Leaderboard

When I was in high school there was a beautiful and wonderful girl that had polio and was unable to walk without crutches – usually she was in a wheel chair. I never thought at the time to ask her out to a dance because she could not dance. If I could go back in time - I would tell my earlier self to ask her to the junior Prom; take her to be best (most expensive) restraint in Utah and make the evening special. I did not run with the most popular crowd but one of the more popular crowds because they were such a good and fun bunch. We all knew her and liked her but she never got asked by anyone to any dances. We just never thought a girl that could not walk would even want to go to a dance. Many years later I learned that she cried many times because guys like me never thought to ask her out to a dance.

I kind of have to disagree with this one. There are many times the wants and needs of others have to take priority and consideration.

UPDATE: I've got my first lesson with the missionaries on Wednesday!

My 11-year old tells me her sixth-grade friends sometiems say, "Why should I care about the Bible? It's so old!" She responds that it being old is what makes her want to believe it. It hit me this Sunday. Our passage was Judges 5--the Song of Deborah. The Israelites face a great battle, and the tribes are called upon to send soldiers. The song details each tribe's response. That of Reuben hit me as oh-so 2014: 15 And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah; even Issachar, and also Barak: he was sent on foot into the valley. For the divisions of Reuben there were great thoughts of heart. (KJV) The princes of Issachar were with Deborah; yes, Issachar was with Barak, sent under his command into the valley. In the districts of Reuben there was much searching of heart. (NIV) We say this all the time. Can you help? Oh, I have to search my heart on that. Really, it is usually just so much psychobabble. We don't want to do it, but want to appear to be giving it serious consideration. 3000 years ago--roughly 2800 years before the discipline of psychology even developed, here is the tribe of Reuben "searching their hearts." Mind you--the song is taunting and mocking Reuben. The battle is raging brothers, and you are pondering in your hearts what to do??? Really? I find myself wanting to tell people that "50 shades of gray" is not a world view. It's not philosophy. It's soft porn! Yet, when we face choices, and know what is right and wrong, we suddenly babble on about gray areas, asking, "Who's to judge?" To be a bit harsh, wasn't it Pilate who asked, "What is veritas (truth)?" There is right and wrong, black and white, up and down, good and bad, God and Satan, heaven and hell. The truly gray area is small and thin indeed. And the Bible got it 3000 years ago! Old indeed! Well...give me that old time religion, amen.

I'm going to the Preston England Temple for the first time on the 7th June!! I'm so excited! This will be my first time ever at this or any Temple, so what are the do's and don't s for a first Temple visit?

If these are the two options, I would say it is more likely to be a lack of awareness. Most estimates for the US say that about 20% of marriages are "sexless" (usually defined as 10 or fewer sexual encounters per year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexless_marriage). At that rate, an LDS bishop with stewardship over ~100 couples has probably got 15-20 sexless marriages within his ward. Acknowledging, as we have above, that a few of those are due to age, illness, and he probably has at least 10 couples who are actually fighting, wishing, hoping, and otherwise struggling -- and most of them probably don't talk to the Bishop about it. Mark Regnerus (http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/22/new-study-mark-regnerus-suggests-religion-can-predict-sexual-behavior/) claims that he will present some data later this year that may break this down by religious affiliation, which will be interesting.

I've found that, so far in my life, all doors that haven't been open to me for whatever reason in the past have been for a very good reason. So far, everything I have desperately wanted, but couldn't have at some point in my past, a much better alternative becomes available at some point in the future. The most recent scenario I can think of that the above applies to is job related. So I guess I'd tell myself that despite the disappointments I may be experiencing at that moment in time, it's probably because something better than that is coming up further down the line that I don't currently have any foresight of.

Interesting Prison Chap.....most LDS congregations had this lesson this past Sunday or in the coming week. We had a nice discussion on how children turn away from the teachings of God and how good friends like Deborah can help us etc....

Don't have kids. Okay well sometimes I think this but in the long run I couldn't imagine life without them. Faults and heartache and all.

Thumbs down on this one.

I think the stake president should have taken the time to correct and encourage the YM. He is probably like so many heading out on a mission who merely believe what their parents, teachers, bishops etc say about the gospel being true. If I was in that ward I would look forward to hearing his talk when he comes off his mission and if he still holds the same view. Believe and knowledge are not the same but a form of progression. Here is the formula for spiritual growth below as outlines in Ether 4 Belief = visitation of the HG = knowledge 11 But he that believeth these things which I have spoken, him will I visit with the manifestations of my Spirit, and he shall know and bear record. For because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it persuadeth men to do good. (Ether 4:11)

When people turn to the internet, as they WILL do, and discover "issues" about the church, as they WILL do, it is significantly better to discover those issues hand-in-hand with explanations of the issues rather than via twisted, anti, negative agenda-driven presentations of the issues. I distinctly recall times in my past where even with the strong testimony I had I would read something online and it would throw me. It didn't shake my testimony, but it did throw me into some real confusion. However, with FAIR and the like I have learned over the years a whole lot of other "issues" about the church, with an immediate explanation, and have felt no "shaking" whatsoever as I have learned. Now-a-days you can't much tell me anything that I haven't heard and have a basic explanation at hand. FAIR, Ask Gramps, Jeff LIndsey, FARMS, the church essays, etc. are all instrumental in this. I, like many people, want to be knowledgeable. I want to know true history. I want to know what Brigham Young really said. I want to know details. But I want those details, history, and knowledge presented from a positive agenda rather than a negative one. Moreover, the church has very, very clearly become it's own apologist, FAIR and the like aside. They are facing the issues one by one directly and officially now. How could one contend that apologists are bad in that light? To do so, one would have to argue that the inspired, revelation guided church is down the wrong path. As a general point, I believe, with a solid foundation of testimony based on spiritual witness, one should not need apologetics to stay faithful to the church. If everyone in the church had that level of testimony, awesome. They do not, however. Regardless, how can apologetics possibly be harmful?

Not dating friends, because you don't want to ruin the friendship / they're too important to you, is stupid. Your friends will date/marry someone and then you'll see them twice a year. Pura Vida. Just because you earned it, doesn't mean you have to spend it. Get plastic surgery when young. Age a bit, and you'll need orthopedic & other structural surgeries, so the optional ones will be at the bottom of a long list. Unless they're children, don't put other people's wants and needs ahead of your own. You can only abandon kids & pets & casualties. Everyone else can (and SHOULD!) be able to take care of themselves. Keep your resumè current & usable. Boundaries. Q

I'm confused. When I first read what you wrote, I took it to mean that AFTER baptism you'd have to chose to change genders (again) in order to progress. On re-read... Am I understanding correctly that your mission president says you cannot be baptized? And even further... FIRST presidency is saying you cannot be baptized? Purely do to being trans? Because that would be news, big news, if trans people were not allowed to be baptized into the church. Q

Update: Brandon is home. The plastic surgeon will repair the damage to the bones in Brandon's face this afternoon. Brandon was in good spirits and walked off the plane. He was happy to be with his brothers and cousins. We are truly feeling everyone's prayers. Thank you.

My personal take is that such things are useful. Faith can be quite fickle and it is useful to have reinforcement for it with supporting material during times of weakness. There will never be a time before the Saviour comes when enough of anything is proven to the point that faith is no longer required. What I don't like is the term apologetic... it seems like there is something to apologize for.

Summarize the talk and then tell why or what impressed you the most about it.

First of all, let me state categorically that you are wrong about Jesus. He did, absolutely, obey organized religion. Just not all forms and organizations of that religion. Only that which was according to His Father's standard. Secondly - you're missing the point. The point is to obey God. The fact is that God's commandments come through His authorized servants and that means organized religion. So obeying God will align with His organized religion and will mostly look as if one is obeying religion, as you put it. But it is God we obey.

I usually say that I 'believe' things. That's a personal and deliberate choice. There's a two-part explanation for my choice. First, I tend to think of 'know' as a word that suggests demonstrable, objective knowledge. The example I usually employ is that most people don't know that x * 0= 0. They think they know it, but they really only believe it. People often object and say that they know it, but when asked to prove it, they are at a total loss and reply "It just is." That isn't knowledge. That's a very strong faith put into practice. And there's nothing wrong with that. Most people simply don't need to know that x*0 = 0. The belief is sufficient. The second reason I avoid using 'know' is that I disliked the way so many youth in my area were coached to bear testimony. We were told to always use the phrase "I know" and never to use "I believe" because "I believe" implied doubt. I have spoken to others in my generation who were raised in other parts of the country and were taught the same thing. I object to the idea that "belief" is a sign of weakness, and so I am careful to state that I "believe" things are true because I want people to hear it more often. I want to eliminate that connotation that a mere belief is bad. But I think this young man when a bit too far in saying that we shouldn't say we know things that we can't prove. As Dravin pointed out, "know" has connotations beyond objectively verifiable truth. It makes a lot more sense to try and understand people's intent than to criticize their choice of words.

As a new missionary in the LTM (Language Training Mission, now the MTC), I was learning the discussions and came to where we testify to the investigator: "I testify to you in the name of Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith saw Jesus Christ and God the Father". I had to stop and think, could I actually testify in the name of Christ to the truthfulness of the Joseph Smith vision and other aspects of the Gospel? This was serious. I couldn't just spout off the words if I didn't actually know if they were true. To me, testifying in the name of Jesus Christ meant more than just belief. It meant, I needed to know! And, I needed more than just the faith and belief that I had. Had I in the past had a strong spiritual witness of the truthfulness of what I was about to teach investigators? And, I couldn't think of any. At the time I was relying on belief and faith. I got down on my knees and prayed for a strong spiritual witness. I explained to Father in Heaven that if I was going to testify in the name of Christ to His investigators, that I needed more than belief and faith. I needed to know. It took more than one prayer. It took a lot of tears and humility on my part. But, I got my spiritual witness. To this day I cannot deny that witness. And, I was able to go out into the mission field with more than faith and belief. I was able to go out in the field with knowledge. I was able to testify in the name of Jesus Christ of the truthfulness of the Gospel, and of the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's vision. For those who have never received a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost, they may never understand how one can say "I know". But, if you have received that witness, then you understand and it's undeniable.

Joseph Smith saw a vision of God the Father, and Jesus Christ. This was clearly a profound and spiritual event for him. When he told others about it he was derided and told it was impossible. There was no way he could prove such an event... But his response was that he knew it and that he knew that god knew that he knew it. Do people sometimes overstate what they believe and hope for as knowledge? Sure. But at the same time it is very possible for people to have such a profound spiritual witness that it is correct for them to say, "I know" For those of us looking from the outside we simply can not tell the difference barring a spiritual confirmation of their word

I agree with him, but I also think he should shut up about it and not declare it across the pulpit. I believe most people do believe and very few know, but I'm not going to tell them which word they ought to use.