Capitalist_Oinker

We don't disagree often, but here we definitely do.

The chapter heading and the subsequent verses appear to me to be CLEARLY talking about the millennium. I honestly don't see how it can be interpreted any other way? But if I'm wrong it hardly invalidates my assertion that there are more righteous women than men, and hence more women than men will qualify for Exaltation. We have no factual or revealed information regarding the comparative number of males and females who will be in the (highest degree of the) Celestial Kingdom (that I've ever heard, and I think this would be everywhere of late if there were such). I'm certainly not going to hold my breath until the Lord reveals the future numbers (why would He?), but I don't see why it's difficult to extrapolate when the current numbers are known.

I'm curious as to why you don't believe it?Have you observed anything inside or outside the Church that leads you to believe otherwise?I certainly haven't.In my ward there is a much higher percentage of active and faithful women than men. I can think of at least five women who hold temple recommends whose husbands are not active, while on the other hand there isn't a single temple recommend holding man whose wife does not also hold one.Not long ago I attended a meeting with our Area Authority Seventy, which dealt with the problems of member retention. The statistics were sobering, but two that stood out to me were the gender activity ratio (59% to 41% women to men) and the "singles over age 30 who attend Church weekly" (21 men for every 100 women). Leaving aside the fact that women generally live longer than men (affecting the latter ratio), I believe these statistics still prove my point; women in general are much more faithful than men.Which leads to the obvious conclusion that there will be a greater number of women than men in the Celestial Kingdom. In light of that fact, what would you have God do to rectify the problem? If marriage is necessary for Exaltation (and it is), and absent plural marriage, how would you propose solving the dilemma without violating the principle of agency? Also, I daresay that it's a principle much easier for men to accept than women. Oh, I don't know. Reading the accounts of the early brethren I don't see very many of them who were enthused with the idea. I certainly wouldn't be. I love my wife dearly and I'm not the least bit interested in sharing my affections with another woman. But after shrugging off this mortal coil with all of its carnal, sensual, and devilish baggage I expect to see things a whole lot differently than I do now. And I suspect righteous woman who oppose plural marriage now will see things differently then too.

I'll go with the Atonement also---not so much about the "why" of it, but rather the "how" of it. Regarding polygamy, though, I've never understood why so many Latter-day Saints find it troubling or mysterious? Look at it this way. It's clear (at least to me) from the scriptures, prophetic discourses, and empirical evidence, that women generally are much more inclined to be righteous than men are. The practical result of this fact is that many more women than men will qualify for Exaltation. The scriptures tell us that following the Second Coming "seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach". Or in other words, "we’ll pay our own way if you’ll marry us so that we can legally have children". And why would they be willing to do that? Because the number of men who survive the Second Coming will be a fraction of the number of women who will survive it, and if those women wish to have a family they'll have no other choice! If Exaltation requires being sealed to a spouse (and it does), how will all those surplus women (for lack of a better term) claim that blessing absent polygamy?? I believe the principle of plural marriage is an example of God's tender mercies. He is simply looking out for many of his righteous daughters who, because of circumstances beyond their control, will find themselves single and with no prospect of marriage, and hence would not be able to enjoy the blessings of Exaltation otherwise.

The appropriate response would have been to acknowledge his hypocrisy and in light of THAT, reevaluate his ideology. Instead he chose to run and hide.The dishonesty and dissembling from "liberal" Mormons wearies me. While failing to recognize the hypocrisy and contradictions in your ideology may be no sin, willfully ignoring them should be.

I have a great deal of respect for Elder Anderson, and I wholeheartedly agree with his postulation that we will be held accountable for how we vote. How can it be otherwise?? If we cast a vote for an individual who openly supports elective abortion why should God not hold us accountable for the subsequent slaughter of little children? If we cast a vote for an individual who openly advocates "redistribution of wealth", why should God not hold us accountable for the subsequent thievery on a massive scale? If we cast a vote for an individual who openly advocates homosexual marriage, why should God not hold us accountable for the subsequent breakdown of the family unit and all of the societal ills associated with that breakdown? The problem with the vast majority of "liberal" Mormons, is that they can never seem to understand or accept the fact that "legal" and "moral" are not synonymous! God isn't the least bit cowed because we make immoral principles legal, and I don't believe he will absolve us for supporting or fostering (via our votes) immoral principles simply because we have declared them legal. I once wasted several hours in debate with a leftist member of my ward regarding the principle of "redistribution of wealth", which he strongly supports. I asked him how he could possibly advocate stealing when God has explicitly forbidden it. He answered that it's not stealing because it's legal. I then asked him if a married Latter-day Saint could have sex with a prostitute in a licensed brothel in Nevada without it being considered adultery? He saw where I was going and immediately did what all "liberal" Mormons do when they find themselves stuck between a rock of their ideology and a hard place of our theology. He said he didn't want to talk about it anymore.

Mine is just a play on my user name, which was essentially given me by my niece. She is a militant socialist (bless her kind heart and addled brain), who says she loves me too much to call me a capitalist pig. So capitalist oinker it is.

We disconnected from TV several years ago because we couldn't justify the expense when neither my wife nor I ever watched it. My sons were a little bummed at first, but they've gotten used to it. I have never been a TV or movie watcher, and I couldn't care less about sports. I haven't seen a movie in years, and the last time I watched a TV program was over ten years ago while convalescing in a hospital bed after a motorcycle accident. However most days I'll spend several hours per day on the internet. I'm a news junkie and the internet is where I get it.

I very much agree with Vort here. Just as our mortal activities will most certainly influence our post mortal lives, our premortal activities "did and do influence our mortal lives". My patriarchal blessing states: "because of your valiant service in premortal life, you have acquired the gift of faith"...Obviously then, I would disagree with Jane's claim that pre-mortal actions don’t "directly influence our situation in this life in any categorical way our mortal minds can understand."

Two hours of FaceTime with my son in the mission field. :)

Remember one thing. A testimony comes from the Spirit. It always has and always will. Anyone who claims they have lost their testimony can just as well say they have lost the Spirit. And if they have lost the Spirit it's because they have either quit doing those things they are supposed to do, or they have started doing those things they're not supposed to do. The Spirit is grieved, He withdraws, and so goes the testimony. I know nothing about your father other than what little you have written. But I can confidently state that this applies to him, just as it applies to everyone else. As for you, I would just offer the same advice the Savior offered when confronted by skeptics. "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7-17) The natural man wants proof before he will act. With few exceptions, God's way is to require action before He provides the proof. (Take one step into the dark, THEN you will see the light.) If you really want to know, then "do his will", and in God’s own time you will come to "know the doctrine".

Please DO see your bishop and please don't procrastinate.I can confidently promise you two things.1. Your bishop will be understanding and will help you regain your worthiness to serve a mission. 2. If you don't see your bishop and make a confession, you will not be an effective missionary. You will not enjoy the companionship of the Spirit except to trouble your conscience until you finally do confess. Confession and repentance NOW will be much easier and rewarding than it will be after you've entered the mission field. Again, please don't procrastinate.

Where did you finally decide to settle, David?

Growing up I was the only one in my family who liked olives (black). Because everyone else hated them my parents wouldn't buy them. But every Christmas I would get a can of olives in my stocking. In addition to that, I LOVED to eat tuna right out of the can. But we didn't have a lot of money in those days, and since mom could turn a can of tuna into a dozen sandwiches I never got to eat tuna out of the can except on Christmas. I always found a can of tuna in my stocking in addition to the olives. :) Now I can eat them whenever I want, but for some reason they don't taste as good as they did back then.

Yes, I love the temple. I love participating in the ordinances, and I love the teaching, the learning and especially the revelation that occurs there. I can't think of anything I don't love about the temple except perhaps the fact that there are locks on the lockers. The need for that has always disappointed me.