mordorbund

Yes, I see that. You denounce it as offensive gossip that should go away or be validated, but really rejected because it hasn't been validated and was not a part of Christ's earthly mission.But then at the same time we get to this: Now let's apply your same standards to this not-so-random Internet quote. "Christ will be married literally after his metaphorical bride (the Church) has been cleansed." I wish it would go away or be validated. I reject as gossip that taking a physical wife is any part of Christ's mission or personal goal. He will also come "with healing in his wings", but I don't take that to mean that he will grow such appendages. Now in reality, I don't necessarily have much of a beef with your pet notion. It might be fun to discuss it's merits and shortcomings. But before we do that, I'll need you to acknowledge that your "marriage theology" is not binding on anyone else, or rather, it is as binding as the notion that Christ is eternally celibate or was married in mortality. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I just need agreement on this point because I'm hearing an outright rejection of other speculation solely on the basis that you have your own preferred speculation.

We should not add to the Father's will by speculating that Jesus was married in mortality, but we can openly speculate that 1) he will indeed get married, 2) to a member of glorified Israel. I don't object to your opinion on whether or not Jesus was married in mortality; I do object that you think there should be a definitive stance on it.

I acknowledged you calling out Reverend Moon's doctrine as false. The apostles witness to the world that Jesus is the Christ; as such, they are witness of Christ (or even witnesses for Christ). I used the phrase "witness to" in the sense that you would testify to or preach to, not in favor of. Now re-read my post and see if that last paragraph isn't friendlier and more useful.

And yet we believe that many "earthly considerations" lead to our salvation. The ground is "cursed for [our] sake". Work and toil provide us with the opportunity to learn the law of the harvest, as well as exercising honesty with our fellow man.Additionally, we have the example of Jesus using his powers to liquor up a wedding party. Do you maintain that such an act was essential to the Christ's ministry? (not just an aid to it, but essential?) Or was Jesus participating and aiding an earthly consideration? In fact many of his miracles can seen in this light. I'm a little lost at parsing your sentence here. I think you're saying you think Jesus marriage wasn't needed and didn't happen because of a lack of scriptural record of it. I already shared with you the "necessity in scripture" and it looks like you completely ignored it. In order to be exalted, a man (and thus, even a Christ-man) "must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];And if he does not, he cannot" receive exaltation. And while it is true that the Bible does not record Jesus' marriage, neither does it record Adam and Eve's forced barrenness in the Garden of Eden or much of Enoch's ministry. We get this additional information from modern revelation. Much has been revealed to us and canonized into scripture, and we leave the door open that God "will yet reveal many great and important things". Then why did YOU bring it up? Attempts to unauthoritatively stifle a particular belief often becomes a golden proselyting opportunity for proponents. Perhaps you should study the Streisand Effect a bit. As I said before, there is room in the currently revealed gospel for either stance, so I don't think either side can properly denounce the other view as false doctrine.

IT ISN'T!!!???? "ComSubPac, deploy the Chuck Norris" Crisis Averted.

I used to agree with you, for the same reason. It would irk me when various performers (actors and singers) would accept their award and give a shout out to Jesus. Many of them seemed pretty insincere about it and it was either showy or some duty borne of tradition. I've since changed my mind based on some other principles. Jesus also said we should let our light shine so that others may glorify our Father in heaven. I think this principle is illustrated well in the story of Joseph of Egypt. When he appeared before Pharaoh to interpret the dream, he stated upfront that his God-given talent "is not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace" (Gen 41:16). Joseph, Tebow, and beauty queens perform in the public arena. I think it is fitting for them to be upfront about the source of their talents. "Thanks God", is often the prayer of the humble. It can also be the prayer of the vain and hypocritical, but I now give praisers the benefit of the doubt.

I struggle to understand the argument that a married (to a mortal) Jesus is somehow sullied or less-than-god. He had the full mortal experience. He ate, he sweat, I'm certain he defecated. I don't think these profane activities degraded him any. Marrying a mortal is certainly not very god-like (in a modern-traditional sense, older myths have such trysts all the time), but neither is death by torture (which even the older myths generally avoid (well, excepting a token corn-king))! And of course the Atonement is the ultimate in commingling the unworthy with the worthy. The sinless God was spiritually raped by your transgressions. So I don't see any issues on the "but she's not worthy" front. Regarding the general notion that we should either come out in open opposition to the teaching or fully embrace it, I'm afraid that can't be done. It hasn't been revealed to us one way or the other. And that absence of public revelation leaves room for both doctrines (Jesus was(n't) married). The arguments in favor of a married, mortal Jesus is 1) that being sealed to a spouse is required for exaltation 2) such sealing can only be performed in this life (otherwise we wouldn't have to do it for the dead), and 3) Jesus has received his exaltation The classic supporting example is that Jesus still had to get baptized, despite being sinless, and despite being the head of his own church. Additionally, early apostles have openly speculated that Jesus was married - and what's more - to more than one woman! If you feel the need to witness to Reverend Moon, you may want to leave the whole marriage issue out of it and remind him that Jesus told Pilate that the time of his death would be Christ's choosing, not Pilate's. We additionally have the advantage of the Joseph Smith Translation sharing Christ's final mortal words, "Father, it is finished, thy will is done." So I don't think he left any portion of his mortal mission unfinished.

I need the Lord to sign off on my life. That is a lot more stringent than the Temple Recommend interview (as you noted, that is only a type and shadow). Those questions are a lot more personal and specific than what I get asked in the Bishop's office. Also, the questions change regularly as I grow and progress. I see it as being granted a Limited Recommend periodically that has to be renewed often. There is an eternal signoff that will eventually be granted (God willing), but there is no reason* why I can't receive His approbation now. *Except the obvious rebellion, pride, hard-heartedness stuff.

This is what I meant about my boss not signing my recommend. The questions isn't, "Does your fellowman think your are honest in your dealings with him?" or "Do the leaders of the Church feel like you sustain them?" The questions focus on my assessment of my own worthiness. My Elders Quorum President may not feel like I sustain him. My boss may feel like I don't put in an honest day's work for a day's wages. Their opinion doesn't matter unless it becomes a matter of concern for one of the 3 gatekeepers. If any of those 3 (including myself) feels like I'm not living up to one of the principles, it becomes a point of discussion that we work to resolve.

Take a look at your temple recommend. There are 3 gatekeeper signatures that go on it: 1) Your Stake President's, 2) Your Bishop's, 3) Yours. The recommend questions don't determine whether your fellow man thinks you have faith in Christ (or if Christ thinks you have faith in Christ), they ask an accounting of your own perception of worthiness. If the Bishop or Stake President has any concerns on worthiness, they can use the questions to springboard into a discussion. But my boss has yet to sign my recommend.

I got Nibley's One Eternal Round as an audio book. I do NOT recommend it. The reader (Michael Rhodes I think) read through chapter one, and I stayed with him at that point. Then, as he started chapter two, another reader (sounded like John Gee) started reading chapter one at the same time! Each chapter added another reader to the mix. It should have been named One Eternal Cacophony.

Perhaps the Branch President (or perhaps even the Holy Spirit working through him) have some principle he wants to teach this couple. The husband is a new member, maybe it hasn't fully sunk in for him that they are tithed as individuals (a silly point now, but once they have kids with an allowance, I mean, that's coming from the already-tithed general fund, no need for the kids to pay). The OP didn't mention the wife's history. If she's been less-active or struggled with tithing in the past, I could see him giving her the opportunity to practice the principle herself. One takeaway would be "I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give", instead of "I do have value and contribute, why won't you let me show it?" I side with Vort's earlier comment that Branch President should be supported here. If it really bugs her, she can ask him about it. But she also needs to be prepared to accept an answer like, "I don't know, I just think it will be a really good experience for you."

Wait, so are you saying that if I wanted to write a Hebrew-sounding , I could accidently stumble into some chiasms without intending to?

Wear only solid colored t-shirts with the tag removed. You can get 4 wears out of a single shirt if flip it around, inside-out, and around again*. Vast laundry reduction!! *This system was created by a seven year old boy

I have never listed childbirth among the things that "makes you a man". I grow very concerned for my marriage.

Did anyone else hear a little snippet of Dixie honked out in their head while watching the video?

So are those of you posting about well-known speed trap areas now in danger of arrest?

The prophesy is fulfilled 6 months early!

Lift Where You Stand - general-conference I have had similar promptings in the past. I was certain that I would get called to teach Sunday School. Instead I was called to the Elders' Quorum Presidency. After reflecting on it, I realized that the Bishopric was prepared to give me that calling, but the Elders' Quorum President felt inspired that I should be called. I think President Uchtdorf's perspective is spot on here. I could have served very well in the Sunday School, but I was needed in the Elders' Quorum presidency. Perhaps had I been thinking more about that position I would have gotten more of a confirmation in that direction as well (not necessarily an exercise I recommend). I did get a confirmation that the calling extended was the calling for me. If your friend asked me for advice, I would say don't close the door on this other calling just yet. I don't worry so much about what this means for the Bishop because that is his mantle, not mine.

I suspect that your low reader count is because of the familiarity we already have with the Book of Mormon. The doctrines are laid out within a narrative, making them easier to digest. The characters and stories are ones that we've gotten (perhaps too) comfortable with over the course of years attending church meetings. I imagine the other standard works commentaries get more views because -- Holy Cow!! there's a talking donkey!!! I gotta check this out <reads commentary/> Oh, I guess that makes more sense considering -- Lot's Daughter's Did WHAT??!! <reads commentary/> hmm... well, I'm still not comfortable with that, but I can see how that perspective helps. It seems -- UGH! why does the most important book of the Old Testament have to be the longest and most esoteric!! <reads more commentary/> We have a similar familiarity with the New Testament. The entire volume is pretty short. The four Gospels are narratives that move along at a nice clip. The stories are familiar ones*. There's nothing really difficult -- What the heck is Paul saying?!! <reads commentary/> I'll have to get back to you later. * You can test this by seeing if you get more views for your Pauline epistles than your Gospels posts.

So no one sees the bruises/lacerations?

President Kimball's statement on how a person should tithe: President Hinckley's reaffirmation: I may pay tithing on net; I may pay tithing on gross; I may pay tithing only on what I don't spend on essentials; I may pay tithing on the inheritance I leave when I die (until then, I'm still using it to subsist on); I may pay tithing any number of ways, but the bottom line is it's nobody's business except mine, the Lord's, and the Bishop's (acting as the Lord's steward). The Lord I know, the Bishop I know, but random Internet poster - who are you?!

Obligatory for Snopes education: xkcd: Snopes

I have a question for our resident atheists. I saw the following ad on a bus (Seattle atheists are running an ad campaign). You can see this happy family of four enjoying their Christmas traditions. Now I'm curious, how common is it for atheists to still celebrate cultural Christian holidays? I'm guessing you would still do Christmas and Easter, but without the religious stories. No mangers, no mass, etc, while still having the eggs and the stockings and such. I also imagine there's a group that intentionally does nothing for these days, treating as a vacation from work and little else. What are the holidays like for you and your friends? * I'm also wondering why that boy doesn't believe in God. God still loves red-heads, just less than everyone else.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT????!!!!!! Don't you have any idea how a consistent diet of starchy foods contributes to couch potatoness?