Just_A_Guy

I'd suggest you start here. Maybe someone else here will be able to point you to an on-line source that sums everything up; but I can't think of one at the moment.

There's pretty decent evidence that Governor Ford explicitly green-lit the murder beforehand. We have at least one person claiming Ford promised not to intervene until the deed was done, and Ford's action in disbanding the Warsaw militia there in Carthage (as opposed to marching them back to Warsaw and then having them disband) was incredibly naive.

The charges were for riot (for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor) and treason (for declaring martial law in Nauvoo during the uproar that ensued in the surrounding countryside following the Expositor incident). Believe it or not, Wikipedia's coverage on the topic is pretty decent.

For a painstaking breakdown of Genesis 1:28, look here.

You are conflating God with the scriptures. Why on earth would you believe that of the BoM--or of the Bible, for that matter?

Webster - I wish I could. I was evaluating manuscript submissions for an LDS-oriented publisher when I came across the piece, and (over my strenuous objection) my employer decided not to publish the manuscript. I don't even know the author's name.

Saith the pot to the kettle . . . /troll-feeding

In a way, I can see their point. Common Ground originally included a provision that would have redacted part of Utah's Amendment 3. HB 267 still contains one or two provisions that could be extremely troublesome for the Church in the future (as I mentioned earlier). As for the desired executive order guaranteeing health insurance for dependents of gay couples--Utah is actually a pretty libertarian state economically, and a lot of us would rather see insurance coverage develop as demanded by market forces rather than by government fiat. Let no one be deceived. Common Ground is not a "compromise". The Utah gay rights activists are not abandoning their long-term goal of gay marriage within the state; they're merely focusing their present efforts on picking the low-hanging fruit. That doesn't justify a knee-jerk opposition to every bill in the initiative. But we need to remember who we're dealing with, and be somewhat cautious. Guilt by association, Moksha?

Not if they're married, they don't. Intestacy laws actually provide pretty decent protection--provided that the couple is actually married. Wills are always good, but they become absolutely necessary only as the couple builds wealth or as they have children. Powers of attorney are nice for a married couple in order to prevent the kind of squabbles that came up in Terry Schiavo's case--but, again, state law actually covers married couples reasonably well in that regard even in the absence of a POA (remember, the courts in Florida upheld her husband's right to make her health care decisions). Gay couples can routinely be charged over a thousand dollars for the legal services that put them on par with married couples. I have no idea what you go through to get your kids into college, but would be open to legislative efforts to reduce those burdens as well.

Dagnabbit, where's that laugh button?

In short, Mormonism teaches that there are two orders of priesthood: the Aaronic, or Levitical priesthood; and the Melchizedek, or "higher" priesthood. (Paul hints at these in the book of Hebrews, though as I've said earlier we don't look exclusively to the Bible to justify our position here.) The Law of Moses was administered under the Aaronic Priesthood only. However--and here's the sticking point--the Melchizedek Priesthood encompasses all of the authority and rights of the Aaronic Priesthood. Any ordinance that may be performed by a member of the Aaronic Priesthood may also be performed by a member of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith taught that while the Melchizedek Priesthood was not widely held in Mosaic times, most of the major prophets did hold it. Lehi (the Book of Mormon patriarch) could have gotten it by the hand of Jeremiah (his contemporary in Jerusalem), or by some other means of which we know nothing. Thus, while Nephi may not have been entitled to officiate in temple ordinance by virtue of the Aaronic priesthood (which he could theoretically not get because of his lineage, though I note Rameumptom's argument to the contrary), it would have been a moot point because his father more than likely ordained him to the Melchizedek Priesthood which gave him the same--indeed, more--authority. I believe so, yes. My opinion is that Adam's transgression was not partaking of the fruit per se, but partaking of it before the appointed time to do so had arrived.

I think Hemidakota's getting at having one's "calling and election made sure". See here for more on the Second Comforter (both links from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism).

I'm not sure. The PoGP does show that she later realized, in retrospect, that what she had done was a necessary thing. But isn't Paul very clear that Eve was, in fact, deceived at the time she partook?

I actually disagree with Maxel on this; it seems to me that the penalty for sin is an eternity in hell and nothing less would suffice to redeem us therefrom. I don't claim to comprehend how this was possible. I've heard some church leaders' quotes (buried in one of my files in storage at present) that seem to support that point of view, but I certainly wouldn't call it church doctrine--members can (and, as you see, do) disagree on the topic.

If you're trying to find contradictions within Mormonism, you need to have an elementary understanding of Mormonism. If you had an elementary understanding of Mormonism, you'd realize that (per Mormon doctrine) there is no problem with a priest after the order of Melchizedek officiating in any of the ordinances of the Levitical (aka "Aaronic") Priesthood, regardless of his lineage. That's only if you postulate that the commandment to not partake of the fruit was going to be a permanent injunction. Mormon doctrine is not at all clear on that point, and there is some authority (which I won't be citing in this context) suggesting strongly that quite the opposite is true. EDIT: On rereading this, I see that my tone is a little more prickly than it should be. If you find it offensive, please accept my apologies.

I'd say that portrays a very human ambiguity in how we like to portray ourselves versus how we actually are. Example: --Are you a law-abiding citizen? --Do you ever speed? The underlying point is that Nephi saw himself as in compliance with the fundamentals of the Law of Moses; and to the extent that he differed from it he evidently considered himself justified. You assume Lehi and his progeny did not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. And in all likelihood, you assume wrongly. See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 180-181.

The Trib is misstating the facts. Equality Utah is not seeking "civil unions", so defined. What they're seeking is a) "Joint Support Declarations" that would grant inheritance and hospital visitation rights to gay couples, (HB 160) and b) Legislation that prohibits discrimination by sexual orientation in employment and housing (HB 267). Equality Utah claims the support of 83% of Utahns per a vaguely-worded poll conducted in January. Personally, I support a) but currently oppose b) for technical reasons (I fear it unduly limits a current exemption for religions that are selling land). The poor Trib editors and reporters are in quite a conundrum. They'd like to see gays get some rights in Utah, but at the same time they take pleasure in portraying Utahns (and especially the Republican legislature) as provincial hayseeds. So they'll spin out a few more stories about how Utah Mormons hate gays before ultimately having to admit that their favorite whipping boys actually did something for a change.

I think I see where you're going, Webster. Still not sure "free will" really can or should be taught as a stand-alone concept, but I'll let it lie for now. :)

We don't look to the Bible for proof positive of every point of our doctrine. You opened this thread with the stated purpose of I would respectfully suggest that you seem to be straying from that objective. We're Mormons. We believe in continuing revelation. Telling us to reconcile our doctrine without using extrabiblical sources is like telling a bird to reproduce without laying eggs.

I know what you meant, I just don't agree with it. Nothing personal. :)

FWIW, the Word of Wisdom in some respects closely parallels the so-called Graham Diet introduced around 1829 (though the underlying rationale was vastly different!). Sylvester Graham (inventor of the Graham Cracker) may be the reason that Seventh-Day Adventists follow a code very similar to our own WoW.

I have it on hearsay (but very good hearsay) that the 2nd Anointing was being done at least as recently as the mid-nineties. Not sure if it's still being done. Technically, it is incorrect to call it a "Second Endowment". The Endowment precedes (or should precede) an endowment of power from the Spirit. The Second Anointing is received preparatory to having one's calling and election made sure, which according to Joseph Smith entails a personal visitation from Jesus Christ. See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 150. David Buerger wrote an article about it in Dialogue some years back. I don't think he really wrote anything he shouldn't have, but it nevertheless was enough to get him barred from Church Archives.

I disagree. The story ends with the remark that ordinarily the best wine was served at the beginning of the wedding; but that in this case the best wine had come at the end. Why the longstanding practice of serving the best wine first? Because (as Talmage points out in Jesus the Christ, if I remember correctly), by the end of the feast everyone was usually too wasted to care what they were drinking.

If you look at "agency" in the topical guide and then follow the BOM definitions, it seems that the references to choosing are usually placed in context with some reference to accountability (though, yes, the word "agency" doesn't seem to appear in the BoM). Maybe I'm just not getting it, but it almost seems like you're advocating teaching "free will" in and of itself, without the corresponding element of accountability. If so, I must beg to differ; I just don't think that's necessary. EDIT for clarity: In other words, why teach the incomplete doctrine of "free will" when we have the complete doctrine of "agency" at our disposal?

Bytor, lemme guess--your wife's name is Jessica? I don't want to pick apart Brookshes' post--if love-at-first-sight worked for him, then great--but don't get locked into a mindset that it has to be that way. Somewhat echoing Godless' sentiments, a cousin of mine once put it this way: You won't always love your wife. But you should always like her. (I realize that some would say the reverse is true, but the point is that a solid relationship will have a strong element of friendship and mutual respect.)