Just_A_Guy

Yeah; when I said "long enough" I should have specified "approximately four minutes".

Where would they go? I yield. Edit: More from Instapundit:

Not sure. Her website doesn't say?

Maybe a nice note to end things on is this piece from the Huffington Post, written by a non-member. A tidbit:

I've seen some Elna Baker on YouTube. Very engaging stage presence, but her "innocent-Mormon-girl-lost-in-big-bad-New-York" shtick becomes thoroughly unpersuasive (and therefore unamusing) if you listen to her long enough.

EFY is administered by the Church Educational System--in other words, paid employees of Salt Lake. I doubt they'd be as lax as your local stake leadership seems to have been (out of curiosity, where are your girls planning to attend EFY?) I attended EFY at BYU for three years in the mid nineties, and both dress and behavior standards were rigidly enforced (not that we were fox-trotting or anything; but moshing and grinding were certainly not tolerated). Music is now, as it was in the sixties and seventies, a mixed bag.

I think heavenly polyandry may be possible, but we have very little to go on here. We know Joseph Smith practiced it, but I don't know that he preached very much about it either in public or in private (and it was alleged in the other thread that even as Joseph practiced earthly polyandry, none of those women was sealed to any man but him--so Joseph's practice doesn't necessarily translate into eternal polyandry). I can see why someone would envision heaven as one big society where everyone is married to everyone--but, to be blunt, the idea repulses me on a personal level. Aside from the emotional intimacy that comes with being part of a specific and relatively exclusive marital unit, the idea of millions of heavenly half-siblings and quarter-siblings and step-siblings-once-removed would create a cat's-cradle of bizarrely intersecting lineages that seems contrary to the little we do know about the patriarchal order.

I like this. (Er, I mean, I like the way you've phrased it.)

My understanding was that AIG basically was the "insurer's insurer"--it underwrote insurance policies on all the mortgage and other securities deals that went south. AIG might legitimately have been the one financial entity that really was "too big to fail". But then, maybe I just believe that because the AIG bailout happened on Bush's watch.

In addition to what Bytor has written, "the nation" did not give Utah women the right to vote. "The nation" took it away--because those pesky polygamous Mormon women kept voting for the status quo.

Here's an argument from Instapundit. It's probably technically an et tu fallacy, but interesting nonetheless:

Mixed feelings on this. My understanding is the bonus were distributed between about 400 middle-managers. Lots of these guys are probably the buffoons who got AIG where it is today, but they also (presumably) represent a lot of institutional knowledge and even (in rare cases) talent. Do we really want them to flee AIG en masse because AIG has not paid them what they were led to expect to be paid?

I'll defer to Michael, but the saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" would seem to apply here.

Foreverafter, you do realize that both Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith were divorced. Right?

Heartbreaking; but even more revolting was the clueless reporter asking a bawling man "where are you going to go? How are you going to explain this to your daughter?"

Hi Vort. My recollection is that while the covenants are explicitly made before God, the verbiage never specifies who the covenant is actually with. I've always associated it as a three-way covenant. I guess I'll have to take you up on your offer and go refresh my memory!

Snow may have been responding to some of my remarks, which were based on my own (mis)interpretation of your post. My apologies if I've added to the confusion.

Online Encyclopedia of Mormonism Downloadable Church Educational System Study Manuals

Doubt he'd mind saying it to one of Jesus' apostles. :)

Are you interested solely in investing, or looking generally at how to manage your finances, plan for retirement/college, etc? If the latter, Dave Chilton's The Wealthy Barber is eminently readable.

Hi Vort-- This doesn't really ring true to me; and my recollection is that the words of the actual ordinance are ambiguous as to precisely whom the covenant is with. Can you point me to some authority that positively states that the marriage covenant is not with the other spouse? It seems to me that other functions previously assumed to be the sole province of the First Presidency have since been "delegated out" (under the First Presidency's direction, of course). Do you see any reason why approval of sealing cancellations couldn't similarly be "delegated"?

YES. If the overall effect of the statement is to drive a wedge between me and the Lord or His Anointed, then absolutely. Umm, no. My phrasing acknowledges the validity of the revelation, and only raises questions as to its scope. Yours, by implication, denies its validity outright. It's not your bluntness or abrasiveness that irritate me. It's your suggestion that the Spirit should take a backseat to intellectual inquiry, your willingness to pit Sunstone against your local community of Saints and declare your preference for the former, and--above all--the manner in which you tear down the spiritual experiences of a fellow believer.

Foreverafter, I agree with much of what you say. But I believe you are misreading D&C 132. Where? By whom? Not likely, since keys are associated with priesthood--which women do not hold. Besides, the verse goes on to point out "and he teaches . . ." The reference more likely pertains to Joseph Smith, who per v. 59 holds "the keys of the power of this priesthood". No argument there. :)

Snow, I'd like to preface this by saying that I have a huge amount of respect for you and enjoy reading your postings. That said: I am extremely troubled to see a church member speak so dismissively of a fellow church member's spiritual experience, shared in good faith. It's one thing to say "well, that's your revelation; but I'm not sure it applies to me." But to mockingly someone else's experiences as "dogmatic claims to supernatural enlightenment"? If this is the "fruit" of regular Sunstone readership, I want none of it. Elphaba, what I said in my initial remarks to Snow, I repeat to you. I like you a lot. But I think that the hints you're dropping about Maxel's interests are wholly inappropriate here.

Not quite. The Law of Sarah is the wife's right to give consent to (or veto) her husband's subsequent marriages. The President of the Church is exempt from this law. Look very closely at the scripture: If the wife refuses consent, it is still lawful for the husband to receive "all things whatsoever I . . . will give unto him". This is how the Law of Sarah is understood by historians; this is how it is taught at BYU (see here, or here if you don't have PowerPoint), and how FAIR explains it. Early LDS history bears this out. Emma most certainly was not aware of all Joseph's marriages (though she did consent to some of them) at the time they occurred.