Just_A_Guy

Traveler - I appreciate your response, but I'm skeptical. By this logic, shouldn't every Torah in Israel have been kept in the Ark? Or do you argue that the brass plates were had by Moses himself, and therefore were inherently more sacred than any other scroll of holy writings? Surely a book doesn't become an "item of the covenant" simply because it is recorded on finer or more durable materials?

What is your source for concluding that the Brass Plates should have resided within the Ark? Thanks--

Among an awful lot of people on the left, it isn't. Ya gotta give 'em credit for consistency. To be perfectly Machiavellian, it seems like there isn't much reason to stick around in either country. Neither country has both the will and the resources to strike us in our homeland. I think the primary reasons for staying are 1) a moral commitment to the people (assuming it's still possible for us to fulfill it), and 2) preventing a power vacuum that will enable the rise of a power that can strike us in our heartland (e.g. Iran).

Well, Jesus = Jehovah. So, to a mainstream Christian, for all practical purposes, Jesus is God as they know Him. It's just that we Mormons sort of insert a new being (or two!) into the equation.

He is a God and one of the three members of what we term the "Godhead" which consists of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Spirit (Holy Ghost). They are united in purpose under the direction of God the Father, but are separate Beings. Usually God the Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ. However, there is scriptural precedent (in the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible) for praying directly to Jesus when we are in His physical presence. No. Jesus is a God. In fact, He is (per current LDS understanding and belief) Jehovah. But He is subordinate to His Father, Elohim. Yes--see above. But this is not a group of squabbling deities. It is a united council consisting of three individuals, two of whom (Jesus/Jehovah and the Holy Spirit) are subject to the third (God the Father/Elohim).

I do find it interesting that, in the whole Iraq discussion, we haven't looked back more intently on the Philippine Insurrection (which cost four thousand American lives and possibly as many as one and a half million Filipino lives).

Beck, you are following the devil and you're not a real Mormon.

Paint the fence. Then, the next night, sneak across the property line and cut down the trees. (No. Not really.)

Game, set, and match to Tarnished (say "Abish" ten times fast) (but not where anyone can hear you).

There was an easy way for the corporate bigwigs to avoid this: Don't let the government become a shareholder by accepting government money. Our government was wrong to offer the money. The corporations were short-sighted to accept it. (In other threads, Bytor, you've hinted that some banks were forced to take TARP money. I'd be a little more troubled if I knew this were in fact the case. Do you have any links?)

I think Vort's explanation is pretty well in-line with statements by both secular and LDS scholars. The Romans weren't the most merciful of rulers, but emptying Nazareth (or any other village, however inconsequential) on an annual basis makes no sense. It'd destroy the local economy for a week or more; it would siphon potential tax revenues off into the expenses concomitant with a lengthy trip; and it would create a glut of money-laden travelers on roads where robbery was common. Moreover, the grown-up Jesus seems to have had no trouble digging up local tax collectors to teach wherever He happened to be ministering. EDIT: Oops--cross-posted with Vort.

I haven't been able to view the video, but this isn't just idle talk. There is a bill on the floor. It actually doesn't provide for shutting down the internet (though it does allow Obama to disconnect Federal resources from the internet in the event of emergency). But more troubling is the following provision: Allow me to translate: If government wants to know what's on your computer, they will have two options: 1) get a warrant, seize your computer, bring it in and analyze it (which option they've always had); 2) hack it remotely, without getting a warrant. Rockefeller, Nelson, and Snowe would never have let a Republican administration slip this by them.

I'm getting on sensitive ground here and won't pursue a discussion on the point, but may I suggest that you consider the hand position of both the person being baptized and the person doing the baptizing? Now compare them to a couple of elements of the endowment, and consider: Why the difference? (Answer: I have no idea. But I don't think it's just a coincidence.)

Yeah, Guinn is the one. Technically only good law in Oklahoma, but I suspect it had an influence on Church policy worldwide.

Ah. That makes a bit more sense.

It's "Christianity", Jim. Not "Crosstianity".

From Jesus the Christ:

Here is a slightly more sympathetic take on Smith's book. Its ultimate conclusion, though, is that Lots of good links to other sources in the review, too.

"Interest" does not necessarily equal "repentance". The Church is under divine injunction not to administer that which is sacred to those who are not truly repentant. We may not fulfill that injunction as well as we ought, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. That said, I would agree with you that we should work to lessen the social stigma that often comes with excommunication or other church discipline. If you're disfellowshipped, you're still technically a member. Priesthood ordinances you've received (including baptism, priesthood ordinations for males, and temple sealings) are still "on the record" (though they are arguably in a state of suspension pending full repentance--a disfellowshipped male, for example, will usually be prohibited from exercising his priesthood)l If you're excommunicated, you're no longer a member and all those ordinances are officially deemed "canceled".

Moe, for some reason I remember reading something to the effect that discipline at the stake level is only necessary if the member is a Melchizedek Priesthood holder (otherwise, the member supposedly falls under the jurisdiction of the ward bishop). Do you happen to know whether this is true? Thanks--

Do you have a source for this? That's what I thought at first (see my earlier post), but it turns out that that case was decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and (as near as I can tell) is only good law within the state of Oklahoma.

Sadly, Mormons have no monopoly on this kind of behavior.

Yes, well, I've got a pretty weighty calling coming myself. You'll hear about it this Saturday, I expect. (Beg your pardon if you're serious, Vort!)

The practical consequences are pretty much the same as excommunication--covenants made via the Church (baptism, temple sealings, etc) are deemed revoked, she won't be allowed to speak/pray in Church meetings (assuming she still chooses to go), etc. By American law, though, the moment you voluntarily withdraw from a religious association they must stop the disciplinary proceedings. I think (but am not sure) that they are also not permitted to retain a record of the disciplinary proceedings. (EDIT: I may be in error on the above; I'll let you know if I find anything new.) (2nd Edit: The above is from an Oklahoma case and not necessarily binding nation-wide. Apparently, the Church will retain a notation that she resigned under a cloud of suspected "transgression", and this will be addressed if she ever applies for re-baptism. From what I can gather, though, they will not convene a council and "excommunicate" her after she's requested to have her name removed.)

Ah. I personally reject the idea that such Julie/Todd promises were commonplace in the pre-mortal life, but I have a better idea where you're coming from now. Thanks.