Just_A_Guy

Quite possibly. I was just prefacing my thoughts on potential modern applications by pointing out that Isaiah’s initial hearers were most likely interpreting him as prophesying about the result of a ruinous war (see Isaiah 3:25-26) and, more generally, the humiliation through war and disease of the formerly-prideful women of the southern kingdom of Judah.

Given that Isaiah is so prone to dual prophesies, I think the primary meaning is less about future male/female relationships and more of a simple (and maybe hyperbolic) illustration of the destruction that will have been wrought on (then-) future Israel through wars, to the point that there just aren’t many men left. But if one reads the verse loosely and tries to apply it to our own culture in the last days, what we might fundamentally see is women offering men the benefits of a traditional marriage (in a word: sex) while not demanding that men reciprocate with the traditional responsibilities of marriage (material support/commitment). And I think lots of modern American/ Western women do precisely that, to avoid the “stigma” of virginity/undesirability or in pursuit of some will o’ the wisp emotional connection or out of a “maybe he’ll like me if I just change enough” dynamic or out of a desperate need not to be alone as their culture accuses them of “passing their prime”. There may not be a stigma against being unmarried; but I get the impression that (outside the Mormon corridor, at least) there’s very much a stigma against being chaste.

Much love and good wishes to you, @JohnsonJones.

Welcome, Moroni60! I can’t speak for any individual prophet; but looking to my own experience in giving priesthood blessings: there have been occasional, very rare instances where specific verbiage was given to me, but generally it was concepts or impressions that I was left to put into vocabulary as best I could. As we go back and look at the editorial history of the D&C and the way different revelations were edited, combined/separated, or revised even between the BoC versus the first edition D&C—I am increasingly persuaded that the fact that many of the revelations in the D&C are written in the Lord’s “voice” is less a reflection of the process the Lord used in each of those instances to communicate with the Prophet; and more frequently (not always, but very often) a stylistic choice made by Joseph Smith himself. (Mormon himself, I think, does the same thing in recording/reconstructing some of the great sermons, and perhaps visions, in the Book of Mormon; particularly in Mosiah and Alma.) The result can be something very powerful to read—if it’s not wrong. President Taylor’s 1886 revelation shows what can happen when the prophet gets it wrong. I have no doubt that he was given a true revelation with some general concepts that comforted him and led him to stay on a course that was right for the Church at that time. But I have less confidence that, when he finally put pen to paper, he was able to articulate what he’d experienced in a way that wasn’t influenced by his own experiences and hopes and sufferings. President Taylor himself seems to have shared my doubts about his own scribal process in that instance; to such an extent that he declined to present it to the Twelve for review—let alone to the Church as a whole for canonization. And I think since his day later prophets have, generally wisely, chosen to take a more modest approach.

The whole point to modern prophets is that they offer us the voice of the Lord as attenuated to our own particular time and place. It is surely not an eternal principle that people must subordinate God’s instructions to civil authority in every instance. If it were then Daniel would never have gone into the lion’s den, Shadrach & Co would never have gone into the furnace, Judaism would have ended with Esther, Nephi would never have gotten the brass plates, Abinadi would never have stood before Noah, Alma would never have baptized in the wilderness, Alma the Younger would have never entered Ammonihah, Lamoni would have gone up to the land of Nephi with his father, Moroni would never have threatened the chief judge and then retaken Zarahemla from the victorious kingmen, Nephi son of Helaman would have never preached against the corrupt judges, and Samuel the Lamanite would have never stood upon the wall. And of course, Christ would have never gone to the cross; Peter would never have stood before the chief priests at Jerusalem or ultimately crucified on Vatican Hill, Paul would have never preached to Agrippa, and thousands of early Christians would have renounced their faith instead of going to their deaths in the arena and elsewhere. D&C 58 and 98 were an expedient given at particular points in time to particular groups in particular circumstances. The degree to which they apply today is best ascertained by looking at President Nelson’s and the Q15’s most current statements on the topic, which seem to indicate that for the time being—in general—God still expects us to submit ourselves to civil authority.

The suggestion of BY as a “psychopath” led me down an interesting and (perhaps) timely route learning about Cluster B personality disorders generally. It’s really remarkable how often Cluster B symptomology comes up in discussions about LDS culture/ teaching/ history.

From the NET Bible app: ”The removal of sandals was, and still is in the East, a sign of humility and reference in the presence of the Holy One. It was a way of excluding the dust and dirt of the world. But it also took away the personal comfort and convenience and brought the person more closely in contact with the earth. “

I have teenagers, so my answers to all of those questions would be “almost every day”.

1. Sure. It’s just a question of how seriously they take the idea of temple covenants. 2. I [would like to] think that most mature, reasonably-well-adjusted LDS folks can reconcile the ideas that a) a lot of what passes for “happiness” outside of LDS circles, actually isn’t; b) people outside the LDS Church can nevertheless be genuinely pretty happy folks; and c) LDS covenants and precepts, properly lived and applied, nevertheless do offer a superior opportunity for sustainable stability and health and happiness to what is generally available outside of the Church. And while statements that “there’s no place for x here” is dangerously and probably overused as a general principle—I nevertheless feel reasonably comfortable in saying that there is no place for a sense of entitlement to a sexual relationship, in the LDS Church.

The knee-jerkiness can (and in my experience, often does) go both ways. Take all these LDS military veterans who you seem to suggest were driven out of the Church because active LDS women wouldn’t marry them. I’ll bet those young men had no problems imposing a number of criteria on their would-be wives that had nothing to do with those women’s current righteousness temple-worthiness. Maybe they wanted wives who had a high school diploma; or who didn’t already have kids from a prior relationship; or had certain career plans; or who were virgins. And they probably considered women who didn’t meet those criteria as being “unfit for marriage”. Women, like men, have a right to set standards for their future spouses. It’s interesting to me that nearly twenty years ago LDS young men were warned that the bar for missionary service was being raised—and now, changing Church demographics are showing that due to a surplus of men and shortage of women, the bar for LDS would-be husbands is also being raised. LDS young men would be well-served to figure out early in life that LDS women do not owe them a dadgummed thing; and if an LDS man is going to precondition his continuing Church membership on the sexual availability of an LDS woman—my response to him would be “brother, I love you, but the door is right over there”. Church demographics are changing. We have a surplus of men now; and the days when LDS suitors can browbeat LDS women into lowering their standards through the threat of lifelong spinsterhood are over.

Random thoughts: 1. I loved the Vatican when I visited. I’d like to live there. I also recognize that if it became the sort of place where the likes of me could go and live, much of what I love about it would be lost. My love for it—and indeed, a big part of its allure and spiritual power—derives from the fact that it is not what it would inevitably become if it were under my control. And I wish that Francis had understood and conceded about my country, what I understand and concede about his. 2. LDS temples are beautiful, but (with a handful of exceptions) their artistry is not even in the same ZIP code as the artistry of the great medieval and renaissance basilicas and cathedrals. 3. Artistry can be a form of worship. Craftsmanship can be a form of worship. In our temples we do the latter very well; as I think we are theologically beholden to do. But we do the former only at a very elementary level. Temple artwork is first and foremost intended to recall and evoke the spirit of specific past events; not about embracing beauty as an aspect of divinity and then pioneering new ways of seeking beauty for its own sake. 4. There are good reasons for the LDS Church as an institution to *not* prioritize artistry, even (arguably, especially) in its temples. Structures can become enormous money pits if you aren’t willing to say goodbye to them when they become obselete or damaged beyond repair (see SL Temple, SL Tabernacle, Provo City Center Temple, Kirtland Temple; compare Ogden Temple, Anchorage Temple, Provo Rock Canyon Temple). And the architectural uniqueness of France’s great cathedrals is a big part of why the government there expropriated those buildings and has often refused to give them back in the intervening centuries.

Interesting. Mine started working when I was SS President, but it’s kept working now even though I’m just a lowly temple and family history leader. 🤷‍♂️

If you have LDS Tools, you should be able to see stats on average weekly sacrament meeting attendance in your unit (under “Reports —> Quarterly Reports —> Indicators of Conversion and Church Growth”) and how many members of your unit have received their endowment and how many of those have current temple recommends (under “Reports —> Unit statistics”).

As I understand it, the custom was that the virgins would have been waiting with the bride at her house for the groom to come and fetch her. If he’s late enough that people are falling asleep, then the natural response at some point is “gosh, is he coming at all? Girl, he’s a deadbeat. Clearly not reliable. Not a provider. Not husband material. You should send him on his way even if he *does* come.” But these virgins did not give up on the bridegroom. Nor did they abandon the bride. They knew the groom had already paid the bride-price. They continued their vigil as loving and loyal friends, showing faith that the wedding was indeed still “on”. They aren’t bad girls; and even the ones we call “foolish” are still far wiser than most of their generation. But, notwithstanding their good intentions—some of them just plain weren’t ready to fully cope with an event that wasn’t playing out on their timetable.

FWIW, my law school graduating class was about the same size (or a shade smaller) as my high school graduating class; and it was amusing to see how many of my classmates were fairly obviously trying to turn the whole thing into a redo of their high school experiences (while the rest of us were just like “whatever, dude; I’m going home to my wife and kids now”).