mordorbund

I like to pretend that the kid in that movie grows up to be John McClane in the sequels.

Maybe they'll get issued surfaces instead.

I don't think it's very nice to predict the death of an LDS.net head moderator. In fairness, John Doe just uploaded a new avatar before he disappeared.

If you quit showing up around here I would just assume you were raptured.

I haven't seen this addressed yet and would like to since it segues nicely into Ananias' authority. He not only has authority to heal and baptize, but he also has the authority to bestow the Holy Ghost (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/9.17-18?lang=eng#16)! So Ananias is a poor example to use for the "priesthood of believers" as he held the reserved authority that was demonstrated by apostles in the example above.* Jinc, I don't know if this is where your position comes from, but usually hear it argued from the Great Commission (if this is unrelated, then just treat it as the straw man it is): Please note that the commission to preach and baptize is expressly given to apostles , not lay members (see vs 14, compare with https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/28.16-20?lang=eng#15) - baptized saints are granted authority to speak in tongues, heal the sick, even cast out devils! But theirs is not to baptize. *So long as we're making arguments based on silence, I can't find any references to Ananias' own baptism.

I have also held the opinion that these mothers were widows. Another aspect of their story that impresses me (whether the father is dead or feeling impotent) is the positive male role modeling that they still experienced. Either from their mothers' stories or their fathers' examples, they thought "upon the liberty of their fathers". This has turned into living scripture for me as I've seen children grow up in single-parent families staying close to the Church.

xkcd: Nighttime Stories

The plan of salvation model we usually draw on the board is really the "state machine" of salvation (the plan as described in the scriptures is more principle-based). Birth and death are but two transitions in this model. And just as the transition of birth has already been compared to the transition of death as a way to speculate on premortal emotions, I suppose we can use this life's transitions as analogies as we'll. When you left on a mission, what did you feel? What about your loved ones? How did you feel when you friends left on their missions? When you left for college, what did you feel? What about your loved ones? How did you feel when your friends left for college? What about when you moved away? And the next time you moved away? And when you moved again? How did your loved ones feel? How do you feel as your friends move away? Finally, what do you feel when a loved one passes? How do you think that loved one felt (my experience is that the closer you we're to the passing itself the less speculation is needed to answer)? My own answers tend to be as repetitive as the questions themselves with only a difference of degree.

Am I coming off as desperate? I try so hard to fit in.

I remember paying Cub Scout dues. I remember having Primary classes named something besides "CTR" - and they all had their own song. I remember when the mission of the Church was only 3-fold. I remember when a missionary wasn't sent until he turned 19.

I have a tangent on this. I don't think my thoughts necessarily moves the points you guys are making given the context. I just thought I'd share that just as there's a sphere for the "man will be punished for his own sins", there's also a sphere for the stain of cultural sins. Old Israel would offer sacrifices to atone for personal sins and uncleanness, and they would also offer sacrifice to atone for national sins as well (this is noted by Edersheim, and I've confirmed it with some Jewish scholars (or hobbyists perhaps) on this board). Take a moment to think of what a national sin might be and who would be accountable for it. I think a lot of the accountability falls on the policy-makers of the culture. In ancient Israel, that would be the king and his advisors, and the priests, and the prophets (next time you read the Old Testament, make a note of when the prophet is writing for a general distribution, versus when his words are intended for a royal audience). In our modern nation, a lot can be laid at the feet of the 3 branches of government, but because we are a representative democracy we have to acknowledge our own culpability in endorsing and transmitting toxic values. The best example I have seen of this was President Faust's prayer from the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance (9/14/2001), where he acknowledged before the Lord (I'm working from memory here) that we as a nation have not been faithful in honoring the God of this land (and he gets specific in our failings), but prays for mercy nonetheless.

Wouldn't it be great to have an apostle like Paul speak up on this matter, only instead of referring to New Testament culture, he could address the modern culture? That way there'd be no confusion as to which parts of his counsel are dated. Elder Todd Christofferson gave some remarks last conference (almost like he read the blog or something).

<aside>hmm.... he takes the set of countries not using the metric system and divides it into thirds. Then he states that the first third is one of three and the other two are also thirds....</aside> Congratulations! You've made the cut for tautology club. Our next meeting will convene at the commencement of our regular forum. Just remember that the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

The pioneers didn't arrive until the end of July but they still managed to plant. I saw plenty of green cherry tomatoes and green strawberries in my garden this year. I didn't see too many ripe ones because my kids picked them and ate them as soon as they turned. Now I understand Grandpa's rule: "Don't tell your ma or grandma that the snowpeas are ripe or the crows will eat them before we can pick them."

When I was on my mission, I realized that while I could ask my parents in a letter for advice on dealing with a companion or investigator, it would be weeks before I got a response and their answer would only be based on the one-sided report I gave them. It was more valuable to pray for guidance and work it out with my companion than to rely on biased third-party advice, regardless of how close that third party is to me. When I got married I shared this lesson with my wife and asked her if she had any problems with me to share them with me instead of calling her sister and parents. As a contrast, her sister would call her whenever she had a grievance with her husband. Guess what? Her family took her side and agreed he was scummy. Then they would patch up, and the issue would blow over because it was just a case of two people learning to live together. But nobody else is told for days, so he continues to be the bad guy during this time, and afterwards there's a certain level of incredulity that things are so great and that he really is a great guy. That man now has to be perfect around his in-laws or they automatically fall back to the scummy portrayal of him that was slowly built by his own advocate - his wife. If Mom is having problems with Dad (or vice versa), I hope she's talking to him first and foremost. If I'm getting pulled in, then it better be because they've both decided to include me in this discussion, in which case there's probably not really a marital issue going on.

What strikes me with the big hoopla around the shut down is the low approval ratings both parties are receiving. The President made a point after his reelection to brag that his agenda should go through because clearly the American people voted him back in. But those American people essentially voted everyone back in. If you want to read a message in that, it's that Americans were content with the status quo. The President's agenda can carry, but just barely and only after messy debate and shameless political posturing. And now we see the same behaviors carrying on. Do we really have a right to be surprised or disappointed in the bickering?

Is it a violation of covenants to ask another man to fill Dravin's husbandly duties? <sigh> fine. I acknowlege that your understanding of this portion of the handbook of instruction is most likely, in very narrow confines and circuumstances, correct and possibly even with merit. I will even go the extra mile and state conversely that I was, for a discrete and finite period of time, probably in error in my understanding. I was DEFINITELY in the wrong for speaking up and showing my ignorance. On that we all agree. I will not publicly counterdict you again. (I'm writing that last sentence 100 times so I can remember).

Not quite, let's apply the same logic to the ordinance of confirmation and see if it flies. As Confucius says, that dog don't hunt. The reason why a woman or a priest can heal is because healing is a gift of the spirit, and as such is available to anyone who has received the gift of the Holy Ghost and been granted that specific gift. Applying such a gift is noble and of God. Feigning the priesthood authority to perform an ordinance outside one's authority is dangerous ground to stand on.

I get the conducting part, but is the teaching part accurate? Isn't the first Sunday left to the discretion of the presidency? As in, if the president decides they really need a lesson on financial preparation she could ask the sister who's a financial planner to teach regardless of her calling in the class. [re-reads section 9.4.1] I stand corrected.

You turkey.

Thanks for the sentencing update. I also watched the 20/20 segment and was regularly yelling at the tv. Sisterbund hadn't heard about this case before, and based on the way the show was presenting it had a difficult time understanding why I was so upset about it*. In fairness, she didn't marry a sports enthusiast, so seeing the fanatic reaction Southerners usual reserve for football or basketball catches her attention. * She could see the rational justification, just not the rabid justification.

I tend to think that's why God's plan calls for a father AND a mother for each child. Otherwise I would be named "Amos Moses".

The inability to explain something does not make it any less true - it just makes it harder to convince another rationally. Fortunately, we deal with truths witnessed by God and His servants. If understanding were required, I don't think I should ever obtain a remission of sins, heal another through the priesthood, or even receive a testimony. I can't tell you the mechanics of any of these things. I can tell you that they are based on true principles and are efficacious. While you are seeking out a spiritual confirmation that no blessing is denied those that desire righteousness, feel free to look at the discussion in the other thread I referenced earlier. My post includes some speculative quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith that the Millennium will largely be for this work of setting things right for those who remained single but worthy throughout life. Elder Oaks has recently reaffirmed this teaching.

Re-read section 132 and you'll note those who are exalted "did none other things than that which they were commanded". This explicitly includes Isaac, who, as far as has been revealed, had only one wife. One other thing (to piggyback on Vort's comment), we are blessed for following the living prophet and not for following past or future prophets. Cain's offering (of the fruit of the field) was not acceptable even though Moses made it a requirement to make the same offering.

Pastels are nice enough for the October conference, but in April it just reminds me that I've got my own Easter basket filled with candy calling my name. Can it wait till after the opening prayer - stay tuned!