Just_A_Guy

Two accounts, actually. AFAIK, neither Mark nor Luke were apostles, technically speaking.

Enlil-An, I agree with you that Matthew sometimes takes unwarranted liberties with his interpretations of Jewish prophecy. That said, you seem to be (to use the classic legal terminology) "drawing inference upon inference". Your apparent assumption that Jesus was not born at Bethlehem seems to be drawn from, among other things, the unwarranted assumptions that a) Matthew tells us why Joseph feared to subject himself to Archelaus' rule (in fact, he does not), and b) Matthew's "a city called Nazareth" verbiage means that Matthew is hinting that neither Joseph nor Mary had had any prior connection with that city (as opposed to, say, simply introducing a new and relatively obscure location into the narrative). If you're using that assumption to assert that Jesus wasn't really born in Bethlehem, that Nephi's account is wrong, and/or that the GAs are suspect because they don't buy into the prior two assertions--that just isn't a bandwagon I'm willing to jump onto.

Ah, I see your point re the end of Matthew 2 and "turning aside". I'm still unconvinced that Matthew's account positively rules out Joseph's and/or Mary's origins as being Nazarene. All it really implies is that after returning from Egypt Joseph first thought to live somewhere in Judea. That doesn't mean Joseph and Mary were from there; it could just as easily mean that while in Egypt they determined that Jesus should be brought up in close proximity to Jerusalem. That said, I'm not sure that the Church's official position is that the only factual errors in the Bible came through mistranslations. I'm very comfortable with the idea that the original authors of the Bible wrote the truth as they understood it, but that some portions of the Bible were written based on either misinterpretation of a revelation or else unreliable hearsay.

Here ya go. In short, as I understand it, it's the male instinct to seek out a dysfunctional female and come in and try to "fix everything" without considering what got her into the situation in the first place and whether or not she's long-term-relationship material. Or, in other words:

You are right in that there's a difference between a murderer (who by definition has already acted) and a homosexual (who has not necessarily acted). But then, the more apt comparisons--to pedophilies, kleptomaniacs, sadists, megalomaniacs, narcissists, and others who struggle with a host of sundry psychological challenges--generally fall prey to the same kind of condemnations as you've offered above.

I see little here that is actually mutually exclusive, and no reason the accounts could not both be "true" (if incomplete). Matthew is writing to Jews, and trying to convince his Jewish readers that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy. The tale of Herod is crucial to this theme--Jesus' Egyptian background and the slaughter of the children at Rama (about ten miles from Bethlehem) were, per Matthew's interpretation, foretold. (By the way, Matthew does not say that either Mary or Joseph were natives of Bethlehem. It just says Jesus was born there.) Similarly, the story of the wise men reinforces Jesus' status as king to a naturally skeptical Jewish readership. Luke is writing to Gentiles. The Gentiles didn't have unfulfilled prophecies about a king of kings, so Luke didn't need to waste time trying to explain how Jesus fit into that mold.

Wickman. Wickham was the villain in Pride and Prejudice (and also the 19th century English adventurer who first smuggled the rubber tree out of Brazil).

Book of Abraham, Facsimile 2:

Those types of concerns form the crux of my opposition to gay marriage, and getting such assurances on a nationwide basis (along with a drastic overhaul of the benefits state and federal governments confer on married couples generally) would pretty much neutralize my opposition to gay marriage (barring further statements by the 1st Presidency and the Twelve, who I presume see further down this road than I do).

No problem church-wise, but beware of what Dr. Laura calls "stupid chivalry".

Also some of the figures in Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham.

I agree, provided that "minister to the spiritual needs of" does not become doublespeak for "advocate for the gratification of the carnal desires of".

I agree with FunkyTown as to car, health, and homeowner's insurance--which replace assets which were already tithed--but life insurance is intended primarily to replace future increase. Personally, I'd tithe on it. Life insurance is cheap; beefing your coverage up by 10% to cover tithing isn't that big of a deal.

The lady the article quotes has made a hobby of trolling through the IGI and embarrassing the Church by pointing out certain individuals whose work has been done posthumously. Her work forms the basis for a lot of our disagreements with our Jewish brethren.

Mormons posthumously baptize Obama's dead mother.

Under the LDS view, an individual who attains exaltation is given enormous powers. I would venture to guess that God has a responsibility not to give those powers to someone who can't be trusted with them--regardless of what that person thinks he or she "deserves". If an individual is permitted to "judge" himself/herself, I think it could only be because God trusts the individual to make the exact type of judgment that He Himself would make.

Federal Government Currency Recall

Good point, Traveler. I would be inclined to take Abraham's description of the roots of Egypt more or less at face value; but the your post reminds me that the Hamite pharaonic lineage described by Abraham probably was not the same as that described by Joseph--at least, if we accept the commonly-held view that Joseph allied himself with one of the Hyksos pharaohs. The Hyksos--shepherds from the Levant, IIRC--were seen as usurpers by the native Egyptians, and their fall from power hypothetically accounts for the enslavement of the Israelites after Joseph's death.

Technically, I believe the curse was on Cain. Ham merely passed it on via his marriage with a woman descended from Cain (stories about him stealing Noah's garments notwithstanding). Whoever the originator of the curse was, there were clearly exceptions pre-1978; Elijah Abel being probably the most well-documented. If the Lord made an exception for Elijah Abel, I see no reason for His not being able to make a similar exception for Ephraim and Manasseh and their posterity.

I generally agree with the article, though with the following caveats: --I see conservatism as fundamentally non-interventionist in character. We made an exception for the Cold War, and lost our way after the USSR collapsed--we lurched back into "we won't be the world's policemen" during the Clinton years, and suddenly we're going off willy-nilly into various middle-eastern countries. Conservatism is going through a "years in the wilderness" stage with regard to developing a coherent foreign policy. --Opposing gay marriage didn't hurt Obama's campaign very much. I have a suspicion that if the Republicans could demonstrate that they can be trusted with the nation's purse strings and its military, a lot of the other issues suddenly wouldn't seem so important.

It all makes sense now.

Can anyone name five ways in which the stances of these "ultraconservatives" materially differ from those of Ronald Reagan.

And our veep manages to step in it . . . again. Glenn Reynolds' take over at Instapundit is classic: (Though I personally voted for Bob Barr.)

My point wasn't to refute your assertion of inferiority. My point was to address the notion that concubines are always "slave wives".

Not necessarily. Approval within the D&C of one form of concubinage (in the past, not in the present) does not imply approval of all forms of concubinage.