Wingnut

39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Nothing about sins being forgiven there. Like I said, it just struck me as odd, and that may just be because of how it impacted me as a young teenager.

I'm pleased to read the above reactions from each of you so far. Phelps is an easy person to hate, I think, but I do not feel right about such malice or satisfaction at someone's death, as many people may be expressing today. I am quite touched by the comments of George Takei, on Facebook, about Phelps' passing. (March 16) (Today) Class act, and a big man.

Temple recommend questions are scripted specifically so that variations of this sort don't happen. As I understand it, the interview should generally be conducted verbatim.

Loved the book...didn't realize they had a podcast. Awesome, thanks!

I actually had trouble with wording the bolded part. Initially I was going to say "modestly," but that didn't work: because women who wear cocktail dresses to RS activities, and expect -- nay, demand -- that everyone else also wear them, are the immodest ones.

Also, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to wear an LBD to a Relief Society activity, unless it's a mocktail theme night, which I would be very surprised to ever see get past a bishop.

I saw that after I posted. I guess the "fishy" part to me was that there was (apparently) no discussion of any discipline of such a grievous sin. I don't doubt (particularly now having read the story) that the couple was certainly remorseful. It just seemed odd that the bishop was like, "okay," and sent them on their merry way. I think I was a teenager when I heard it, and I only ever heard it that once, so maybe it's just colored by who I was at the time.

I recall such a story as well, but I don't remember it actually coming from a GA. I seem to remember just hearing it somewhere, and it always sounded fishy to me. As I remember, the couple had had that one slip-up, and had been active, faithful members of the Church for the next 40 years, holding callings, serving, home and visit teaching, raising righteous children, etc. They were happy and had a peaceful, amicable marriage, but bore the guilt of that one night. The result was that the bishop told the couple that they didn't need to repent, because the guilt they'd carried all those years was enough to suffer already, and that they were forgiven.

If people are willing to host in their homes, that's fantastic. If they're going to put qualifications and requirements on who can enter, or how they must be dressed (other than not skimpily), that's not okay, and the activities should be held at the ward meetinghouse. If some people choose not to come to an activity because it's at the church building, that's their problem.

Michael Dowdle is amazing.

I think there's a lot of uplifting experiences to be shared in between the poles of "I feel good when I read the scriptures" and "Oh my gosh, weren't you just dead three minutes ago??" I just shared one over in another thread. It was powerful to me: I attended a bar mitzvah about a year ago. It took place during a Shabbat service at the synagogue. It was my first time inside a Jewish synagogue (or temple), and my first time in a large group of Jewish people, as opposed to conversation with one or two, here or there. As I sat in the service, I had the most powerful spiritual experience that I had had in a very long time (like, years). I listened to the Hebrew, and I watched the members of the congregation reach out and reverently touch the scriptures and the ark with their wrap/scarf (the word is escaping me now) as they were carried throughout the chapel. I was touched by the humility and faithfulness. I was struck by the tradition and the ancient nature of it. I was humbled that they would invite me to join them in such sacred rituals. And I felt an overwhelming confirmation that I was sitting among God's truly chosen people, and that it was a privilege to be there. It changed my thinking somewhat. It was an experience I don't think I will ever forget.

The Church currently uses "patriarchal" in the former sense, and I have no problem with that use of the word, or of the practice. But the language in the temple is somewhat archaic, and hearkens to a time when "patriarchal" was an oppressive state for women. That is what I have a problem with. The wording may be deliberate (I'm sure it is). It may matter (I'm sure it does). The Patriarchal Order is important and doctrinal. But when I hear certain language in the temple, I'm sometimes uncomfortable, to the point that I don't wish to go again. When I attend the temple anymore, I make a point of visiting the baptistry or the washing and anointing areas. Those are the only areas where I can truly feel uplifted and instructed by the Spirit while in the temple.

Fair enough. :) I attended a bar mitzvah about a year ago. It took place during a Shabbat service at the synagogue. It was my first time inside a Jewish synagogue (or temple), and my first time in a large group of Jewish people, as opposed to conversation with one or two, here or there. As I sat in the service, I had the most powerful spiritual experience that I had had in a very long time (like, years). I listened to the Hebrew, and I watched the members of the congregation reach out and reverently touch the scriptures and the ark with their wrap/scarf (the word is escaping me now) as they were carried throughout the chapel. I was touched by the humility and faithfulness. I was struck by the tradition and the ancient nature of it. I was humbled that they would invite me to join them in such sacred rituals. And I felt an overwhelming confirmation that I was sitting among God's truly chosen people, and that it was a privilege to be there. It changed my thinking somewhat. It was an experience I don't think I will ever forget.

Now, now. You can't have it both ways: (emphasis mine)

I agree...was just suggesting the idea. :) I think very much that Christ would attend a service with His literal kin, and probably do so before attending an LDS service. The House of Judah were His chosen people long before Mormons were.

Yes, thank you for clarifying. Also, language in the sealing ordinance/ceremony doesn't ask the husband to give himself to his wife. It asks her to give herself unto him, but it only asks him to receive her unto himself. Yes. This. ^

Are you sure He wouldn't attend Jewish Shabbat services instead?

While I agree, I think that what Carlimac was saying was that, insofar as we can tell, the families aren't being lied to about lack of information. A hunger strike won't suddenly make someone give them answers. I think she's saying that a hunger strike is an impractical solution, because it's (apparently, and obviously) not that easy to just come up with a plane because someone demands it.

You would think that the zone leaders (the elders in my area) would have other administrative things to do to fill their time as well. And even though member referrals are preferred, what's wrong with spending non-teaching time finding instead?

I'll try to read it later. Thanks! That's fair. I'm not crazy about some of the temple wording in general. I have a slightly different take on it, though. Some might ask that language regarding a woman's relationship to her husband's be more closely aligned the the language regarding a man's relationship with the Lord. I think it needs to be changed further than that. I have no problem with the first part. But it would be nice if my husband were as accountable to me as I am to him, and for me to be as accountable to the Lord as my husband is. The current language is very linear and patriarchal. A change like what I described would make it more circular, and Christ-centered. Yep, and this is why I said, "Perhaps some of my language here is imprecise, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to convey" and "...I think if this change were made, many other changes would also need to be made" in other posts. I have ideas floating around in my head (which is a scary place, BTW), but I haven't worked out all the kinks, you know? If such a change were made, obviously not all women would want the Priesthood. Would they be compelled into it, under threat of loss of their temple recommend? If not, how do we reconcile the "optional nature" of it with what you and Dravin have referenced? I don't know. I definitely don't believe that women can't hold the Priesthood. I don't know if I will ever see it changed during my life. But there would have to be a lot of changes in order to make such a transition, and I don't think the Church as a whole is ready for those changes. And like I've said, I don't even know what many of those changes would have to be.

Great discussion points, RMGuy! Funny you should mention that section. It's one that I often point to in this conversation as well. No! The Handbooks are based on doctrinal principles, but they are not doctrine at all! They are policy. I agree. It's an unpopular position, but I think there may be something to this. If not, then it's something that my human mind can't yet understand. To me, doctrine is the most distilled basic principles upon which everything else is based. For example, since you mentioned D&C 89, I'll go with that. I personally don't believe that the Word of Wisdom is doctrine. We know that the Lord has given different health standards over the history of the earth, and they haven't all been the same. So we know that that can change. The Word of Wisdom is the current application of the doctrine that our bodies are created in the image of God, and are temples. The Lord has given us the Word of Wisdom as the commandment that helps us live that doctrine. With regard to the Priesthood, there are one of two explanations: (1) The 1947 letter was true, which means the doctrine changed. Which means it can change again. (2) The 1947 letter was inaccurate, which means that black men not having the Priesthood was an application or practice of doctrine, which changed. That could mean that the current application could also change, or it could mean that the Priesthood doctrine excludes women, and that won't change. I lean toward the 1947 letter being inaccurate. In fact, setting aside the reference to doctrine altogether, it's historically incorrect. Joseph Smith himself ordained black men to the Priesthood. It was Brigham Young that instituted the ban.

No. A resounding "no." As for an explanation? I don't have one. Estradling's post (quoted below this paragraph) seems to do a good job of discussing it, though, and as he (I think) said on the previous page, sometimes the best answer is simply "I don't know." To some extent, the Priesthood already is something that is earned. It's not an automatic thing. Men must be worthy to hold the Priesthood. They must be living by Church standards and keeping commandments to the best of their abilities. Similar to temples, it's not a given, just because one is a member of the Church. A cursory glance, however, might demonstrate otherwise. Because it's such a quintessential element to the Church -- and really, a doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- it's something that all active men in the Church work toward and strive for. They tend to live their lives (when young) in preparation to receive the Priesthood, and (after ordination) to remain worthy of its blessings.

I think, in some ways, it should be a "pick and choose" thing, though I'm not sure if you and I are thinking of that in the same way. Assume that an announcement were made at General Conference in two weeks, saying that women may now be ordained to offices in the Priesthood. Will that mean that all women will be? That all women should be? I think that (considering the Pew Research study I linked to above) if such a change were to be made, that women who wished to advance in their eternal progression via the Priesthood, would meet with their bishops to discuss ordination. Those who wished to pursue their eternal progression without such a change would still be free to do so. That brings up the question, though, of whether women must be ordained in order to received temple ordinances, as men currently are required to be. But I think if this change were made, many other changes would also need to be made. Not all men might be ordained. Certainly not all women would be. And I think that men and women would still meet separately during the third hour of Sunday meetings, because Priesthood or not, men and women still have different needs, learn in different styles (and even so within the gender), and need the experience of brotherhood and sisterhood. Just some personal thoughts.

Don't worry...Courtney Love is on the case. Did Courtney Love find lost Malaysian plane?