Just_A_Guy
-
Posts
15753 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
281
Posts posted by Just_A_Guy
-
-
Without getting into the scripture and logic as to why I believe this, but the offspring takes on the characteristics of the mother, not father.
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.
-
It's not only here, but other places as well, that I've read speculation from members of the Church that this episode is in some way retribution by Tom Hanks for Prop 8.
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.
-
I am aware of the fact that "separation of church and state" is a concept that is largely absent in the Constitution. However, that doesn't mean that it's an unconstitutional concept.
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--
-
Separation of church and state means keeping religious interests out of politics, especially in a society where religious interests usually translate into Christian interests, which is a blatant violation of the Constitutional mandate barring government support for one religion over another. Just to clarify, public squares are perfectly acceptable venues for religious activity. Houses of legislature are not.
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:
Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.
This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.
Opinions?
-
That's part of the point some of us have been trying to make.
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?
-
There's an old saying (nevertheless true) that
"A woman marries a man thinking he'll change--and then he doesn't.
A man marries a woman thinking she won't change--and then she does."
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.
-
Does the name start with Blue? hahahaha
I wouldn't really know.
-
2) The lack of other pornographic media in Utah. Because of the strict censorship laws (and especially the social stigmas against pornography), patrons of pornography go to the internet to get their 'fix'.
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.
1) Hypocritical Mormons overindulging. When someone has received and been exposed to the truth, falling from that truth will put them in a worse spot than before (Matthew 12:45)- which definitely accounts for a prevalence of addicted behavior and perversion among hypocritical members of the LDS faith.
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.Salt Lake Tribune columnist Robert Kirby had an interesting concern. He wondered if perhaps Mt. Timpanogos might erupt (much like Mt. Vesuvius) in reaction to this latest poll indicating we were number one in on-line porn.
That would be a miracle indeed, since Timpanogos was not formed by volcanic activity!
-
I had a Sunday School teacher who said that if your mission was the best two years of your life, you were an abused child.
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 . . .)
-
How can Mitt Romney speak economics in a way that the average American will understand? He's clearly reaching the educated market, but missing out with a very large portion of the populace. How can he communicate effectively on very complex issues without being labeled 'Elitist' by the left-leaning media.
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?
), 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.
the bible?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
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.