Just_A_Guy

What I THINK Tobeloved is saying, is that Jesus is the sole instrument of salvation.  We get baptized because He asks us to; but the rite has no mystical power independently of Christ--it derives its power from the fact that it is a divine commandment.
I can agree with that; I think the disagreement is that Mormons teach that Jesus requires **everyone** to get baptized via proper authority; whereas Tobeloved suggests that Jesus will save even an unbaptized person and that pretty much anyone who believes in Jesus has inherent authority to baptize.

What I THINK Tobeloved is saying, is that Jesus is the sole instrument of salvation.  We get baptized because He asks us to; but the rite has no mystical power independently of Christ--it derives its power from the fact that it is a divine commandment.
I can agree with that; I think the disagreement is that Mormons teach that Jesus requires **everyone** to get baptized via proper authority; whereas Tobeloved suggests that Jesus will save even an unbaptized person and that pretty much anyone who believes in Jesus has inherent authority to baptize.

To be fair, the context of John 3:5 is a little ambiguous--the "born of water" mentioned in verse 5 could be a response to Nicodemus' referring to physical birth in the previous verse.  Under this reading, Jesus is saying "unless you are born not only in body, but also in spirit, you cannot inherit the kingdom of God".

Here's a different take on it:
It seems logical to accept this position to me. But then I have a certain bias. Cotrell doesn't share it, but he arrives at a similar conclusion.
Lehi

You can perhaps see why some Mormons are so intrigued by this notion of Messiah bin Yosef; because at least superficially Joseph Smith can be argued to fit his bill rather nicely - a descendant of the Biblical Joseph (and a literal son of a father named Joseph), who prepares the way of the Messiah by initiating a "gathering" of Israel and marshals the spiritual (though not military) forces of righteousness against "Idumea" (Edom), or "the world" (D&C 1:36); and dies violently leaving a grieving people. 
Now, I'm not saying this should be convincing to a Jew.  But Mormons are going to find this very interesting indeed.

You can perhaps see why some Mormons are so intrigued by this notion of Messiah bin Yosef; because at least superficially Joseph Smith can be argued to fit his bill rather nicely - a descendant of the Biblical Joseph (and a literal son of a father named Joseph), who prepares the way of the Messiah by initiating a "gathering" of Israel and marshals the spiritual (though not military) forces of righteousness against "Idumea" (Edom), or "the world" (D&C 1:36); and dies violently leaving a grieving people. 
Now, I'm not saying this should be convincing to a Jew.  But Mormons are going to find this very interesting indeed.

Now, let's not get crazy!  HA!  I am glad you find it interesting.  I guess I wasn't aware that you would.  It is nice to find a people who do express interest in this sort of thing.  When you start speaking with most Jews about anything deeper than the kiddy pool, the majority inevitably start to sigh and look at their watches.  "What?  Do I look like a rabbi?"

You can perhaps see why some Mormons are so intrigued by this notion of Messiah bin Yosef; because at least superficially Joseph Smith can be argued to fit his bill rather nicely - a descendant of the Biblical Joseph (and a literal son of a father named Joseph), who prepares the way of the Messiah by initiating a "gathering" of Israel and marshals the spiritual (though not military) forces of righteousness against "Idumea" (Edom), or "the world" (D&C 1:36); and dies violently leaving a grieving people. 
Now, I'm not saying this should be convincing to a Jew.  But Mormons are going to find this very interesting indeed.

You can perhaps see why some Mormons are so intrigued by this notion of Messiah bin Yosef; because at least superficially Joseph Smith can be argued to fit his bill rather nicely - a descendant of the Biblical Joseph (and a literal son of a father named Joseph), who prepares the way of the Messiah by initiating a "gathering" of Israel and marshals the spiritual (though not military) forces of righteousness against "Idumea" (Edom), or "the world" (D&C 1:36); and dies violently leaving a grieving people. 
Now, I'm not saying this should be convincing to a Jew.  But Mormons are going to find this very interesting indeed.

1)  With regard to the Second Temple, the Talmud indicates that Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi were directly supervising the construction.  It has not been implicitly stated who will supervise the construction of the Third Temple, on that it will require similar prophetic oversee.  I (as well as others) believe this to be the Messiah.  It could be someone else.  There is no one currently living that we could consider a prophet in the biblical sense.
2)  Ani Maamin B'emunah Sh'leimahk B'viyat Hamashiach.  V'af al pi sheyitmahmehah im kol zeh achake lo b'chol yom sheyavo.  "I firmly believe with complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, and even though he tarries (or has yet to arrive), with all that, I (longingly) await his arrival with each day."  This is Orthodox teaching.  When will he come?  Back to the flavors of Judaism.  Hasidic Jews...I will extend that to less Orthodox, but still Orthodox, Jews also...believe that he will come at any possible moment.  Immediately.  On Fox News tomorrow morning, kind of a thing.
I am a Conservative Jew, and as such, I tend to migrate toward our Statement of Principles, which says, in part:  "Since no one can say for certain what will happen in the Messianic era, each of us is free to fashion personal speculation.  Some of us accept these speculations are literally true, while others understand them as elaborate metaphors.  For the world community, we dream of an age when warefare will be abolished, when justice and compassion will be axioms of all, as it is said in Isaiah 11:  "...the land shall be filled with the knowledge of the L-rd as the waters cover the sea."  For our people, we dream of the ingathering of all Jews to Zion where we can again be masters of our own destiny and express our distinctive genius in every area of our national life.  We affirm Isaiah's prophecy that, "...Torah shall come forth from Zion, the word of the L-rd out of Jerusalem."
MOST Reform Jews that I have met and with whom I have discussed the Messianic Age, argue that there will be no Messiah in actuality.  They view the Messianic Age as a kind of happy, inclusive utopia.  I am not as familiar with their (or Reconstructionist) views other than that.
To further complicate matters, it is widely believed that there will be not one, but TWO Messiahs.  Mashiach ben David (Messiah, son of David) and Mashiach ben Yosef (Messiah, son of Joseph).  He will be of the line of King David and will institute a season of peace.

Excellent, just what I was wanting to know.
A couple questions:
1) You said, "Talmudic writing suggests that the temple can only be constructed under direct prophetic guidance, just as the Second Temple was."
Tell me more about this prophet. Is this the Messiah? Or can it be someone else? Is there anyone now you would call a prophet?
2) You said, "We cannot build it before the coming of the Mashiach (Messiah) as we understand him."
What is the Jewish understanding of when this Messiah will come? Many Mormons and other Christians think Jesus, our "seconding coming of the first Messiah" will come soon. Do Jews think the coming of their first Messiah is also coming soon?
Of course, "soon" in God's time often seems like a long time to me
 
 

Ask the Muslims.  *sigh*
But seriously, the answer depends upon to whom you ask the question.  (Always my answer, right?)  Generally speaking, certain things are preventing the building of the Third Temple (if the temple in Ezekiel is the one to which you refer), or Beit haMikdash haShlishi.  We cannot build it before the coming of the Mashiach (Messiah) as we understand him.  Only G-d can make the time known for this.
I personally do not see an issue with the Muslim occupation of what we believe to be rightfully ours.  HaShem will take care of it in His own way.  I wouldn't want to be Muslim when that happens.  Some notable scholars argue that the Dome of the Rock is not the actual location of either the First or Second temple, but I personally do not lend credence to any of their arguments, and I have read them thoroughly.  Again, I am not a scholar by any stretch, but I do read carefully and have not found myself convinced in any meaningful way.  (To the Mods...I apologize - mostly sincerely - for disparaging another faith, but I can tell you that I am writing with careful restraint.  There is SO MUCH MORE I could say with regards to Muslims and their claims, but I will try to remain amiable.  Even typing it makes me angry.)
Several organizations (actually, quite a few, although only a few of them get any real attention) have contrived ways to bring to pass the construction of the Third Temple now.  I find their ideas intriguing, but I tend to proceed with caution.  I think without G-d's direction, any such attempt would be doomed to failure before it even begins.  It may well be that the Mashiach will direct the building at a different site entirely within Jerusalem.  Even if the Dome of the Rock suddenly vanished tomorrow, it would still be practically impossible to begin construction, IMO.  Talmudic writing suggests that the temple can only be constructed under direct prophetic guidance, just as the Second Temple was.
Having said all of this, I cannot stress the importance of the building of the temple to us.  It is of utmost importance, and no one has a hope of stopping it from happening when G-d gives the green light.
 

According to Nibley, assuming I understood him correctly, the pre-Dome of the Rock temple perched atop a steep path. (This was supposed to have been flattened out to accomodate the present massive Islamic structure.) Climbing this path was no mean feat, especially for the aged. To assist them, a handrail of sorts was installed, by which they could hold on and pull themselves up to the temple. This handrail was a rod -- specifically, an iron rod. Interesting if true, and very meaningful to Lehi's vision.

I view "permission" and "authority" as very nearly synonymous.  When Mormons say that "priesthood" is the "authority to act in God's name", really all we mean is that it's "permission to act in God's name." 
Do you think there's a meaningful distinction between the two?  If so, could you flesh that out a bit?

Whether John had pre-existing authority, or whether his commission to baptize Jesus derived merely from Jesus' request that he perform the rite, I think we can agree that John had the authority.  Caiaphas, Annas, and Pontius Pilate did not; and had any of them presumed to start baptizing people I think God would have had a real problem with that.

Because accepting the primacy of the Schoolmaster, and recognizing that He has saved us from something very terrible, does not exempt us from actually going to school.  Bowing and confessing Jesus Christ isn't enough--we have to love Him.  Developing and refining that love can be a lifetime pursuit.
Jesus said the two great commandments are loving God, and loving other people.  Mormonism gives these commandments new dimension, by promising the possibility of someday sitting in council with God Himself, wielding the kind of power He wields, and joining Him in His work of creating humans and laboring for their salvation.
Church attendance and temple rites give us opportunities to learn and increase and refine and test the love, for God and others, that God wants us to have.  If we know that He wants us to do these things, and we fail to do them; then that failure is essentially an act of rebellion that undermines our love for God and suggests we cannot be trusted with the kind of stewardship we hope one day to hold.  We still wind up with a reward, for He loves us eternally--but it won't be the sort of reward we could have had.

Because accepting the primacy of the Schoolmaster, and recognizing that He has saved us from something very terrible, does not exempt us from actually going to school.  Bowing and confessing Jesus Christ isn't enough--we have to love Him.  Developing and refining that love can be a lifetime pursuit.
Jesus said the two great commandments are loving God, and loving other people.  Mormonism gives these commandments new dimension, by promising the possibility of someday sitting in council with God Himself, wielding the kind of power He wields, and joining Him in His work of creating humans and laboring for their salvation.
Church attendance and temple rites give us opportunities to learn and increase and refine and test the love, for God and others, that God wants us to have.  If we know that He wants us to do these things, and we fail to do them; then that failure is essentially an act of rebellion that undermines our love for God and suggests we cannot be trusted with the kind of stewardship we hope one day to hold.  We still wind up with a reward, for He loves us eternally--but it won't be the sort of reward we could have had.

They aren't "Mormon" ceremonies.  They are God's... Mormons are simply the currently authorized source for them.
The question tries to point out a flaw or absurdity in our position but it simply shows a lack of knowledge.  God will make sure everyone has a chance to get the required ordinances of the Gospel.
Therefore a "righteous" person will have everything they need when the time comes...  And if they refuse... well if they refuse to do the things of God they don't really qualify as "righteous" do they?

Personally, I really like the delegate system and I think that is the system we should have. All the major decision for the future of the US have been made via a delegate/convention system.  To secede from Britain was decided by delegates from each of the States (who were chosen from state and local conventions).  The South decided to secede based on the delegate/convention system. Neither of those actions where taken by the State governments, it was through a convention process. Even the Electoral College is a delegate system that was originally designed to provide a list of nominees to the House of Representative. The Founders originally believed that groups of states would vote for "their" guy and the House of Reps would have to ultimately decide.
Internally and culturally, the people of this country understood that 75 years ago.  It is why in the 1920s democracy was a bad word, b/c the US never was a democracy-it was a republic based on representative democracy.  The representative portion being electing delegates to represent you and the democracy portion being that in general 50% vote of the representative (or delegates) would carry the day.
The problem right now is that culturally people don't think of it like that anymore.  National Conventions are more of a crowning/infomertial rather than an actual business meeting. Did you know that in ~1972 during General Conference Spence W. Kimball (IIRC) voiced his opinion and encouraged LDS members to attend their local conventions and caucuses? Today, the message is simply to vote.
If we really want to go back to that system as a country (and I think we should) then the parties need to eliminate all primaries and simply hold caucuses. That accomplishes both goals- you get an understanding of how the populace wants to vote at large at the same time maintaining the delegate system. You don't delude voters into thinking that their vote matters.  As of right now, the primary system is completely disconnected from the delegate system and that is why people scream rigged. For example, in my state in order to be considered to be a delegate one must start the process over a month prior to the primary vote! So this idea that "well the rules are there and they should know them" is completely bogus. I guarantee you probably less than 10% (if that) of the actual voters in my state even knew about the delegate system when it mattered. And since I've gone through the process in 2012 of actually recruiting people to be delegates, it is actually a little bit of a sell to convince people who have never heard about the delegate system that the real way the nomination is picked is by the delegates.  Not only is the process completely separate from the primary, but one must take at least 1 Saturday a month from Feb-May to be involved and each Saturday is pretty much at least a half-day (it's not just a 1-2 hour meeting, it's a 4-5 hour affair).
So yeah, I do believe as things stand right now (and it could change) to nominate Cruz over Trump would really piss people off.  If the party wants to solve this problem, then eliminate primaries (but they don't want to do that, b/c many of the State and local (not all) parties actually like it that people don't know about the system-it's easier for people to control and maintain their fiefdoms)

My sense is that Marbury itself is pretty logical--the Constitution itself does supersede conflicting federal and state statutes by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, and in applying any law the judiciary must recognize this or else the Constitution becomes utterly toothless.  
At some point we got off track as SCOTUS became drunk on its own power and warped into a super-dictatorship, but I don't think Marbury represents that moment.

You and your husband were married in England. As far as I know civil wedding/sealing rules haven't changed in the UK. Marriage laws in England require that couples have a civil wedding before they can be sealed. There are no "waiting a year" restrictions for LDS members in the UK. Since you received your endowments after your wedding, it makes sense that you were not able to be sealed right away; but now that you are endowed it makes perfect sense that your SP would mention a sealing.
As to your husband's family - they seem a strange bunch. In the majority of marriages the rule is "you're not just marrying the person, you're marrying their family"; but I think in your case that rule should not apply, your in-laws are too dysfunctional and I think it would be more healthy to distance yourself from them for some time. Enjoy your sealing day with friends and family that are happy for you and wish you well.
M. 

Hi ebie- 
Sounds like you have a choice to make. My wife (convert) and I had to make a similar choice at one time too. We had to decide: Happiness without her family OR misery with her family. It was painful to be stuck in such a decision, but we made it, rather my wife made it and I supported her in it. We simply stepped away from her family, took a vacation from them. Visits/calls etc. all dried up for a while. It was incredible to watch my wife's happiness increase 10 fold. Whatever benefit she was receiving prior from her sisters was always overshadowed by their harm/jealousy/insults. Her letting go was a blessing to everyone, including them.
I love this quote: "Arguing with a fool proves there are two" 
Once we stopped dealing with them, our lives were much better off. Once they had no one to argue with, their foolishness began to go away too. They slowly began to realize that we weren't going to be around them unless it was a healthy happy environment. My wife chose "our" happiness over theirs. 
Your in-laws had "hurt feelings especially surrounding our wedding", now that it is working out for you, they are still upset. Seems you can't win either way. You have already tried being around them. I would try harder at "we have been distancing ourselves for a while anyway in the hope that giving space may make things better."
Toxic is not good for anyone. You can't change them and their behaviors, but you can change yourself. They get to decide what kind of LDS member they want to be, but don't let it define what kind of LDS member you are going to be. If they already lie/insult/no interest now, what is the worst they could do without you around... say more lies/insults/no interest?
I would give it a real try. Good luck!
p.s. Once others have given their advice/suggestions. Have your husband come read this thread with you, as it could be beneficial for him as well.

Similarly, I also wonder about children who die in infancy.
In 1800 the estimated global child mortality rate was over 40%.  Even in 1950 it was about 20%.  This is the percent of people that died before age 5.  If throughout the history of the world there were similar child mortality rates, that means a LOT of people didn't get to experience mortality as an adult.  The celestial kingdom will be loaded with such people.  My guess is that the child mortality rate wasn't always so high, but I really have no way of knowing.  Either way, I realize that many many people have a different mortal experience.

Yes. That wasn't the thrust of my observation. Settled means something. SCotuS can and does change its collective mind.
That's one reason we should give up the myth that only SCotuS can "define" the Constitution. We are all responsible for figuring that out. While it is true that our personal opinions won't have the force of law, it is important to do so because common sense is usually better than legal opinions.
Further, each branch of the federal government (the congress, the executive and the states) has both the obligation and the right to determine the constitutionality of a law and enforce its determination. The president by refusal to enforce the law (little as I like O'bama's use of this tactic), the congress by refusing to fund it (as it should have by defunding O'bamaDon'tCare), and the states by refusing to acknowledge federal law by enforcing it at the state level.
Lehi
 

Sinning isn't needed in order to learn (e.g. Jesus), but opposition is necessary.  I don't think he intended for a paradisaical glory to provide us with the necessary opposition.  Also, it's important to know that at the end of the millennium there will be much opposition.