Just_A_Guy

It's probably worth noting that, per D&C 132:64-65, the man who holds the keys of the sealing power (i.e. the President of the Church) is exempt from this "Law of Sarah".

Thanks, Justice; I think I see where you were going. What do you think about the possibility that, had Adam and Eve done nothing, the Father might have returned to them later and instructed them to go ahead and partake of the fruit?

In principle it's always better to not make a covenant you cannot/will not keep. That said, the scriptures set up a Catch 22 where the priesthood is concerned; not being ordained--ultimately--is not going to give one a free pass: I don't think there's anything wrong with putting off ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood until one understands the significance thereof. But if we ultimately fail to receive the priesthood; that's a failure for which we will also be accountable.

I'm having a hard time following your post, Justice. Could you rephrase? Thanks.

I've seen some people suggest that the Lord's injunction to not partake of the fruit wasn't given in the sense of "don't do it . . . ever", but in the sense of "don't do it . . . until I tell you to. Under this (purely speculative) notion (which I think is actually quite plausible, when you think about certain portions of the temple ceremony), the "transgression" wasn't in partaking of the fruit per se but in doing it before the appointed time and without authorization.

And whining. Never forget the whining. Seriously--the magazine issues I've seen use the term "bishop" like it's some sort of epithet of dishonor.

It may be worth noting (but not discussing in detail) that even temple ordinances not too long ago were altered in such a way as to increase modesty. (Not that the ordinances were inherently immodest beforehand; but some additional "safeguards"--if you will--were introduced.) I'd say that it's mostly a wheat-tares thing. Society isn't as innocent as it used to be--as the libertines become more openly hedonistic, the rest of us become more puritanical.

As I understand it, sometime back the GAs warned generically about non-faith promoting symposia. The result was that the faithful Mormons pretty much bailed from Sunstone. You'll see some particularly vitriolic Sunstone issues from the late nineties, during which time the lunatics were pretty much left running the asylum (as the saying goes). I believe that John Delin is running things there at present, and one of his stated goals is/was to make the environment more welcoming for observant Mormons. There is some thought-provoking stuff that comes out of there, but IMHO the foundation is rotten to the core and you really can't build anything substantial on it anymore.

Except that the role of government in society keeps growing . . . and growing . . . and growing . . . (Other than that, Elphaba, loved your post.)

I would say so, yes. The covenants outlined in the sealing ceremony are pretty broad, but I'm pretty sure that "putting away" your spouse is a pretty flagrant violation of them. Joseph Smith practiced polyandry, and several of the women involved went on to Utah and left accounts stating so. See The Wives of Joseph Smith, which lists all Joseph's known wives and also notes whether those women were simultaneously married to other men. If you click on the names of each woman, you can read more about her and see references to first-hand accounts (journals, affidavits, and the like).

Me? From an internet standpoint, I would do pretty much what the Church is doing. I might try to centralize apologetics; or think about officially endorsing one of the apologetic sites out there. As to actual missionary work? Frankly, I think I'd shut it down--at least, in its current incarnation. Tell the members to live the gospel and refer any interested non-members to ward/stake missionaries. No more tracting. We'd still call missionaries, if I had my druthers; but they'd function primarily in a supporting role to the local leadership in their assigned areas. So they might spend entire days or weeks tracking down inactives, or helping the local EQ attain 100% home teaching, or just doing as many service projects as possible. There would be a focus on community outreach--getting involved in community causes, setting up an English school, or whatever--and the role of missionaries in the local community would be strengthened by reducing transfers so that a missionary could expect to spend his entire mission working in one or, at most, two areas. Circumstances permitting, I'd also relax the restriction on ever being alone and might even permit dating (with certain restrictions). The entire point would be the nearly complete integration of the missionaries within the existing social structures, both LDS and non-LDS. It would also be necessary to raise the bar significantly--I think to the degree that our missionary force would probably be reduced to about 2/3 of its current number. And this is why you will never see Elder Just_A_Guy be given a calling with any authority over missionary work. :)

I hereby submit my request to audition for the role of LDS 3.

I believe the Church authorizes one particular version. In Brazil, it was the Joao Ferreira de Alameida translation. I don't think the LDS are "against" using other English translations, especially as they help flesh out our understanding of the context of the Bible. But the KJV is indisputably the "canonical" version, or the version that (in conjunction with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) we look to to establish doctrine. The KJV is somewhat problematic--it's actually a patchwork of earlier translations based on source texts that, in the intervening years, have become somewhat obselete as older texts have come to light. But to say it's the most "incorrect" version of the Bible is, I think, just silly. The KJV was produced by men who actually believed Moses was a historical figure and that Jesus was the Son of God. That's more than can be said for a several Biblical translations in circulation today.

If you get some extra time later today, I would love to see the scriptures that lead you to that conclusion. :) Not directly related, but one of the things that has always struck me about the Garden of Eden narrative is that Adam left Eve alone, and that's when she was beguiled. I've always wondered whether the priesthood wasn't, in a sense, actually a kind of penance for Adam and his posterity--"Okay, you botched it up the first time by not standing by your companion. If you hang her--or any of your fellowman--out to dry again; and thereby anyone loses their salvation; you are going to be accountable to me for that." (See, e.g., Jacob 1:19).

My understanding (and I should qualify this by saying that I don't do IP or copyright law; nor did I ever take any classes on the issue in law school) is that with stuff like this, you can either copyright it--make it public, but not allow it to be reproduced--or else denote it a "trade secret"--in which case you don't have to make it public; but if somebody leaks it you basically have little or no recourse. I believe the church opted to take the latter course of action vis a vis the temple ceremony. I didn't know that the Library of Congress had the temple ceremony in its entirety, but I understand that major parts of it were reproduced during the Reed Smoot hearings and are a matter of public record.

From what I understand, the episode taped in late summer or early fall of last year. I have no desire to cleanse my library of Hanks' films. Some of them aren't half bad, and doing so wouldn't hurt him anyways (I might think twice before buying anything else with his name on it, though). Besides, my two-year-old would kill me if I threw out Toy Story.

Point taken. My thought is just that it's kinda hard to say "the Constitution requires that we do X" when we've spent the last two hundred-odd years . . . not doing X.

First of all, if you haven't done so already, get this book and download this manual. Second of all: Wingnut is dead-on. Your husband will face a gnawing temptation for the rest of his life. But yes, it can be overcome. I personally wouldn't claim to have "beat" the problem; but I've gone for nearly a year and a half without a relapse. The best thing you can do is to be open and honest with each other, with your bishop, and with whoever is involved in your therapy program. It will, in all candor, be hell for you. You feel horribly betrayed (as you should), but an essential part of your husband's recovery is communication--you've got to do your part to keep those lines open. That will entail swallowing a lot of pride and, frankly, extending love and compassion to your husband that he probably doesn't deserve. No, it's not fair to you. No, it's probably not what you thought you were signing up for. But frankly, that's what you're facing. You can prepare yourself for the struggle that's coming (and which you--and he--will eventually win), or you can walk away. God be with you--

I think it's a little dangerous for us to begin acting like we understand the Constitution better than the guys who actually wrote the thing. To be perfectly blunt, an awful lot of the framers were involved in the early sessions of Congress; and they didn't apply the First Amendment the way a lot of people today think it should be applied. The policy you propose makes a lot of sense, but let's not pretend it's rooted in "constitutional" concerns. It isn't. It's simply a newly ascendant interest group advocating a new policy beneficial to it; and the promulgation of its message is being assisted by generational shifts in American culture.

I thought this was a sick joke, until I looked at Google's cache of Adidas' site. What the he** is wrong with these people?

Beefche, may I suggest you relocate?

FWIW, the reason I posted this was because I think there's a tide of secularization coming (though I share PC's skepticism of the author's view that the secularization is first-and-foremost a backlash against the activities of the Religious Right). The author focuses on evangelical Christianity, but I think that as Mormons we're going to feel the fallout as well.

I thought this article was interesting, though I'm not sure the extent to which I agree with it. The following, in particular, was provocative: Opinions?

Ah. That'll teach me to make a post without reading the entire thread.

OK, maybe I'm a cultural Nazi here (haven't had cable or dish for six years), but . . . why would any Mormon still have HBO in the first place? Don't they run some rather risque programs during the late night hours?