Texan

Just to show you what a simpleton I am, for years I thought Ganesh and ganache were the same thing: some sort of Hindu chocolate god.

These multiple discoveries and simultaneous inventions happen sometimes.  The classic example is Darwin and Wallace, of course, but a few years ago I had to do some reading on the discovery of Neptune.  
The existence of Neptune was visually confirmed by telescope after its position had been predicted by mathematics, which I find astounding.  But two people (a Brit and a Frenchman) were working out the math at the same time, and there was some dispute over who should get the credit.  The French guy won, and then I guess a hundred years after the discovery one of the Brit's letters was found in South America and it became clear that he had come late to the party after all.  Or something along those lines.  The story is a lot juicier then the Leibnitz/Newton thing.  Check out the "Discovery of Neptune" article in Wikipedia.  It's not a nail-biter, but it kept me awake one night.

I am unaware of any major Christian denomination that "claims they know the truth because they have it figured out right."  This is a terrible mischaracterization.  Every Christian church I'm familiar with has based itself on truth that God has revealed through the Scriptures, through the prophets, and most importantly through Jesus Christ.  To claim otherwise shows a profound misunderstanding of how other Christian churches view themselves.

I am unaware of any major Christian denomination that "claims they know the truth because they have it figured out right."  This is a terrible mischaracterization.  Every Christian church I'm familiar with has based itself on truth that God has revealed through the Scriptures, through the prophets, and most importantly through Jesus Christ.  To claim otherwise shows a profound misunderstanding of how other Christian churches view themselves.

True, but I'm not claiming that merely refusing an invitation can be hypocritical.  I'm claiming that the combination of the invitation with an implied moral imperative can be seen as hypocritical if the moral imperative isn't applied equally to everyone.
Suppose I invite a friend to visit my church.  When he resists, I badger him to visit because everyone should be constantly questioning their long-held beliefs, testing their boundaries, moving outside their comfort zones, and opening themselves to the possibility that other faith systems might be as good or better than their own.  So he comes and visits, and then he invites me to visit his church on the very same grounds that I used with him.  But I decline because I don't think I should be doing any of those things.  Does that satisfy my definition of hypocrisy?  Yes, it does.  At a minimum, it drops me somewhere on the continuum between hypocrisy and inconsistency.  And I read MormonGator's comments as saying that anything that even gives this appearance should be avoided.  I certainly agree with that.
This is rather like the experience I described in my previous post.  But I think we've entered the tomato-tomahto zone.  And I certainly am not claiming that the Church is hypocritical... I view this as a fun debate over the meanings of words.  In high school we all had to write an essay on the exact meaning of one word, and I chose "hypocrisy."  I got a C.

True, but I'm not claiming that merely refusing an invitation can be hypocritical.  I'm claiming that the combination of the invitation with an implied moral imperative can be seen as hypocritical if the moral imperative isn't applied equally to everyone.
Suppose I invite a friend to visit my church.  When he resists, I badger him to visit because everyone should be constantly questioning their long-held beliefs, testing their boundaries, moving outside their comfort zones, and opening themselves to the possibility that other faith systems might be as good or better than their own.  So he comes and visits, and then he invites me to visit his church on the very same grounds that I used with him.  But I decline because I don't think I should be doing any of those things.  Does that satisfy my definition of hypocrisy?  Yes, it does.  At a minimum, it drops me somewhere on the continuum between hypocrisy and inconsistency.  And I read MormonGator's comments as saying that anything that even gives this appearance should be avoided.  I certainly agree with that.
This is rather like the experience I described in my previous post.  But I think we've entered the tomato-tomahto zone.  And I certainly am not claiming that the Church is hypocritical... I view this as a fun debate over the meanings of words.  In high school we all had to write an essay on the exact meaning of one word, and I chose "hypocrisy."  I got a C.

Hmmmm.  When I first crossed paths with the Church, it was presented to me as something I really needed, and it came wrapped in a warning to resist complacency (about my current denomination) and to find the courage to explore alternate paths to God's true church. 
Later, when I swiveled the argument around 180 degrees, my Latter-day Saint friends dismissed the entire idea of their visiting my church as nonsense.  I throught their intransigence was at least mildy hypocritical, although I think I described it as a "double standard" that exposed their unwillingness to practice what they preached.
"No," they replied.  "The moral imperative we gave you was not to explore random things, but to explore the path to God's true church.  We've already found the true church [in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] and we have a testimony of its truth.  So we're done.  The standard we recommended for you was the very same standard for us.  No hypocrisy.  We just got there one step ahead of you."
I don't know how fiercely this line of reasoning is still used inside the Church, but to an outside observer it felt like a sophistry.  I don't disagree with Vort on much, but I agree with MormonGator on this one.  That and $1 will get you a Snickers bar at your nearest convenience store.

Hmmmm.  When I first crossed paths with the Church, it was presented to me as something I really needed, and it came wrapped in a warning to resist complacency (about my current denomination) and to find the courage to explore alternate paths to God's true church. 
Later, when I swiveled the argument around 180 degrees, my Latter-day Saint friends dismissed the entire idea of their visiting my church as nonsense.  I throught their intransigence was at least mildy hypocritical, although I think I described it as a "double standard" that exposed their unwillingness to practice what they preached.
"No," they replied.  "The moral imperative we gave you was not to explore random things, but to explore the path to God's true church.  We've already found the true church [in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] and we have a testimony of its truth.  So we're done.  The standard we recommended for you was the very same standard for us.  No hypocrisy.  We just got there one step ahead of you."
I don't know how fiercely this line of reasoning is still used inside the Church, but to an outside observer it felt like a sophistry.  I don't disagree with Vort on much, but I agree with MormonGator on this one.  That and $1 will get you a Snickers bar at your nearest convenience store.

I once knew a man who called his wife a "Johnny-come-lately" because he had met her after he'd owned his dog for several years.  The man died later under mysterious circumstances.  I do not know whether the wife had a hand in that.
I'm sure your wife appreciates your honesty, but I can't help but ask whether your skull now has a dent in the shape of a frying pan?

Just to show you what a simpleton I am, for years I thought Ganesh and ganache were the same thing: some sort of Hindu chocolate god.

I once knew a man who called his wife a "Johnny-come-lately" because he had met her after he'd owned his dog for several years.  The man died later under mysterious circumstances.  I do not know whether the wife had a hand in that.
I'm sure your wife appreciates your honesty, but I can't help but ask whether your skull now has a dent in the shape of a frying pan?

I once knew a man who called his wife a "Johnny-come-lately" because he had met her after he'd owned his dog for several years.  The man died later under mysterious circumstances.  I do not know whether the wife had a hand in that.
I'm sure your wife appreciates your honesty, but I can't help but ask whether your skull now has a dent in the shape of a frying pan?

Just to show you what a simpleton I am, for years I thought Ganesh and ganache were the same thing: some sort of Hindu chocolate god.

Hello, I’m new of course and I recently converted to the LDS religion this last spring. I live in Wyoming but I’m from Texas (born and raised); I claim both as my home(s). I’m college age and I look forward to getting to know some of you! 

You should not.
You were not in those meetings. At best, you are receiving a watered down version of the events, if even that. You honestly don't know what the Bishop, High Council or Stake President really said to them.
If at any point you are concerned for the safety/immediate danger of your LS or their child, then I would cross the bridge of confidence and speak with your parents. If we are talking about sins and the fact that your BIL disgusts you, that is not a danger related item and perhaps not your place to step in. Similar to the Bishop, you may not be aware, but perhaps your LS has already told your parents certain aspects of BILs behavior/past without your knowledge.
If you learn of new grievous sins that would affect his standing in the Church or put others in danger, you can voice those concerns directly to his current Bishop with or without your LS's permission. Even if your LS doesn't want protection from said actions, we should feel obligated to step in and do our part to protect other innocent members of the Church.
 
Very well said JAG.

A very noble thought.  But I wonder if our great-grandchildren will remember our generation at all.  A few years ago I visited Salt Lake City and stopped off at the Family History Library, where a very nice man spent 90 minutes with me helping me dig up my roots.  He confessed that some people came in and didn't even know their grandparents' full names, which I found astonishing.  I'm afraid the generation of 2019 will be known only namelessly as a society of fools who thought we could generate prosperity by borrowing trillions of dollars and paying the interest to rich people and foreign countries.  

That's for sure.  I wish I could post a photo that I saw on Twitter yesterday, but I'd be banned from these forums for life.  An art museum had a feminist display of unclothed female torsos in poses that one would normally see only in a gynecologist's office.  The museum brought in some young boys to teach them something (I have no idea what).  The looks on their faces were highly amusing, sort of like the reaction you'd see if you asked young boys to lick the inside of a horse's ear.  One Twitter post claimed that this display probably turned some of the boys gay.  The low-hanging fruits of progressive teachings can get pretty low indeed.

A very noble thought.  But I wonder if our great-grandchildren will remember our generation at all.  A few years ago I visited Salt Lake City and stopped off at the Family History Library, where a very nice man spent 90 minutes with me helping me dig up my roots.  He confessed that some people came in and didn't even know their grandparents' full names, which I found astonishing.  I'm afraid the generation of 2019 will be known only namelessly as a society of fools who thought we could generate prosperity by borrowing trillions of dollars and paying the interest to rich people and foreign countries.  

Maybe it's not my place to contemplate the nature of the celestial kingdom, but I've always imagined a place rather like some sun-washed Mediterranean village glued sideways into a cliff overlooking the sea where all the citizens and pets talk and act just like Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Anyone who can weave the word floccinaucinihilipilification into a speech deserves a special place in our hearts.

I agree, but I thought Questions to the Prime Minister were on Wednesdays?  Actually, I enjoy listening to Jacob Rees-Mogg more than Boris Johnson.  The man's words could cut you to pieces and you wouldn't even bleed.

I get where you're coming from- when we talk about eternal families, there's that tendency to be idyllic about it, because we are picturing the PERFECT family sitting right next to a PERFECT Christ.  But today... a lot of folks don't sit near Christ at all.  I myself have family members that... well, they're not welcome in my house right now because I don't find them safe to be around. Those aren't the type of people who will be in sealed relationships in the eternities.  Such sins will be done away with for those that choose follow Christ and honor their sealing coventents.  No more abuse.  No more pulling each other apart.  No more pride.  Only caring for each other so much that you would literally give everything that you have and everything that you are to be with them & Christ.  

Thank you, I've been waiting many years for someone to say that last sentence of yours that I just quoted.  I had many opportunities to convert to the Church, but something always seemed to short-circuit it at the last moment.  I get the idea that Church members take great comfort in the doctrine of eternal families.  Someone (maybe Jeffrey Holland, I don't recall) said something to the effect that he would not want to be in heaven without his wife and kids.  One assumes that his kids are out of their teenager years.
But my story is different.  I came from a family with irredeemable alcoholics (at least in this life), domestic violence of the worst kind, and parents who abandoned their children.  The thought of my being together with them eternally was a real threat and seemed to be the final deal-breaker in my journey toward, and ultimately away from, the Church.
In any case, someone suggested I carry this topic to another thread, which I may do.  Thank you for your thoughtful comments, which I always enjoy reading.  Sorry if I hijacked this thread away from its original scope.
Tex

I see your point, but I object to vague, wispy, feel-good language that is peddled as moral teaching and yet fails the basic requirement of any moral teaching: to prescribe certain behaviors and proscribe others.  "Please allow the flow" may sound like a nifty prescription for enlightened living with an elevated consciousness, but in practice most people I know would simply use the "flow" to justify whatever beliefs they already hold.  I prefer the "go and do likewise" model.
And yet I still find Ms. Williamson an interesting lady, I probably would be enriched to have her as a friend, and I wish her well.  I just don't think she can give us a meaningful algorithm for putting things out there for the universe.  

I see your point, but I object to vague, wispy, feel-good language that is peddled as moral teaching and yet fails the basic requirement of any moral teaching: to prescribe certain behaviors and proscribe others.  "Please allow the flow" may sound like a nifty prescription for enlightened living with an elevated consciousness, but in practice most people I know would simply use the "flow" to justify whatever beliefs they already hold.  I prefer the "go and do likewise" model.
And yet I still find Ms. Williamson an interesting lady, I probably would be enriched to have her as a friend, and I wish her well.  I just don't think she can give us a meaningful algorithm for putting things out there for the universe.  

The discussion above leads me to think that I have misunderstood the concept of sealing.  When I started learning about the Church, I remember my shock at hearing the term "sealing" in the context of marriages.  I immediately thought of hermetically sealed or even shrink-wrapped couples before the altar.  
But now I'm wondering whether "seal" means something more like embossing a gold-foil star at the bottom of a document, and maybe "a sealed couple" is better described as "a celestially certified couple."  Is this a useful way of understanding this concept?  Or does the concept of sealing imply some new level of spiritual inseparablility between a husband a wife?