing less than the literal kingdom of God on earth. Surely no one would be so shallow as to believe the kingdom of God to constitute merely "the business and support end for the gospel." Not so. The kingdom of God is not a "business". Without the Church, the gospel is not preached to the world. Today, you cannot have one without the other.

I think this is a misreading of the verse. "My women" simply refers to all adult women in his household, probably including adult daughters and definitely including any mother, mother-in-law, sisters, or other adult women living in his household that were considered family and not servants. There is no indication that polygamy was ever approved in the history of the Nephite peoples, while there is absolute proof that it was condemned. So in my mind, it is very highly unlikely that Amulek, a righteous man and a tool of the Lord, would have participated in such an arrangement.

Yes, you might point that out. If you did, you would be correct only if Morton Smith did create the fraudulent hoax (since I believe that was exactly the interpretation he gave to it). But if the transcription were medieval in origin, whether authentic or not, it probably does not refer to homosexual activity: "And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God." If you are a 21st-century Westerner (or perhaps an ancient Greek), you might assume that the proximity of the words "loved", "naked body", and "night" must necessarily indicate sodomy. If you are not a 21st-century Westerner (or an ancient Greek), it's more likely you think that "love" refers to an emotional state of caring and appreciation, that "naked body" refers to the unclothed state beneath the linen cloth, and that "night" refers to the dark period when it's not day. This could then make cryptic reference to some teachings the Lord gave to this revived youth, perhaps something that involved him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. No sexual perversions necessary.

If I remember correctly, the letter was supposed to have been transcribed into the flyleaf pages of a book, so even if they still existed for examination, they would not be "original" material. But analysis on them may have shown whether they were a medieval transcription or a modern hoax. Even if they proved to be the former, of course, that does not guarantee they would be legit.

I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, publicly criticizing the Church or its leading brethren seems manifestly unwise and dangerously close to apostasy. On the other hand, if Reid is being consistent with the principles he believes and with which he was elected, that does not seem like a bad thing. In fact, if he were to go against his own beliefs and promises to his constituents in order to support the Church's stated position, he would be confirming all that is so often said by antiMormons about the dangers of a Mormon politician: "He'll just be a puppet for Salt Lake." This might (or might not) be the safer course for Harry Reid personally, but it certainly seems the more dangerous course for LDS politicians and the perception of wrongful influence by the LDS Church.

"Mess of pottage", perhaps?

PC, good to hear from you. I don't have time to do a response justice, so I guess I'll have to respond unjustly. I have observed that some Evangelicals equate "baptism of the spirit" with "speaking in tongues". I do not know why this is, and I am not sure this is what you are doing, but if so, let me note that I disagree with the identification. This is easily shown wrong; for example, in I Cor 12:13, we learn that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." Then only a few verses later (28-31), we are asked a rhetorical question, the obvious answer to which is "No": "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." "All" received the Spirit, yet not "all" speak in tongues. It's s spiritual gift, and like the other spiritual gifts, is given of God to his Saints as he sees fit. You must understand the scriptures differently from me in this thing, PC. To me, the meaning of the gift of tongues as recorded in the book of Acts seems clear: The first is in Acts 2. I think we both agree that this refers to people hearing and understanding the gospel message in their own tongue.The second is in Acts 10:44-46: "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."Clearly, this is a case of the speaking of tongues being used to facilitate conversion; certainly the Jews were convinced of the Gentiles' reception of the Holy Spirit. Though it does not specify in the Biblical account, it makes sense that there were other Gentiles there who may not have been well-versed in Hebrew and who needed to hear the gospel preached in their own tongue -- hence the dispensation of the gift of tongues. This is further suggested a few verses later (11:15), when Peter, retelling the story, affirms, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." Last, we read in Acts 19:6, "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Again, this is a clear use of the gift of tongues in conjunction with the preaching of the word. This one is more problematic, since the wording seems to make it clear that these were all Jews (twelve of them) that were baptized and received the Holy Ghost and the gift of tongues. My own suspicion is that, since these were Jews at Ephesus, it is possible (perhaps likely) that they were not all well-versed in Hebrew, which would make the gift of tongues necessary so that they could hear the gospel preached in their own tongue (cf. D&C 133:37).I know of no other record of the gift of tongues being bestowed in the book of Acts. (Not that there isn't one; I just don't know about it.) As I have explained, I don't necessarily agree with this. In any case, the gift of tongues is certainly always associated with preaching the gospel to those who need to hear and accept it. What do you mean by "mainly dialects"? You mean, like someone from Great Britain would have heard, "Jolly good, then, chaps, the Lord Jesus truly is Christ, God's own Son", but someone from the American South would have heard, "Hey, y'all, y'know thet thar Jeezis feller is the Chraaaast, 'n he's God's bo-ah"? The word used in Acts 2 is dialektos, which is indeed the root of our English word "dialect" but in Greek simply means "language"; compare Acts 26:14, Hebraïs dialektos "Hebrew language". The meaning of the verse is clear: Every man heard the gospel preached in his own native language. Anyway, that's how things seem to me. In any case, I do believe that my summation is correct: Most Latter-day Saints don't generally think of the "gift of tongues" as running on in some unknown and ununderstandable "language". If that is your belief, then of course that's fine, and I don't mean any offense by pointing out that, in my opinion, most Latter-day Saints don't see things the same way.

Glossalalia (Not to be confused with "flossalalia", the attempt to speak while cleaning between one's teeth.) In the account of the pentecost given in Acts 2, the gift of tongues was not given so that people spoke in an unknown tongue. On the contrary, it was given so that "every man heard them speak in his own language...how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" In my experience, Mormons don't think much of the idea of speaking in strange tongues that no one can understand, except for occasional reference to "the Adamic language". We take a much more practical view of the gift of tongues: It is given to allow us to build the kingdom of God.

Ram points up an interesting, important, and oft-ignored fact: "Monotheism" is not adequately defined. Here is the basic fact: God is the way he is. Period. So let's invent some words to use to describe God's nature. What shall we use? Tall? Powerful? Beautiful? Aromatic? Whatever we use, it will only be true if it corresponds in some literal sense to how God actually is. Now, Christianity says that God the Father and God the Son are "one". That is, there is "one God"; in other words, Christians are monotheistic. Whence originated this idea? It is safe to say that the idea of divine unity comes from Christ himself, but the foot-stamping insistence on there being exactly and only One God in every and any sense comes, as near as I can tell, from neoPlatonic rationalism. There cannot be more than one all-powerful God (goes this line of thinking), because there cannot be multiple all-powerful beings. If there were, then any difference of opinion between them would result in an existentially impossible situation -- one all-powerful God demanding one thing, the other all-powerful God demanding something else. Therefore, if we admit the existence of an all-powerful God, that God can and must of necessity be the only one. If we admit the existence of another God (e.g. a divine, Godly Son), then we must posit a literal unity of physical being. Actually, neoPlatonism does not demand this physical unity, since it rejects the very idea of physicality as a Godly attribute. But the effect is the same; there can only be One God in any literal sense, even if we want to divide him up into separate subGods. Such division is acceptable if and only if we acknowledge that each subGod is in reality a part or "manifestation" of the One True God. This is in fact the very problem and dilemma to which Augustine dedicated his life. A lifetime of education in the schools of philosophy and rhetoric left Augustine completely unable to accept the silly, childish Christian philosophies of his mother, things like that God had a body. Only when he decided (when over 30 years of age) that the Bible need not be interpreted literally, and in fact was a "double book", giving literal meaning to the simple-minded and a deeper, philosophical meaning to the more mentally well-endowed like himself, did he see his way to accepting Christianity and redefining its meaning in terms he could stomach. The explication of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the result, for which he is rightly honored to this day as the greatest and most important of theologians. (To be clear: Augustine did not invent the idea of the Trinity; he simply explained it in a manner acceptable to like-minded scholars of his generation.) But, you see, this is all chatter and nonsense -- "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." God is the way that God is, and not the way So-and-so describes him, however clever we believe So-and-so to be. And unless So-and-so is a prophet authorized by God himself to speak in his place -- and here we note that Augustine never made any such claim, and would indeed have been deeply scandalized by such a pronouncement -- we are under no obligation to accept what So-and-so has to say on the matter. "Monotheism" was a term coined to describe a belief in contrast to "polytheism", a belief in many gods, all or several of whom demand worship. We may well use the term "monotheism" to describe Christianity in comparison with paganism's multiplicity of gods. However, as the Muslims are only too happy to tell us, Christianity is decidedly not monotheistic when compared with Islam. They will tolerate no teachings about "God's Son" or any other such nonsense. God is One, Alone, Utterly Different from his Creation. Guess what? It doesn't matter. God is how God is, not how the Muslims (or Christians, or Jews, or Pantheists, or Pagans, or Atheists) describe him to be. If the word "monotheism" does not adequately describe the reality of God, then we have a choice between two alternatives: Use another word.Redefine "monotheism" to mean what we want it to mean.Personally, I don't much care which alternative we choose. The only thing I care about is that the dishonest use of "monotheism" as a hammer to bash over the heads of Latter-day Saints is exposed for the lie that it is.

Hope Professor Gee's response doesn't discourage you. Good for you for looking into this stuff. It's very interesting, and can be a fun and informative sidelight, as long as you don't let it take over for your testimony. Please remember that John Gee is (probably) literally the foremost living expert on Egyptology and Mormonism. When you wrote to him, you went straight to the top, and men at the top tend to be pretty brusque and matter-of-fact. His response was an invitation for you to deepen your knowledge, which is an excellent idea. Keep up the good work.

If I recall correctly, Coptic was just the Egyptian language represented using Greek letters. This is not an uncommon practice; consider the various ways Japanese is represented in English and other western European languages. It is hardly surprising that Lehi would have considered using Egyptian hieroglyphs to represent Hebrew phonetic values and/or ideas. The "reformed" part of "reformed Egyptian" is an authentic, if obvious, touch; it is unlikely that the Egyptian glyphs and their associated phonetic or conceptual values would fit perfectly into a Hebrew language or thought pattern without some retooling.

It is an interesting topic. However, I would strongly caution against attempting to make any "proofs" of the Book of Mormon. Such an attempt will surely fail; the Lord expects us to exercise faith in him and receive our testimony from his own mouth, rather than dig up a sign that says "Welcome to Zarahemla". Having noted that caution, I think the subject is fascinating. To the surprise of just about everyone, written Egyptian was found to be a phonetic language. Specifically, the hieroglyphs had a phonetic value, and were used in conjunction with other hieroglyphs that functioned as "logographs" that represented words or ideas (technically, they represent morphemes, or meaningful basal linguistic units). They also used hieroglyphs and marks as determinatives to specify how a word was being used (so, for example, if you wrote the glyphs for "bell" and you also had a god named "Bel", you might want to put a symbol or mark afterward that specified "this is not a deity"). If you gave such a system some thought and greatly restricted the vocabulary allowed, you can see that you might well end up with a tremendously effective shorthand way of writing, highly compact and efficient, if a little short on expressive synonyms. In other words, something remarkably like the text that the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been translated from...

I have noticed a tendency among some here (and other places) to say "let's agree to disagree" whenever they can't substantiate their argument. As near as I can tell, "let's agree to disagree" really means "I don't believe you, but I can't disprove what you say or buttress my own arguments, so instead of admitting that I might be wrong, I'd rather drop the whole topic." Which is fine, as far as it goes, but it doesn't seem to me a very useful way to find truth. Can you imagine if Pasteur's contemporaries had said, "Let's just agree to disagree about this 'microbiology' stuff"?

Why do you think that is the question? I don't think it is; I think everyone freely acknowledges that the answer is "Yes". Personally, I see the question as completely irrelevant. Did someone in this thread say it's not natural for a homosexual to experience same-sex attraction? Because if so, I missed it. Not true, and certainly not "end of story". I don't deny that there is a biological component, but if you had been taught from infancy that women were dirty and repugnant, and that homosex was the pure and preferable way to copulate, then like many of the ancient Greeks, you would likely find your "natural" inclinations tended toward the masculine persuasion. You would find women useful for keeping house, having babies, and tending children, and would save your deeper sexual affections for your catamite. Strangely enough, even the ancient Greeks who exalted homosexuality so highly still managed to understand that marriage is of necessity an intersexual relationship. Neither the ancient Greeks nor any other ancient culture of which I'm aware ever practiced "homosexual marriage". Please point out where anyone suggested such a thing. I think you're using a red herring. But this is true by definition. Even homosexuality is uncondemned as long as it is kept within the Lord's bounds -- which is to say, it is not acted upon. I do not believe the scriptures ever make any such statement. Please back up your claim. Pride cannot be "kept pure" any more than raw sewage can be "kept pure".

You are much kinder than I am. Thank you for your example. PS My own personal observation is that men tend to have more feeling attached to sex, not less, which is why promiscuous men seem on average more messed up than promiscuous women. Male promiscuity tends to lead to men who almost lose the ability to feel love at all; in women, this same tendency seems less pronounced. At least, that's how it looks to me.

My grandma died in the mid-1980s and my grandpa in the mid-1990s. They both worked in the temple, and AFAIK they both continued to drink coffee (I think they switched to Sanka in the 1970s) throughout their lives. Not disagreeing with the spirit of what you're saying -- I would be mightily surprised at a bishop today giving a temple recommend to someone who blatantly violated the word of wisdom by drinking coffee, even Sanka.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured. When you can't defend a proposition or give a cogent, reasoned argument to back up your opinion, just trot out the tired "agree to disagree" line.