Just_A_Guy

You might want to take a look at the CES Doctrine and Covenants Study Manual, pages 409-411.

There's the crux of our disagreement. You seem to believe that people who die in their sins have lost all chance for salvation. I wonder why, if that is so, Jesus bothered after His death to preach to the onetime-disobedient spirits who had lived in the days of Noah and were then in "prison". (1 Peter 3:18-20). But I suppose this discussion has been had repeatedly, elsewhere on this board. :)

Hi Tubaloth. This won't be a comprehensive reply--my time is limited--but it will have to suffice for the present, I'm afraid. Let me start with this: With all due respect, that is not what I am debating. I freely concede that the U&T were more powerful than the seer stone. Joseph Smith himself said so, if Lucy Smith's account is to be believed. What I'm interested in is which instrument was actually used during the translation of the Book of Mormon in the wake of the loss of the 116 pages. How do you figure? Smith doesn't mention the seer stone at all in the quote you cite. Sounds like I'll have to find the book, then. :) Ostler and McConkie seem to be locked into the mindset that the translation process was 1) look at the original material; 2) look into the translating medium; and 3) a translation of the content of the original material somehow appeared. What I'm getting at is, that paradigm is not the absolute and universal method of inspired translation. For example, the Book of Abraham is not a literal translation of what was actually on the Joseph Smith Papyri. (The remnants of those Papyri still exist and have been examined by Egyptologists; they are a near-perfect match for a copy of the Egyptian Book of Breathings.) The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible was done without either the source documents (except for a standard King James Bible) or, as far as I know, a U&T/seer stone of any type. Please note that I'm not saying the Book of Abraham or the JST are false; I'm merely saying that there's more to the translation process than meets the eye and Ostler/McConkie are on shaky ground if they're trying to discredit Whitmer based on their flawed understanding of the process. What Ostler and McConkie state is Whitmer never made such a claim. It strikes me as highly disingenuous to imply that he did. As Ostler and McConkie themselves state, Smith pointedly refused to go on-record as to the mechanics of the translation. All we really have from him (AFAIK) are some references (possibly firsthand, and possibly not) to his possessing the "Urim and Thummim" (possibly THE Urim and Thummim, and possibly not) at various times. So really it boils down to Whitmer and Emma Smith vs Cowdery. That's why I'm so interested in Cowdery's statements, and when they were made.

California Family Code, Section 401(b): Most California counties have a "Deputy for a Day" program, which in effect allows couples to choose their own wedding officiator regardless of the officiator's prior qualifications. Is this practice kosher for Mormons? The Church Handbook of Instructions would seem to say "no".

How about John the Revelator? D&C 77:2-3

Sounds about right to me. You'll find quotes from prophets past to the effect that birth control is bad (and some hardline Mormons who still adhere to those quotes), but the Church has officially backed off from that stance.

Without wishing to get overly judgmental: kids get a hold of guns because they were not stored properly. Some people just aren't usually careful/conscientious/obsessive-compulsive enough to put the gun back in the safe after every time they have it out. I think a potential gun-owner should honestly ask him/herself if he/she is willing to put the time, effort, and money into storing a gun properly after each and every use; if not, and there are kids in the house, maybe a non-lethal weapon like a Taser or pepper spray would be a better option.

Nipper, I don't have the time or inclination right now to write a lengthy reconciliation of Mormon beliefs to the Bible right now. Erik asked what the Mormon position was, and I gave it to him as best I could. I'll just submit the following thoughts: 1) If you object to my idea of hell not being a literal place of burning, I would suggest that much of the Book of Revelation is symbolic and not literal. John had grown up hearing about hell as a place of burning, and I think that in this vision the Lord simply chose to use symbols he knew John (and, to some degree, the primitive Church at large) would understand. 2) If you object to the idea that a coward, unbeliever, vile person, adulterer, magician, etc. can be saved from Hell, I would suggest that this clause is subordinate to verse 6--in other words, the cowards, unbelievers, vile, adulterers, magicians, etc. who do not repent and seek Jesus (or "thirst"--unless you also believe that the people in this verse are literally suffering from a craving for Dihydrogen Monoxide). If you adhere to a strict reading that all cowards, unbelievers, vile persons, adulterers, magicians, etc. will be forever cast down to hell (regardless of whether they ultimately repent and seek Jesus) then I don't see the point in bothering to preach to such persons in this life. PrisonChaplain's entire ministry would seem to be for naught.

One more thought: Oh, it's definitely applicable. It's just that Jesus' Atonement is so powerful (we're actually pretty Universalist in that regard) that sometimes we kind of take it for granted that very few will actually wind up there permanently.

Hi Erik-- I don't think that's correct. Without an Atonement, we would be permanently thrust out of God's presence--in other words, we would be forever in the state of "perdition" or "outer darkness" that Connie mentions. That (along with physical death, which is overcome through Christ's resurrection) is what almost all mankind has been or at some point will be saved from. I do think that the Biblical description of hell/perdition as a place of burning is primarily symbolic/allegorical (and perhaps built primarily on Jewish history/tradition--I understand that Jews used the Valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, as a metaphor for Hell; it was in Biblical times a perpetually-burning trash dump and earlier in history had been the site of human sacrifices to the god Moloch), but there's no doubt that Hell is not a happy place. Those who emerge from the "temporary" state of Hell (as understood by the LDS) to receive a telestial glory, do so by virtue of Jesus' Atonement. I give it as my opinion that they receive this glory because they have (finally) accepted Jesus Christ, acknowledged His doctrines, and committed to be bound by His laws. Their "salvation" is not as great as those who made those same commitments during their mortal lives--but they are most definitely "saved".

PC, I've always wondered what the origin of those collars was. Can you give a short history of the tradition/meaning behind it?

Hi Ceeboo-- I can agree to disagree here. :) It strikes me that the "lesson for the day" (such as it was) comes up in Matt 22:31-32/Mark 12:26-27 (and this is when Matthew tells us that the crowd was astonished and the Sadducees were silenced), where Christ emphasizes that the God of Moses is a God of the living. The remarks on marriage are, IMO, building towards this point--and they provide only a minimal answer to the actual question the Sadducees asked. Note that in Mark 12:28-34, Jesus does the same thing: in verse 32 the scribe takes a dig at Jesus' divinity ("And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he"--i.e., "there's only one God, and it ain't you"). Jesus, noticing that the scribe has answered "discreetly" or "prudently" or "intelligently" (depending on your translation; but the implication that this is a battle of wits and not a master/student interchange), chooses not to press the point; rather he simply says "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." Note that Jesus didn't say the scribe was in the Kingdom of God; just said "thou art not far"--i.e., "close enough, and I'm not going to argue with you over this right now". And, Mark tells us, "no man after that durst ask him any question." Throughout these chapters, Jesus' interlocutors aren't interested in learning; and Jesus isn't that interested in teaching profound doctrine. The chapters describe a series of debates, primarily showcasing Jesus' rhetorical abilities and his superiority over the supposed masters of God's law (in turn the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Scribes [probably the Essenes]).

Seems to me it's a matter of degrees.

Speaking of which, I for one hope he does launch an independent inquiry into 9-11. Obama's the one person who most of the "truthers" would believe if he finished the investigation and announced that, no, it really wasn't orchestrated by Bush and Rummy.

I'll defer to your experience in the field, Pam, but based on my limited knowledge of corporate law I find the above statement a bit surprising. Are you sure?

The Peace Corps' annual budget--330 million, per the gods at Wikipedia--is a drop in the bucket compared to what was needed in Iraq. Nor would it have helped our popularity much to pull the Peace Corps out of the 70-odd countries where it functions and redirect all of its resources to Iraq. Moreover, much (though by no means all) of the actual reconstruction in Iraq was done under the aegis of the State Department, not the Pentagon (though there were some titanic power struggles between the two in the early stages of the war).

You can find it here. There are lots of doctrines that the LDS teach were "lost" by mainstream Christianity, but for me (as a Mormon) it all boils down to other churches' a) lacking the proper priesthood authority, b) being led by an imperfect degree of revelation from God, and c) not having the fulness of the Holy Ghost and therefore lacking the tools necessary bring members to their full spiritual potential. (EDIT: The tone of this post may seem unduly offensive. If so, please forgive me; I'd go over it and soften the tone but I really have to be somewhere right now. :) )

Agreed; provided that such steps are not economically ruinous or a façade to facilitate social engineering.

I'd be afraid of running into Vash. She's freaky.

A currently serving missionary spoke ill of his fellow missionaries in public? That elder is not serving with the Spirit of Christ. Ignore him.

I see your point, Ceeboo, but I would add that the Sadducees were presenting a false version of marriage in Heaven--and they knew it. It was a set-up. The Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection (as both Matthew and Mark note), and the question was calculated to make the notion of a resurrection look ridiculous. In this context, it is at least plausible that Jesus' answer was not calculated to provide an authoritative answer as to the eternal/temporal nature of marriage. Rather, I believe that He was simply countering the idea of resurrection as The Bachelor on steroids by asserting curtly that (in Talmage's words) "n the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time." Jesus the Christ, Deseret Book 1983, p. 509. I don't think the text bars the continuance of an extant marriage. Under the custom of the time as I understand it, on a Jewish wedding day the groom "married" and bride was "given in marriage". Interestingly, the Sadducees seem to have taken it for granted that if the soul was eternal, then marriage was eternal as well. It would be interesting to see if that was a broader Jewish perception, then or now.

Can't offer much to this conversation, except that my wife was diagnosed with it for a time and a friend's daughter also had it. Both described the associated pain as "worse than childbirth".

Madriglace, I don't see that as analagous. An analagous situation would be the Church's forbidding ex-primary teachers from teaching in the public school system. LoudmouthMormon, thanks for the quote. I'll have to digest that for a while.

Is that a major belief of the Church? A non-temple wedding is not, to my knowledge, a priesthood ordinance. I must confess, I really have a hard time seeing what the issue is. The Church doesn't object to its members legally uniting children with non-biological children through adoption, even though there is a parallel temple ordinance (sealing). Why on earth would it object to its members legally uniting couples? (If the Church is institutionally on-record on cases like this, please correct me. But the point I'm driving towards is, I've seen no proof that the Church does have a policy in this regard other than vague allusions to the Church Handbook of Instructions.)

I can see the Church not wanting its former clergy performing civil marriages under the color of church authority or on Church property. But my understanding is that in at least some states, it's not that big of a deal to get whatever permissions are necessary in order to perform a marriage. Where a couple has opted not to have a temple marriage, and not to have a civil marriage on Church property, does the Church have any further prerogative to impose its norms on the couple's wedding ceremony (so long as they are in harmony with the other commandments), or to prevent individual members from exercising their rights as citizens in order to officiate in a wholly civil function?