Just_A_Guy

There's an old saying (nevertheless true) that We males are pretty simple animals, and what you see is more often than not what you're going to get. Keep that in mind. :)

Utah's statistics are comparatively solid; but I sure know an awful lot of people who seem to be either out of work completely or else stuck in a dead-end, low-income job. I'm not sure how our economic situation stacks up to Indiana's. Look carefully before you leap.

I would just add that a) LDS scholar Hugh Nibley has dealt with a number of these questions; you might look into his writings a bit; and b) as to the temple ceremony: I personally follow your line of thinking that it's a new compilation of very ancient concepts and covenants. I believe there was a "version" of the endowment practiced by early Christians containing some similar elements to the endowment as practiced by Mormons (again, see Nibley's writings); but the LDS endowment today is in many respects different even from the endowment as practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Since the 2009 version isn't identical to the 1877 or 1842 versions; I'd suspect there would be even more differences between the 2009 and the A.D. 59 versions. However, while the liturgy may differ, the underlying reasons for the liturgy and the spiritual benefits associated with it are (I believe) virtually identical.

In short, we believe that Paul "meant" to write rule in place of speak. Women can--and should--raise their voices in prayer, in song, and in instruction during weekly services; however, all church meetings are governed under the authority of the priesthood. And the Mormon priesthood has historically been closed to women.

I wouldn't really know.

I don't think that's it. There are a couple of notorious "adult stores" (as well as strip clubs) in Salt Lake County that have enjoyed a high media profile because of some recent zoning issues. Heck, even Provo had a joint with nude dancers up until about five years ago. I think this is a lot of it. It would be interesting, as Fiannan intimates (woops--how's THAT for a poor choice of words? ), to compare the amount of porn consumed by an otherwise active LDS member engaging in a forbidden pleasure to the amount of porn consumed by a non-Mormon who has grown up with the stuff and really doesn't find it that much of a novelty anymore. That would be a miracle indeed, since Timpanogos was not formed by volcanic activity!

I think my mission was probably a lot like your teacher's. In the words of Sister Mary Lazarus (Sister Act): "It was hell on earth. I loved it!" (except I didn't love it. But . . . whatever. I did my duty, hopefully did a bit of good in the area where I served, learned a lot, and it's over now . . .)

Mitt can't. Too many Americans don't separate between the good guys and the bad guys on Wall Street. They view Romney and his ilk as the reason we're in this mess. I think the politicos and the captains of industry are going to have to step aside on this one, and let the standard be carried by people who have established a reputation for a) financial savvy, and b) a concern for the financial well-being of the common man. I'm thinking more along the lines of people with shows dedicated to helping others with their money--Dave Ramsey, for example.

It's always fun to speculate, but I would caution against anyone's getting their heart set on a particular outcome based solely on the judges' demeanors during oral arguments. Lots of attorneys think they've got the judges on their side, only to receive a very nasty shock when the final opinions issue.

Interesting sum-up of the arguments over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

I know the practice is that there's no problem with non-Members taking the Sacrament; but in the absence of an authoritative statement I would personally stick to the text of D&C 20 and, assuming I were not yet a member, abstain. But, I don't think you're going to suffer eternal punishment or anything if you follow the counsel that has been given here. Even though you're not baptized yet, you can still receive answers to your questions by the Power of the Holy Ghost. This might be something to consider taking to the Lord in prayer.

As I understand it, though, the petitioners haven't made this about strict scrutiny and that isn't the major issue the court is looking at. Doesn't the argument primarily come up through the California AG's amicus brief? Was the California AG given time to expound this argument during orals?

Lusciouschaos, I didn't get to see the orals today. Thanks for the sum-up.

Umm . . . judging by their biographies on the state supreme court's webpage, three of the four justices forming the In re Marriage majority are from Los Angeles.

Do you believe that all oral arguments in appellate courts are similarly held merely for the sake of spectacle? I've been wrong in my SSM predictions before (I'm still in shock that all of Common Ground's Utah bills died); but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that at least one of the In re Marriage justices is going to chicken out when it comes to nullifying a constitutional amendment as opposed to a run-of-the-mill public law. Prop 8 will stand, but I think it will be undone by another popular vote within the next ten years. I would also add that California's amend-by-simple-majority scheme seems rather silly and has caused no end of trouble for the state on a variety of issues. It's fortunate that the Prop 8 supporters had that avenue available to them; but I hope it will be closed in the long run. We are a democratic republic, not a mobocracy. By the way (while I'm making completely unwarranted predictions here); I highly doubt that the US Supreme Court will hear any appeal of this case. SCOTUS is not in the habit of telling state courts what their own constitutions "really" mean (Bush v. Gore aside).

In 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Paul seems rather explicit that Eve was indeed deceived (whereas Adam was not). But I'm open to arguments that I'm taking the statement out of context, or that Paul was just building on common (and erroneous) Jewish assumptions of the day.

Yes; it was a rather feeble attempt at humor. Mea culpa.

But . . . but . . . you believe in a different Jesus! (explanation for Nipper: As Mormons, we get to hear this little gem a lot). Seriously, though . . . what Bytor said.

I don't see a functional difference here. Whether you wind up in the TK or in outer darkness; as soon as you die you're in a state of hell. The difference is that after the resurrection those in the TK are redeemed from that state; whereas the sons of perdition are not. See the Encyclopedia of Mormonism's entry on hell. See also D&C 138:57-59: Apologies for that; have been sick these last couple of days.

I'm still not certain on the difference between 2) and 4), but per your request, Webster, I've gone ahead and voted 2). I would add to that the caveat that Satan would not reveal the law to mankind; however, I don't think he would have been capable of actually changing those laws.

2009 appears to be shaping up as a good year for some good old-fashioned schadenfreude. See here. And here.

Just to clarify, Washington's Vision is a fable invented by a nineteenth century newspaper reporter. See here. There are also serious problems with the actual provenance of the "White Horse Prophecy". Portions of it are substantiated by later church leaders, but not all of it.

And Joshua wasn't even a Levite.

Here's the thing: I view my observance as the Word of Wisdom as the token of a covenant I have made with God; not as the avoidance of substances that are inherently sinful or harmful. Non-Mormons haven't made that covenant with God; and so the fact that a substance is verboten under the WoW would not per se be, for me, sufficient reason not to sell that substance. If I were to refuse to sell it, it would be because I believed there was a foreseeable social consequence from selling that substance and I wished to avoid that social consequence (much like one might refuse to sell spray paint to a teenager, or a firearm to the town drunk).

Good to hear. On a more topical note: an interesting sum-up today from Christopher Buckley: The Audacity of Nope: