Just_A_Guy

Come on, Snow. You know very well that every one of those commandments was subject to specific limitations. Paul was not advocating celibacy for everyone (even in his own time). Neither Jospeh, Hyrum, Lorenzo, nor Joseph F. were vegans. So, yeah, they were sinning. Really? No one? Not even your compatriots over at Sunstone? Must be difficult being a lone voice of righteousness in a church with four-million-odd active members . . . I'm unfamiliar with this instruction. No, it doesn't. It advises against multiple piercings. Really, Snow--I am somewhat bewildered by your post. In other posts you come across as an extremely well-informed member of the Church. Surely all this misdirection is not intentional?

Snow, are you saying we shouldn't pray for material success? (Alma 34:20 comes to mind, as does a scripture in 2 Nephi)

She just left? Sounds like there's not much left to do except pray and not get too far away from a phone.

My condolences . . .

Do they contradict themselves? Very well then, they contradict themselves . . . (That was an awesome signature, by the way. What happened to it?)

Postulating for a moment that the "living tissue" is actually a life in its own right: From a secular-law standpoint, I would say yes: prohibit/punish it generally, but allow certain exceptions (self-defense, for example--an umbrella under which mother's life/health, rape, and incest could all be covered). From a theological-law standpoint, I think it depends a lot on what you knew, when you knew it, and why you proceeded to act the way you did.

No, it wasn't. Brigham Young wasn't as straightforward on the matter as we might like; but whatever he was teaching, it wasn't what the Church teaches today. I'm pretty sure I disagree with Adam-God. I accept those who have condemned it (ranging from Joseph F. Smith down to Spencer W. Kimball) as prophets, seers, and revelators. But let's not pretend that Brigham Young didn't teach it. He did.

From a legalistic standpoint, you can believe abortion is killing without believing abortion to be murder.

As I said . . . I don't see any scriptural support for the practice.

Perhaps true; but my understanding is that He had full control over whether, and when, he chose to give up His life. See, e.g., Talmage in Jesus the Christ, p. 388:

With all due respect, Foreverafter, I don't read any of the sources you've cited, either here or anywhere else on these boards, as making that claim. Have you ever been in this situation? You are asking tls70 to walk into a uniquely excruciating type of hell, and I don't think it's fair to demand that she do so simply because that's your interpretation of an obscure quote you cannot or will not take the time to furnish in its entirety.

Well, they are responsible in a "proximate-cause" sort of way. But not necessarily responsible in a "culpable/accountable" sort of way. Unless they knew the reaction their swimsuit would cause, and wore the suit specifically because they wanted to elicit that kind of reaction. Charley--good heavens. I wear braces* to Church every Sunday, but I usually keep my suit jacket on over them. Am I sinning? *Technically, there's a difference between "braces" and "suspenders" in the US. Braces button into the pants inside the waistband. Suspenders attach to the waistband by metal clips.

Jim108, methinks thou art trolling.

Hi Bert-- I can agree with a lot of what you're saying. But not this. Rachel's not "giving orders" to Leah in Genesis 30; she's simply making a trade. And in point of fact, it was Leah and not Rachel who was the first wife. I've no problem with the idea of the first wife approving other marriages of her husband. But to say every other wife needs permission of the first wife each and every time she wants to share a night with her husband strikes me as just . . . creepy; and I don't see any scriptural support for that kind of practice.

Well, and there's the rub. She's a reform Jew; but she did note that ultra-Orthodox Jews take a different approach and frown on all abortions. Of course, she believed that hers was the ancient and "scriptural" view (don't we all? )

Foreverafter: Precisely. Tls70, forgive my doctrinal nit-picking with Foreverafter. I don't think anyone can make a straight-faced argument that you'll be "stuck" with your husband in the eternities if he is not living up to his covenants in the here-and-now. The question you face is whether to wait for him in hopes that he'll come around, or move on with your life. To be blunt, the only one who can answer that for you is the Lord. My opinion is that it's generally better to build your life on a foundation of what you can control, not around what you can't. Frankly, were I in your position, I'd probably leave unless I got a revelation that I should stay. But you have to do what's right for you.

My recollection, Dravin, is that she explained that verse in terms of property and not in life. In ancient Israel, children were economic assets to the family either through the income the boys would eventually earn (and the "retirement security" they provided the parents), or the prices the girls would collect when they were married off.

I think this is what Foreverafter is referring to: President Young seems to be talking about temple marriages here, not civil marriages. And, to some degree, this counsel may have been superseded by the Church's practice of issuing cancellations of sealings. (It would seem to be somewhat disingenuous for the First Presidency to declare a sealing "cancelled" if it wasn't really "cancelled".) The First Presidency has the power to loose as well as to bind (see Matt 16:19).

Very well. Let me alter that to "different theological backgrounds." :)

Interestingly, a co-worker of mine is a Reform Jew. She stated (and I may be badly misinterpreting this) that there's an old Jewish belief that a baby isn't actually "alive" until the eighth day after it's born--which is why they didn't circumcise until the eighth day. Under Jewish theology (as my co-worker explained it), an abortion at any phase is (forgive the pun) kosher. (I didn't dare ask her what the implications were for infanticide under that teaching. One day I'll work up the nerve.)

Does not compute . . . . . . . Now I know how Ceebooboo feels! Seriously, though--what an interesting thought! It seems to me that part of Adam-God (also not Church doctrine, Ceebooboo--just something Brigham Young and a few others said) was the idea that before reaching your exaltation you have to serve as an Adam on one world, and a savior on one world. The idea of Mary as surrogate mother troubles me. LDS literature is full of allusions to Christ's being half-mortal, half-immortal (which was ostensibly why He could die, and also why He could choose the hour and manner of His death). I'm not sure how that would all work out if Jesus weren't actually the biological seed of Mary.

Hordak, if memory serves God told Enoch that "Man of Holiness is my name" [EDIT: Just had a thought, though: Is that Elohim or Jehovah speaking? And if Jehovah, is He speaking of Himself or by divine investiture?], or something to that effect. I'm not sure the King Follett discourse is dispositive as to whether God may or may not now properly be called a man. Ceeboo(boo), I think it just boils down to different cultural backgrounds. As I understand it, Catholicism is very preoccupied by the mechanics of Jesus' conception, even to the point of providing an explanation for the process of Mary's Immaculate Conception. We Mormons find the mechanics an intellectual curiosity, but I don't think we attach much spiritual significance to it. For us, what's important is that Jesus came to earth and that He came with certain attributes that were rightfully His by virtue of His divine parentage; which attributes enabled Him to perform His ministry and His atoning sacrifice.

I think the key question is, "with what attitude are you doing it?" If you're just trying to "twist the lion's tail", so to speak, then I'd say that yes; it's a sin. If it was just a matter of having to use the last clean shirt in the closet, or the only bathing suit you could find at the store that fit you (but you wear a shirt over it, or whatever, as I've seen some girls do), or you live in a culture where multiple piercings is the norm, I'd say no big deal.

Hey Ceeboo(boo) Well, "us" in the sense of "we, here, in this discussion, regardless of religion". :) It's not technically a Church teaching; it's just something that Brigham Young said and that some Church members (including some rather influential ones) have believed over the years; and that the rest of us enjoy debating periodically. I don't recall the King Follett sermon saying that, either. I'll have to read through the thread again and think about the post you mention. EDIT: Just did a search. The only other reference to "King" I can find in this thread is Alana's quote from Ezra Taft Benson, which in passing cites King Benjamin (in the Book of Mormon) as referring generically to the condescension of God.

Well . . . the thing is, every once in a blue moon, one of them does thrive. So it does all seem to come back to the question of how much we're willing to inconvenience the many in order to save the few.