Just_A_Guy

Oh, I agree completely. Polygamy is a very dangerous tool in the hands of a people who are unable or unwilling to live a celestial law. Even such decent people as Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith couldn't get all of their marriages to work--Young and Smith both had a divorce or two apiece. Lived properly, though, there are huge potential advantages--mutual emotional support among the wives; arguably more checks against the husband's power to act unilaterally, decreased labor in household duties, and stronger connections between different families (I've seen research suggesting that one of the reasons so many Mormons were willing to move to Utah with Brigham Young is that many of them--especially in the higher echelons of leadership--were interrelated by marriage). In the long term, the temple blessings of eternal increase can be accelerated as the family's child-producing capacity increases. That said, I've seen stories about polygamous relationships gone wrong that would make your hair curl. There was an incident in American Fork in the 1860s where a polygamous wife, in a fit of jealousy, actually locked another (younger) one of her husband's wives out of the family home in the dead of winter; she froze to death right there on the doorstep. I've long suspected that even without Federal intervention, the law of plural marriage would have been not long for this world.

J-Pip, did you miss the part where I noted that accounts differ as to James' death, and that Josephus at least argues that it was a government action? Just because John Foxe wrote something fifteen hundred years after the fact, doesn't make it gospel truth. You are on very shaky ground, both theologically and historically, if you insist that Christ's teachings demand we become doormats the first time someone calls out for our blood.

I don't get it. Wouldn't the mortgage holders still be able to point to their liens on the property filed with the County Recorder's Office? At any rate, it seems a little disingenuous to essentially deny the existence of a debt the homeowner knows is legitimate.

I congratulate you for having read the bill in its entirety. That apparently puts you ahead of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators at the time the bill was actually passed. Why couldn't I look it up at least 48 hours before it passed, as the Congressional leadership promised would be the case with all bills to go before this Congress? Waiting until a proposed bill is practically a done deal before releasing its contents is *not* transparency. Oh, and by the way, you might want to take a look at this little analysis of Obama's "transparency". Consider, too, that unlike the Bush White House, the Obama Administration has chosen *not* to make transcripts of press briefings available on the White House website.

Uh, I think you've missed the point. Had Smith been given a trial (even a sham one) and received a death sentence, which he then sought to avoid by use of physical force, I'd agree with you. But his was a wholly different set of circumstances than those of the early Christians whose cases you cite. Smith's forcible resistance to his killers did not thrust him or his followers in a situation of open rebellion against the State. Peter's, Paul's, or James' resistance would have. By the way, was Moses a follower of Christ? Because he killed a man when his own life wasn't even in danger.

Point taken, but let us remember "moderation in all things". I believe it was Talmage in Articles of Faith who pointed out that some of the early "martyrs" were so obsessed with this wish that they deliberately made themselves as obnoxious as possible, hoping that someone would get sufficiently angry to kill them.

I concur that it's important to draw distinctions between Smith and Jesus Christ. But FWIW, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and (per Josephus) James were all killed under the aegis of law. Resistance would have equaled sedition. (As for James, accounts don't even agree as to the exact manner of his death; if he did indeed die as a result of a mob of Pharisees, how do we know that he didn't resist with whatever resources were available to him? And wouldn't any account making such a claim be suspect as religious propaganda, anyways?) There was nothing even ostensibly legal about the mode of Smith's death, and no element of sedition in his choice to resist.

Welcome, ShootingStar. Out of curiosity, what is your native language?

When the President of the United States tells me not to listen to somebody, that's usually a pretty decent sign that I'd better start listening to them . . .

Sorry. See page 54.

I can see doing it if the force is used to militarize our borders and have our international sea and airports crawling with M-16-toting security officers with search dogs. But otherwise . . . worrisome.

Since his election in November, Obama has embraced two (three, including today's) pieces of panic legislation whose cumulative price tag approaches two trillion dollars. That may not justify calling his administration a "failure" (yet), but it sure doesn't bode well for the next four years.

Elphaba, I don't have Bushman before me at the moment (I presume you're citing RSR). Is this the statement of the anti-Mormon that he had remarked that Smith would have to die and that the government would likely intervene, and Ford told him something along the lines of "not until you are done"? Or is it Dan Jones' recollection of Ford's behavior in Nauvoo? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I find his later writings to be generally self-serving. Thomas Ford had grown up in a culture where vigilantism was relatively commonplace. Talk of "nullification" had swamped the nation not too long before; and mob actions and lynchings were by our standards common nationwide. Ford knew human nature--he was a longtime lawyer and a former justice on the state supreme court. Moreover, Ford knew what had happened in Missouri. He unilaterally overturned the (favorable to Smith) verdict of a Nauvoo court and demanded Smith present himself in Carthage for a new "fair" trial, but when the biased nature of the Carthage proceedings became readily apparent he suddenly decided he couldn't meddle in judicial affairs. He knew the sympathies of the local militias, and he knew the threats that were being made. Knowing this, he had Smith marched through town in the middle of an angry and armed mob. When Smith came out of that ordeal alive, Ford deliberately removed the only militia group in Carthage that might have stood to Smith's defense (the McDonough County militia) and high-tailed it out of town (which he had promised Smith he wouldn't do without taking Smith with him). There's an old saying in tort law: res ipsa loquitur, roughly translated as "the thing speaks for itself". I believe that applies here. Nobody with Ford's savvy and experience could be so stupid as Ford later claimed to be.

See the article I linked to above. And note that the "seer stone" and the "Urim and Thummim" are two different things.

Indeed. A few details here. Pity, too. The issue I had with HB 267 had been resolved with a substitute bill, and it still died. This does not reflect well on Utah as a state.

Possibly. The stone that figures in the BoM translation was found thirty feet underground, while Joseph was digging a well. I think it's fairly safe to assume that he was the first person to use it.

Joseph's seer stone was consecrated, but (as far as I know) not until 1888 by Wilford Woodruff at the Manti Temple dedication. Here's an article about Joseph's use of a seer stone and the translation process, from Dialogue. Evidently, he owned at least three throughout his lifetime.

A father's/husband's blessing is a formal priesthood blessing. You don't always need to anoint where there is no health issue or where an anointing has already been done (though in the latter case I usually opt to anoint again, simply because of the symbolism of the ordinance); but your priesthood commission is to bless. It is not for us to refuse to offer those blessings when they are requested in faith.

When Jesus says "Old things are done away, and all things have become new" (in the present tense), He is wrapping up a sermon very similar to the Sermon on the Mount wherein He explains a new and higher standard of living. He's not talking about the events spoken of in Revelation (which have not happened yet); He's talking about the fulfilling of the Mosaic Law (as He Himself explains later in 3 Nephi 15:3-10).

Seer stones/U&T probably aren't necessary, once one learns to rely on the Spirit. But, as per Quinn's research (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, which should be taken with a healthy dose of salt), Joseph Smith grew up in a culture where glass-looking was common even among observant Christians. I think Joseph's use of the U&T/seer stones was simply an allowance made by a God who teaches us according to our own capacity to learn. (Remember, per LDS doctrine the gifts of the Spirit mentioned by Paul are closely tied with the gift of the Holy Ghost, which can only be received by laying on of hands by one holding the Melchizedek Priesthood. And at this point in time, the Melchizedek Priesthood was not yet on the earth.) Brigham Young wound up with Joseph Smith's--one of his brothers, as a missionary, got it from Oliver Cowdery's widow, who (IIRC) was a sister of David Whitmer. Whitmer had almost an obsession with the seer stone--one of the underlying reasons for his leaving the church was that Joseph became convinced he didn't need the stone anymore; whereas Whitmer considered any revelation Joseph received without the use of the stone to be immediately suspect. For a time, I had a pet theory that the stone had been cut and set into a ring (the official portraits of Presidents Hinckley and Hunter show them wearing similar rings with a dark stone inlay and a diamond in the center); but as the ring is lacking in any photo I've seen of President Monson I suppose I'll have to chalk my theory up to too many viewings of Lord of the Rings. Lucy Smith recorded that Joseph was highly impressed with the power of the U&T (versus his own seer stone) the first time he used it (see Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism.) However, as I understand it, the U&T was not returned to Joseph Smith following the loss of the 116 pages. Accounts we have of the translation after that time from David Whitmer and Emma Smith always refer to the seer stone, never the U&T.

This talk by Elder Holland has been helpful for me in the past (audio here).

Just wanted to take a moment and thank everyone for their input.

The issue isn't communism. The issue is liberty. The New Deal did fundamentally change the role of government in our society. Prior to the New Deal, a farmer could grow food for his own family on his own property without fear of prosecution for exceeding some government-imposed quota intended to control price levels. After the New Deal, that was no longer the case. Besides, whether the New Deal even worked is a subject for continued debate. Some pretty smart folks think that most of what Roosevelt did actually prolonged the Depression. And if Keynesian theory is behind this stimulus--well, the idea of Keynesian theory is that you spend as much as possible, as fast as possible. But the stimulus spreads the spending out through (IIRC) 2014. Keynesians like Paul Krugman have complained bitterly about this. Any decently-informed politician who pushes this simply must know it won't work. All the stimulus is is a) an excuse to fund pet projects and programs, and b) an excuse to fund even more pet projects and programs next year (when this bill's failure to save the economy becomes painfully clear) by saying "well, we didn't do it right the first time, so let's spend even more, and faster".

Ah. Therein lies our disagreement. I would say that if something is divinely inspired, it means that God said it to a man, who interpreted it according to his own experiences and conveyed it the best way he knew how in a writing that later had to be transcribed by another man, and even later re-interpreted by yet another man

OK, here's the deal: I'm an eagle scout. I liked the program when I was in it; I like the aims of scouting; I like the merit badges; I like the books; I even like the uniforms. However, while I like the scouting program, I have nothing but disdain for the organization and the infrastructure. Particularly in light of a Deseret News article from 2007 that explained, in some detail, where all that money from ward Friends of Scouting drives actually goes; the recent completely unnecessary change in uniforms (which I suspect was a gimmick to get a bunch of kids to spend another $30 for new shirts); and the BSA's general policy of nickel-and-diming its members wherever possible. Not a big deal, except that recently I was called into the scouting program in my ward. Part of my duties is to go to the monthly Roundtable meetings. So, I went last week, and some buffoon from the Council gets up and what does he start talking about? Numbers. Particularly, the statistics needed to become a "quality unit", the number of "quality units" in the council, and how attaining the unit's Friends of Scouting donation quotas can help that unit to become a "quality unit". Not once did anyone say anything about the boys. It was all about institutional numbers--particularly dollar amounts. I was so disgusted that I walked out of the meeting. So, I want to do right by my calling, by the boys, and by the Church. On the other hand, I have serious misgivings about donating my resources to an organization that I view as corrupt and that I frankly believe to be bilking the Church and its members. Opinions?