Vort

Seems strange to me that some are so quick to judge other's testimony efforts as invalid, in need of correction, or otherwise wrong.
 
Beam in our own eyes, indeed.

I used "to do" lists for years.  They were my life savers.  I got out of the habit and have lost my sense of being extremely organized.  It's one of my "to do" things in 2015.  To go back to my lists.

Jethro fits in wherever he likes. That guy has a sixth-grade education.
 

echo, I am not sure what you should do. I can tell you what you SHOULDN'T do, though. You shouldn't let your neighbor's (perceived) racism make you unhappy. You have plenty of other neighbors, friends, and fellow Saints you love you just fine. Don't let one bad apple spoil your barrel of happiness.
 
I would also suggest that you cannot look into this woman's heart and see her motives. What looks to you like racism may in fact be nothing of the sort. So rather than condemn her, just let her go her way. Don't let her actions hurt you. Just live your life as you think the Lord wants you to, and don't take offense. Let it go. That's my opinion.

In the particular sentences you quote, Finrock is absolutely correct. Whatever you may think and however you may interpret (or misinterpret) the scriptures, the very existence of a Man of Holiness necessarily implies the existence of a Woman of Holiness. She is not God; we do not worship her; and in fact we know almost nothing about her, save that she exists. But that she exists is clear, and that she is of equal perfection and glory with God has been confirmed by latter-day prophets.

You're right, of course. My response was half in jest. (But only half.)

No, you'll just wish you would.

I agree, but here is the other side to the story. When I was a young father, my oldest, who was four, wanted to bear his testimony and asked for my help. So I went up to the stand with him. As he stood at the pulpit, he clearly didn't know what to say. So I asked him who he loved. He said, "You and mama." I told him to say it to the people. (Result: "I love you and Mama" over the mike.) I asked if he knew who the prophet was, and told him to tell it to the people. It continued like this for perhaps 30 seconds or a minute.
 
In retrospect, I may have done much better to have taken him home and used family home evenings to practice testimony-bearing and to explore what a "testimony" is. But I didn't come into parenthood knowing how to do everything, and learning things has been a long, messy project for all involved. So I try to have patience with parents in such situations.

Phrontistery.

Horrifying avatar, john doe. Almost as frightening as mine.

I have sympathy for your plight, JimmiGerman. But we don't set the requirements; God does. Why God insists on this particular ordinance done in this particular way, I don't know. But there is no way to modify the ordinance. It is what it is.
 
Please understand, I'm not taking your concerns lightly. I don't think "Hey, it's just water, get over it." I understand very well that this is no light thing. I'm simply trying to be as truthful and straightforward as possible.

Honestly...nope. No other way. I'm being serious. Baptism means full immersion in water. It is the only approved ordinance for joining the Church. There is no backup plan.
 
I would suggest you talk with the missionaries to find how you can overcome your fear enough to allow baptism. You are not the first to face this issue. I have to think there are methods available that would help. I remember a boy in my ward who wanted to be baptized but had a tremendous fear of water. He was finally baptized. I was not present for his baptism, but I understand that he sort of crouched low with his head out of the water, then took a breath and ducked his head underwater for a second or two, just long enough to confirm the ordinance.

Like many other Europeans, you have the idea that government must be the vehicle to achieve what you call "social justice". Many Americans, especially conservatives, disagree. Latter-day Saints in particular believe that such actions must arise from the individual, not be forced by government (though a significant minority of Latter-day Saints agree with the governmentally imposed "social justice" idea).
 
I think your observations are wrong, and that you are hopelessly mired in your own prejudices and societal conditioning. But as I have pointed out in the case of others, my opinion and a dollar will buy you a dollar's worth of stuff.

What is with the recent fad of dismissing ancient thinkers and writers as "wandering Jews" or "Bronze Age shepherds"? How is their being "wandering Jews" or from the Bronze Age (which in any case is factually incorrect -- the Bible as a history of Israel is based firmly in Iron Age culture, which is precisely the basis of our own culture and technology) relevant to the truthfulness and insights into the human condition that they had? What sort of mindless hubris convinces people that we today somehow have a better handle on what it means to be human than the ancients did?
 
I have seen this attitude a lot in the last few years, and it utterly baffles me. Are people really and honestly so blind that they think our ability to make DVDs means we understand the human mind and soul better than the ancients?

Phrontistery.

Phrontistery.

Better than two 000.

Please, don't be naive or disingenuous. The fact that you gloss a scripture a certain way does not establish that meaning as true.
 
For example, in an effort to "disprove" the idea of God having a wife, you included scriptures talking about the Church as Christ's bride. This is beyond absurd. No reasonable and intelligent person (without an axe to grind) would ever suggest that the Church was somehow literally God's bride. Does the Church cook God's meals? Does the Church have sex with God? These are the things that brides do with their husbands. I am confident that you know perfectly well what a figure of speech is, yet you inappropriately use a figure of speech in a silly attempt to disprove a doctrine -- and a true doctrine at that.
 
Bottom line: Your interpretation of God's word does not establish the actual meaning of God's word in the minds of anyone except yourself, so don't pretend it does.
 
You are welcome to express your opinions in the appropriate places. There is room for them, even on this site. But they do not belong on the LDS Gospel Discussion forum.

Phrontistery.

I gather that intra is not LDS, so I doubt Elder Holland's words would carry any particular weight with him.

Better than two 000.

In the particular sentences you quote, Finrock is absolutely correct. Whatever you may think and however you may interpret (or misinterpret) the scriptures, the very existence of a Man of Holiness necessarily implies the existence of a Woman of Holiness. She is not God; we do not worship her; and in fact we know almost nothing about her, save that she exists. But that she exists is clear, and that she is of equal perfection and glory with God has been confirmed by latter-day prophets.

That seems like a bit of a dodge.  The bottom line is that the sin in 1 Kings 16 was for establishing worship of Asherah and Baal.  Yes, "Asherah" was a generic name representing the feminine consort of many Canaanite dieties over the years--including, at times, Jehovah.  She was often symbolized by flowers and trees.  Was Solomon wrong for putting imagery representative of a consort to a supreme God, in his temple?  If so, why did Jehovah nevertheless accept the Temple of Solomon?
 
Or did he?
 
 
And He talked about the Father in the third person; forcing orthodox Christians in following centuries--who could not or would not contextualize the earlier Old Testament sayings--to come up with this notion of a "trinity", even doctoring Biblical texts (Johannine Comma, anyone?) to make it all fit.
 
 
The Old Testament references to which you cite are nearly all directed towards calling Israel away from worship of Canaanite gods (or affirming the declarant's having so turned away).  Paul is absolutely correct--to us there IS only one God the Father, and one Lord (Jesus).  James' passage is not an exposition on the nature of God; rather, he alludes to the belief that God is one as being acceptable but goes on to his main point, which is that even the devils believe and therefore mere "belief" is not enough.  The story you relate in Mark 12, as you note, draws heavily on the shema, which was given in the context of emphasizing to Mosaic Israel that they must reject the pagan gods of Egypt--and of course, Judea in this time was a Roman province, and Rome had its own pantheon of false gods who were to be similarly eschewed.  But the primary thrust of the story isn't the nature of God; it's the importance of loving and serving God and one's fellowman.  To the extent that the interrogator may be trying to draw Jesus out on the nature of God, he seems to be trying to trip Jesus up ("Yeah, Jesus, there IS only one god, and He's in heaven and you're here, so clearly you aren't God") and Jesus, rather than complimenting his response, is basically refusing to engage further and dismissing the questioner with a "meh, close enough" (some Bible translations, like yours, describe the interrogator's response was "wise"; but the Greek term is ambiguous and other translations render it as "discreet" or "prudent").
 
 
Intra, I respect your knowledge and have been edified by many of your interpretations--but these protestations lack both accuracy and candor, and everyone reading this forum knows it.
 
Vort is correct that this is not the proper forum to try to undermine LDS teaching.  It isn't that we can't handle criticism or feel your arguments are irrefutable.  There is a time and place for such discussions--but it's not here.  This particular forum is geared towards Mormons who have already accepted the basics of LDS belief and are interested in fleshing it out and seeing how all of its pieces mesh together; and what you've been doing is a little analogous to having a university course on quantum mechanics in which one of the students keeps raising his hand and denying the existence of atoms. 
 
Again, I value much of what you've contributed so far and hope you continue to participate. (There are several non-Mormons who regularly participate here, and one of them is even a moderator.)  But for those specific posts where you're really trying to suggest that orthodox LDS teaching is non-biblical, I would respectfully suggest that you save those posts for another venue.  You may enjoy http://www.mormondialogue.org/.
 
Have a blessed weekend. :)

Like many other Europeans, you have the idea that government must be the vehicle to achieve what you call "social justice". Many Americans, especially conservatives, disagree. Latter-day Saints in particular believe that such actions must arise from the individual, not be forced by government (though a significant minority of Latter-day Saints agree with the governmentally imposed "social justice" idea).
 
I think your observations are wrong, and that you are hopelessly mired in your own prejudices and societal conditioning. But as I have pointed out in the case of others, my opinion and a dollar will buy you a dollar's worth of stuff.

D'oh.