Vort

Mass starvation. Within two years, 80% of the earth's population would either die of starvation or be killed in wars over food and water. Our modern agricultural system is the science of turning petroleum into food.

I don't know what's typical. My brother, a new bishop, is putting in about 30-35 hours a week right now. The previous bishop put in about 20 hours a week, but left things a real mess for my brother. You need to understand that the calling of bishop may be the most time-intensive calling in the Church, other than full-time callings like missionary service or being called as a full-time General Authority. There really is no "typical" time; it depends on the calling. If you are a quorum or auxiliary president, you will probably spend between five and twenty hours a week. If you are a counselor in a presidency, you will probably average two or three hours a week, a little more on some weeks. If you are a class teacher, you will spend an hour or two a week preparing your lesson, and often that's all. Clerks might find themselves spending several hours a week outside of Church, with financial clerks putting in some hours at the end of the year. And so on...many members spend little or no time outside Church on their callings. Home teaching (for the men) and visiting teaching (for the women) is another matter. These positions are not callings, strictly speaking, and require an average of probably a couple or three hours a month. In their candid moments, bishops of my acquaintance have suggested that it's all too easy for people to reject callings. The Church is a volunteer organization, and while accepting callings is strongly encouraged, as far as I know there are no tangible consequences for not accepting a calling. You can still get a temple recommend, still act in full fellowship, and in fact no one (besides the bishopric) will ever know you turned the calling down, unless you tell them.

I'm truly sorry to hear this, SS. Please hang in there. Remember that the Lord brought the dead back to life. He can do the same with your ward, and you can be a part of that. Don't give up.

Your sarcasm is ill-placed. What does John the Baptist's clothing have to do with obeying the counsel of our leaders? Why? Can you point me to some doctrinal source teaching the importance of encouraging individuality? Then why the complaints about wearing a white shirt?

Speaking to the Pharisees, the Lord said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." You are correct, of course, that behavior is much weightier than whether you are wearing a white shirt. Young men engaged in immoral behavior have no business officiating in Priesthood ordinances. But it does not follow that "[t]he white shirt should not matter." The white shirt is, in effect, a tithe of mine and anise and cummin. It is a minor issue that shows our dedication to God and our willingness to obey. If we refuse to dedicate ourselves to God or to obey, but just wear the white shirt, then it's meaningless. But those who are truly dedicated to God and the building up of his kingdom will have no problem wearing a white shirt. We don't "leave the other undone" just because we have the weightier matters under control. Personally, I appreciate the symbolism of a white shirt, but I can also see the symbolism in any number of other shirt styles. And personally, I think ties are rather stupid and useless pieces of clothing. But white shirts and ties are what we have been asked to wear when officiating in Priesthood ordinances, so I am happy to wear a white shirt and tie when so doing. I think those that complain about white shirts and ties are missing the point. In your case, it appears that much weightier matters are being ignored (though I'm not a leader there, so I have no way of making that determination), but in general, I find that complaints against wearing a white shirt and tie are simply a manifestation of pride.

Yes, you are right. Criticizing at literally every opportunity would be much too time-intensive, I imagine. Better to pick and choose when the criticisms will harm the most. The Pharisees ignored the voice of God standing before them so that they could instead follow their own personal desires and interpretations. We have the voice of God in the form of our leaders standing before us, trying their best to lead and to teach. One thing they try to teach is the importance of reverence in large things and in small, including such things as wearing a white shirt. Pity that so many allow their "inner Pharisee" to determine that their leader's attempts at teaching and leading are misguided and unimportant. Tragic, really. How you have twisted and misrepresented my position is likewise my business. Of course, I have done no such thing as you claim, and as you well know. Lying is, or should be, beneath you. A white shirt is not a "moral standard". Obeying your Priesthood leader, sustaining him in his calling, and trying to understand what he is trying to teach -- those things are "moral standards". When a Priesthood leader sets a reasonable dress and grooming standard to try to teach reverence and respect to the youth, it is not our place to tell him what a Pharisee he is. But this really isn't about you, is it? It's about them. You are no John the Baptist, "Moksha". Trust me on this point. So sustaining your leaders (as you have covenanted to do) by obeying their attempts to teach constitutes a "cult of obedience", does it? Funny how no General Conference messages have been directed toward this dangerous "cult of obedience". Funny how no First Presidency messages have warned us of this insidious "cult of obedience". Funny how the leaders in God's kingdom have not taught concerning this perilous "cult of obedience". In fact, Moksha, it seems that you and you alone are crying out against this horrid "cult of obedience". Why might I believe you in this? Do you imagine that the Holy Ghost testifies to our hearts of the truth of your words against this evil "cult of obedience" that you warn us against? Are you in fact a prophet crying out against the apostate Church today, as you have suggested in your own words? If so, I disbelieve your prophecy and him for whom you prophesy. So your fault is in recognizing the great evils of the bishop in "distort[ing] the meaning of loving worship"? No, I disagree.

You mean like you treated others' opinions with graciousness in writing: That kind of graciousness?

Thank heavens for bishops with common sense.

If they were following Jesus' way, they would obey the counsel Jesus gave. That would include the counsel to sustain one's leaders, even in matters of white-shirt-wearing. Any Aaronic Priesthood boy worthy to pass the sacrament would be only too happy to put on a white shirt and tie. If he does not own such garments, undoubtedly the bishop or other ward member would be only too happy to provide them for him. So the idea that worthy Aaronic Priesthood holders are denied the opportunity to serve because they don't wear the right clothes is simply a lie. It didn't. Twenty years before that date, I was instructed to wear a white shirt and tie when passing the sacrament. Probably something having to do with criticizing our leaders over instruction to wear white shirts while also criticizing them for holding firm to moral standards. The point is (say our inner pharisees), just make sure you're showing how much smarter and more spiritual you are than our leaders by criticizing them at every opportunity.

In western pop culture, Mister Amazing (It. Signore Fantastico; Fr. Monsieur Stupéfier; Sp. Señor Sorpresa) is a caped vigilante crimefighter whose unparalleled powers of cutting through bull caca leave his internet opponents speechless. So, let me see if I understand. In response to my request for more information to see whether I want to invest time reading what is in all probability a badly-sourced tome in desperate need of editing, you want me to go listen to some podcast? WOW!!!!! That's AMAZING!!! Why, my niece's YouTube vid of her graduation party hijinks has only about 45,000 more views than that!!! As opposed to being sold off a cheesy internet site that looks like it was put together by Rhadi Ferguson to sell judo vids? Of course not. That's why you referenced your Zeitgeist cult vid. And I am sure you sourced your book very well indeed.

Asea is a troll.

As demonstrated by your previous posts, right? Then you probably think that Catholics believe in reincarnation. Do you even have any idea what the word "true" means? The favorite phrase of those unable to muster arguments in their behalf.

I don't think you know what you would say if you were a bishop. I'm some sort of parent, too, but I don't find anything my children do to be "perfectly OK" just because they might feel satisfied about it. I know of a Latter-day Saint making a six-figure salary who said, "I got a $10,000 raise this year, so my increase was $10,000. Therefore, my tithing this year is $1000." I expect he felt pretty good about this. I don't believe for a moment that this fulfilled the law of tithing in God's eyes, though of course I'm happy to leave that judgment to God. The point is, just because you "feel good or satisfied about" your tithing decision doesn't mean it's correct.

smitchell88 is not amenable to education, bytebear. She already "knows" what she thinks she knows, and no amount of logical argumentation, fact-presenting, or history will convince her otherwise. She's got it all figured out, you see. Perhaps when she reaches 25 she will expand her world a bit and begin to suspect she's not quite so omniscient. Until then, don't hold your breath.

So she trying to misrepresent herself as a man? Or is she just giving the finger to the Indians? I'm not quite seeing how using a male-specific term to refer to one's (female) self qualifies as a declaration of independence, beyond perhaps, "I refuse to be bound by linguistic rules, so fauna blue mortis blend pinochle!" How I choose to spend my time has lots to do with trust. As the website associated with her book very proudly points out, "At almost 600 pages, this is a big book, folks, jam-packed full of important information that you can't find elsewhere in one volume!" (Sort of the Costco version of a scholarly book, I take it.) Before I invest time reading the wordy tome of some anonymous, aliased "controversial independent scholar", I want a reason to believe my time and money are well-spent in the endeavor.

Good for you. She's not interested, and judging by her "questions" she's not sincere, so I personally wouldn't bother. But then, I'm an unfriendly antisocial outcast, so what do I know? Like so... False. The Bible never says any such thing. The Bible never talks about God's "origins". Of course, neither does the Book of Mormon. So how can she suppose this constitutes a "difference" between the Bible and the Book of Mormon? We may never know. I suspect she's just blowing smoke. The Bible suggests we were. The Book of Mormon says nothing about the matter. How is this a difference between the two? I suspect she's just blowing smoke. How would she know? Can she tell us what a Nephite (or Lamanite) would look like, or what sorts of artifacts they would leave behind? Is she suggesting that no one ever existed on earth without leaving behind a record that we have found? Are there some words missing here? Maybe a descriptive phrase or some nouns or something? Because this ain't making much sense. Yet none of her arguments about supposed Book of Mormon (or LDS) discrepancies with the Bible hold any water. What is a "really difficult subject"? Whether the LDS religion (or the Book of Mormon) is true? What does that have to do with the Earth's age or whether people "come from monkeys"? I draw three conclusions about your sister: She has no interest in actually investigating the Church.She has no interest in actually finding out the truth about the Church.If you could take her to Central America and show her a 2000-year-old sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla", she wouldn't care.Okay, well, I guess that's actually only one conclusion.

Can you trust a work by a person who proudly proclaims an alias? Vort (also known as "Mister Amazing")

Oooh, be careful what you ask for! You might get it! So far, so good. Good for you for being honest. If he thinks you "led him on", that's his problem, not yours. Uh... Huh? You didn't want the guy. You dumped him because he didn't measure up to your standards. Not a bad thing, but that's the bottom line. So why on EARTH would you feel backstabbed because he started dating someone else? Why SHOULDN'T he date your best friend/roommate? Is he supposed to pine away for you all the rest of his days? Seriously, I would think that you would be happy he had moved on and found a nice relationship with someone else. And if you really did think he was a great guy, I would think you'd be ecstatic that your best friend got together with someone like him. You have left me completely mystified. By dating him? How is that "insensitive"? Doesn't sound like a very Christian thing to do. Then in all honesty, my friend, you should realize that this is YOUR problem, not THEIRS. If you really want to make things better, apologize to your former "best friend" for ending your friendship and for not wishing them both well early on. Then wish them both well, sincerely. And then act like a friend and not a hurt prima donna. Fact is, their relationship is Not About You. Don't insist that it be. Neither do I. If you could explain it to both of us, that might be a start. Well, that sounds pretty nasty. I certainly can't condone such actions from him. But given what you've said so far, I wonder if there are other things going on here. Recognize and then acknowledge your own fault. Apologize to them. If you really believe they have done something bad to you, then forgive them and forget about it. Move on with your life and help them to move on with theirs. Good luck, Audrey.

That. Is. Awesome. Weird Al + Donny = R0XX0RZ!!! My boys know pi to about 70 places. Got a ways to go.

This proof makes more sense to me, as long as you've established the identity axioms and the basic rules of arithmetic, such as the distributive property. I strongly disagree with this. Axioms are products of the human mind, just as much as any other linguistic construct. Of course, if you say that the human mind is a product of nature, then I suppose your statement becomes trivially true. (d/dx)Faith = Hope (d/dx)Hope = Charity (d/dx)Charity = Faith See? Just like trig. This is completely non sequitur. How does "loving math" violate "feeding people"? Since the multiplication of loaves and fishes was clearly done within God's framework, no math precepts were violated. Do you have a divine concept of God as "I Dream of Jeannie", where God folds his arms and blinks his eyes to make things pop into and out of existence? Because if you do, you should be aware that the LDS understanding of our Father is nothing like that.

In my opinion -- and this is only my opinion, of course -- I think Jim is sincere. Someone posted a link to the Myers-Briggs personality test. Taking it, I found that, like 1% of the population but about 30% of LDS.net, I'm an INTJ. I think the "T" refers to "Thinking", as opposed to "Feeling", which means that I tend to trust my rational faculties more than how I "feel" about something. Many here, perhaps most, share this trait with me. My guess is that Jim is >90% a "Feeler" rather than a "Thinker". He trusts his gut feelings so much that he gives them preference to rational external evidence, and in this case, his gut tells him that racial discrimination is evil and no good person can possibly support it. If I am right, then no amount of argumentation will budge Jim from his position. You can talk until you're blue in the face, and it won't make a bit of difference how well you prove your case. Jim's mind is already made up: Racial discrimination is evil (no matter what the historical setting), so therefore God can't discriminate on the basis of race (no matter how many historical examples you bring up), so therefore the LDS Church was wrong to withhold the Priesthood from men of African descent (no matter what it might teach on the topic). I think it's telling that, while Jim is happy to offer his opinion (as is appropriate on a discussion list), he rarely or never actually engages in point-by-point conversation or answers specific questions or challenges to his viewpoint. This suggests to me that he is not interested in examining his arguments with external evidence; he feels he's right, and that's enough for him.

Somehow, I'm not convinced. Yet I believe I demonstrated that, in point of fact, it was VERY MUCH LIKE JESUS to discriminate. And I mean racial discrimination. Please respond to this point, Jim. If I spoke unkindly to my spouse, would you expect me to admit to robbing a bank? The fact that LDS members aren't perfect doesn't mean we will admit to false charges. We are saying no such thing. Rather, we are saying that before 1978, men of African descent were prohibited by God from holding his Priesthood. Nothing there about "better".

Exactly one of each set is true. I was born: A. a poor black son of sharecroppers. B. under the sign of the goat. C. under the sign "Hospital". D. a girl. I grew up: A. traveling the world. B. very popular with the girls. C. under the tutelage of Stephen J. Gould. D. but didn't necessarily mature. While I was in college, A. I was a Rhodes scholar. B. I was visited by aliens. C. I played I-AA football. D. I was arrested for streaking. The woman I married is: A. a polyglot. B. a polygraph tester. C. polyamorous. D. named Polly. Our children all learned to read: A. using the classic "Look-Say Method". B. by reading the Book of Mormon. C. by reading War and Peace. D. in school, like everyone else. I spend time on LDS.net because: A. I am a loser with no life. B. I am a looser with no life. C. I have been called to serve my fellow men by politely but pointedly telling them how wrong they are. D. BCUZ I R0XX0RZ UR F4C3 0FF, D00D!

We are defending divine practice. God chose the Hebrews to have his covenant, not the Celts or the Australian aborigines or the Gauls or whoever. Does that mean that God "discriminates"? If so, then yes, God's racial discrimination is perfectly defensible. The ban on males of African descent holding the Priesthood was validated by God, and was done away with by God through revelation. We're happy it no longer applies, and we don't know why it used to apply, but we are not going to sit idly by while someone who hasn't even made the covenant we're under bad-mouths the practices of the kingdom of God, past or present. I don't expect you to believe me; if you did, you would join the LDS Church. But by the same token, don't expect us to agree with your claim of "racial discrimination". It's bogus. Apology accepted. Jesus himself very openly practiced racial discrimination, refusing to have almost anything to do with those who were not Jews except in very specific circumstances. Are you saying that the Lord was in the wrong? I just did. How do you respond to my example? You are mistaken. Our "religon" is led by Jesus Christ himself. First, let's hear you condemn Jesus Christ for having been so blatantly "racist" in his treatment of non-Jews. I have asked you several times about your meaning behind this. Why won't you answer me? Not the LDS religion.

I would have included that stuff you put on your eyelashes, but I couldn't remember what it's called. Mascara, that's it. The irony is that my wife almost never wears makeup. I bet I can count how many times per year she wears makeup on the fingers of one hand, and still have fingers left over. PS I dont' sea know mispelings.