mordorbund

What does this have to do with the Catholic doctrine of the "immaculate conception" of Mary?
 
The mechanics of God's actions have not been revealed to us. Mary was with child, and that child was Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If you want to know the specifics, ask God, assuming he cares to tell you.

God kind of did say.... When he told Elder Oaks not to do it...  

While it shouldn't affect God's willingness to call....  Have we considered how such an action might have fundamentally altered Elder Oaks?  Such an alteration in the nature of the man could have all kinds of later impacts.

Uh...:::cough:::...er, I'm not sure this string is the place to be discussing the character of my humor. 

I know. Children, right?! UGH!

That's okay, the district also failed the assignment:
 

I'm going to offer my standard advice for both LDS and Evangelicals (which I am) on understanding the basics of the differences between our two faiths:  Read the dialogue offered in Blomberg & and Robinsons book, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation.  These two are professors, one from Denver Seminary, the other from BYU.  The are respectful, but they do not wash issues under the rug, and are not attempting any kind of ecumenism.  They discuss salvation by faith, the canon of scripture, etc.  I've handed this book out to fellow Evangelicals looking to learn more about LDS, and I've handed it out to a few LDS missionaries.  It's a great starting point, and can help anyone jump from basic to intermediate on these boards.

If you feel prompted, then that is reason to push ahead. But part of that equation is your bishop, who has the divine assignment to help you prepare and to decide if and when the time is right. I see nothing wrong with asking the bishop what's up, why grades are important for such a decison, or whatever, but I do think it's wise to let him do his job regarding this issue and not question his competence or sincerity.

That's okay, the district also failed the assignment:
 

BeccaKirstyn, I appreciate your self-awareness. We all have our personal biases, and I appreciate when someone is aware enough to recognize that, as you so aptly put it, "my own personal bias is overshadowing my reasoning." I also appreciate that you are willing to ask my intentions rather than jump to the conclusion toward which your personal bias pushes you.
 
Look at it this way: A 20-year-old male acquaintance who has said he is not planning to serve a mission or get married asks you why the bishop seems reluctant to give him a temple recommend for receiving his own endowment. He tells you the bishop has asked him about some seemingly unrelated conditions, such as his GPA. Would not one of your first questions to him be, "Well, since you're not planning to serve a mission or marry, WHY are you trying to get your endowment?" That just seems the obvious question.
 
True, the endowment is a necessary covenant for exaltation. But we receive our endowment when the time is right. A fifteen-year-old could receive her endowment (or his endowment, if he had the Priesthood, which has been done before), but we normally would never do such a thing, because for the overwhelming majority of fifteen-year-olds, the time is not right for that step.
 
(I also recognize that my example posits a 20-year-old man who is not fulfilling his Priesthood responsibility to serve a mission, which would affect the equation. For the purposes of my example, we might suppose that the young man in question has a health condition of some sort for which he has been honorably dismissed from missionary service. Is "Well, all my friends are endowed, and I feel left out" sufficient reason for a bishop to sign off on taking such an important step? Cleary not.)
 
I am trying to think of a situation where it would make perfect sense for a 20-year-old woman to seek her own endowment who is neither planning marriage nor preparing for full-time missionary service. The only marginally realistic ideas (and they are pretty marginal) that I'm coming up with are:
A young woman has a terminal disease that will claim her life in a short time, and she sees no reason to wait for proxy work after her impending death to receive an endowment that she can get for herself while alive.  
A young woman has some sort of condition that makes it extraordinarily unlikely that she can ever marry or even contemplate full-time missionary service. She is also very mature for her age, and feels she is at a stage in her life where she wants or needs those covenants and sees no reason to wait to reach an arbitrary age that appears not even to be well-defined. In such situations, I can understand why the young woman would be seeking to receive her endowment at age 20. But such situations would be very unlikely.
 
We are not Catholic; we do not consider "holy tradition" to be equal in force to revealed doctrine. But we do things in the Church for good reason, not because we rolled a die to decide. There are good reasons we do not normally provide the covenants of the endowment to children or young men/women. There are good reasons why we wait until there is a specific condition that requires the endowment (mission or marriage) before bestowing it. I do not know all those reasons, and I am not a bishop. But my ignorance doesn't mean the reasons aren't there. The idea that "I should get my endowment in a non-traditional situation because I just want them" (or "because it's not fair if I don't" or "because my brother got his at this age" or something like that) is prima facie evidence that the individual is not prepared to make those covenants.
 
Anyway, that's where I'm coming from in my question.

That's okay, the district also failed the assignment:
 

Speaking only to the narrow issue of sacrament meeting talks: Hugh Nibley claims that the ancient Saints in the meridian of time valued testimony that completely avoided the plague of rhetoric. The more plain-spoken and uneloquent the testimony, the better. The honest and naive confession of faith and experience allows the Spirit to bear testimony in a way not often found when using flowery language designed to tickle the ear and tug the heartstrings.
 
I don't know how accurate Nibley's picture is, but it rings true to me in many ways. I aim for precision in my self-expression, but more important than precision is sincerity and lack of pretense. If we have the Spirit with us, I believe that any unpretentious and sincere sacrament talk, even one containing errors of fact or doctrine, will provide spiritual nourishment. When investigators come to our meetings, it is usually the feel or spirit that they sense, and not the doctrinal content that they hear, that touches their hearts and makes them want to know more. Doctrinal content is important and can be learned in many ways, but it is the Spirit that nourishes and helps us grow.

I don't believe I am going to be able to clarify anymore than what I have, nonetheless, I will try.  The conditions of faith put forward were put forward by Alma: 1) An imperfect knowledge 2) Unseen 3) Unseen is true.  These are conditions given by Alma.
 
Faith, real faith, is exercised in accordance with these principles mentioned.  Faith also can have its counterfeit, or faith exercised in falsehoods.  This would be considered fake/false faith, much like counterfeit money.  Counterfeit money is real.  People can touch, people with a lack of knowledge will accept counterfeit money because it looks real enough; however, the end result -- unprofitable -- fools gold.  Is counterfeit money actually money?  No.  Counterfeit faith, faith exercised in things which are false, isn't faith, yet in wording we will still say someone exercised faith in a false God, similar to saying someone was given money which was fake.  
 
 
Correct, faith doesn't solely need to be exercised in principles of progression which are true.  We exercise faith in both temporally and spiritual truths.  We exercise faith in gravity.  We exercise faith in our alarm clocks, assuming "all things working as intended."  All principles, doctrines, and laws (temporal or spiritual) which qualify as truth.
 
 
 
Questions are necessary for growth.  Without a question asked revelation cannot be received.  I would assume we would both agree, there is a difference is questioning for growth and learning, and questioning from a doubtful, lacking faith, heart?  In other words, asking questions to simply ask questions without any intent to learn, but to continue on ones current path.  Similar to Laman and Lemuel when they asked Nephi about their father's words, and yet, exercised no faith to learn for themselves.  They questioned to question.
 
As pertaining to being technical, yes; however, as previously mentioned one type of faith is counterfeit to the real exercise of faith.
 
 
 
Reiterating previous statement, without a question asked revelation cannot be received, and the manner of our questioning is really what is most important.
 
Questioning which results in disobedience, isn't good.  We have young men and young women (even adults) who question the importance of keeping the law of chastity.  As a result, they break the law of chastity ignorantly quoting Laman, "God has revealed no such thing to me" (paraphrased), or through their personal study they say like one member of the church said to me, "It is important that we become really good for our marriage partners and the only way is through practice before marriage."  So, questioning, is important; how we question and by what spirit we give ear to is even more important.
 
I assume, personally, I am not found of the connotation behind "blind" faith, or better said, I am not fond of how "blind" faith is presented in our modern era.   Faith incorporates "trust" and "trust" isn't necessarily blind.  When the children of Israel were commanded to wipe out a whole nation (i.e. men, women, children, and animals) I wonder how I might have responded.  With faith, or with doubt?  What if I questioned like Saul, and then did what I felt, and then I learned a hard concept which cost me much more "it is better to obey than to sacrifice."  What did Saul loose through questioning?
 
A conundrum of questioning is the statement given by Jesus, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine..."  In other words, we can question all we want, but until we do, at times, no witness will be given.  Said in another way, until after the trial of your faith -- no witness received.
 
Overall, questioning is good, and we are to question in order to seek revelation; however, many who question aren't really seeking an answer, but a reason to sacrifice rather than obey.

It's probably based on Micah 4:2.

Egyptian Demotic (a great candidate for "reformed Egyptian") was developed around or just before the time Lehi left Jerusalem. At that point, the Jews had a many-centuries-long history of trade and such with Egypt. The historic idea of Egypt as slaveland and oppressor was mostly just that -- history. So characterizing the use of reformed Egyptian as using the language of Jewish captors is silly.
 
I would also say, though, that reformed Egyptian (RE) was not merely a writing system or type of shorthand. The use of RE greatly handicapped the record-keepers, making it difficult for them to express themselves as they would have liked. Mormon made it clear that Hebrew (a compactly written language compared to English) would have been preferable and would have their record more perfect, but concerns about compactness dictated the need to use RE. Had RE merely been a type of shorthand used to record Hebrew, it would have been basically the same as writing in Hebrew. The fact that the structure of the Book of Mormon's writing was vastly affected -- which is attested to in the makeup of the text itself, consisting of only a fraction (70% or something) of the vocabulary one normally finds in a work of that length (I wish I could find a source to back up this remembered claim, but a quick Google search didn't give me what I wanted) -- indicates that the language of the written Book of Mormon was not Hebrew rendered in another alphabet or writing system, but a completely different language.

Which is your "true self"? The sacrificng one who loves others, or the selfish one who ignores his commitments? Why should one (especially the negative one) be considered somehow more "real" or "authentic" than the other?
 
An Indian chief told a brave, "There are two wolves within you striving for mastery. One is hate, greed, and selfishness, and the other is love, generosity, and kindness." The brave asked him, "Which will win?" The chief responded, "The one you feed." This little story may be trite and silly, but I think it illustrates a true principle.

Be that as it may, that's essentially the approach that the Church has expressed, at least with regard to its meetinghouses.  
 
This business of suggesting that the GA's don't really mean what they actually said, and creating ambiguity where there is none in the name of justifying a pre-determined course of action; is IMHO a game that is beneath us as Latter-day Saints and is best left to sort of folks who created it.

Maybe we should come up with safe-harbor laws for how we can be sure that a property owner really means what has already given every indication of having meant.  We could call it--I dunno--"yes means yes", or something. 
 
With a little more seriousness:  Sure, I wouldn't throw a tantrum about a biomedical technician with a petri dish full of bacteria or a demolition worker with a stick of dynamite.  I'd just say "hey, I know you're a careful guy, but I'd prefer that stuff not be brought into my home".  My effort to be civil and low-key, and my acknowledgement that these materials can theoretically be handled safely, should not be read as any sort of tacit permission to bring dynamite, or toxic bacteria, or a firearm into my home after I've point-blank told you I don't want it there. 
 
It doesn't matter that you think you do (or maybe even actually do) know how to defend my home better than I do.  It's simple respect--my house, my rules.  And although I'm pretty pro-2nd Amendment, I get real scared when gun owners decide that their right to a gun trumps my right to my own property.  Because you justify an awful lot with that sort of precedent.
 
(And frankly, I have had an experience with a CCW coming into my home (well, my in-laws' home), bringing his loaded firearm with him, and then setting it on the table and engaging us in conversation even though there were five kids under seven running around the house at the time.  So, this is kind of a tender spot for me.  Gun-owners shouldn't need to be told (twice) to respect the homeowner and not to be dipweeds.)
 
 
In point of fact, the Mormons at Haun's Mill did have firearms.  But, at Far West they didn't; so I do get your point.
 
But then, if you think I'm asking you not to bring guns into my home so that I can beat you, rape your wife, and shoot your kids--well, maybe it would be prudent not to come to my house at all.    

I'm pretty sure the most Christ-like action would have been to give her seat at the wedding to someone living on the street.

Oppression is not defined by whether it carries legal justification; but by the natural liberties that are being limited.  That's why we say Helmuth Hubener was oppressed, even though his government could easily reply that he knew, or should reasonably be expected to have known, that you don't sabotage national morale by talking bad about der Fuhrer in the middle of a war.
 
 
As I understand the statutes in question (and this is speaking generally, as the statutes vary from state to state and many states don't have them at all)--there's no legal reason that they couldn't.  It's just that no one has (yet) had the gumption to try to apply them to discriminatory commercial practices of blacks, Jews, and prostitutes.
 
 
This reasoning goes down a very dangerous road, because what you're basically doing is arrogating to yourself the right to impose different standards of conduct on different groups of people based on your own critique of each group's respective beliefs. 
 
I have a problem with that generally, and it's frankly exacerbated because I think your critique is highly problematic.  In your argument a black man and a Jew and a prostitute should be free to act in the commercial sphere out of fear, mistrust, prejudice, and/or physical disgust--but a conservative Christian shouldn't be free to act similarly, whether out of those motives or out of a sincerely held disagreement with the activity he is being asked to promote.  Your argument isn't really that all hate is bad; it's just that some hate is more equal than other hate.

So, a black baker must bake a cake for the Klan featuring a Confederate flag?  He has no right to say no?
 
A Jewish photographer/promoter must cover a neo-Nazi rally and produce a marketing tract offering sympathetic coverage of the event?  He has no right to opt out?
 
A call girl, in a jurisdiction where such activities are legal, must (ahem) *service* a  would-be client without regard to whether that client is male or female?  Having entered the commercial sphere, she has no right to withhold consent?
 
I strongly disagree.  My constitutional rights to religious exercise, free expression, and free association do not end just because I have to feed my family; and those who insist on keeping those rights shouldn't have to resort to an underground, Edgar Friendly-esque existence of economic exile, or live in fear of social justice warriors who will send goons to collect judgments, confiscate their houses and assets, imprison, and maybe even kill the holdouts who resist or refuse to conform to the SJWs' precious nanny-state.
 
(Social conservatives probably will eventually have to live like that, maybe within my lifetime.  But they shouldn't.)

Thank goodness for that .....they have enough to do as it is. ....:)

The danger of the "Satan tried to force everyone to do good!" misrepresentation is that it naturally extends to an extreme libertarian/anarchic philosophy. "Laws? They are of SATAN! You can't FORCE me to be good!" How many times have we heard people -- even Saints -- use the idea of "force" to argue against laws such as prohibition of elective abortion? Somehow, such people never seem to mind laws against forcible rape, never mind the onerous restriction on "free agency" that such laws impose.

Perhaps a better thing to get out of this conversation is that, notwithstanding JoJoBag's sincerity and good intentions, the individual items in his list do not, in fact, describe a communist. Many of these items fit very well under the motivations "establish justice" and "promote the general welfare" as named by the preamble to the US Constitution. Let's walk through the list.
 
Do you believe the government should put people and the environment before profits by companies?
 
Consider the contrary: Do you believe the government should put profits by companies before people and the environment?
 
Absurd. "Environmentalism" has a bad name because the movement has always been infested by those who would happily use it as a pretext to seize power -- which is precisely what we have been seeing for the past two generations. But the corruptness of the movement doesn't mean the idea itself is bad. It isn't. It's obviously good.
 
Do you believe the government should legislate equality and social justice?
 
Or do you rather believe that government should legislate inequality and social injustice?
 
"Equality" is central to traditional American values. The poor man, the wage laborer, and the unpopular should stand in exactly the same esteem before the law as the rich man, the landowner, and the politician. This naive, even laughable, idea is truly at the root of what has traditionally defined America.
 
Some have co-opted the word to mean what I have heard called "equality of outcome". I think of Norman Rockwell's (in)famous "Freedom Froms": Freedom  From Want and Freedom From Fear. We most definitely do NOT want the government seizing on these as its priority items, or making laws in an attempt to legislate away want and fear. But the rejection of the openly socialistic/communistic ideal of outcome equality is not a rejection of equality, any more than the rejection of homosexual "marriage" is a rejection of the institution of marriage.
 
The whole "social justice" question is too loaded to answer. The term itself is warped, and as a knee-jerk reaction, I look askance at any reference to it.
 
Do you believe the government should radically reform for profit companies to make them more worker friendly?
 
This question is far too nebulous and, again, loaded. The history of western democracies, specifically 19th-century Great Britain (think Dickens), shows the excesses that unbridled capitalism can engender. No decent person wants Oliver Twist starving in the streets. Ideally, such things are taken care of by private concerns -- but let's not be blind to reality. In a for-profit economy, most entities can be counted on to act in their own bottom line's best interest. This actually self-limits the system, because it cannot be stable as long as the poor are not taken care of.
 
The conservative's rationale is that caring for the poor is an individual, not a group, responsibility. I admit this has a lot of appeal. But it's nonsense in any realistic implementation. How often do you go out and buy dinner for people on the street? I bought a street guy a hamburger a week ago, but that is hardly a realistic way to feed the hungry.
 
I pay tithing, and I take pleasure in noting how the Church (who receives that tithing) does good works in caring for the poor using those sacred funds. I feel that in some literal way, I am helping care for the poor by giving money to an entity that does the rubber-meets-the-road work of actually feeding and caring for people. I get my warm glow without leaving the comfort of my house. In a similar manner, lots of non-Mormons (and some Mormons) take some pleasure in noting how government programs feed and otherwise care for the poor, using their tax funding.
 
Please note: I am fully aware of the difference between tithing and taxes. They are vastly different things. The work that the Church does in caring for the poor is starkly different in important ways from government welfare doles. But the feeling of vicarious do-gooding is probably not much different, if any. And the idea of a large entity interceding in behalf of a group of people is a reasonable point of contact.
 
Do you believe the government should allow a person to stay on unemployment until he finds a job?
 
Or should the government instead not allow people to stay on unemploymnet until they find a job? Maybe the government should pay unemployment only to those with jobs. This question is defective.
 
The underlying thrust is whether the government should provide unemployment benefits. This is not a cut-and-dried matter, nor are those who believe that this is a good idea necessarily a bunch of communists.
 
Do you believe the government should start public works programs to rebuild infrastructure, provide affordable housing, and clean up the environment?
 
Government is by its very nature a public works program. And government has the duties to "provide for the common defense [and] promote the general welfare," for which purposes our Constitution was ordained and established. Infrastructure is an overwhelmingly important part of that, and I have never been able to swallow the whole "private roads" idea that some push. Remember, it was Ike who built the interstate system. And thank heaven for the environmental protections, without which the US might be another USSR, and our country a collection of unmitigated Aral Sea and Chernobyl-type disasters.
 
Do you believe that you are free under democracy?
 
Is there another system that provides more freedom? (I trust this is not the silly "republic vs. democracy" argument that sometimes gets trotted out, as if it's actually meaningful and relevant to split linguistic hairs in an attempt to establish one's worldview.)
 
Do you believe the government should expand the food stamp program?
 
Well, doesn't…that is, can you…Shouldn't we…
 
Okay, I can't disagree with this one. The US welfare program is a huge mess – invasive, expensive, and inefficient. Wanting to make that area of the government even bigger and more intrusive is an exceptionally bad idea, and does indeed seem like a reflection of the foolishness of the communist mentality.
 
Do you believe the government should institute and control all health care insurance?
 
Loaded.
 
Do you believe the government should have the Social Security program?
 
No. But given that's what FDR established many generations ago, that's what we're stuck with. I've been paying into it my whole life, and I certainly hope to get something out of it. I am in no possible sense a big fan of FDR, but I expect my attitude may be exactly what our grandchildren and great-grandchildren say about Obamacare. We may hate the system, but if we're forced to support it, then we have claim to its (supposed) benefits.
 
Do you believe the government should give out cash welfare payments (AFDC)?
 
No. What a horrible idea.
 
Do you believe the government should outlaw prayer in school?
 
I find the whole "prayer-in-school" thing to be a red herring. People pray in school all the time. It's not illegal. But I'm not sure I want the teacher leading such a prayer. I can just imagine some feminist teacher leading the students in prayer to the Great Maternal Council, begging them for forgiveness from being a boy and strength to fight the evil patriarchy.
 
Prayer in school sounds great to many people, until they or their children are expected to show honor and deference to a god they don't believe in.
 
Do you believe the government should treat behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists/psychologists can understand or treat?
 
This question exemplifies the weakness of the list of questions. It's loaded in every word.
 
(For the record, I agree with the thought that underlies this question. But the question itself is a lie.)
 
Do you believe the government should mandate a high minimum wage?
 
No. But so believing does not make one a communist, which is the point.