I learned in church today

[creekster]

Whoa! Tell me more about this John Lee Hooker funeral.

2001 I think. Maybe 2000. Hooker lived in Los altos. He had a private service at some chapel in Oakland as I recall but, for reasons I do not understand to this day, his public memorial was at the ISC. It was surreal watching the. Des and seeing Bonnie Raitt and other rock royalty descend the front steps to waiting limos. I heard that hooker had a family member who is LDS but I have no idea if this is true.

[Commando]

Big WoW crackdown on red meat.

Honestly, good. How many mos steadfastly never sip a beer or a coffee but visit the churrascaria on the regular? I know it's not a 'health code,' but if you have kids, try an effing salad once in a while so they don't have to bury you, fat asses.

[Jeff Lebowski]

2001 I think. Maybe 2000. Hooker lived in Los altos. He had a private service at some chapel in Oakland as I recall but, for reasons I do not understand to this day, his public memorial was at the ISC. It was surreal watching the. Des and seeing Bonnie Raitt and other rock royalty descend the front steps to waiting limos. I heard that hooker had a family member who is LDS but I have no idea if this is true.

Interesting.

I love John Lee Hooker. I would have attended!

[lambdacoug]

Big WoW crackdown on red meat.

I bet that goes over well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I bet that goes over well.

I've got no problem with this. Always good to rotate some pork ribs, pulled pork, and chicken into the mix.

[PaloAltoCougar]

2001 I think. Maybe 2000. Hooker lived in Los altos. He had a private service at some chapel in Oakland as I recall but, for reasons I do not understand to this day, his public memorial was at the ISC. It was surreal watching the. Des and seeing Bonnie Raitt and other rock royalty descend the front steps to waiting limos. I heard that hooker had a family member who is LDS but I have no idea if this is true.

Not that I doubted you, creek, but confirmed!

[lambdacoug]

I've got no problem with this. Always good to rotate some pork ribs, pulled pork, and chicken into the mix.

Silver linings

[BlueK]

It was actually pretty good-- focused on simplifying your life, choosing best over better, basing your testimony on the pillars of the gospel, etc.

I attended also. I agree it was pretty good. For my location the local talk was a pretty bland one about keeping the sabbath holy by being in tune with the Spirit to know what to do for your particular family.

[chrisrenrut]

lol. All your local church leaders are dumb dumbs.

A happy primary presidency is better than a couple hundred extra in budget.

[Y84it]

Anyone else have regional conference? I think Dhole did. Falafel? NMD?

I was reminded how much I don't like sitting with my family during church Spent 2 hours trying to get my youngest to behave, then after teh choir number MJ came to sit by us and gave me an earful for checking CS during Oaks' talk.

We did as well. We did not go. I am making a family of sinners.

[clackamascoug]

Since I'm in the lower half of brains around here, perhaps someone could help me understand where I'm wrong in my thinking.

Regarding the recent Church policy of not baptizing children of SS domicile partners, I'm confused. I understand the Church's position, but it seems contrary to the bigger picture of bringing people to Christ and Eternal Life in the Celestial Kingdom.

It's long understood that Baptism is the minimum standard for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. It's also understood that not everyone in the Celestial Kingdom is going to participate at the highest levels, so the other two levels will need bodies to fill out the purpose of the lower two kingdoms. It would seem that the baptism of a child who subsequently falls away from the church would still qualify for CK status, and being encircled about by the glory of the sun sounds a lot better than the glory of the moon, so... why not baptize any kid at the age of 8 who's willing to go under the water. Being baptized and falling away is better than no baptism at all.

Another Point.

Baptism allows for the Gift of The Holy Ghost. Certainly a young person with a "diverse" home life could benefit from the Gift. The differential between the "Gift" of the Holy Ghost and a manifestation of the Holy Ghost is the ability for the Holy Ghost to manifest the truth on the same topic over and over. A spiritual manifestation of a truth is a "one time" event to a non "gift " holder. With this spiritual differential - taught right out of the priesthood manuals - it would seem to be a huge advantage for a person to be baptized who lives under difficult a SS roof to have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to continually remind them that there is a better way and a higher law available.

I'm not mad - I'm not dissapointed - I'm just puzzled. What am I missing. I see no downside to having a ticket punched to the CK and having the Gift of the Holy Ghost available to guide the young people who have a tougher road than most. Even if they stray the path through high school - at least they have a religious identification to fall back on, and they're better off in the long run for being baptized when they were 8 years old.

Am I missing something?

[Commando]

You think a baptism punches your ticket for the CK, for one.

[Applejack]

Since I'm in the lower half of brains around here, perhaps someone could help me understand where I'm wrong in my thinking.

Regarding the recent Church policy of not baptizing children of SS domicile partners, I'm confused. I understand the Church's position, but it seems contrary to the bigger picture of bringing people to Christ and Eternal Life in the Celestial Kingdom.

It's long understood that Baptism is the minimum standard for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. It's also understood that not everyone in the Celestial Kingdom is going to participate at the highest levels, so the other two levels will need bodies to fill out the purpose of the lower two kingdoms. It would seem that the baptism of a child who subsequently falls away from the church would still qualify for CK status, and being encircled about by the glory of the sun sounds a lot better than the glory of the moon, so... why not baptize any kid at the age of 8 who's willing to go under the water. Being baptized and falling away is better than no baptism at all.

Another Point.

Baptism allows for the Gift of The Holy Ghost. Certainly a young person with a "diverse" home life could benefit from the Gift. The differential between the "Gift" of the Holy Ghost and a manifestation of the Holy Ghost is the ability for the Holy Ghost to manifest the truth on the same topic over and over. A spiritual manifestation of a truth is a "one time" event to a non "gift " holder. With this spiritual differential - taught right out of the priesthood manuals - it would seem to be a huge advantage for a person to be baptized who lives under difficult a SS roof to have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to continually remind them that there is a better way and a higher law available.

I'm not mad - I'm not dissapointed - I'm just puzzled. What am I missing. I see no downside to having a ticket punched to the CK and having the Gift of the Holy Ghost available to guide the young people who have a tougher road than most. Even if they stray the path through high school - at least they have a religious identification to fall back on, and they're better off in the long run for being baptized when they were 8 years old.

Am I missing something?

Yes. The two main concerns I have with the new policy are the two you point out, namely, being encircled by the glory of the sun rather than the moon and the difference between the gift of the holy ghost and the manifestation of the holy ghost. Those are the only issues I have with the new policy. Everything else is perfect.

[Uncle Ted]

Since I'm in the lower half of brains around here, perhaps someone could help me understand where I'm wrong in my thinking.

Regarding the recent Church policy of not baptizing children of SS domicile partners, I'm confused. I understand the Church's position, but it seems contrary to the bigger picture of bringing people to Christ and Eternal Life in the Celestial Kingdom.

It's long understood that Baptism is the minimum standard for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. It's also understood that not everyone in the Celestial Kingdom is going to participate at the highest levels, so the other two levels will need bodies to fill out the purpose of the lower two kingdoms. It would seem that the baptism of a child who subsequently falls away from the church would still qualify for CK status, and being encircled about by the glory of the sun sounds a lot better than the glory of the moon, so... why not baptize any kid at the age of 8 who's willing to go under the water. Being baptized and falling away is better than no baptism at all.

Another Point.

Baptism allows for the Gift of The Holy Ghost. Certainly a young person with a "diverse" home life could benefit from the Gift. The differential between the "Gift" of the Holy Ghost and a manifestation of the Holy Ghost is the ability for the Holy Ghost to manifest the truth on the same topic over and over. A spiritual manifestation of a truth is a "one time" event to a non "gift " holder. With this spiritual differential - taught right out of the priesthood manuals - it would seem to be a huge advantage for a person to be baptized who lives under difficult a SS roof to have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to continually remind them that there is a better way and a higher law available.

I'm not mad - I'm not dissapointed - I'm just puzzled. What am I missing. I see no downside to having a ticket punched to the CK and having the Gift of the Holy Ghost available to guide the young people who have a tougher road than most. Even if they stray the path through high school - at least they have a religious identification to fall back on, and they're better off in the long run for being baptized when they were 8 years old.

Am I missing something?

I think you are missing the point of this policy which has nothing to do with protecting the children...

See, for example: http://www.nearingkolob.com/hurt-new...s-kids-part-1/

but rather protects the a$$et$ of the church:

Listen to, for example (around minute 34): http://athoughtfulfaith.org/church-p...xts-james-ord/

I am not a lawyer (and don't play one on TV) but I would think some smart lawyers (maybe this is the problem) could come up with a hold-harmless agreement that protects the church's be$t intere$t$ that both parents could sign so that a child that gets caught in the middle of this can still be baptized. For some reason, however, it was determined that not baptizing the children until they are 18 would be the best course of action. Maybe it would be wise to not baptize any children (until they are 18) of a broken home for the same family law reasons given above.

It seems the lawyers always ruin the fun.

[BlueK]

Baptism allows for the Gift of The Holy Ghost. Certainly a young person with a "diverse" home life could benefit from the Gift. The differential between the "Gift" of the Holy Ghost and a manifestation of the Holy Ghost is the ability for the Holy Ghost to manifest the truth on the same topic over and over. A spiritual manifestation of a truth is a "one time" event to a non "gift " holder. With this spiritual differential - taught right out of the priesthood manuals - it would seem to be a huge advantage for a person to be baptized who lives under difficult a SS roof to have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to continually remind them that there is a better way and a higher law available.

do you have some quotes from the priesthood manuals you're referring to about manifestations vs. the gift of the Holy Ghost? I actually remember as a kid in the 70s that it was fairly popular for a little while for GAs speaking in conference to say something about a non-member being able to get ONE manifestation from the Holy Ghost, but that was it. Even way back then it just didn't seem right to me, maybe because my mom is a convert and I was familiar with her multiple experiences with the spirit before being baptized. So it didn't make a lot of sense to me. But I haven't heard them teach that in years. I eventually concluded that those who were saying it were probably told at some point to stop teaching it. In fact, today it seems to be kind of the opposite now. It's not uncommon for conference speakers to talk about spiritual experiences of non-members that led them to even more spiritual knowledge and truth. If you do have some quotes on the subject from priesthood manuals, I'm guessing they're at least 40 years old, but who knows.