Vort

Gaspah, the danger of visiting America has been vastly overstated. Seriously, come on over and visit! You're from the land of killer crocs and rabid kangaroos, so nothing here will faze you. You'll have no troubles in Friendly America as long as you remember some simple, common-sense rules: When shaking hands, extend your right hand slowly, and keep your left hand visible at all times.Never look another man directly in the eye. Ever.If you accidentally encounter someone on the street, DON'T PANIC. Just back away slowly.Don't be a fool -- never go out without your body armor.If you hear gunfire nearby, COUNT. Most revolvers hold six rounds.And remember: "Gun control" means you hit what you're aiming at.See you soon, mate!

Nor have I read Church direction or scripture reference etc. where bicycle pumps cannot or should not be blessed by the Holy Priesthood. But I still think it would be ridiculous to do so. Arguing from silence isn't a good way to make your point. Better to find Church teachings that you SHOULD give Priesthood blessings to animals through the laying on of hands or anointing with consecrated oil. In the absence of such, it seems obvious to many of us that such things are a violation of established order and do not constitute approved use of Jesus' authority.

That's fine, as far as it goes, but it's not the end of the story. For example, what if someone were baptized and confirmed by a man, and then found out that man hadn't had the Priesthood conferred on him or ordained an elder? Do you think the result would be, "Ordain the man"? I absolutely guarantee you that the baptism itself would be considered invalid and would need to be redone. The fact is that there is no intrinsic need to hold the Priesthood in order to distribute the sacrament. We assign that as a duty to our Deacons, and rightly so. Those young men need a chance to be of service and to learn how to perform Priesthood assignments in a reverent and dignified manner. But if we wished, there is no reason the Beehives couldn't distribute the sacrament. Heck, they already do -- a Beehive sitting next to me passed me the sacrament last week on its way down the row. In contrast, the Laurels could never bless the sacrament, no matter how urgent the need. I would parenthetically point out that this is nonsense. There is no reason to suspect that your faithful home teacher is less worthy to give a blessing than your bishop. Too many people equate Church callings with righteousness. I can't, and won't attempt to, comment on the apostle's words. But it's worth considering that the gift of healing is a gift of the Spirit, just like any other, and that some people have that gift and some are still seeking after it. I suspect that two equally worthy Priesthood holders might not be able to give equally effective blessings of healing, because one might have that gift and the other not as much.

Good for both of you -- him for facing up to the responsibility of the very grave sin he's committed, you for acknowledging that you are not blameless in the larger situation, and both for being determined to work through this. God bless you both in these efforts. I'm no Church leader, but I've talked with leaders and witnessed situations that convince me that excommunication is not a given in a case like this. Yes, your husband may face excommunication, but that doesn't mean he will necessarily be excommunicated. Without doubt, he will receive some Church discipline. Just remember that "discipline" is what makes us "disciples". He may be excommunicated or disfellowshipped for a year or whatever else the stake president has in mind. In any case, if he's truly repentant and accepts whatever discipline his leaders see fit to impose, he and you will come out of this stronger and better than ever. God bless you both.

I'm not a huge gun enthusiast (I do own a couple, but I'm too lazy to use them), but I'm pretty sure you don't need any sort of permit to own a firearm. Most (all?) states require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but not to buy a weapon. I think the only requirements are that you are an adult citizen without a felony record. As for kickback, shotguns do have a pretty good kick, but nothing that's going to hurt you. Just take an NRA course to learn about using the weapon and you'll be fine.

Heated...heh, heh...you made a funny... The proposed "solutions" to global warming have the potential of being far worse than the "disease" they are supposed to be curing. If you think our current global economic crisis is uncomfortable, wait until energy is regulated the way the global warming crowd is agitating for. At that point, we will see true global economic devastation. Now, if anthropogenic global warming is true and if it's a deleterious condition -- TWO VERY BIG "IF"S -- then we have no reasonable choice but to do whatever it takes to lower such emissions. All the so-called "anti-global-warming" crowd wants is reasonable, convincing evidence that global warming is (1) real, (2) anthropogenic in origin, and (3) deleterious. Seems a perfectly reasonable request to me. Personally, I get very impatient with the know-nothing attitude of "Well, all the smart climate guys agree that it's probably anthropogenic", and even moreso when it's revealed that that isn't true. To my eyes, this looks all about political and economic power.

In my experience, sister missionaries tended to be either among the best or the worst of missionaries. The negative stereotypes, while unfair, have a kernel of truth. Some sister missionaries are indeed high-maintenance, strident, and not very stable. But most of the sister missionaries I knew were actually excellent missionaries, and sister missionaries in general had a very good reputation among the elders. Some obvious differences: The sister missionaries tend to be two or three years older than the elders, which at that age means that your typical elder is a very young man learning to be an adult, while your typical sister is a young adult. I believe this is one reason why sister missionaries can sometimes reach and teach people that the elders cannot. (The other reason is, of course, that they're women, and many people are more willing to let into their homes women they don't know than men they don't know.) As long as your desire is pure and your eye single, you will be an effective missionary and your service will be fruitful and worthwhile. Most of the elders hold the sisters in high regard; don't worry about the few who feel otherwise.

I guess I don't understand the question. If, as you propose, we assume that global warming (or climate change, or whatever buzzword you want to use) is a genuine issue that threatens the world as we know it, well, how do you think we would feel? We would obviously feel concerned. After all, it's a GENUINE issue that THREATENS the world as we know it, right? At least, that's the assumption you've asked us to make.

Seems a pretty obvious misinterpretation of scripture. When the risen Lord commanded his apostles to "preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15), are we to assume that he was commanding them to preach the gospel to animals, plants, protozoa, lichen, and minerals?

We use the term "blessing" to cover a range of ordinances and performances using Priesthood authority. For example, we "bless" the sacramental bread and water -- more specifically, we ask God to bless it. Similarly, when we pray as a family or "bless" our meal, we ask God to bless us, or the food, or whatever. A more specific use of the term "bless" refers to offering Priesthood blessings to people by the laying on of hands. These include anointings, other blessings of healing, blessings of comfort, father's blessings, patriarchal blessings (which are a type of father's blessing), blessings during ordinations and settings apart, and any other time where hands are laid on a head and Priesthood authority exercised. NOTE: In this case, we are not just asking God to bless someone. We, the Priesthood holders, are actually pronouncing those blessings ourselves. We are not merely invoking God's blessings through the prayer of faith, we are actually pronouncing those blessings. Through prayer, we may ask blessings on ourselves and others, close or far, on our crops and flocks, even on our pets. We may also use the power of the Priesthood to dedicate homes and graves and buildings of worship. As far as I know, there is no such Priesthood ordinance as the laying on of hands to pets. In a lifetime of faithful (as well as I could do, anyway) Priesthood service, I have never been taught by any of my leaders even a single time that we are authorized to lay our hands on the heads of animals, plants, or mechanical devices and pronounce blessings. If anyone can find reliable teachings to the contrary, I'm open to learn. Until then, I'll continue to maintain that such are not appropriate, and I'll continue to be bemused at the hostility that such an opinion raises.

Charley, I'm talking about the principle here, not directly about you or your dog or what his intent was by nosing your husband's hand. I have no intention of passing judgment on your actions or even your opinions, except maybe to say that I don't agree with you. If you consider my disagreement to be hostile, then I'm a bit surprised you're spending any time on a discussion board. I assure you I have no hostile intent. I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but for the sake of this discussion I'm willing to grant it. In that case, my point would be that a Priesthood holder would receive no such divine blessing to give through the laying on of hands to a pet. I believe you that he was, and I'm happy to leave the determination of the propriety of his washing machine blessing to the Lord. But the fact that he later served as a branch president doesn't convince me that blessing the washing machine was appropriate. I am of the firm opinion that such blessings are a misuse of Priesthood ordinances.

If a little child asks you to give a Priesthood blessing to her "sick" dolly, would you do it? Or would you consider the request, honest and beautiful though it may be coming from such a pristine vessel, nevertheless misguided? I do not believe Priesthood blessings and anointings were ever intended for animals. I believe that Mary Fielding Smith was misguided in requesting it, though her faith may indeed have been great enough to heal the animal. In your opinion, who or what were Priesthood blessings exactly intended for blessing? God has given us his Priesthood power and has instructed us to use it to bless his children. In my opinion, this constitutes a "need". Interesting observation. "Humans are notoriously bad with abstract thought" as compared to what? I suspect that humans are actually very much better at abstract thought than any other life form we know of. I think this an unlikely explanation. Remember that Peter and John healed a man lame from birth by merely speaking a word and taking his hand -- and that man had not exercised any faith at all, even to request healing, but had only asked an alm. More likely, Christ understood what was required in each case to perform the requisite miracle, and in each case he did what was necessary. The faith of the persons was demonstrated by their requests for blessings. I agree that they should do what the Spirit dictates, even to the point of blessing her bird or cat or whatever. I simply doubt that the Spirit would dictate to bless an animal by the laying on of hands. So you're saying that since, in your opinion, there is a chance that the Spirit might direct some hypothetical home teachers somewhere to give a blessing to the hypothetical pet of a hypothetical person, that therefore we should not voice our opinion on a discussion board about whether that's appropriate?

On the contrary, when a woman whose family I home teach asked me to assist in giving her daughter a blessing a couple of days ago, she did indeed ask ME. That the authority of the blessing comes from God is not in dispute. True, although "merely" may not be the appropriate word choice here. In my opinion, this is a somewhat naïve view of blessings. So you believe a Priesthood holder is duty-bound to give a blessing to your waffle iron if you so request? I disagree.

Or if the requested blessing is inappropriate. I will not bless your houseplant, or your waffle iron, or your pet cat, no matter how sincerely you ask, just as I will not baptize any of them. Some things simply are not appropriate. Of course it is the duty of the Priesthood holder to determine the propriety of officiating in a Priesthood ordinance!

If I've been asked to give the blessing? On the contrary, if I'm the one giving it, you bet your life it's my place to sanction the blessing.

The home is not blessed by the laying on of hands, Ruthie. In fact, the home is not blessed per se at all; it is dedicated as a place for a family to live. Graves can also be dedicated as a resting place for someone's remains, but again, that's not a blessing by the laying on of hands. We can "bless" animals exactly the same way we can bless our houses, our jobs, or our ailing Aunt Em back in Kansas. Such blessings do not involve anointing with oil or the laying on of hands. You're using the word "blessing" in different senses here. We can indeed "bless" our cats. We simply don't anoint them with oil or bless them through the laying on of hands. This isn't a matter of needing to find the right fuel to power the Priesthood blessing. It's a matter of propriety, of what the Priesthood ordinances were given for. If I have sufficient faith, does that mean it's okay if I give a Priesthood blessing and anointing to my Honda? In the popular sense, yes. In the eternal sense, no. Agreed. But not an anointing with oil and a blessing by the laying on of hands; those ordinances are not for animals, but for God's children.

You mean the parrot says, "Polly want a blessing"? No, I don't think that I'd sanction a Priesthood blessing on an animal, even then.

I think this Mary Fielding Smith story shows that God honors true faith, even when demonstrated in a misguided way. Consecrated oil is consecrated to the blessing and healing of the children of God, not the beasts of the forest or fowls of the air or fish of the sea. God may not condemn us for our sincerely meant but misguided attempts to exercise faith, but that doesn't mean that such efforts are to be emulated. My understanding is that blessings are meant for children of God, aka human beings. To do otherwise is, I believe, an incorrect use of Priesthood. Offer to pray with the good sister for her pet's benefit. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."

Irony? Yes, though meant for chuckles and reflection, not for personal criticism. Offended? No -- but I think those who are sensitive to such things could well be offended. Should members from Utah be offended when other Church members speak disparagingly of "Utah Mormons"? ("Well, you know how those Utah Mormons are, partying and drinking on Saturday nights and then blessing the sacrament Sunday mornings.") No, they should not be offended, but I would understand if they were. Similarly, lifelong members should not be offended when others talk about how "weak" lifelong members tend to be, or how much better it is to date and marry someone who "actually converted" than someone who was merely "born into it". Taking offense at the sometimes-ignorant expressions of our fellow Saints is not in harmony with the gospel. We are to love and sustain them, not harangue them for their imperfections or sometimes ill-considered comments. My attempt at irony was not meant as a bludgeon, but as a funhouse mirror, hopefully allowing those who had made such statements to see a caricatured but still essentially accurate reflection of those words. I would agree, if baptizing a lot were always a direct result of working hard. But the highest-baptizing missionary on my mission, an absolutely amazing sister who many months baptized as much as the rest of the mission combined, probably got around a dozen baptisms in total. On the other hand, my cousin who served in Chile told me of unscrupulous and even dishonest missionaries in South American missions who nevertheless got literally hundreds of baptisms. Were they therefore more righteous than my mission's Sister Amazing? Doubtful. In the same vein, unless you think that being a quorum president/bishop/Relief Society president/other "important" calling is a reward for and a proof of righteous living, you cannot judge someone's standing before God or the righteousness of his life based on whether he held the calling of "ECP", or EQP, or any other position. (Btw, I was not a particularly effective missionary and don't expect to receive any kudos in this life or the life to come because of my missionary service. Still, my lack of baptizing was primarily due to the fact that, when we baptized someone while I was a junior companion, my senior companion wanted to perform the baptism because he hadn't yet had the opportunity to do so, and when we baptized someone while I was the senior companion, I wanted to make sure my junior companions, unlike me, did get that opportunity. I did get several chances to confirm people, which I valued.) A bit more than that, actually. I am pointing out that such a "track record" cannot be used as a measuring stick for righteousness at all. That Brother Awesome joined the Church, served a mission, baptized hundreds, came home and got called to be a bishop no more "proves" that he is righteous than Brother Other's mission failure to baptize anyone, followed by a succession of unimpressive ward callings for the rest of his life, "proves" that he failed to serve God or his fellow man adequately. I think we would do well to get away from characterizing people's faithfulness in terms of their birth status or Church callings, and instead simply serve as we are asked, honoring others in their own service.

And I'm simply agreeing with you. Your yardstick for measuring strength was how many people this young man baptized and which callings he received after his mission. This, it seems, proves his strength and success in the kingdom of God. By this measure, your friend is far stronger and more successful than am I, since I didn't baptize 200 (or any) people, and since I haven't had any Church callings that make me admired in the eyes of others. As you said, "Many born in the church do not measure up to that." I'm simply agreeing that I am one of those.

Wow. I guess so. Using your yardstick, I know that I certainly "do not measure up to that". I, too, received my priesthood, put in for a mission, and served, but I didn't baptize 200 people. In fact, I didn't actually baptize anyone. That's right: Zero. When I got home, I continued to be active and pay tithing, always held a temple recommend, never turned down a calling and tried to magnify all callings I did receive. But I was never an ECP (whatever that is), and in fact never held any leadership position beyond counselor to a quorum president. Now in my late 40s, I am still only a mere Elder, with no hint of ever leaving the quorum. (Though I'm quite fond of my quorum, so that actually suits me pretty well.) So without any doubt whatsoever, I don't measure up to your HT companion. But then, I'm a lifelong member, and you know how spiritually weak we tend to be. Thank God my wife (another lifelong member weakling) condescended to date me in the first place. I do pity our children, but what are we to do? They have the misfortune of being born to us, which unfortunately means they're lifelong members, too. Bummer for them.

Then in all seriousness, I would advise you not to read this book. You won't learn anything (useful) about Kolob. If you really, truly want to learn about Kolob, read the Pearl of Great Price. Everything we know about Kolob is contained therein. I repeat: EVERYTHING we know about Kolob is contained therein. If you just can't live without reading the book, it's available online. Look earlier in this thread for the URL.

I believe MHW was alluding to D&C 131:6 "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance." This is generally interpreted among Latter-day Saints (of my acquaintance, anyway) as stating the necessity of learning, inquiry, and education. I personally think the key to understanding this verse is in the previous verse, D&C 131:5: "The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood." In my opinion, every man or woman who gains salvation (meaning exaltation) will, indeed must, be sealed up to that end, either in this life or the next. Without receiving this "more sure word of prophecy", a person cannot gain salvation. Thus, it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. That's one man's opinion, anyway.

Serious answer? They wear high heels because it makes their legs look longer, slimmer, and more shapely. It also tends to make them tense up their leg muscles, making their buttocks look firmer. The extra height is simply an unintended, often (but not always) unwanted, side effect. Despite protestations about equality, fish, and bicycles, most women want their men to be taller, larger, and stronger than they are. For the high-heel gals, this means the man typically must be three or more inches taller. Flippant answer? Because it gives them something else to complain about regarding men, and we know that no woman is completely happy unless she can complain about men.

Yet another edition of Vort's Amazingly Stupendous College Football Conference Index (or VCI, for short): Big 12: 546/12 = 45.5 South: 366/6 = 61 1. Oklahoma 99 5. Texas 95 7. Texas Tech 93 21. Oklahoma State 79 North: 180/6 = 30 4. Missouri 96 16. Kansas 84 Wow. Even the weaker North division beats everyone else besides the SEC. Better yet, the B-12 appears to be the real deal, not a paper tiger like I suspect the SEC to be. SEC: 540/12 = 45 East: 363/6 = 60.5 2. Alabama 98 3. LSU 97 13. Auburn 87 19. Vanderbilt 81 West:177/6 = 29.5 11. Georgia 89 12. Florida 88 In the immortal words of JoePa (at least that's who I have heard them attributed to), nothing succeeds like success. Percentage points behind the Big XII for the strongest conference, and doubtless the favorites of the eastern press. Big 10: 262/11 = 23.8 6. Penn State 94 14. Ohio State 86 18. Wisconsin 82 Speaking of JoePa...anyone else think that Penn State is the real deal this year? Good times in (the other) Happy Valley. PS When I was at Penn State back in the early 90s, JoePa still had his telephone number listed in the city directory. Anyone know if it's still there? Big East: 166/8 = 20.8 10. South Florida 90 24. Connecticut 76 The Big (L)East beats out the MWC in conference strength based on their 8-team conference, compared to the MWC's 9-team league. Doesn't change my opinion of them, though. I bet Air Force beats Conn 6 games out of 10; certainly TCU is a better club. MWC: 177/9 = 19.7 8. Brigham Young 92 15. Utah 85 Dropped in the coveted VCI standings, but one in the top 10 and another knocking on the door...can't be too upset about that. WAC: 161/9 = 16.9 17. Boise State 83 22. Fresno State 78 Go, WAC! Nice to see Fresno State back in the mix. This may be the Two Guys Plus Everyone Else conference, but those Two Guys are pretty decent. PAC-10: 168/10 = 16.8 9. USC 91 23. Oregon 77 Thanks to the mighty Ducks breaking in, the Pac-10 isn't bringing up the rear in this week's index. Enjoy it while it lasts, Paccers. These two teams play next week, and one won't be in the poll any more afterwards... ACC: 155/12 = 12.9 Coastal: 80/6 = 13.7 20. Virginia Tech 80 Atlantic: 75/6 = 12.5 25. Wake Forest 75 Personally, I'd take the ACC over the Big (L)East, but the VCI never lies.