Just_A_Guy

Based on factual sources. And Wikipedia is not exactly a hotbed of pro-Mormon sentiment. To Egyptologists, yes. But these particular papyri have a 19th-century American historical connection that sets them apart, and makes them of infinitely greater value to Mormons. You argue they are being suppressed. That's an asinine argument where the contents of the papyri are well-known. Document preservation techniques have evolved just a tad bit over the past two centuries. Your link isn't showing up on my browser. But neither this stone, nor this one, nor this one, nor this one, nor this one are the Chase stone which lies in the First Presidency vault. Oh, OK. If you don't think Whitmer was telling the truth about the use of a seer stone, then why are we having this conversation?

See the Wikipedia entry--not ideal, but it'll do. There are eleven fragments. If I've read it correctly, ten were at the Met and one turned up in LDS archives in the late sixties. I highly doubt you'd think it proved much of anything, regardless of how accurate it turned out to be. There are a variety of logistical reasons not to display a particular item, as anyone acquainted with museums and archives could tell you. As long as there are reliable copies accessible to historians, I really don't see what the issue is. Apparently you missed it when I said "we have verbal descriptions but no photographs". :) David Whitmer recorded the use of a seer stone. For more, see this issue of Dialogue (starting at page 48) by Van Wagoner and Walker; or Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith (Rough Stone Rolling).

You're referring to the Church Historian's fragment--1/11th of the entire Book of Abraham, and which was published long ago. And has been thoroughly documented. The Mormons are not the only ones to elect not to put original, very old documents on public display. In point of fact, Joseph Smith used several seerstones throughout his life. The one that figures in the Book of Mormon translation is the Chase stone. It resides in the First Presidency vault; we have verbal descriptions of it but no photographs. There are, however, photographs of several other seerstones floating around the net.

In all fairness, Bytor, at least some of them apparently didn't--at least, not equally (c.f. Abraham and Jacob).

Not to mention financing excursions into sock-puppetry.

Which papyrus? As far as I know, the remnants of the papyri the Church purchased wound up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. As far as I know, most of which were published by BYU Studies back in the 1970s (yes, after the Tanners leaked them. The saga of Church Archives is a long and twisted one; suffice it to say that the powers that be have had, IMHO, a fairly simplistic view of what purposes LDS history is supposed to serve). Huh? I'm not aware that the hat still exists. The stone certainly does, and is occasionally mentioned in fairly basic LDS texts; but I have no quibbles with the Church not wanting to turn it into a circus attraction.

As you have purported to understand elsewhere, there's a difference between polygamy and polyandry. The Church as a whole practiced the former. Joseph Smith also practiced the latter, but the Church did not follow his lead. How on earth would I know? FWIW, I personally have quibbles with the idea of "falling in love"; but I suppose that's more a cultural perspective than a theological one. I wouldn't. Can't speak as to others, though. Some of Joseph Smith's (and, for that matter, Brigham Young's) wives were in their mid-to-late fifties, and those marriages almost seem to have been--for lack of a better term--marriages of convenience--a primarily economic partnership whereby otherwise unmarried women could have claim on someone for their support.

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at, but I don't find that the past LDS experience with polygamy (let alone Joseph Smith's experiments with polyandry) has a significant influence in the day-to-day relationship that Mormons enjoy with their spouses. As for Joseph Smith: I would venture to guess that Joseph Smith did love all of his wives--or at least made a conscious effort to do so. But I'm no historian. If you want the viewpoint of his polyandrous wives, the best thing to do would be to read their own words.

1 Corinthians 13 (that's the King James version. ) The LDS concept of marital love isn't all that different from the non-LDS concept. See, e.g., this quotation from Parley Pratt after he had had the concept of Celestial Marriage explained to him: Now, as to how "love" can be "love" when you're loving more than one person simultaneously? I don't pretend to know. I take it as a matter of faith that it's possible, but as I do not anticipate living polygamously in this life or the next I haven't given it much thought.

Semi-topical: The Rise of the Uncouth Primarily an et tu argument, I suppose; but a very powerful one.

With all due respect, if I'm living a telestial life I don't think tithing alone is going to save me. If I'm living a terrestrial life, I don't think the mere failure to pay tithing is going to get me burned either.

For me, though, part of the revelation process is "studying it out in [my] mind", which in turn entails finding out how other people have interpreted and applied a principle. I don't see any harm in offering opinions on such threads, so long as those opinions are clearly identified as such.

Socially liberal (to a greater or lesser degree) but fiscally conservative.

Indeed. Two Danites carrying violin cases will be appearing on your doorstep posthaste.

The most presidential thing Obama has done . . . (Yes, I did post this in the right thread. Really. Read the link.)

Snow, Utahrulzz is absolutely right. Everyone knows the GAs have no sense of humor whatsoever.

I don't think there's any official clarification. (personal opinion coming:) Me, I pay on gross. I'd watch the tax refund issue, though. If you wind up getting more in tax refunds than you actually paid (which is entirely possible, given certain income levels and certain refundable tax credits) - IMHO, that's "income" and should be tithed. I'm not sure it's particularly relevant. Tax is tax, tithing is tithing, and payments of one are not applicable towards amounts owing on the other. IMHO: No; because it isn't "increase"--you already owned the car (which you presumably purchased years ago with post-tithing funds), and when you got the rebate you lost the car. My law firm is set up as an LLC. I only pay tithing on the amounts I actually pay myself out of the LLC's surplus. However, at some point twenty or thirty years down the road I'll retire and sell off my practice, and at that point I anticipate tithing 10% of the proceeds of the sale.

Grandmakabipbip, just because someone who happens to be a prophet says something, doesn't automatically mean it's the word and will of the Lord. Case in point.

Rather than trying to "guide her" towards the cheapest ring possible, I'd just tell her flat-out what your overall finances look like and what your ring budget is. If, after all that, she nevertheless demands you purchase a ring that is patently beyond your means . . . you guys may want to have a few talks. :-)

My wife and I will get the vaccine. Our three-year old will get it if we can find someone administering a thimerosal-free version of the vaccine. Not sure if our one-year-old will be getting it or not.

If you think 21st century SLC is a cesspool, try first century Jerusalem.

This is sounding strangely familiar . . .

No. But it does not follow that Lincoln would ally himself with the Democrats, any more than it follows that Jefferson would ally with the Republicans). Neither of these guys had any compunctions about being involved with the formation of a new political party.

Slightly off-topic, but I thought this was interesting. Granted, it's hardly a scientific survey (and from what I can glean, the number of protesters was probably more on the order of 500K - 1 million, not 2 million).

(Warning: Speculation coming.) If you assume that deceased people are still able to somehow labor on behalf of--or even occasionally minister to--their living progeny, then wouldn't those spirits' capacity to assist the living be immeasurably increased once they had received the additional power that the Endowment brings? Also: Does our lineage as seed of Israel (through Ephraim, or one of the other tribes) contribute to our perfection? How? If so, wouldn't our lineage as a seed of our father, grandfather, great-great grandmother, etc. similarly contribute to our perfection?