Vort

When I cut the excuses and committed myself to doing a real 24-hour fast, I found that after a couple of months my body adapted. The headaches eased up, then stopped; the shakes and weakness subsided. It's like my body finally realized, "Hey, I'm not going to die here, just not going to eat for a while." I heartily recommend a 24-hour fast to all the Saints.

I never suggested you broke copyright law, Maureen. The web site you mentioned is doing so, unless they happen to be hosted in a non-copyright-recognizing country. By using such a site, you have (perhaps inadvertently) taken advantage of their illegal activity.

The Church Handbook of Instruction is a copyrighted work that belongs to the LDS Church. Those who posted it online are breaking copyright law, and those who use it are aiding in breaking copyright law. I would hope that all honest people would avoid such things.

Yeah, you're right. I misremembered where the info about blue/brown eyes was given. The blue-eyed people could deduce their own eye color after 99 days, but the brown-eyed people would only know that they did not have blue eyes after all the blue-eyed folks left -- they wouldn't know if their own eyes were brown, green, or violet.

I haven't looked at the answer yet. Here's my reasoning: ***** SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER ****** ***** SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER ****** ***** SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER ****** Assume that this situation begins at the moment the Guru speaks; that is, no one has been seeing other people or counting days until that moment. Suppose there were only one blue-eyed person on the island. Since he would not see any blue-eyed people, he would immediately know that he himself must have blue eyes, and would leave the island that same night (first night). Suppose there were two blue-eyed people on the island. Each would see the other and know there was at least one blue-eyed person (not counting the possibility of himself or herself). If that other person saw no blue-eyed people, then the situation would be as above; that person would immediately know his eye color and would leave that night. So each blue-eyed person would watch the other to see if s/he left that night. When the other person did not leave that night, they each would know that they both had blue eyes, and would therefore leave the following night (second night). Following this logic, we see that for N blue-eyed persons on the island, they will all deduce their eye color and leave after N nights. Therefore, all the blue-eyed people will leave the island after 100 nights, and all the brown-eyed people will leave the island the following night (unless they see the hundred blue-eyed people leaving the island, immediately deduce that all the rest are brown-eyed, and then go join them on the ferry).

Then without doubt the Church will eventually extend Priesthood ordination to women, allow and encourage homosexuals to be sealed in the temple, proclaim their doctrinal unity with larger Christianity, and otherwise change all sorts of things that "enough people think they should [change]" and whose "prayers will be answered." I notice you didn't bother answering why the Church should "apologize" for things its leaders (and most of the rest of society) might have believed over a hundred years ago and which we now no longer hold to.

A red-letter day, indeed! While I disagree with almost everything foreverafter wrote in the part I replaced with an ellipsis (as indeed I disagree with much of what she writes in general), her first sentence and the last three sentences in her post quoted above have my total agreement. In this narrow issue, foreverafter has hit the nail on the head, and I happily add my voice to hers. (Okay, I might quibble with the last sentence. Even if people marry unworthily, if they make themselves worthy afterward, they are clean before God and their marriage perfectly valid. But let's not interrupt this momentous occasion with trivial corrections.)

Why is this sad? They stated their best opinion on the subject. And the fact is that before 1978, marrying a black person of African descent was the surest way for a white person (the vast majority of Church membership of the times) to deprive his/her children of the blessings of the temple. It is also self-evident that a marriage stands the greatest chance of success when the marriage partners are of a similar social background. Race is very often a reasonable proxy for social situation, so the counsel made (and to some extent, still makes) perfectly good sense, for social if not spiritual reasons. This is a standard anti-Mormon and fringe Mormon line used to dismiss the Priesthood ban: Bad old Brigham Young instituted it because of his racial bigotry. I'm disappointed to see you using that old canard. What do you mean? How could Sherry Dew modify another man's work? Elder McConkie himself modified his book's teachings, in the second edition and then again after 1978. Who would you suggest ought to apologize? Me? Nope, I won't apologize for any "mistakes" you might think early Church leaders made. The Church itself? What sense does it make for an organization to say, "Oh, we're so sorry that our leaders a hundred and fifty years ago held some common social opinions of their time that we no longer subscribe to today"? I assume that you are going to apologize for all the mistaken beliefs your grandparents held, right?

Because contrary to a misconception popular in some circles, Elder McConkie was a very funny man with a sharp sense of humor and keen insights in his humor.

Listen to the talk. If it was given at a BYU devotional (which I believe is the case), it's available for free download in mp3 format at The BYU Speeches website.

As I recall, Elder McConkie's actual words were, "He died and she did, and it was a total and complete waste of time."

Ditto Beefche's comment. Men hold the Priesthood, and part of their Priesthood duty is to serve a full-time mission unless they are specifically released from the obligation for that service. As a woman, you are under no such obligation. Why worry about it? Now, if you feel that God is calling you to missionary service, that's different. For your own benefit in life, you must follow God's will at all times. But that doesn't sound like the case here. As for health challenges, my advice is don't worry about that, either. You're healthy and can do what you want to do. If you develop vertigo, you will learn to live with it. If your fine motor coordination develops some impairments, you will learn to compensate. Google "Kyle Maynard" if you want to see what grit and determination can allow you to overcome. Keep on with your studies, work hard, and enjoy your life. Don't waste time fretting about the details that are either outside your control or unimportant (or both).

So you didn't like my story, huh? Well, it's pretty special to be singled out anyway. Thanks.

You may be right, but I hope you're mistaken. I hope it's a rare event.

No pun intended... This is kind of like saying "Has followed all the steps for making cookies except getting the ingredients out." "Months and months" does not really qualify as a "long period of staying chaste." You would have to ask the Lord to know this. In my opinion, no, a marriage based on lies and false pretenses cannot possibly be "eternal". As far as "legit", yes, the couple is legally married in the eyes of the law and of the Church. That fact does not change just because they may have been unrepentant fornicators. No couple is sealed for all eternity merely on the basis of an ordinance. The sealing is affirmed and made efficacious by the holy spirit of promise, which surely cannot be present among those who have not repented of their sins. "Just in case"...what? Just in case they actually wanted their marriage to be eternal? No. No. Possibly. Or possibly they would be excommunicated for making a mockery of sacred covenants. Or possibly something else would happen. I guarantee, it matters. Whether they receive some particular form of Church discipline or not is irrelevant to whether "it matters". Once upon a time, there was a couple who called God their "heavenly Father", but they didn't really believe he was a Father. They thought he was a heavenly Auditor or heavenly Scorekeeper, keeping tabs on technicalities and marking down good and bad acts as if he were Santa Claus going over his naughty/nice list. Not understanding the nature of God and their relationship to him, they fornicated before marriage. Since they were children of God who had been raised in the gospel, they understood they had done something bad and felt guilt for their sin. But they decided they could probably cover up their sin and no one would notice, and they'd be okay. They went to their bishop and lied to his face, telling him that they were completely worthy to enter their heavenly Father's holy temple and make eternal covenants with him. They repeated these lies to their stake president, who smiled at them, prayed with them, and wished them all the best on their marital journey. Then, still filthy with their fornications, they entered the Holy Temple, knelt in that filthy state at God's altar, and made eternal covenants they were not worthy to pronounce. They never told anyone about their fornication, and because she didn't get pregnant from the act (or maybe she did and they decided to abort the baby, neglecting to tell the bishop about that part, too), no one was the wiser. But a funny thing happened to this couple, only it wasn't very funny: They largely stopped progressing. Thirty years later, they still thought of their heavenly Father as an automated record keeper. They didn't bother to try to live commandments with exactness. At first, this was because they felt guilty about their premarital fornication; later, they began to justify themselves by looking down on their fellow Saints as simple (when they felt charitable) or hypocritical (the rest of the time) for worrying about things like shopping on Sundays when there were people in the world who were really hurting!!! (Besides, all the best sales were on Sundays, and they were no fools.) When their oldest started sleeping with his girlfriend and partying around, they told him he shouldn't do that, but they lacked the spiritual maturity to give him any sort of insight into why he shouldn't or how he was damaging himself. How could they tell him? They never learned it themselves. And later, when their son decided he wanted to serve a mission, they encouraged him (maybe not overtly, but subtly) to hide his transgressions from the bishop. After all, they reasoned, those sins were no longer a part of him. Right? The fact he wanted to serve a mission was proof of that! They were greatly offended when the stake president, who had discovered their son's "peccadilloes", refused his attempt at mission service, calling the stake president "judgmental" and "uncompassionate". They voiced their displeasure to all who would hear, including to their son, who adopted their attitude and decided if the Church didn't want him, he didn't want the Church, either! Their younger children listened and heard all that happened, and they, too, hardened their hearts at the "evil treatment" given their family by "the Church". They began to lose interest in the Church. It required a lot of work and a lot of commitment, and they frankly didn't really see the advantage. They had only a rudimentary understanding of the concept of "ward family", and they saw no purpose in the constant efforts at unity: ward cookouts, home teaching, service projects. She had taken "her turn" in Primary and nursery, and he was tired of callings with young men and such that were boring (Scouting? who needs it?) and that wasted his genius for music and his interest in literature. So naturally, they declined almost every calling that came their way. Eventually, their Church attendance became sparse, and they lapsed into "inactivity". They still considered themselves Mormons, but it was more like a social identifier than an expression of heartfelt commitment. How do you like my story?

I'm sorry, Rachelle. You should not have to walk this path. It's not fair, but it is what it is, I guess. God be with you. Things will get better. Not just better, but good.

Because it's a stupid choice that no one would ever seriously have marked, and therefore should not have been part of the poll? Just a guess.

As someone already pointed out, all of these things are immoral. Sexual immorality is indeed a pernicious evil, but do you really believe that a non-coital "make-out" experience is more damaging than spreading malicious gossip about others or openly mocking or ostracizing someone because s/he is not "cool" enough? I'm not saying that "necking" and "petting" (who came up with these terms, anyway?) are to be taken lightly; I'm saying that we need to take gossip and personal putdowns much more seriously.

Faded, I appreciate your clear explanation of what you believe and why you believe it. I look at things much differently. I don't see God as having a grand checklist of sins ranked by evilness, checking us against the Sin List to see how badly we have done. I suspect -- really, I believe -- that certain actions are considered sinful because they destroy what we are trying to accomplish. What are we trying to accomplish? Judging by God's self-proclaimed work and glory: ImmortalityEternal lifeImmortality is already guaranteed us, so all we need to worry about is eternal life. There are (at least) two aspects to gaining eternal life: Individual: We must be the kind of person who wants to live a celestial life.Communal: Eternal life is family (and by extension, community) life, so we must learn to deal with and prosper in extended communities.The first of these points is obvious; I doubt that any Latter-day Saint on this list would argue against it. The second is not so obvious, but just as real. The Savior has counseled us many times that we must be one. He has gone so far as to say if we are not one, we are not his. This "oneness", this community sense that says that I will sacrifice of myself so that we as a group can prosper, is central to successful and joyful marriage and family life. I am convinced it is also central to exalted life, both now and in the hereafter. (So be polite and don't ask me why I fail to practice this oneness more often on this list.) Given this view, we can apply it to the OP's list to try and ascertain which are the most damaging sins: Necking or very long make-out sessions with light petting.Certainly a foolish thing to do, exhibiting a complete lack of mature understanding about intersexual relationships. Potentially very damaging to individuals; probably not a huge immediate threat to communities. All in all, my Bad-O-Meter rates this at 7 devilhorns (out of a possible 10). Spreading rumors about others in the community.Ooooh. That's very bad. If you know the rumor is false, this rates 8 devilhorns. Even if you don't know it to be false, I'd still rate this one a strong 7. Very bad indeed. (I personally voted for this one.) Smoking and drinking just a tiny bit, but definitely not doing drugs.Affects personal worthiness to some degree, especially if you're knowingly breaking your baptismal covenants. Not really a destroyer of society. I'd give this one 3 devilhorns. Wearing immodest and revealing clothing.Callow and foolish. Depending on the clothing and circumstances (and assuming we're not talking about nudity or its equivalent), somewhere between 3 and 7 devilhorns. Using some profanity, but nothing really major.Shame on you. Clean up your language. That will be 1 devilhorn. Putting down others. You know, teasing others or pointing out nerds & weirdos.Depends on the circumstances, how nasty the teasing and ostricizing. I'd say 5 devilhorns, fewer if it's done without malice and more if it's really nasty. Skipping some meetings in church, mostly because the teacher is boring.Bad precedent with potentially devastating long-term consequences. I'd give it a present value of 2 or 3 devilhorns with an asterisk to note that it could lead to worse things. Telling jokes with sexual innuendo, but nothing dirty.Most sexual jokes are "dirty" in that they portray sex as something other than a loving and Godly act between a husband and wife. Such jokes are pretty rancid. I'd give them 5 devilhorns. As for getting our underwear in a knot because a bunch of teenage kids thought that smoking was the worst sin, I think it's time to chill out. Teenagers don't have a mature view of things and, almost by definition, exhibit poor (i.e. immature) judgment. They have been taught from their childhood, and rightly so, that smoking and drinking is bad; just because they look almost like adults doesn't mean they think almost like adults. Their thought processes are often still quite childish. No earthshattering news there, and no reason for chest-beating or bemoaning the callowness of the upcoming generation.

Tell your folks that you're gay, that you've been trapped in a man's body for too long, and that you've finally saved enough to get that reassignment surgery so you can live life as you always wanted, just you and your three best boyfriends. Then tell them that you were just kidding. Actually, you're an inked-up alcoholic womanizer. They'll be so relieved to hear it that they won't even complain.

"I'd rather be rich than stupid." - Jack Handey (who really is one of our best and brightest)

The gospel is the teachings of the good news of Jesus Christ and how his atonement can save us from our sins, if we submit to his will. Ms. Toscano has seemingly put her own desires ahead of the instruction of her Priesthood leaders, and thus has been cut off from the kingdom of God, apparently without sufficient effort or desire to conform to the teachings and instructions of the leadership of that kingdom to merit readmittance. The majority of posters here are not cut off from the kingdom of God. Therefore, it appears you are wrong. In any useful, saving sense, Ms. Toscano appears to know far less about the gospel than the majority of the posters here. Meaning she agrees with you, I suppose.

This is false. Please ignore Italics in this thing. Your membership in the kingdom of God is threatened by this sin. Thus, in order to repent, you must confess this sin to your branch president or mission president and let him determine what, if any, action is to be taken. For general sins that do not specifically threaten your membership in the kingdom (Church), Italics' words are correct; you don't have to see a bishop/branch president/stake president/mission president to repent. But for sex sin, you must talk to such an authority. Please do so as soon as you possibly can, so you can continue this process and regain your previous whole state.

Bytebear was correct, at least in the sense that we as a people have not been given detailed information about our heavenly Mother. Now, if you're suggesting that you personally have received some great revelations in your life about her and her role, well, bully for you. That does not change the fact that little about her beyond the fact of her existence has been revealed to the Church (that is, to us -- we haven't been vouchsafed that information). Like always, I may well be wrong. If so, please point out the revelations that we as a Church and people have been given about our heavenly Mother, so that I and others may enjoy this revealed knowledge that has so far escaped us. Or if I've misunderstood your point entirely, please accept my apology in advance and have another shot at explaining your point.

That'll work:DSounds good to me:p As the father of sons whom I love just as much as my daughters, I must respond that it certainly does not sound good to me. It sounds hellish and vomitous. Yeah, I know, Moksha and Johnny were just funnin'. Ha ha ha. Fewer men will be saved so those who "make it" can have more sex with lots of different women throughout eternity. That's just riotous.