Vort

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.

I'm stunned. I don't know what to say. I am so sorry to hear this. My prayers are with you, Rachelle. Hang on and don't give up. Many people care about you and this situation. These things are not so. It's much too early to worry about remarriage and such, but rest assured that any number of good, decent, honorable, worthy men would be only too happy to marry a loving and good woman with a wonderful son, regardless of past history.

No, it makes the woman filling a different role from the man. Superiority/inferiority don't enter into the discussion. I am convinced that until we get past the carnal impulse to classify everything as higher or lower than something else, we will not be able to understand or enjoy the life God lives.

Snow, In rereading our correspondence, it seems our point often gets lost beneath dense layers of verbiage and goes down a rathole here and there. Let me try to cut to the chase. You seem to be saying, in effect: "Look at thus-and-such scripture claiming that God (or someone else) did or said such-and-such a thing. Obviously, this is a bad and evil thing. Therefore, this proves that not everything the scriptures claim (or that God's prophets claim) is actually true." I object to this line of reasoning, but my objection is perhaps a bit subtle. In point of fact, I do not believe that the scriptures are a flawless record of God's will or actions; in principle, at least, I'm willing to accept the idea that the scriptural record might be mistaken, as I'm sure it is in any number of places. (Note that Mormon explicitly admitted this.) I also do not believe that prophets are perfect men, incapable of error. My problem comes in taking these two general statements of truth and using them to "disprove" any given scriptural story or account or prophetic act. Case in point: Nephi killed a drunken Laban. Why, that's MURDER!! So therefore the account is wrong, God didn't tell Nephi to do that, and Nephi committed murder. No. Wrong. False. Just because something looks like murder doesn't mean it is murder. Specifically, if God actually did command Nephi to kill Laban, then it wasn't murder. And Nephi, whom we know to be a prophet of God, says God did command him to kill Laban. So by what reasonable process do we second-guess a prophet telling us something? Where is the humility, the desire to come to know God through his revealed word, if we simply ignore his prophets whenever we don't like what they say? On the other hand, we might respond, "Whoa, that's strange. God commands Nephi to kill a drunken man? What does that mean? What does it say about God? Why didn't God just give Laban a stroke or hit him with a bolt of lightning or a meteor?" Then we can think and meditate about that, and perhaps arrive at some surprising insights about the nature of our Creator and Father. I tend to reject out of hand any argument that starts from the premises, "The scriptures are imperfect, prophets are only men, and I don't like what this scripture says." Such reasoning is an example of us trusting our own judgment above God's and putting our trust in the arm of flesh.

Ergo, the whole idea of "interfering with free choice" or "taking away someone's agency" is a red herring. I agree.

So you take the Humpty-Dumpty view of communication. `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Hard to argue with that. And when I say "argue with", I mean "douse with gasoline and set on fire."

That's horrible logic Then please demonstrate to me where the logic breaks down. It looks perfectly valid to me. Indeed it was. You wrote: "No Vort - because actions that are unjust and anti-benevolent do not jive with a God who is just and benevolent." Your words. Your premise. Unless you are claiming that my restatement of your premise as "a just and benevolent God only does just and benevolent things" somehow does violence to your words, in which case we may need to have a discussion on the difference between the two, since they look almost identical to me. Agreed. That's non sequitur; I didn't claim the Bible was necessarily correct. In fact, if you reread my words above, you'll see that they say, "Therefore, if God said the things as quoted in the Bible, etc." (Emphasis added for your benefit.) Nice to get some friendly conversation. In contrast, I very much do mind sophistry, and never engage in it. I am fine with a "good-natured" twisting of words, as long as it really is good-natured, and I occasionally will do so; but I will never use them "to get in a few gratuitous shots". That is dishonest. Oh...so you weren't being friendly, you were threatening me. Very well. Point taken. I would promise to straighten up and fly right, except that I'm not guilty of the things you wish to accuse me of. Why, no. I didn't know this at all. It certainly wasn't clear from the presentation of your response. The fact that you can follow your thought pattern in your response doesn't necessarily mean that I can do so. As a writer, you must make your response such that the reader can follow your line of thinking. Now, it's possible that I dropped the ball on that one, and that you wrote a perfectly understandable response that I simply missed. But I don't think so. In any case, we appear to understand each other now. For my part, I won't threaten to walk away if you don't start expressing yourself more clearly (though I may do so if I get the feeling you're arguing for the sheer fun of the fight rather than to engage in honest give and take). Actually, I think you are saying exactly that, even if you don't see it in yourself. You claimed, and I quote: "...those who profess to believe in a just and benevolent God ought to be those who believe the opposite of the passages quoted in the Bible and the beliefs of those people printed above." Here, you are making a clear moral judgment: Those who believe God to be both just and benevolent ought to (i.e. are under a moral and logical obligation to) disbelieve both the Biblical passages you quoted and the opinions expressed by the men you quoted. Your judgment is faulty. A man (or woman) can believe God to be both just and benevolent without having any moral or logical imperative to disbelieve the scriptures you cite or the opinions you quote. This can happen in any of a great number of ways. As a simple example, suppose a man (or woman) believes that women are a lesser creation than men, both in spiritual acumen and in divine eternal potential. Such a person could easily believe the opinions stated and still maintain belief in a completely just and benevolent God. So why do you claim what you do? It seems obvious to me that you implicitly assume everyone else ought to accept your way of viewing things (for example, that women are not by nature inferior to men, either in present spiritual capacity or in ultimate divine potential). My mistake was in saying that you were "suggesting" this, when in fact you were assuming it, perhaps without even realizing you were doing so. God allows evil to happen when he might stop it -- yet if I allowed evil to happen when stopping it was within my grasp, I would be guilty of unjust and anti-benevolent actions. No one is talking about "allowing" I was. You asked me to explain the congruence between a just, benevolent God and unjust, anti-benevolent actions. I did so. Baloney. I interfere with my children's free choice all the time. The laws of the land interfere with my free choice, assuming my free choice would be to rape and pillage. Such interference is perfectly in keeping with gospel principles. The gospel sacrosanctity of "free choice" is a myth. You are missing the point, Snow. Perhaps you are closing your eye to it. If God does something, it's not evil. It's not unjust. It's not bad. It really does not make a particle of difference how much you think that it really is bad, or unjust, or evil. You are wrong. It's not an explanation. It's a definition. If "snow" is defined as "low-density, fluffy crystalline precipitate", then hail is not snow, no matter how vehemently you argue that it is. As long as you insist on defining "evil" based on your own perceptions rather than on God's, you run the risk of wrongly classifying a Godly action as "evil". But his actions were not evil, as Joseph Smith told us. And yet you continue to claim Lot's actions as evil.