Vort

In what sense is it "sanctimonious"? How is it "over the top"? Are you arguing that something I said was untrue? Today, serious enough that those who drink beer -- even prophets and apostles, I daresay -- would not be allowed inside the holy temples. For purposes of entering the holy temple, the living prophets and your own bishop disagree with you. Which is worse: Someone blessed with natural health and the knowledge to keep it who intentionally violates his covenants with God in small measure, or someone with neither a natural healthy constitution nor the knowledge to improve it, but who clings to the truths he has been given? Which of those two is more likely to have the spirit of God with him? No, it appears you employ your self-righteous language elsewhere.

You think I ought to dig up and chew out corpses? That's a bit overly weird, even for you, Snow. Or are you attempting to argue that intentionally violating the Word of Wisdom is not in fact a violation of covenant?

Attacked? How do you think I've "attacked" you? Which of the two of us lectured the other on being "judgmental"? I have tried to respond honestly and straightforwardly to your observations and accusations. I thought I had done a pretty good job of keeping emotion out of the equation and just responding to what you wrote. On the other hand, you keep telling me that I am saying something that I'm clearly not saying, then judging me to be judgmental because of your (incorrect) conclusions. And you're the aggrieved party? Then surely you're appreciative of my efforts to explain things to you. Right? Ooooh. Guess not. prospectmom, which of these two seems more rude and caddish to you? "So you're saying that homosexuals aren't welcome at Church and should just stay away????? You sound really judgmental and homophobic!!!!!""You are misunderstanding the situation. That's not what was written; let me quote to you exactly what was written. And by the way, after all your judgments on me and others, I find it quite funny that you think me judgmental."(Remember that in #1 above, the person she's responding to never said anything like what she claimed he had said.) I don't know. To my ears, #1 sounds much more rude and caddish than #2. YMMV. Yes, you pride yourself on not being a blind follower. Problem is, so far you haven't managed to follow the conversation, either. You say that you do not agree with me "and blindly follow the masses..." Here, you are very clearly accusing me of "blindly follow[ing] the masses". Please explain exactly what I have written that constitutes "blindly follow[ing] the masses" and exactly which "masses" I am "blindly follow[ing]". But your experience does make it so? Yet another accusation. Please point out where I have mocked you. Just keep working at following and understanding the thread. How's your behavior, prospectmom? P.S. The Happy Mother's Day wish was sincere.

No, that is not my perspective. That is simply the perspective you wish to assign to me. I think I've made my perspective crystal clear to anyone who cares to actually read what I wrote. On the contrary, that is exactly what you said, or at least what you responded to. Skippy wrote (emphasis added): To which you responded: The answer, of course, is: "Right. If they don't repent, they are not welcome to join the Church." As has been said a dozen times or more in this thread alone, they are welcome to come to worship services, as long as they comport themselves appropriately. All are welcome to come, but only the repentant sinner is welcome to join the Church of God. And before you go off hollering about how terribly judgmental this is, remember that it is the Lord himself who set this condition. Then you should do two things: Follow the conversation more closely, so you don't respond to a question without even understanding what was written.Avoid accusing other parties of evils of which they are not guilty due to your own failure to follow the thread closely. Given your overt (and false) judgment of me, I find this frankly hilarious -- even moreso, since you immediately go on to pass unrighteous judgment on your fellow Saints: Just keep working at it, prospectmom. Happy Mother's Day.

The baptismal covenant.

Because anything more or less than 10% is not tithing. Tithing means "a tenth". You can give as much as you choose, but tithing is required as a minimum for those under the covenant.

Vort, in this case I am sure you would agree that even these unrepentant sinners still have spiritual needs. Where would you suggest they go to address their spiritual needs? I would suggest they go to the Lord, the only source to satisfy spiritual needs. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, they are welcome to join LDS worship services, so long as they comport themselves appropriately. But this has already been stated many times, Moksha. Why are you asking me yet again? As for the specific point under consideration: Do you think that unrepentant homosexuals ought to be baptized? If not, then we agree. So what is it about my post that you failed to understand, prompting you to ask yet again what the unrepentant are to do?If so, then we disagree. Are there any sins so grevious that you think an unrepentant sinner ought not to be baptized, or are you under the belief that anyone, regardless of present spiritual state or intent, ought to be welcomed into the waters of baptism?

So they aren't welcome otherwise??????Correct. Correct. Where would this sign be posted? Beside the baptismal font? If so, then the sign should read Only repentant sinners allowed. In any case, why on earth would a practicing homosexual (or fornicator) wish to bind himself/herself by covenant to practice a lifestyle s/he is openly flouting? That doesn't even make any sense. I really don't understand your confusion on this point. Seems perfectly obvious.

As a liar and covenant-breaker, that person would lose all rights to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the divine protection of his covenants. If his behavior were known to his Priesthood leaders, he would also stand to lose his rights to enter the temple, and in some situations might be released from his calling(s).

My wife. The Book of Mormon. My wife and I just finished our study of the Bible, which I enjoyed greatly, she somewhat less. We have started reading the Book of Mormon again, and for clarity of expression and depth (and power) of doctrine, it cannot be exceeded, even by the New Testament. See answer to #1. Welcome, friend!

No, I am not. I simply don't believe that my rights to practice my religion are, or ought to be, forfeit any time some overly emotional non-thinker takes exception to my beliefs and practices. I support our LDS leaders in their instructions to avoid doing temple work for Holocaust victims, but I most certainly do not support those who wish to take personal offense at my religious practices, claiming that those practices somehow "dishonor" their ancestors. That is an absurd statement, and my pointing out its absurdity does not make me "insensitive". It just makes me correct. So therefore...what? Whether "they believe that they are the only true religion" is completely irrelevant. The only relevant point is that my religious practices do not negatively affect them (or their dead relatives). Period. End of discussion. I'm not looking to attract bees. If you really believe this, then you do not understand or believe LDS doctrine. Whatever makes you think I don't understand? I understand perfectly their reasons for taking offense. I simply reject them.

Then they are fools. If they really and truly believe that Mormon vicarious baptism "makes" their Jewish ancestors Mormons, then they are admitting that Mormons have authority that extends beyond this life, and their Jewish heritage is worthless, per se. On the other hand, if they disbelieve the efficacy of Mormon vicarious baptism, then they cannot possibly believe that it will somehow "unmake" the Jewishness of their ancestors. I understand that feelings and logic don't always go hand in hand. People feel strongly about some issues, even when they don't have logical reasons for those feelings. I respect that, as far as it goes. But at some point people need to grow up and see things as things really are, not merely as they happen to feel about them. You want to perform voodoo rituals over the names of my dead ancestors to save them from the vicious Mormon hell (or to send them there)? Be my guest. I might think it weird, or perverse, or laughable, but I won't pretend there is anything illegal about it.

As Rachelle noted, the Church does have the right to perform the ordinances. But in the interest of not offending our neighbors, the Church has agreed to restrict certain segments, such as Holocaust victims, from baptism and other ordinances unless submitted by a direct descendant. Doing work for one's own ancestors and relatives has always been the plan, anyway. Those who insist on doing yet another baptism/sealing/whatever for Adolph Hitler or John Wayne are (forgive the pun) missing the spirit of the thing.

I would not care in the slightest. They can perform their voodoo rituals and poke straw dolls with pins to their heart's content. Won't affect my deceased loved ones in the slightest. Anyone with an IQ of 70 or better can see this. In this case, the "other perspective" you mention is purely hogwash. There is no possible reasonable excuse to object to the LDS program of baptism for the dead; hatred and antiMormonism are the sole reasons. Exactly one of two possibilities is true: The LDS Church is exactly what it claims to be: God's kingdom on earth.The LDS Church is not what it claims to be.If #1 is true, then the LDS Church has the Priesthood of God and performs actual saving ordinances for people, both living and dead. Thus, temple work, including baptism for the dead, is divinely ordained and sanctioned. If #2 is true, then the LDS Church is simply a mass delusion. None of its ordinances has any effect whatsoever. No dead people are harmed in the making of vicarious baptisms. In either case, baptism for the dead and other temple ordinances cannot be considered harmful in any possible (reasonable) way. Having said this much, I do agree that those who rush in to baptize the famous, semi-famous, or related-to-famous deceased are deluded. It's not their place to do so. The Church has clear policies in place that prevent such things, if only the "faithful" members would bother to learn and follow those policies.

Red herring. No one ever said anything about people living on the streets. This scripture has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with payment of tithing. You might as well use it to argue against child molestation or loitering.

Good point. Neither you nor I would respond that way to a homosexual with interest in attending sacrament meeting. Of course, I was not responding to a homosexual with interest in attending sacrament meeting, but to a fellow Latter-day Saint who was proclaiming that we as Latter-day Saints needed to minister to the spiritual needs of homosexuals. Since no one had suggested otherwise, I found this heart-rending plea a tad bizarre. We are to minister to the spiritual needs of everyone, regardless of the particular sin or evil they struggle with. To illustrate this obvious (I thought) fact, I made up a quick list of sins and evils. Different situations call for different arguments. I would probably say something like, "Sacrament meeting starts at 10:00. Would you like to come?" If he responded in the affirmative, I would probably give him a short heads-up on expectations.

Cowardice is a harmful action toward other people? I suppose I listed examples of sin that harmed others because when thinking up examples of sinful behavior, that's what came to mind. Why do you ask?

Your confusion confuses me. Did someone claim that the Latter-day Saints didn't, or shouldn't, minister to the spiritual needs of homosexuals? There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of pedophiles. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of rapists. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of carjackers. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of embezzlers. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of wifebeaters. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of liars. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of cowards. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of cheaters. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of child abusers. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of shoplifters. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of emotional abusers. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of dishonest folks. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of those who curse. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of jaywalkers. There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of people who pick their noses. Whatever gave you the idea that anyone thought that Latter-day Saints consider homosexuals any different from any of the other sinners listed above? All need to come unto the Lord and repent of their wickedness and carnality, whether homosexuality or something else.

Not sure what part of the US you live in, but I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth in the places I've lived, both in the western US and in the East. The last time we addressed the evils of homosexuality as a topic of discussion in Priesthood meeting was...well...never. In contrast, we address problems and evils found in heterosexual relationships all the time -- as in, every week. Literally. Perhaps you live in an area where homosexuality is so endemic and so publicly accepted that the Church leaders or membership feel the need to spend time pointing out what ought to be obvious: Homosexual relations are wicked and lead to personal and societal destruction. But I have never lived anywhere that such a thing was so poorly understood as to be a problem, where (as you say) the Saints diminish the harm done by heterosexuals who don't cherish their fidelity and chastity. On the contrary, that's what our youth and adults are warned against constantly, like an incessant drumbeat. The topic of homosexuality as an evil practice never comes up except as a "by the way". I don't pretend that my experience is necessarily typical, but I have lived in many places in the US and have never seen the problem you describe. LoudMouth was speaking what seemed to me obvious common sense; I don't quite understand why you took exception to anything he wrote.

My advice: Pay your tithing. I don't know whether everything will work out or not. Doesn't matter. Pay your tithing, then live within your means and make do with the rest.

I do not. Not an LDS church, anyway. If my friend who smokes wanted to come to Church. he would be welcome, but I would tell him that he needed not to smoke at Church. If my friend who cursed constantly wanted to come to Church, he would be welcome, but I would likewise mention that harsh language was out of place. If my drug addict friend wanted to come to Church, he would be welcome, but I would expect him not to talk about the glories of his drug usage or model such behavior at Church, especially in front of children. Common sense, really. Likewise, if a practicing homosexual friend wanted to come to Church, he (or she) would be welcome, but would need to understand that modeling or flaunting unseemly behavior was really not acceptable. If he (she) was truly interested in coming to Church, then doubtless he (or she) would happily avoid any homosexual activities or behaviors. If he (she) could not resist this and insisted (for example) on holding hands with or kissing his (her) "partner" or making pro-homosexuality comments in a class meeting, then I would take that as prima facie evidence that he (she) wasn't really interested in attending Church and enjoying the fellowship of the Saints.

I will give you my opinion, Rachelle. Not advice, just an opinion. I would say, Don't do anything explicitly to "get him back". He is your husband, and unless he is brain-dead, that fact alone will bring him back to you -- IF he has any intention of repenting. If he does not, then any begging or yelling or pleading or asking or anything else on your part will not do any good, and might just open you up to emotional manipulation, or worse. Bottom line: Remain cordial and keep praying for him, but let HIM make the reconciliatory moves. If and when he does, respond in accordance with the Spirit (and not out of relief or desperation). If he doesn't, then he is voicing his decision as clearly as possible. There's my view. Take it or leave it, as you see fit. God bless you in this difficult time. Many people are praying for you.

Rachelle, don't be embarrassed. We are all pulling for you. Here's a thought; take it for what it's worth. My thought is that I hope you can somehow avoid despising and hating your (maybe soon to be ex-) husband. I say this not primarily for his sake, but for yours. Whether it's a chemical imbalance or old-fashioned carnality that led him to this precipice, he has put his own spiritual well-being in jeopardy and has paved his own way to destruction, both in this life and the life to come. A man acting as he has acted cannot be happy. He may be, as someone else put it, in "lala land", but he will meet with reality soon enough. Hopefully, through painful repentance and the grace of Christ, he can pull back from the cliff edge before he does himself in. But whatever becomes of your husband, you must keep yourself and your son from being pulled into his vortex of destruction. Feelings of hatred and vengefulness, if left unchecked, will eat away at you. As someone once said, hating another person is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die. If you decide your husband can no longer be a part of your life, then so be it. That is your decision to make, and you have every right to it. And if he wakes up and realizes what he's done and you decide to work to save your marriage, that's your right, too. But whatever you decide, don't let his actions and foolish behavior engender spiritual venom that poisons you. Sorrow for him, pity him, wonder at his foolishness, whatever, just don't let yourself get infected by hatred. I have seen many people, including some very close to me, hurt by exactly that. Anyway, not trying to lecture you. Just a thought for your consideration. God be with you.

The Greek alphabet starts with alpha (A-α) and ends with omega (Ω-ω). I have always assumed "alpha and omega" was just another way of saying "the beginning and the end".

The OP's point is not about the story itself, but about the JST addendum. According to that bastion of truth and well-researched fact, Wikipedia: It goes on to say that Augustine felt it had been improperly excluded from many contemporary accounts because it seemed to give license to adulterous women. You seem to have overstated the supposed falseness of the account. I also have very little confidence in (or patience for) purely stylistic arguments, and I know I'm not the only one who finds them weak and unconvincing.