Leaderboard

Us men are commanded to love our wives like Christ lived the church. Christ loved us so much that He gave His life for us. He didn't love us because we loved Him. He loves us even when we don't love Him. the Lord gave us our wives to love, cherish, and honor. If there isn't love in the relationship it's our responsibility to seek the Lord and figure out how to restore it.

Halloween is great if you make it great. And that is not (as Connie alluded to) about costumes and candy, but about family, tradition, and purpose.

Thanks for the reminder... it's probably my least favorite day of the year.

Something more or less like this.

It is not a matter of "logic". Logic is the process of using truths we already know as building blocks to prove the existence of other truths, things that must necessarily arise from what we know now. For example, the First Presidency taught of the existence of a heavenly Mother by using a sort of logical argument stating that the existence of an exalted Man or "Father" necessarily implied the existence of an exalted Woman or "Mother". There are many different forms of logic, but I know of none that would allow us to take our current imprecise and partial understandings of this topic and use them to prove that "kingdom progression" must necessarily exist. You could argue (quite convincingly) that the scriptural and prophetic teachings seem to imply that "kingdom progression" does not happen -- and I would probably agree with you -- but that still does not constitute proof in any rigidly logical sense. We really can't use logic to establish the facts one way or the other. But that doesn't mean both are equally likely or equally reasonable. We do not have a public revelation of the truths of these matters; I rather suspect we don't know enough to understand those answers, even if they were given to us. We are thus left to grope in the dimness, offering opinions and telling stories as to why our suspicions ought to be valued over someone else's. Here's mine: In evolutionary biology -- a topic that interests me greatly, but that I have no real expertise in past the dedicated spectator level, so take the literality of my examples with a grain of salt -- living things are classified according to a taxonomy that starts (depending on which taxonomy you like best) with the organism's "kingdom". There are several kingdoms, varying depending again on which taxonomy you want to follow, and they typically have names like Animals, Plants, Amoebas, Slime molds, Fungi, and so forth. Within each kingdom you find an astonishing variety of living things. "Animals" include things ranging from an all-but-invisibly-tiny water bear to the 100+-foot-long, nearly half-million-pound blue whale, from a millipede to a moose, from a lobster on the bottom of the sea to a mountain goat at 15,000 feet, from a fish sailing through the water to a hawk sailing through the air. All of these are part of the Animal kingdom. If you look at, say, the Plant kingdom, you will see an equally astounding variety of living things, from duckweed that looks like cornmeal floating on the water to giant redwood trees nearly 400 feet tall (think of it!), from pansies to cacti, from Kentucky bluegrass to carnivorous (!!) Venus flytraps. Some very long time ago indeed, possibly billions of years ago, these separate kingdoms of organisms were thought to have had common ancestors. But at some point, some organism took the path of becoming Animals and some took the path of becoming Plants. Today, hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of years later, both types of beings (or rather, their descendants) exist and flourish. But a Plant and its descendants will never become Animals. Never. They are of the Plant kingdom. That branch divided a very, very, very long time ago. That choice was made anciently. It can and will never be undone. Plants may, and surely will, continue evolving and developing in all sorts of astounding directions, but they will never become Animals. And Animals will never become Plants. It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that any living thing would "progress" from one kingdom to another. Such an idea doesn't even make sense. A Plant and an Animal are both "living things", but they are of completely different types. I believe the "kingdoms" spoken of in the Doctrine and Covenants are of a somewhat similar nature. All such kingdoms of glory are comprised of human souls, just as all taxonomic kingdoms are comprised of living things. All such kingdoms of glory will offer progression to their inhabitants, just as Plant and Animal species, and indeed all living things, progress through the generations with varying rates and types of change. But the divisions have taken place. Plants are not Animals, and never will be. In the same sense, we are choosing this day how we want to exist. We make our choices now, in this life, while we draw breath, and perhaps also in the next while we await the Resurrection. But the time will come when our choice will have been made. We will have set ourselves on our eternal course, and our loving and generous Father will do all that can be done to help us further ourselves along that path. But make no mistake, they are separate paths, and the further along them we go, the further they separate. And those paths never cross each other. An elm tree spends no time wishing it were a buffalo. For the most part, and with only a few bizarre exceptions, a person spends no time wishing he were a protozoan. In my opinion, it will be so in the next life; I don't see that those in a "lower" kingdom will spend any time thinking about how great it would be if they were in a "higher" kingdom. But our Lord has told us that we will gain a maximum of joy and eternal happiness, literally beyond our ability to understand, if we seek honestly and intently for exaltation. I believe him, and so I seek.

We are having some login issues for the forums that we are working on which is causing the login to not work for some users. If you are having issues, please use the following links to login to the forums. Login: http://lds.net/forums/index.php?app=core&module=global&section=login

Today was my first day attending church in seven years. I am a convert, and was baptized eleven years ago. I have wanted to come back, but have struggled with personal stubbornness and anxiety of what would happen. I realized that my personal salvation should not be held back by a stubborn decision I made at the age of 20. I had some very positive interactions and was pointed in the direction of the stake YSA branch, which I know will be good for me with where I am in life. I'm just nervous and a little anxious to talk with the branch president. Over the last seven years, I have really messed up. I think I've broken just about every rule that's covered in For the Strength of Youth. I smoked for a few years, but am now smoke free for four months. I drank socially, but have not done so more than four or five times in the past year. I have two tattoos that I got four years ago. I broke the law of chastity with my now ex bf, but have not had a relationship of that nature for 3 years. I felt the blessings of being at church today, and was moved to tears more than once. I'm so scared that even with having changed and never wanting to go back to how things were, and for finally getting to the point spiritually that I yearned to be at church, once I confess to the branch president there will be severe disciplinary consequences. I know there is nothing you of the internet can do. I just don't have any members in my family that I can talk to and I was so anxious even being around my adopted LDS family from my teenage years, and they were just so loving and kind and happy to see me, I didn't feel like today was the right time to confide my shortcomings and seek advice from them. Thank you for listening.

I was never a big fan of Halloween for a really long time. But I had this baby idea rolling around in my brain for a Halloween family tradition and a few years ago we officially started with this idea. We choose a theme for the Halloween. We do this enough in advance that we can do some study and learning about the topic. This gives our family an opportunity to learn something together, gain some cultural literacy and discuss what we are learning. It also gives the opportunity to practice some crafting skills as we make our costumes. This has really made my enjoyment of Halloween explode. And I’ve come to realize that it really is what you make of the experience that matters. But this is not the only thing that has increased my level of enjoyment. I decided I wanted to know more about the origin and history of Halloween. Last year we made that our topic of study. I really wanted to come to a better understand of what Halloween is all about since I hear sometimes that it’s all about devil worship. That’s not what I came away with at all in my study. Our modern Halloween is kind of an amalgamation of harvest festivals and festivals surrounding the idea of death (death being an inevitable and, dare I say, important part of our mortal experience). In that way it very much corresponds with the spring and Easter festivals surrounding the ideas of life and resurrection. This understanding has also increased my enjoyment of it. We still don’t do any super scary stuff. I have a daughter who is pretty sensitive to it. So we stick with the fun stuff. Anyway, there you have my lecture on why and how I’ve come to enjoy Halloween. I’m glad I can now say that I love Halloween.

The teachings of Jesus seem to hint that at least some people will be surprised when they discover their eternal destinies. His parable of the sheep and goats is the best example I can think of, but there are others. And yet at the same time I was taught that nobody will be filing appeals when the last judgement occurs. Everyone will agree that their eternal homes were decided fair and square. Sort of like when you step on the bathroom scale. You may be shocked and amazed by your heavier-than-expected weight, but you must accept it as the natural consequence of your own eating choices. If we press the food analogy further we get some interesting ideas. In the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus clearly says that our choices determine our eternal homes, and that our choices can be measured most accurately by our deeds. Living in sin and selfishness is sort of like eating nothing but pizza, ice cream, and beer your entire life. It may be pleasant for a few meals, but ultimately it destroys your health and eventually kills you. On the other hand, deeds of compassion and love are spiritual nutrients that keep your soul alive in ways that we don't fully understand now. I don't take the kingdoms as literally as others may, but I tend to interpret Scriptures more parabolically than most. I am even tempted to take Heavenly Father as a parable for some sort of ultimate reality that humans cannot understand. The central point for me is that the most trouble-free path into God's realm rests upon a valient testimony of Jesus, which means a valiant testimony of the teachings and commandments of Jesus.

Post us a picture if you did. Here is a teaser for my outfit tonight.

Lois Lane. And the hubby dressed as Clark Kent with a Superman shirt underneath. Not very original, but we had never done that one before so we had fun. We always pick a family theme for Halloween a couple months in advance and then learn all we can about that theme. That has really made it lots more fun for our family. Our theme this year was superheros and villains. With our kids we had a hawkgirl, green lantern, harley quinn, captain america and batgirl. It was fun.

My plan was Snow White. Then I planned to go simpler with Emily Brown. I wound up putting on dramatic make-up and throwing on my Jack Skellington shirt and a bandana.

Contact lenses! Excellent.

Boy, there is nothing that will make my head spin as much as someone saying "It's not fair." Life isn't fair. Suck it up. You want something different, go do it, go be i t. As to the OP's saying that the wealthy don't care about social justice (and what a grenade that is. What's social justice - taking from me to give to you?) isn't true across the board. The Gates do tremendous work in bringing vaccines to developing countries. This is in addition to bringing technology to people around the world. I used to work for a think tank that got big grants from places like the Ford Foundation. Ford, Carnegie (do you know about the Carnegie libraries around the country?), and other started foundations or other projects to provide for the 'less fortunate' or to advance knowledge. I know that Rush Limbaugh gives millions in charity and rarely talks about it, other than the on air fundraiser for blood cancers (if I recall correctly) he holds each year (where he matches the donations). He gives to the military and their families. You don't know what they wealthy do, so stop harping about what's fair and what isn't and that the wealthy don't do 'their share.' Personally, I don't think they have to do anything; it's their money. That most of them do engage in charitable acts is to their credit. btw - as to food aid for many countries - their corrupt governments take a lot of it right off the top. We, and other nations, give enough to feed the world. People are hungry because of their governments, not because there aren't efforts to feed them.

The dogs were sprayed again last night as they caught a skunk. I wonder how many times a skunk can spray and how long it takes to build up? I am not waiting around to find out in person.

I may or may not be able to confirm or deny that I dressed up. If I did, I'm currently unable to state categorically whether it did or did not involve a fedora, hipster glasses, an "I Wub Wub Wub Dubstep" shirt, and a large pink stuffed animal.

I'm not sure I'd accept a rare quote and/or rare philosophy as doctrinally sound. The clarification for what is and is not doctrine is that what we preach is common and easy to discover. Point being, I'm not saying that Joseph F. Smith was wrong, by any means (I wouldn't dare), but that we can't necessarily accept this quote as factual, doctrine. In point of fact, eternal progress, literally, has been clarified to mean the expansion of worlds, works, and seed. This privilege is clearly and specifically reserved for those who are given eternal lives (which means the same thing), as in exaltation. So whatever Joseph F. Smith meant by their ability to eternally progress, it was not that.

Okay...I Photoshoped the background. Sue me.

Sure; we already knew this. Do we do it routinely? Well . . . we should . . . :)

OK, so I am persuaded that a market economy is the most effective means mankind has ever discovered for generating wealth. It's just that it produces the kind of goods and services people have money to pay for, and are willing to spend on, rather than (necessarily) the kind goods and services that are good for us, and nourish each and all of us in minds, bodies and spirits. So, my not very radical proposal is merely that, before we spend on some consumer flotsam or luxury jetsam, we simply ask ourselves if we can justify that purchase as more important to us than food, or medicine, or clean water, might be to some refugee of catastrophe, climate, or war, or some victim of political, social or economic subjugation. And if we can't justify it in such terms, then we might think about how our money might be better deployed. I suspect that, if we get into this kind of habit, we will find benefits for ourselves, as well as the others we voluntarily support. But, I expect that you Latter Day Saints are going to say you already knew this, and do it routinely, anyway! Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm getting into a foul mood here. Do these look like hard candies? They are gumdrops I tell ya.

I've never read anything by Carl Sagan that was friendly to any religion. At his core he struck me as an agnostic, but he had some atheism on his fringes, especially atheism against a creationist anthropomorphic God. I was turned off by the smugness in one of his books... "The Dragons of Eden," perhaps. Funny how the most scientific people can get really unscientific about the big things in life. Sagan died of some serious medical illness at a fairly young age. At the time of his death, I remember reading stories about how he and his wife were together a lot as his time slipped away, because they both knew it would be a permanent farewell and were certain that they'd never see each other again. Now, if they said they "doubted" that they'd see each other again, I could respect that. But their statement of total certainty about something that nobody could prove always made me roll my eyes. Anyway, I'd recommend that you skip the book and watch the series instead. The original Cosmos series (1980, PBS) was hugely entertaining, and it's all on YouTube now. I remember watching it as a very young man, and I can still remember specific scenes because they were so vivid and imaginative. And you can hear Dr. Sagan say "billion" in that curious way that was widely mocked by Johnny Carson. if you're into science that doesn't cluck its tongue at God, you might try David Berlinski, who I think is terrific. He's also on YouTube but has some books that really expanded my thinking.

I once had a young man on my case load who would always say, "It's not fair." I once pointed out to him that what he was really saying was, "I'm not getting my way!" There would be a near infinite list for things that are unfair. Since I had an epiphany (whilst in the 4th grade ) that the sun will one day burn out, I came to understand that all human endeavors will become meaningless. Money will not make you immortal. No matter how much one amasses you are still going to die. Then what? To be sure, bellies growl, people get cold and sick but people who have values and the correct perspective will be there with money (or some else appropriate) to help. I tend now to concern myself with what I can do and how I can help.

I see potential red flags with the bolded part. Make how? Rob/steal from those you think have more to give to those you think have less? Criminalize the successful people??? Tax them into poverty because they did well? The only real way I see this working is if the people choose to give it up. Any other method comes up against the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property. Let me put this another way... 2ndRate you are clearly from a 1st world country.. You have access to the internet and the time and energy to discuss highbrow questions. Therefore it is safe to assume that you live like a king compared to your brothers and sisters in Africa or the Philippians or just about any other third world nation. So being wealthy yourself answer the question of how you would like to make the World a better place. How would you like to have your wealth and property taken from you to support the poor and needy? Will you give it up voluntarily? Do you want to be taxed so much your lifestyle degrades to third world status? Do you want to be thrown in jail? What is the method if redistrubition you want used against you? If your answer is any form of leave me alone and don't touch my stuff then you aren't motived by social justice. You are more likely motived by envy, greed, or jealously. You want someone to give you a bigger piece of the financial pie but you aren't willing to share yours. If this is true then you need to deal with your own hypocrisy rather then discuss social reform.

I like what President Abraham Lincoln said. "G-d must love poor people because he sure made a lot of them.” Personally I have never liked the word fair because I believe it is misleading. I believe the proper question would be just. If we make broad judgments without understanding or considering the causes; then by definition we are pre judging or more commonly known as prejudice. Prejudice is not justice. We can no more justly condemn those that have wealth than we can justly condemn those that do not have wealth. One last point – the amount an individual has – has nothing to do with how kind compassionate or helpful they are. In scripture it is the widow that was willing to give of what she had that made her gift great. I can understand the idea that the wealthy should be more giving than the poor. But at the same time – to expect the wealthy to give without expecting the poor to give would be wrong. If we are all equal in the sight of G-d then that would mean that G-d expects all to give of whatever it is that we have. Those that believe money is the only asset or measure of wealth a person can – they are of all men the most foolish. What makes me sad about asking those at church to give is realizing the greatest giving will take place by those with the least to give. I believe this is a sad fact of life. Anytime we expect giving to be done; it will be on the back of the poor - not the rich simply because the rich can bare it more. We should be very careful when we ask for such things – especially realizing that when we ask for ourselves often those that give are just as or more needy than we are.

For my brothers mission farewell our ward choir sang "Morning Has Broken" by Cat Stevens and "Stairway to Heaven" by Led Zepplin. ...the no farewells policy started shortly after.