Just_A_Guy

FWIW, it is possible to reinstate an excommunicated member posthumously. I believe this happened in the case of Helmuth Hubener--his local leaders excommunicated him after the Nazis threw him in jail; and after Hubener died in a Nazi prison Salt Lake found out what had happened and eventually reinstated him.

Somehow, the idea of Elder Packer's words being used to justify the idea of women holding the priesthood just makes me giggle. (Not that I necessarily disagree with MOE. I just find the source highly amusing--Elder Packer is usually Public Enemy Number One for the types of people who tend to be most vocal about women and the priesthood.)

Something like this is what I'd been waiting for. From some of your other rhetoric, I'd gotten the impression that you believe people will--and should--remain sealed to abusive spouses/parents; and that rather than moving on a woman whose spouse has been beating her should should spend the rest of her mortal lifetime unmarried and pining away for her abusive husband.

Is this the quote you're thinking of? I doubt that very strongly. If you can show me a quote, I'll reconsider my position.

Changed-- I still disagree with your apparent disdain for pregnancy and natural conception, but I'm starting to see a little more where you're coming from. Thank you for your patience.

Before Natasha Richardson's body is even in the grave, CNN begins the drumbeat for ski helmets. I'm pretty sure that the genesis of the motorcycle- and bicycle-helmet-law movements were similar. It'll be interesting to watch this develop over the next few years.

I disagree. Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 195: If a worthy couple's kids bail out on them and want to be part of my lineage instead, that's a complete violation of the principle Brigham Young is teaching above. One cannot build a kingdom by wooing (poaching?) kids away from other worthy couples.

Not under Adam-God. Sarah was not barren. Isaac was her natural son. I pointed this out to you in another recent thread. She is not, never was, and never will be considered the "mother" of Hagar's children (Ishmael et seq).

The Atonement is of slightly higher significance than a power drill. In all seriousness--I never thought much of sacrament-meeting-criers either. But since having two little girls I cry at practically nothing--heck, a couple of weeks ago my wife and kids were visiting family in another state for the week, and I started blubbering because "Butterfly Kisses" came on the radio. I read somewhere that in a house full of girls, a father's internal estrogen levels will actually increase for some reason. (That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!)

Well, "marital equality" (EDIT: if by that you mean "gay marriage") is certainly contrary to the order of Heaven (assuming you accept the Mormon ideal of Heaven as explained by the Mormon leadership past and present). Democracy is not a new concept; it's just that no one's been able to make it work over the long term until now (and it's certainly not the order of Heaven, in any event). Similarly, universal education is nice in the here-and-now--but, in its current form as we know it, not necessarily an essential element of the eternities. Not per se, no; it certainly doesn't end the discussion. But it does challenge the assumption that our twenty-first-century ideas are some kind of universal "truth-standard" that God always wanted mankind to be living.

Umm . . . the VA is a form of national health care for a select group of citizens. And from Obama's plan, it sounds like the VA is now looking for a bailout from the private sector. That doesn't exactly help the case for universal national health care.

I saw Janet Reno speak at a symposium at the U of U law school about a year ago, and she was displaying very visible symptoms of Parkinson's Disease. I'm aware of Waco and a host of other things for which Reno is probably responsible, but at this point all I can do is pity her. I'm inclined to give her a pass on her appearance.

My understanding is that they still may receive the ministrations of the Holy Spirit. But, yes; they are not in the presence of either God the Father or Jesus Christ. That's the plan. :) Personally, I think so. At some point, refusing to accept the baptism would be tantamount to refusing to accept Jesus Christ. I don't know that this belief is universally held among Mormons, though. Well, technically, it's the Atonement of Jesus Christ that remits sins--baptism (and, to a degree, confession/repentance) is just a symbol and a covenant of our acceptance of the Atonement's power in our own lives. But, as Maxel says--baptism is necessary; and John 3:5 covers it nicely. I don't think it's at all clear that Jesus' words as relayed the Gospels exempted His hearers from the need for baptism. Even if they did--for all we know, the individuals to whom you refer had already been baptized by John the Baptist. As for 1 John 1:9, that particular epistle of John was directed to believers who (presumably) had already been baptized.

If I'm understanding you right, you seem to view the delegates to the Constitutional Convention as basically a group of above-average politicians who essentially adopted and codified the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers; therefore, we should look primarily to the Enlightenment and not to the actual drafters both when giving credit for, and when attempting to interpret, the US Constitution. Sort of an "originalism-once-removed" view. Correct? Woops! Must have cross-posted.

Not so much. Looks like the Irish PM was the one who came out looking dumb. But I'll bet our British friends are tickled pink over the whole spectacle.

captmoroniRM, you are absolutely no fun whatsoever! Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt!

I'm not sure. Does that mean that Article II, Section 2, clause ii was inspired? If so, was it inspired because it was a necessary compromise to get the South to accept the document--a sort of divine Realpolitik? Thanks for the quote. If I have my numbers right, of the 55 delegates, 49 were Protestants of some sort and three were Catholics. Thus, fifty-two of the fifty-five delegates were at least nominally Christians, which doesn't seem to square with the earlier assertion that "the Founders were mostly all Deists".

I like his radio show a lot, though he seems to occasionally become obsessed with particular topics (Iran or whatever) that become tiresome after a couple of weeks. I saw his CNN show a few times, and thought it somehow failed to capture the dynamic that makes his radio show so enjoyable. Haven't watched him since he moved to Fox.

I don't really feel qualified to weigh in on the Enlightenment ideals or their role in the formation of the Constitution, and it seems the discussion is being ably carried on by others. I would note that 1) When we talk about the religious beliefs of "the founders", it's important to specify which "founders" we're talking about. Thomas Jefferson seems to be kind of the poster boy for Deist founders, but he was not involved in drafting the Constitution AFAIK. I recognize LittleWyvern's points above, but would be interested to see a name-by-name breakdown of the religious beliefs of those present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (as well as those involved in drafting and ratifying the Bill of Rights--see below). 2) I've always assumed (without thinking too much on the topic) that when Joseph Smith and other Church leaders referred to the Constitution as an "inspired document", they were thinking mostly of the safeguards incorporated into the Constitution by later amendments (viz the Bill of Rights) and not necessarily of the governmental structure put forward by the Constitution in its 1787 incarnation. 3) Whatever the Founders' religious beliefs were, thanks to Wilford Woodruff we know what they are now (well, several of them, anyways).

Indeed. That's why I labeled it as "pure speculation". What we're doing here is taking a Church policy--the (former prohibition on women being sealed to more than one individual) and trying to extrapolate an eternal doctrine out of it. That's always a dangerous endeavor, and it's important not to get too set on any one explanation. I think the best thing to do is to keep an open mind. Frankly, if/when I make it to the CK--nothing will surprise me. The issue of who begat whom isn't necessarily my objection to polyandry--scientists can resolve that question well enough, and I imagine gods can do so as well. I guess my problem comes back to the seeming . . . I don't know . . . lack of order that would be associated with a Celestial free-for-all. But there will be priesthood in the heavenly home (older siblings). And, so far as we know, somebody has to preside within the family unit (however that unit is ultimately defined). Is there a "head husband"? Could a man be a "head husband" in one polyandrous relationship, but not in another? Just thinking about it makes me dizzy. I'm not convinced that it would necessarily need to be so. As a "god unit", perhaps all participants share in the glory brought by all of the children. Heck yeah. I would ask, though--why is the burden of proof on those who say there is no polyandry? The argument for polyandry seems based primarily in twentieth/twenty-first century notions of "marital equality"--a social condition that has existed for barely one-tenth of one-percent of human history (assuming you accept a literalist 6000-years-since-Adam chronology). I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable using those ideas--meritorious though they are--in order to extrapolate some kind of eternal order of things.

I think Snow meant that Brigham Young was relatively liberal in giving his approval to the divorces of others. I seem to recall Arrington writing something to that effect in his biography of Young.

Could you explain this a bit, please? Thanks.

To supplement Connie's post: A church member will usually receive one patriarchal blessing during his or her lifetime. Those who grow up in the Church usually receive it when they are in their late teens. The blessing is given by a Patriarch (every stake has at least one). One feature of the blessing is the pronouncement of the member's "lineage" (i.e. which tribe of Israel the member is descended from--there are specific blessings and responsibilities associated with each tribe). Additionally, the Patriarch will pronounce blessings upon the member, make promises, or give warnings/advice as the spirit of prophecy directs. The blessing is transcribed and a copy is given to the church member (another copy is kept at Church archives in Salt Lake City, in case the member loses their own copy); it is viewed as a guide to which the member may refer throughout his or her lifetime.

Pure speculation here, but if --the role of an exalted "god unit" (man + wife/wives) is to create new spirits, and --fulfilling that role is the primary/only way that the glory of the god unit may increase, and --the process for creating spirits is analagous to the process for creating bodies (e.g. some kind of "gestation" done by the female), then polygamy would increase the rate at which the god unit could create new spirits (and add to their glory), while polyandry would serve no purpose at all.

Moksha, I'll let you watch the top 5% of wage-earners in the US duke it out for their pieces of Galt Island (actually a mountain enclave in Colorado, if I remember correctly), if you will let me watch the other 95% of Americans try to make their country work on 45% of its previous annual tax revenue. :)