Vort

Not quite. In Elder Oaks' recent General Conference talk on the language of prayer, helpfully referenced by someone on the previous page, he said: In our day the words thee, thou, thy, and thine are suitable for the language of prayer, not because of how they were used anciently, but because they are currently obsolete in common English discourse. Being unused in everyday communications, they are now available as a distinctive form of address in English, appropriate to symbolize respect, closeness, and reverence for the one being addressed. Note that Elder Oaks includes intimacy ("closeness") as a reason for using these pronouns.

It is true that you ought to be able to speak the language before using it. If your attempts come out like Moksha's garbled, grammar-free nonsense above, then you need to pray in words you can actually use to express meaning. But with a bit of practice, using "thou" instead of "you" (subject), "thee" instead of "you" (object), "thy" instead of "your", and "thine" instead of "yours" just isn't that hard. Does the belief that we should follow our leaders' counsel also have "a huge pretend factor"? Because we have been counseled very specifically to practice using such "archaic" language in our prayers. Without sound, perhaps, but not without words. People with any degree of linguistic ability think in terms of language, not merely in images. "Thou" is the familiar, second-person singular form in English. "You" was considered the "royal" usage, just as a king would refer to himself as "We".

Actually, Elder Hunter was president of the Twelve during President Benson's tenure.

The First Presidency leads the Church. Since the First Presidency consists of more that just the president, it is irrelevant whether President Benson was in a condition to fulfill his office. His counselors did so, and did marvelously.But don't expect the antis to understand this.

Granted that you are correct, that doesn't mean that normal reasoning doesn't apply. Not so. The example acknowledges that a woman (and, for that matter, a man) engaging in consensual sex accepts the consequences of that action. That's like saying that riding on the Splash Mountain roller coaster isn't the same as formally agreeing to get wet. Technically it's true, but it's also a pathetic excuse for the wet rider to use when complaining. Others find it reasonable. 1. Is the "ZEF" alive?2. Is the "ZEF" human? 3. Is the "ZEF" an individual? Sure, if you consider pregnancy a punishment (as, let me note, feminists seem to -- not to say you're necessarily a feminist) you could make that argument. Those who don't see pregnancy as a punishment are likely to disagree with your assertion, however. You haven't shown it to be unreasonable. You have merely stated that you disagree. That's not the same thing.

Because people only live about 80 years, then they die. All these new people keep coming along, asking the same old questions.

So far as I know, Brother Dutcher has not used his public position as a platform to rail against the Church. Unlike other high-profile Latter-day Saints who have renounced their religion, he seems content with pursuing his journey through life without trying to exact vengeance against the Church he feels wronged him. I think Dutcher is a talented man of great potential. I am sorry to see that he has not been able to reconcile his beliefs and thoughts with his study and observation. I watched and greatly enjoyed God's Army, but I have not seen any of his other films. If he is now making films that garner an 'R' rating, I certainly will never see them. But he is no enemy of the Church, as far as I can tell. I think we would do well to judge his actions with compassion and hope for the future, rather than condemnation.

Suppose you discover one day that, through no fault or action of your own, the life of someone in central Asia is tied to yours. If you ever so much as venture outside your house, that person will be executed. Do you have a moral imperative never to leave your house? Perhaps you do. Maybe not. I'm not sure. But I would not necessarily fault you for leaving your house -- after all, it is not your fault that you find yourself in such a predicament, and you have your own life to continue living, your own family to provide for, etc.Suppose, on the other hand, that this is a situation you agreed to. Now, you absolutely have a moral imperative to stay at home, unless there is a very drastic reason to leave. No. Rather, you are acknowledging personal accountability.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not sure I would agree. I am not sure that "blame" really has anything to do with it. Eve didn't cram the forbidden fruit down Adam's throat; he freely chose that path. In any case, the story of Adam and Eve in Eden is certainly a figurative parable, though Latter-day Saints believe it is fundamentally a literal occurrence. But what was the "forbidden fruit"? What, exactly, were Adam's and Eve's state? What was the true nature of their transgression and the Fall? These things are not given to us, so we can only speculate, which in this particular case is (forgive the pun) fruitless. Paul certainly lays the "blame" squarely on Eve. But I'm not convinced that Paul had a perfect understanding of what the story meant, or if he did, that he was trying to convey that deeper meaning.

That is certainly one possible interpretation of the scripture, but not the only one. I don't agree with it, personally. There is too much ancient geography in the Americas to believe that it was all completely changed less than 2000 years ago. I also don't believe that the entire Book of Mormon history was confined to a tiny geographical region, all of which was completely changed less than 2000 years ago. These things keep coming up because many people don't agree with your particular interpretation of that scripture.

"Does the Church Endorse a Specific Geography for the Book of Mormon?" The short answer is: No. The longer answer is: No way.

Remember why Jacob is recounting this allegory to his people, as found at the end of Jacob 4: And now, my beloved, how is it possible that these, after having rejected the sure foundation, can ever build upon it, that it may become the head of their corner? Behold, my beloved brethren, I will unfold this mystery unto you; if I do not, by any means, get shaken from my firmness in the Spirit, and stumble because of my over anxiety for you. Jacob's whole purpose in retelling the allegory is to illustrate how Christ will be the cornerstone of Israel, even after Israel has rejected him.

A song from my childhood! And one that shaped my views of women.

And therein lies the problem. Everyone (almost) agrees that these things are awful and ought not to be, yet any attempt to stop them by legislative means is shot down.Imagine a group that said, "We believe that rape should be safe, legal, and rare! We deplore rape, and we of course would never think of raping anyone, but men must have that CHOICE! WE ARE PRO-CHOICE!" They would be dismissed out-of-hand as lunatics. No, rape is an evil, everyone (almost) agrees to that. So what do we do? We make laws to forbid and restrict it, and then we enforce the laws. Are there controversial edge cases? Sure there are. What if there is a child involved who is two days below the age of consent? What if a child who looks like an adult lies about his/her age? What if the wife is drunk or comatose? Yet the existence and controversial nature of the edge cases doesn't convince anyone that the laws ought not to exist. That's just plain absurd. Can you point to "pro-choice" groups who are actively seeking to restrict late-term abortions? If they exist, I would very much like to know about them. I can certainly point you to a great many pro-life people who are seeking to restrict abortion but keep it available as an option in certain cases. Such people certainly do exist. They are a small minority of the pro-life position. Are there "pro-choice" groups who do not fit this stereotype? If so, please educate me. Yet of the stereotypes you provided, the "pro-life" stereotype is demonstrably false, applying only to a minority of pro-life groups, while the "pro-choice" stereotype seems true. Again, if I'm wrong, please educate me. I think this is almost irrelevant. Until there is a bright line we can all agree on, the point will remain under dispute. Rather, I think the issue is, How much do we value innocent life, how willing are we to protect it, and how much to we expect people to take responsibility for their actions? This is a matter of definition, and I don't see how it can be disputed. If the fetus is not an unborn human being, what is it? An unborn duck? Exactly. As I said before, this is the feminist idea that a fetus is the same as a wart. Rather than accusations, it would be helpful to establish definitions and then abide by them. In principle, I agree. In practice, I believe the "pro-life" side does exactly that, for the most part, while the "pro-choice" side steadfastly refuses to concede even the most obvious of the pro-life position's valid points.

The Church is the kingdom of God on earth. Leaving the Church is therefore, by definition, leaving God. Only if you believe that leaving God is gross transgression. I've often wondered about this. I have often wondered if, for example, Mister X had to commit adultery and destroy his family relationships in order to appreciate and understand the evils inherent in that act. This is a philosophical point that I don't think we can fully comprehend.However, I will say that, as a matter of principle, doing good is always better, in every case, than doing evil. Therefore, I cannot accept the idea that we must commit thus-and-such sin in order to progress.

Yes, it's the longest, though Alma 5 and Alma 30 are almost as long.

I know where you're coming from. When I was in grad school, I drank about two liters of Mountain Death, er, Dew per day. I had a continual headache for about three months, until I finally bit the bullet, suffered my own private Hell Week, and quit the stuff. Now I only drink it, ironically enough, when I have a headache.

I agree with MarginOfError's analysis, but consider this as well: The president of the Church was being interviewed, and was asked a question that was phrased about 85% accurately. What was he to do? Essentially stop the interview by saying, "Now, you didn't actually ask that question quite right, so let me set you straight. Many Church officials have counseled against habit-forming substances, including caffeinated drinks, but that's not a temple recommend question, so technically it's not required of faithful members of the Church." Whereupon Wallace responds, "Right, well, um...what were we talking about?" Or just go ahead and answer the intent of the question?He chose the latter, which I think was the right decision, instead of disrupting the interview and then opening up a whole can of worms about what constitutes "official doctrine" and how much Church members should listen to their leaders' counsel vs. how much they are allowed to figure things out without suffering censure for their decisions, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. If you truly believe this, then you ought to quit drinking caffeinated sodas. Doing so is damaging to your spirit.

This seems to be a sort of portmanteau of two Biblical phrases: Matthew 22:39 "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" and Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." The first quote seems self-explanatory, but the second needs investigation.In the first place, note that Joseph Smith rendered this verse as, "Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment." Second, remember that an unmitigated commandment to "judge not" is not possible to follow; life is judgment, after all. Third, it is useful to reference Elder Oaks' talk "Judge Not" and Judging, given at BYU in March 1998 and reprinted in the Ensign in August 1999. (Also available here for mp3 download.) Elder Oaks points out that judgment is a necessary and inescapable part of our mortal journey, and that it is our duty to judge righteously. He also distinguishes between passing current judgment on a person or actions and passing final judgment; the former is often required of us, the latter only of God. No. Sure, at times. Often we do, yes, but not necessarily always. If we thought we were wrong, we wouldn't believe as we do. But I agree that we often ought to hold our opinions less firmly than we do. I think there is some truth to this. But the alternative -- refusing to make any judgment about anything or anyone for any reason -- is much worse. Maybe I'm not understanding your terminology. When you recognize that you've made a mistake and analyze why and what you can do differently, you are making lots of judgments. The recognition alone is a judgment, and a bunch of value judgments follow when deciding why you've done it and how to avoid it. But I don't think that's what you're saying.

The term "canon" as it applies to scripture was put into use by the Roman Catholic Church. It is based on the RC paradigm of God's relationship to man. As Latter-day Saints, we have a different paradigm. As such, the term "canonical scripture" really does not have as much meaning to a Latter-day Saint as it would to a Catholic (or a member of a Catholic offshoot). We believe in whatever God tells us. Much of that is contained in the books we call the "standard works", and of course we believe we get further divine instruction from our leaders. Each of those sources would therefore qualify as "canonical", in a literalistic sense. In my opinion, too many Latter-day Saints have accepted and adopted both the terminology and, to some extent, the underlying paradigms of larger "Christianity". This is understandable, perhaps inevitable, but somewhat lamentable.

We must be willing to do this, but we should seek to do many good things of our own free will and choice, without being asked.You perhaps missed the relevant part of my post, which I have emphasized for your convenience. Otherwise, I agree with the gist of your post.

Why do you suppose the law of consecration requires any such thing? Just listen to the covenant you make in the temple; it tells you everything you need to know in order to live the law of consecration right now, and it doesn't require precise accounting and large donations to charity. Once we have truly dedicated all our substance and time to God and the building up of his kingdom (aka the LDS Church), we are living the law of consecration. It's just that easy, or that difficult. Note that this doesn't mean we have to be serving a proselytizing mission continually, or that we have to donate all our goods to charity or the Church, or cloister ourselves away. It means that everything we do, every decision we make, every action we take, is all done with an eye to God's glory and the building of the kingdom. The closer we come to living this ideal, the better we live the law of consecration. Signing all our stuff over to the bishop's warehouse is utterly irrelevant -- unless the bishop asks us to, that is. If we truly understand and accept that all we "have" belongs to the Lord, that he may at any time, either in person or through his anointed leaders, require it of us and we will willingly give it, and that during the time we do hold stewardship over those things we will use them to advance the causes of our Father, then we are living the law of consecration.

But since you have 660 posts, I would have to ignore you first...Liar's Paradox, anyone? (You can safely ignore me. I have barely more than 300 posts.)

I do. Such judgments cannot accurately be made over the medium of a discussion board. My little girl being advised by close friends is much different from some anonymous poster being advised by equally anonymous posters. To revisit what I wrote:I'm all for people finding solace with friends, working out their problems, and giving advice. But that advice should never be to leave your spouse. No one who posts on this board has the authority or wisdom to make such a judgment call for another poster. On rereading that statement, I think I'm right and I stand by it. You may interpret them however suits you, of course, but when taking them at face value without injecting outside inferences, their meaning is clear enough. Sure, it's possible. But that determination cannot possibly be made in this venue, and no one on this board should ever be telling another poster to leave his or her spouse. That is explicitly anti-Christian behavior, directly violating the Lord's teachings in Mark 10:9. That's very kind of you to say. I'm pretty sure you're the first (and most likely the last) to make that statement on this board. :)

MHW, you're a nice person and a pleasure to talk with. It may be that your native nice-ness is coloring your reading of people's comments. (Remember Jane from Pride and Prejudice?) For example: "Either get rid of him and find a way to get help or find a happier environment for your kids." "I will pray for you that you will be able to find a way to get a way from your abusive husband." "First and foremost, I think you need to get away from your husband. He's abusing you." None of these sounds to me like "people [who] just felt that perhaps a little physical distance or time apart might be a good place for her to start healing and gain a little perspective." Rather, they sound to me like people telling a woman to ditch her husband. I'm all for people finding solace with friends, working out their problems, and giving advice. But that advice should never be to leave your spouse. No one who posts on this board has the authority or wisdom to make such a judgment call for another poster.