Vort

Lovely, then, that no one is engaging in hate speech. Except perhaps those who insist on personal ad hominems against Vort.

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated. Acceptance of whoredom is moving backward, not forward. Not at all. Rather, those who seek to minimize or justify sin drive judgment, divisiveness and contention. Then perhaps you should not justify its use, just as you should not eat strawberry ice cream if it makes you uncomfortable. But your discomfort has little or nothing to do with anyone else.Interestingly, of all the people bleating about the evils of my "judgmentalism" in using the term "whore", the only personal judgments leveled against individuals has been their judgments against me -- for using a perfectly valid, non-vulgar, scriptural term. No use trying to justify yourselves.

Sure. But I don't recall objecting to anyone using the term "prostitute", so I'm not sure what you're driving at. If you truly feel that way, perhaps you should quit using the vindictive, emotionally-loaded term "prostitute". Unlike you, I'm not a scholar of ancient Hebrew. But I'm pretty sure ancient Hebrew has more than only one term. Intereting, though useless, distinction. Huh. My KJV uses the word "whore". Seriously, d00d, I don't need to justify myself. I am right in this.

If you knew God commanded it, then there is no need to "determine the validity". You already know its validity.

And alcohol is responsible for a huge percentage of those fatal accidents. Do you really think that alcohol poisoning is the major danger of alcohol?

Were you expecting me to offer several?

Probably refrain from using the degrading term "whore."Apparently not. Searching the online scriptures for "whore" gives 32 hits. For example, Leviticus 21:7 reads, "They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane".

Good question. I don't know. I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't call a whore "jane", though. Unless perhaps that was her name.

Response 1: In general, I am sure this is true. Response 2: Yet in the case of Nephi, among others, our Father commanded his servant to kill. The servant obeyed him and was blessed for it. So apparently it's more complicated than your words suggest. Response 3: This still avoids the OP's question.

No, this stuff is all superstitious nonsense. Technically, I believe that "ghosts" or the spirits of the dead actually exist, but I don't believe they "haunt" places or any such nonsense. And I certainly do not believe in levitation, telepathy, pyramid power, astral projection, little green men, or statues that cry blood.

This is different from what you said before. I happen to agree with this. Those who find themselves in such a position can often do something about it. I think you're forgetting what you wrote: We weren't discussing the definition of poverty; we were discussing its causes.

And you still thought that poverty was caused merely by a lack of money?

Actually, since I have many beloved friends and relatives named John, a better question might be, "If we call the female offended a whore, why don't we call the male offender a whoremonger?" It would be much more fitting, and as a bonus would keep from slandering a noble and dignified name. Alas, the language is what it is. John is, unfortunately, the term used to describe a whore's customer. But if we started calling whores janes, that would merely pollute and slander another otherwise perfectly respectable and beautiful name. I wouldn't wish that on the Janes of the English-speaking world.

King Follett discourse from the JoD

But that wasn't the question. The OP didn't ask if you would kill someone if you believed you had been commanded by God. The OP asked if you would kill someone if you actually were commanded by God. I think it's a rather silly question, which is why I haven't responded to it. But those who do wish to respond to the question ought to respond to the question given, rather than making up some other question and responding to that one instead. That's a form of straw man argument.

Using that logic, we can say that "evil" may be bad or may be good, depending on how you define "evil". If we define good as evil, then evil is good.But of course, that's silly. We use the normal definition of words unless we have reason to use a special definition, and in that case we call out the special definition. "Hypocrisy" has no special definition that makes it good, unless you're just now inventing one. It's always bad. Just curious: Did you even read my previous posts? Because I used this selfsame example, and yet you're calling it out as some sort of demonstration of hypocrisy. I'd re-explain my position, but it's already set out above. If you didn't read it then, you probably won't read it now. If you're interested, go on back and read what I wrote. So you think that serving in the military is a violation of the Sabbath? I have never heard such a sentiment before. I think that most people understand that certain needs in this life are not amenable to convenience, and self-defense or defense of one's country is clearly one of those. That's true simply by the definition of hypocrisy. If someone puts on a false face, the whole idea is that WE DON'T KNOW IT'S FALSE. That's why it's hypocrisy; they are trying to deceive us. Once the intent to deceive is gone, so is the hypocrisy. True. I suspect everyone already agrees with that.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Someone who practices banking is a banker. Someone who practices writing is a writer. Someone who practices whoring is a whore. Do you think the term "whore" denies a whore's basic humanity -- being someone's daughter and sister? If so, consider: We don't call animals "whores". Only human beings merit that distinction.

Yes. It's an ugly word to describe an ugly activity.

True. But then, isn't her "attractiveness" in prostituting her sacred things the root of the problem? I don't see how you can blame the john without blaming the whore.

Yes, this misconception is generally believed among the well-intentioned naïve, and has long been the guiding belief for welfare policy in the US. Experience has shown, however, that many people who lack money and can't find easy employment still manage to lift themselves from poverty, while others with as much or more opportunity simply do not.Intact family and home life, coupled with a strong work ethic and good moral foundation, seem to be the keys in lifting the masses out of poverty. The "money and jobs" mantra is more a political ploy for gaining votes than anything else.

All sins can be forgiven, except cohabitation with a washed-up MMA fighter.

No, it doesn't depend on the age of the kid. If you think smoking is bad but you're addicted to cigarettes, and you tell your son that he shouldn't smoke, you're not being a hypocrite. It makes no difference if your son is 5 years old or 55 years old. On the other hand, if you present yourself as a paragon of smoke-free virtue, you are being a hypocrite. Again, it doesn't matter how old your child is. I don't think that's the question, because that question is too obvious. Of course we can be hypocrites. That's why we're warned against it.Or do you mean, Is it ever acceptable for us to be hypocrites? The answer to that is, of course: No, never. Hypocrisy is evil by definition. We must never be hypocritical. Would you truly starve, or is that mere hyperbole? Assuming you live in the Western world, the odds of you starving if you don't work on Sunday are very low indeed.I don't know if you are being hypocrites by claiming that keeping Sunday a holy day is important to you while still working for pay on Sunday. That isn't my determination to make, it's yours. But perhaps it isn't even a matter of hypocrisy. Perhaps it's a matter of figuring out what's good and what's best. Remember Elder Oaks' recent General Conference talk about doing what is "best" rather than what is merely "good"? For example: Maybe (and this is a hypothetical) you are justified in working on Sunday, so your Sunday work is a "good" thing. But maybe you would be even more blessed, though perhaps not financially, if you bit the bullet and gave up Sunday work, which would be a "better" thing, maybe even the "best" thing.

No, it's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy means putting on a false face. It means pretending to be something good when in fact you are nothing of the sort. Christ called hypocrites "whited sepulcres", beautiful on the outside but full of dead men's bones inside. A smoker telling his child not to smoke is not a hypocrite. A smoker telling his child to avoid smoking because it's evil, and by the way look and see how heroic Dad is for not smoking, is a hypocrite. Turning down a gratuity that you yourself would offer is not hypocritical in the least.

Many in the Church, including leaders, have opined that this means there will again be blood sacrifice, at least one time. I don't see this at all. D&C 13 specifically states that the Priesthood is restored "until" the sons of Levi offer up a righteous offering. That harkens back to the ancient blood sacrifices, but it doesn't say that.Note Oliver Cowdery's recounting of this same prayer. He says that John (the Baptist) said something like "THAT the sons of Levi may offer up etc." One meaning of the word "until" is "to the end that" or "for the purpose that". This usage was much more common in the early 19th century, and agrees perfectly with Cowdery's recounting. If we accept this idea, then what John the Baptist said is that the Aaronic Priesthood is being restored TO THE END THAT the sons of Levi offer up a righteous offering. And what is the righteous offering that has been required of us for all time, and more specifically since Christ's mortal ministry? A broken heart and a contrite spirit. Behold the reason for the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood! IMO. YMMV. LDS RM NFL QB.

Funny you should ask...