zil

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.

Hey, with just the right number of odd things, you come out even...

All humans are immortal. Therefore, our lifetime consists of eternity past through eternity future, without beginning or end. Therefore, yes, the second coming will occur within my lifetime (unless it doesn't occur at all, but that's just silly). Alternately, I think the second coming began in the early 1800s, so I think the proper question is whether it will finish in my lifetime. For the answer to that, see above and below. Finally, I think the second coming (for me) will get a whole lot closer in the moment I die or shortly thereafter (assuming it doesn't happen before I die). So even if it doesn't "finish" in my mortal lifetime, it'll come close enough (for me) to make no difference. :)

SpiritDragon: I think this is what Crypto was saying. If your strongest learning method is by reading (appears to be so, as is mine), then the temple ceremony doesn't include your strongest learning method (it includes pretty much all the others - watching/listening, some doing, some moving while learning). I don't feel like I learn a lot during any given session, but the more often I go, the more easily I can remember what I heard so that I can ponder what was said, and study the scriptures that seem related, then when I go back, I try to double-check what I think I remembered. It's slow going. Your description of what you wish it was like sounds downright heavenly. Mostly, I just enjoy the peace, the Spirit, and the knowledge that I'm providing an ordinance someone on the other side needs to progress.

Gator, We love you whether you love the temple or not. FWIW, over the years, I've seen various sciencey shows about how the brain works and it turns out what Lehi says above is true not just for spiritual reasons, but neurological. When something is new to a person (music, behavior, language, etc.), the brain doesn't have neural pathways for (automated) processing said new thing. Therefore, the brain doesn't know how to handle it, and so it doesn't like it. As exposure to this new thing is repeated, the brain forms pathways so that processing can be automatic. Once these are established, the thing is not "new" anymore, and the brain "likes" it. (I find this fascinating, even if it seems obvious after learning it.) Anywho, learning this has been useful for me when trying to make or break habits - it's just a matter of repetition until my brain literally gets used to it. :) (This process of making new pathways is good exercise for the brain and one of the reasons doctors recommend constantly learning / trying new things - to maintain brain health.)

Amen, Sunday21. There's such a feeling of welcome and peace there, like coming home.

You should probably avoid the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Africa...hmm, maybe just most of the world outside the US, and maybe Canada. :) I don't see how you get a short i out of the o in Clinton (that o is an uh sound - schwa - at least, where I'm from). I guess some parts of the US must pronounce that name Clintin.

Can you odd?

It's possible those who have never had a stake calling, and/or never been married to someone who had a stake calling, and/or never had children to attend stake activities don't think much about stakes. For example, my stake interaction seems to be limited to: * Girls Camp (back in the day, as a YW) * Stake Conference * Temple Recommend Interviews ...I can't remember the last time we had a stake activity. Perhaps you could ask sisters who have / had stake callings to share their experiences and testimonies of the importance of stakes. Perhaps you could discuss how to explain the idea of a stake to non-members (and laugh about how Mormons have their own "stake houses").

Ask those three questions as part of your lesson and let the sisters in RS take over. :) IMO, the best lessons are those where the teacher asks good questions and lets participants discuss. Unless the lesson explains diocese, I couldn't answer #2. What can a stake do that a ward or branch couldn't (or couldn't do as well / easily)? I think you could discuss whether the sisters feel like the stake is a blessing or aid in their lives, if so, why, and if not, what can we do to change that (I wouldn't ask why not as that might turn into a complain-fest).

Like this?

Isn't it "Ye Olde Shoppe"? (which would have to be pronounced "shope"?) We could follow the English and just go with learnt (though I'm not sure why we need that "a" in there... maybe for the Canadians ::running away:: ).

While we're here, who invented this language?! With that "ew" on the end, shew should clearly be pronounced like shoo, and so should shoo and shu (my we're redundant); but an e on the end makes the previous vowel long, so shoe should be pronounced show (and so needs an e, making it soe, or we'll have to start pronouncing it suh, and I'm not sure what to do with sew and sue); and show should rhyme with ow(,) and how. And what's up with "rhyme" anyway!? I'm pretty sure the French have something to (tew) do (due) with all this. :) PS: Which should come first when asking an exclamatory question, the ? or the ! ?

In my defense, it was one of those weird moments when nothing looked / seemed correct - I had known for decades how to spell shoe, and had I actually been writing, I could probably have done it without thinking, but I was thinking (and apparently couldn't do it without writing). (I had to google "aight". Did you hear the one about the guy whose left side was cut off? He's all right now. ::running for cover::)

You can read the BYU Honor Code by clicking those words. I didn't have to get past the bullet list to understand why that would be their policy. Given that this policy is explicitly spelled out in the honor code - which students must agree to when they apply, this seems like a non-issue to me.

Not words so much as pronunciations: aks instead of ask, avaidable instead of available. My husband hated "these ones" (redundant, unless you're talking about "these one dollar bills" as opposed to "those one dollar bills", though possibly unnecessary even in that case). In related news, I once had to resort to a dictionary to figure out how to spell shoe (and this was not that many years ago). It was one of those moments when nothing seemed right. (The internal conversation went something like this: s-h-o-w? No, that's show. s-h-o-o? No, that's for flies. s-h-e-w? No, that's biblical. How the heck do you spell that word?!)

Slightly OT: When Gore (or whoever it was) started selling "carbon credits", my brother came up with an ingenious scheme (he just has too much integrity to implement it): 1) Create a website to "reduce your carbon footprint" (for the guilty alarmists) - you send money, the organization behind the site does something like plant a tree for you. 2) Create a website to "increase your carbon footprint" (for the militant deniers) - you send money, the organization behind the site does something like burn a tree for you. ...do you see where we're going? One person's "reduce" money is offset by another person's "increase" money, meanwhile my brother doesn't do anything (except manage the sites in such a way as to keep the "purchases" reasonably even, and bank the money, of course). [The scientific discussion may now resume.]

If it would be accurate to say that all the "you" instances in your statement are meant to be interpreted as "one" (not as "you, zil"), then ok, I'll look at it that way. My impression was that you meant "you, zil"; if not, nevermind that last post. :) So, abstracting the above, certainly, there are people who struggle with the circumstances of their lives - hopefully not with something as simple as needing glasses (unless they're in one of those situations where they can't get them), but about more difficult circumstances. I am blessed not to have that sort of trial - other types most definitely, but not "circumstances beyond my control" -type trials, so I don't feel terribly qualified to comment on this beyond the obvious: For someone in such a situation, finding peace with those circumstances is, of course, very important, and will lead to greater happiness in this life. And, conversely, constant negativity about those circumstances will lead the opposite direction. But as I said, that seems obvious, so what am I missing? (PS: The talk immediately before Elder Cook's seems very applicable to the idea of happiness in this life and rewards in eternity.)

IMO, a prophet's calling can only be negated by God. If a prophet does something sufficiently worrisome, God will take care of it. (This isn't over-confidence in prophets, it's complete confidence in God. It's also His stewardship, not mine, to appoint and remove prophets.) As for all the things typically cited as prophetic error, I suspect we're being awfully Monday-morning-quarterback about them (aka presumptuous). We don't have the infinite capacity to go back in time and see _everything_ that would have happened to _everyone_ had the decision been the one we think it should have been. Again, I trust God to right any wrongs. Personally, I have yet to hear a prophet teach something that requires me to do something against my conscience in order to gain salvation. There are so many teachings for me to work on to improve myself and serve others, that I really don't need to worry about things which have no impact on my eternal salvation. Possible prophetic errors have no impact on my salvation. When Christ's birthday was, and what various people believe on that topic, have nothing to do with my salvation. Such things seem utterly irrelevant to me, little more than curiosities.