zil

FWIW, that doesn't sound at all familiar to me. Just checked in with my brother, and he's got nothing either. I find it hard to believe the scriptures would include anything remotely like the idea that "technology" was controlling people... I suspect that if anything, this was some sort of commentary or interpretation, not the scriptures themselves.

A Relief Society President, High Councilor, and Bishop were kidnapped for ransom. The church, per policy, refused to pay the ransom, so the kidnappers told the three they could make a final request before being killed. The Relief Society President said she'd like to sing all 7 verses of her favorite hymn, "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief". The kidnappers reluctantly agreed. The High Councilor said every month he prepared a half-hour talk, but without fail he never had more than ten minutes to speak, so he wanted to give all of his most-recent talk. When the kidnappers asked the Bishop what his final wish was, he said, "I'd like to hear the Relief Society President sing her favorite hymn, but kill me before the High Councilor gives his talk."

I'm female, but well past being a "girl" - except when some toys show up... Meanwhile, that's the best offer I've had in years - thanks! On the other hand, at lunch today, I was driving with some friends past the "Men's Warehouse" and we were discussing whether we should stop and see what kind of men they had in stock. I was thinking a handyman and one who likes cooking and cleaning would suit me fine!

Thanks for the laughs, Eowyn and Gator! I'll still be interested in hearing what JojoBag meant by the age and not married portions of: "I would even go further in saying that the "faithful" should only include those who hold a temple recommend or qualify for one but for whatever reason, i.e. age, not married, etc., cannot hold one."

Ah, I was thinking in the other direction (too old) as too young didn't seem applicable to the original statement (too young wouldn't "qualify"). OK, so, if you're worthy and old enough, you can hold a temple recommend either for doing baptisms for the dead (youth) or just a regular recommend (those old enough to have received their own endowment). But marital status? I've never heard of such a thing. Actually, I've never heard of anything that would prevent a qualified member from getting a temple recommend, even if some circumstance keeps them from attending a temple.

Since when are age and marital status determining factors in whether one can "hold" a temple recommend?

Hmm. And just what is it that gators eat?

I have a conservative, LDS friend who is vegetarian not because she thinks there's anything wrong with meat, but because of the way commercial farms / ranches treat their animals. Meanwhile, of course healthy food is worse for the environment. Let's follow the, um, logic: * People are harming the environment in oh so many ways * Animals raised for human consumption probably aren't much better * Plants are good, we should let them live, not kill the poor helpless things just for food * Bacon is not healthy for people (or pigs) * The more bacon people eat, the sooner they'll die, and the fewer people (and pigs) we'll have * The fewer people (and pigs) we have, the less they'll harm the environment * Save the World: Eat More Bacon! * (As a bonus, if you eat enough to die before reproducing any more harmful people onto the planet, the environmentalists will add your name to their honor roll.) ...or this is just a conspiracy on the part of the "Bacon Growers of America". (Disclaimer: This post was just for fun. I believe in what the scriptures say about diet and caring for the Earth and its resources.)

Another thought experiment: If you're endowed, you've pretty much already agreed to give up all you have for the blessing of others. I submit that providing for your family is part of that (you could choose not to provide for your family and wouldn't be the first to make that choice).

Example: I want to stay home and read a book (this statement is never false). The Lord wants me to go help clean the church / attend the Saturday night session of Stake Conference / visit someone in need / etc. I should give up my will, and do as the Lord wills. If I refuse, I won't receive revelation such as who "someone in need" is. Or, by extension, by choosing not to do things I know I ought to do, I'm telling the Spirit not to bother with me, and will feel the Spirit's inspiration less and less. President Monson has talked about acting on promptings immediately - this is another example. A prompting is the Lord telling you his will. Putting off action until a more convenient time, or because you simply don't want to act, tells the Spirit not to bother you (and the Spirit complies quickly with your wish not to be bothered). On the other hand, acting promptly on a prompting (hee hee) invites the Spirit to remain with you and guide you. So, giving up your own will comes in many forms: Obedience to commandments you know about (Sunday School answers)Serving well in a calling / office of the priesthoodHeeding the promptings you do receiveServing others (Charity)Striving to learn what the Lord's will is (and having a willingness to obey once you learn, otherwise you'll never learn, or you'll learn to your condemnation)etc. All the above could be expanded....eventually, doing the Lord's will becomes your will (in bits and pieces as you learn to enjoy what the Lord wants you to do). For me, this quote from "Reflections on a Consecrated Life", Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, October 2010 General Conference, says it all: Elder B. H. Roberts once expressed the process in these words: “The man who so walks in the light and wisdom and power of God, will at the last, by the very force of association, make the light and wisdom and power of God his own—weaving those bright rays into a chain divine, linking himself forever to God and God to him. This [is] the sum of Messiah’s mystic words, ‘Thou, Father, in me, and I in thee’—beyond this human greatness cannot achieve.” Walking "in the light and wisdom and power of God" is the same as doing the Lord's will.

That one doesn't seem hard to me (it's X who is a large and mighty man, and X who is highly favored of the Lord; where X is "the brother of Jared"). But I agree that sometimes in a verse with two or more people, it's really hard to tell which one is represented by any given he, him, or his. It would be nice if they'd used names in those situations. For example (sorry, couldn't find a video) in The Big Bang Theory where Leonard and Sheldon are discussing Penny and Lesley:

Dude! You are so dating yourself. (Says the woman who has a VHS tape of this movie on the shelf under her TV.)

Sunday21, I'm reading Ether 3 right now, and verse 11 teaches a very important point. It's after the brother of Jared see's the Lord's finger... "And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?" Note the future tense there. I think this is the meaning of "real intent" and one of the keys to receiving revelation - we believe in the answer before we know what it is. A real trial of faith. FWIW.

I disagree. As you get better (with practice) at recognizing the Spirit, it will be easier to receive guidance more often - and to know when it's OK to just do what you know is right. If I can make a suggestion: start your prayer with your testimony, then ask what you should pray for. Pray with the intent to say and do what the Lord wants. (This doesn't mean to stop praying for the thing you're concerned about, but to do that separately, another time, or after you're done with the first part - unless the Spirit is telling you not to pray for that right now...) In my experience, testimony is a quick way to invite the Spirit. And for me, the strongest and most certain answer to prayer came from a prayer that started this way. I've also found that reading my scriptures for an extended time (like 30 minutes or so) before prayer helps open my mind, and change my priorities...

What DoctorLemon said - you need to go talk to the Bishop. It sounds and feels scary, and a significant percentage of your being will tell you not to, but do it anyway - it will feel so much better afterwards. Your bishop has special keys in regards to repentance. Your girlfriend should follow the same advice.

Let's eat grandma. Let's eat, grandma. Commas save lives. ...seen recently on a t-shirt; same idea - the presence or absence of a comma makes a big difference!

Mormon 4:5 But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed. I don't think it would bother me for scripture to be fulfilled in this way...

I love Nibley. He speaks to me (that is, in ways I need to hear / can understand / that make me rethink my assumptions). And I have yet to find any logic flaws in his writing, thus, as the intro to Approaching Zion says, "He leaves nowhere to hide." PS, Anddenex, I wish I could write as well as you - you've made some very well-thought-out and presented posts in this thread. I'm impressed.

I was taught that Joseph and Mary were cousins of some sort, so that his genealogy is her genealogy (but I think if that were well established the manual I'm about to quote would mention it, and I find no evidence of it there...). See the New Testament Student Manual for Matthew 1:1–17. The Genealogy of Jesus Christ.

Pray.

While not directly answering your comments, the two quotes below are what came to my mind when I read your comments. Mortality is far more likely to generate carbon copies than the Kingdom of Heaven. Obedience is not what a "yes man" does. I know some will disagree with me, but obedience is a willful act, an informed choice acted upon; not passively following direction. When I hear "disagreement" in relation to what the prophets have said, I also hear, "my mind's made up". And that to me tells the Holy Ghost not to bother. Finally, D&C 13:1 "Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness." Now, you could argue that this means simply that the Aaronic Priesthood will never again be taken from the earth, but to me, logic dictates that in order to keep this promise, the Lord must keep His Church on the earth, and in order to do that, he must keep His prophets on the earth and not allow them to lead His Church astray (which he also promised). Thus, my goal is not to discern when / whether the prophets are wrong, or when their words don't apply to me, but to seek personal testimony direct from the Holy Ghost of their truthfulness and guidance and strength from the Lord to obey.

And we're continuing to move farther away from the Law of Moses. My first impression when Handbook 2 came out was exactly that - farther from the Law of Moses - from dictated / fixed rules - and closer to the Celestial law of each person being "anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do[ing] many things of their own free will, and bring[ing] to pass much righteousness"; and "it is not meet that I should command in all things". So-called changes in "doctrine" or "hard-line stances" on particular topics can all (from what I can see) be explained either as the Lord allowing us to take those 116 pages (metaphorically) or as moving toward giving fewer concrete instructions and instead relying on us to understand the doctrine and principles and act accordingly. Anddenex gave an excellent example of this in relation to birth control. When it was new(ish) and the prevailing culture was pushing it as a way to have consequence-free sex, of course the guidance from the GAs was hard-line (there had to be no room for misunderstanding or error). Now the overall attitude has changed and the GAs can rely on those who understand the doctrines of marriage and family to obey that doctrine appropriately without specifics, and those who decline to understand that doctrine aren't going to be helped either way.

It's important when judging something like BYU's Honor Code to read and consider the entire thing, and to note that it's not about whether a person is behaving well enough otherwise, it's about whether they violate their agreement. By leaving the church, a student violates their agreement to abide the honor code. It's that simple. Quotes from the code follow. "Those individuals who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are also expected to maintain the same standards of conduct, except church attendance." Later on, we see, "Participate regularly in church services". And even later, we see, "LDS students must fulfill their duty in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, attend Church meetings, and abide by the rules and standards of the Church on and off campus." Leaving the church and joining another violates this condition of the code. We also see this: "Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code". Leaving the church isn't exactly doing this (at least for other church members). "Excommunication, disfellowshipment, or disaffiliation from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints automatically results in the loss of good Honor Code standing." "Further, a student is not in good Honor Code standing if his or her ecclesiastical endorsement has either lapsed or has been withdrawn..." There are no caveats to this (as in: "unless replaced by a new endorsement from your new church"). If you're excommunicated, it stands to reason your ecclesiastical endorsement has been withdrawn. "Former LDS students are not eligible to receive an ecclesiastical endorsement ..." Pretty clear. ...in short, if a Mormon signs up, they have to be "in good standing" and agree to abide by the honor code. If they later leave the church while still bound by their agreement, they violated the honor code. They may well be in good standing in every other way, but they violated an agreement.

I've jokingly called them Visiting Teachees and VTees (the latter only in writing). Mostly I call them by name. If I were going to explain it to a member who knew nothing about visiting teaching, I'd use a paragraph (to explain the whole concept). Thereafter, I'd call them "the sisters I Visit Teach", or use their names, depending on context. FWIW.

I dunno, the earth spiraling into the sun sounds pretty exciting.