Leaderboard

I'm not sure what the point of the articles are. "White privilege exists". More specifically, "Rich people privilege exists". Rich neighborhoods tend to have less crime. They tend to have better schools(Because they can afford them). They tend to have better shopping, less homelessness and fewer run-ins with cops. Regardless of color, that is a thing. Does it matter? Let's say that it exists. What now? Great. You've identified that I have a privilege. Usually, someone will say something because they have a point to make. In this case, is 'White Privilege' being used: A) As a bludgeon to excuse bad behaviour. B) Some other thing? Ultimately, what's the point of bringing it up? Are people looking for excuses or pointing fingers?

If I understand you, LP, "check your privilege" is in theory merely a synonym for "give thanks". All well and good--if true--but then, why not simply say "give thanks"? In reality, "check your privilege"--at least, as I've seen it used in modern discourse--seems to be the functional equivalent of "don't judge", which is the functional equivalent of "it's not my fault (and it just might be yours)", which is the functional equivalent of "I shouldn't have to change my obnoxious and destructive behavior (and furthermore, the costs of such behavior should be shunted off onto you)". Gratitude, when used to extract a pecuniary or political benefit, is more accurately termed guilt.

This is helpful, though it seems like continually bringing up white privilege only makes matters worse. We complain about the nastiness of white privilege attacks because we have only seen it as an attack. It's dividing and helps no one.

The idea behind "White Privilege" is simply an inversion of discrimination, subtly diverting attention from the woes of racism, to the partially alleged benefits, partially privileged benefits of another skin color. The problem is still racism, whether you look through the looking glass of "privilege" or "disadvantage".

I already told this one a year ago. It's so good, it deserves another airing. ************************* Three logicians walk into a bar. The bartender asks, "A beer for each of you?" The first logician says, "I don't know." The second logician says, "I don't know." The third logician says, "Yes."

I am glad LP started this topic, because it's stirring up and ventilating a lot of things that ought to be stirred up and ventilated. If I am in a group of people on the deck of a ship looking out at other people who are in the water and struggling to get aboard, I am going to throw them lifesavers or ropes and do everything I can to haul them up out of the water and onto my deck. I am not going to criticize myself for my good fortune of being on the deck and then throw myself into the water out of a sense of sharing the burden fairly. I will harshly criticize other people on the deck who pretend that nobody is in the water. And I have to say this about the Huffington Post. Several years ago my boss got into a titanic legal battle with his kids' school. His kids had a medical condition that required them to stay away from other children with a certain genetic marker. Another family with a child who had the marker moved into the school district, and a big fight erupted over which family should move its children to another school. My boss unloaded his grief on me every day. I knew the details of this story quite well, and I knew that both sides had legitimate arguments. One day the story appeared in the Huffington Post. It was highly biased and painted the whole thing as a crime on common sense and a vicious attack against the other family, whose child was described as being bullied for no good reason. Many plain and precious things about this case were totally omitted, and my boss's side was never explained. In truth, it was a fantastically complex dispute with layers and layers of medical and legal issues. I was shaken very badly after reading that article, and I trust very little of what I read these days.

I skimmed through the articles. I saw the bullet point on what "white privilege" is. I have no problem with the idea that everyone should have the same privileges as a white person does (assuming which we usually do that it is the top) In fact I think that was the whole point of Martin Luther's I have a dream speech. I have no problem with the idea of trying and working toward lifting everyone to that level. But I have to agree with JAG that is not how the accusation of "white privilege", or "male privilege" or even "white male privilege" is commonly used. In my experience it is used to try to get me to shut up, sit down, and take whatever 'they' think is fair from me. And that is just not going to happen. Pull others up... sure... try to pull me down. No way.

I personally don't believe in color blindness at least not as an ideal. Diversity in race and cultures should be appreciated when it benefits society and at least tolerated when it doesn't harm. But I hate this white privilege stuff. Why should I be less so another person feels better? This is what irks me about Ferguson, that the rioters are innocent victims while I should be scolded just for being white.

For those of us that wanted it, it's now here. On each post under the poster's avatar it will now show the religious affiliation for those that filled that out on their profile info. Yayyy. It definitely helps when having conversations to know what religion a poster is to understand where they are coming from in their responses.

I and my family are about as white as they come. Yet for some reason: - My wife and I have been pulled over for "fitting the description". - We've had more than one talk with our kids about how to respond to police officers. - I am the descendant of slaves. (I don't think they used the word, but basically, my ancestors hit the US shores after escaping Scotland because they were fed up with being pressed into wars to serve the British King. Back in those days, you had two options - either go to war as asked, or be killed and have your family raped and sold or killed along side you.) I have a very black Facebook buddy. Here's what he had to say about it recently [brackets mine]:

I'm a 21 year old convert who was inspired to read the Book of Mormon after watching a Shawn Bradley clip and listening to him talk about his faith. Since then, I've found so much in the truth (being from an anti-LDS family) and am now preparing to go on a mission. I have written a letter of thanks for Mr. Bradley and it would mean the world to me if he received it before I left. The reason I'm asking here is because I know there are many Utah posters here, and Shawn has given multiple firesides in that area. The chances of a member on here knowing him is slim to none, but it's worth a shot. Thanks all, and God bless! Roger S.

More #CrimingWhileWhite KillerBunnyFooFoo @PolitiBunnyHrm. Was pulled over for speeding and I got a ticket. CLEARLY I need to figure out this whole #CrimingWhileWhite thing. *eyeroll* AdolfJoeBiden™ @BidenshairplugsI once punched a cop, he said "thank you sir, may I have another", because I'm white. Kyle Becker @IJReviewEditorMy white friends & I gathered stray puppies & loaded them in a Howitzer, shot them over the city. Cop winked, thumbs up #CrimingWhileWhite Ban Collectivism @mrgeology#CrimingWhileWhite << I was caught trying to load a stolen ATM machine into my pickup. A cop saw me and gave me a hand. Then, we had a beer. cameron carnes @cameroncarnesGot pulled over with ski masks, gunpowder, knives, a grappling hook and night vision goggles. Cops told me to be safe. #CrimingWhileWhite Wajahat Ali @WajahatAliMy last name and skin tone gets me special TSA loving at airports & extra security questioning. Oh, wrong hashtag. #CrimingWhileWhite Jim Branch @jamesbranch3#CrimingWhileWhite Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner cheating on his taxes....

Sad but true. You have several problems. One: You need to go by "MormonGuitar", not "MormonGator". Also, don't be all holier than thou. It's sad but true that the memory remains if you're the unforgiven. I'll keep you in mind wherever I may roam, my friend of misery. Mama said not to give up the struggle within or believe that to live is to die; just turn the page

I'm not sure it's valid to call it a "privilege" to not get beat down for your skin color. "Consider yourself privileged that I didn't just shoot you in the face!" Hardly. Privilege should be above and beyond what ought to, by right, be "the norm". The norm should not be getting beat up for skin color. Nor should the norm be special treatment. If I'm walking down the street minding my own business and doing nothing wrong, it is not a privilege to not be hassled by the cops. If, on the other hand, I'm walking down the street openly breaking the law somehow and the cops don't hassle me, then sure, that's privileged. As others have said. It's reverse discrimination to refer to it as "privilege" unless it's actually above and beyond what ought to be the norm. I'm not saying white privilege doesn't exist -- but let's call privilege privilege, and not common human rights privilege.

I'll admit that white privilege exists. So does tall privilege (I'm 6' 4"). My status as an American and a Protestant Christian helped me getting a teaching job in Korea. So...do I take some things for granted? Yes. Might I be ignorant of some hurdles that African-Americans (and short people, and religious minorities) face? Of course. What I loathe is that phrase, "Check your privilege." It's all the rage in college classroom discourses these days. Professors sometimes invoke it. The meaning? "Be quiet. You don't understand because of your privilege, so you get to just listen now." We all have our perspectives, our privileges, and our blindspots. Yes...we should listen more. However, to tell someone to be quiet because of their background is "rude much."

Another one would be There are 10 types of people in the world... Those that understand binary and those that don't

On a slight tangent, re the Eric Garner case (in which a grand jury in New York today refused to indict the cop who put a man into a choke-hold that, apparently, killed him) evoked the following interesting response from Instapundit:

Boo! Sounds like a first-round Google interview question. And don't forget the ancient Roman who walked into a bar, held up two fingers, and said, "Five beers, please." (I actually told the Roman joke at a Toastmasters meeting and held up my two fingers in a clear V shape, and even then most of the audience was utterly baffled. And this was in the high-tech part of San Francisco.) My favorite geek joke is about the college professor whose final exam contains only one problem: "Make up a good question and answer it." A clever student in the class solves it by simply copying that sentence two more times on his answer sheet and turning it in.

Bini, I find your post interesting, as approximately 20 years ago I had my name removed after having been born a raised in a family that has been LDS since the church was very young. I have been in heavy prayer, study, and consideration for some time now, concerning returning. I left with some sorrow, much guilt (betrayal of family), but was sure I was doing the right thing. I now realize, with sorrow, that my baptisim, blessings, etc, are no more. The realization of this (though of course I always knew it... I had just never addressed it in anyway) is something I found slightly difficult to deal with. Just make sure you are very certain in what you are doing. It may bring painful regret in the future.

Read the original post and sort of skimmed through the responses. Yes, there is White Privilege. It varies from city to city, and state to state, and country to country. Here's an observation I've found being "brown skinned" and married to a White man. When we travel together, especially to third world countries, he is always treated to the highest standard - people will greet him and wait on him as if he were a king. Unless I am physically by his side or holding his hand, there have been many times that I have been completely invisible. When I was a bit younger and still vacationing with my folks and siblings, there were awkward moments when people would assume I was "help" to the family, and not apart of the family. These are personal experiences of mine, and confirmation that yes indeed, there is White Privilege. In America, we are a melting pop of rich culture and diversity. It's heartbreaking that despite the progressive changes we have made as a society, we are still so far off target when it comes to everyone being equals. No one group of people is better or more important than another - yet society enables it. Depending on the demographic, certain areas have more White Privilege and certain areas have more Minority Privileges. I agree that we can only move forward starting by examining our own behaviour and how we react to those different from ourselves. Nobody wants to be labelled as a bully. Nobody wants to be labelled as a lowlife. More tolerance is needed on both ends of the spectrum.

I haven't done it yet. The urgency I'd felt a week ago has calmed itself a bit, but I feel pretty confident that this is something I want to pursue. I was baptised when I was eight, like most kids raised in the Church, and I don't feel that I knew the magnitude of the decision I was making. I wish I had been allowed more time to learn and process before doing it. Honestly, I don't recall there being much of an option, but I do recall it being expected by family and ward members. I'd like a clean slate and to be re-baptised if and when I'm ready.

It's a long and boring read maybe, but I'm not a writer! This was my attempt at bearing my testimony via keyboard. I now carry a Shawn Bradley rookie card in my wallet everywhere I go. Even though Bradley was one of the greatest BYU basketball players in the history of the game, I don't carry the trading card around because I'm a sports collector. I carry the card around because I am a proud member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As a recent convert of the Church, I never expected to be baptized and confirmed as a member. In fact, prior to watching a short Shawn Bradley interview in which he talked about his faith, I never dreamed of joining a church that I once thought was an oddity. After hearing Bradley talk about "putting his religion and his family" as a priority over basketball, I was inclined to request a free Book of Mormon from our local missionaries to see what all of the hoopla was about. I assumed I would read it, smirk, and add the book to my ongoing collection of religious literature. After a few weeks of reading it (3/4ths of that time was getting through 1st Nephi I think), there was no smirking. Only tears. Tears of joy and happiness. Tears of confirmation, and of authenticity. For the first time in my life, I knew truth. I knew that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that Jesus Christ was our Lord and Savior. Fast forward a few months later, I am now preparing for a mission after receiving the Melchizdek Priesthood. While my family is mostly anti-LDS (they are devout Baptists), they have seen my testimony and know that I need to go on a mission. I have a lot of people to thank. I have my Church family to thank for being the most loving group a person could ever know. I have Heavenly Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit to thank, for reasons too many to name in this short letter. I have Joseph Smith to thank for restoring the Gospel and being a Prophet of this great Church. And finally, I have Shawn Bradley to thank. An ordinary basketball player with an extraordinary testimony. A testimony that seems pretty contagious. In another interview Bradley had, he cited his favorite verse as 2nd Nephi chapter 2 verse 11: 　 11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. This verse rings true in my life in every sense imaginable. It is this opposition that strengthens my faith, and encourages me to seek righteousness. When I'm on my mission, I fully anticipate on taking that Shawn Bradley card with me as I share my testimony with others and give them the Book of Mormon. Perhaps I can act as a Shawn Bradley to somebody else.

Could it possibly be that Vort is a Metallica fan?

Let me clarify. It's headbanger code.

Or "Those that divide people into 10 types and those that don't." Hey, that combines two separate jokes into one. I like it.

It is interesting that the initial example is tall verses short - Since I am short (including shorter than my eternal partner and wife) I have a lot of experience with being short. While serving in the military I was the shortest and smallest (weight) in my basic training company. I believe that it was not by chance but I was parried with the companies tallest individual for hand to hand combat training and exercise. One thing certain - if for any reason one is an exception to a norm - they will be noticed. I honestly believe that there is a distinct and obvious advantage in being noticed as an exception if and only if one is determined to use such distinction to their advantage. If one is looking for an excuse for failure drawing attention to any already noticeable distinction will only make the failure itself more noticeable. If someone or group of someones have the reputation of being unreasonably hot headed, overly violent and disrespectful of others property - it does not help their cause to be seen as otherwise if they exploit opportunities to be hot headed, overly violent and disrespectful of others property. What has the unfolding of events in Ferguson demonstrated? That it is unreasonable to think that there is a hot headed, overly violent and disrespectful of others property element deeply rooted in that subculture there - that if given excuse will destroy even the businesses and livelihood of their own distinctive class? I have friends that are Asian, Hispanic, African American, Ozzy, European, Native American and white. But I do not count anyone as a trusted friend that has the kind of temper that when angered will destroy property and put lives and livelihoods at risks. If there is a racial problem in the USA it is foremost among those that use race as an excuse to threaten lives, destroy property and generate fear. The second worse problem of racism is with those that support such excuse as a valid racial response.

I have very much enjoyed the "Time Vindicates the Prophets" series. My favourite quote comes from this series. "An oyster has few prejudices in the field of astronomy. We may safely say he has none. Are we then to congratulate the oyster for his open-mindedness?"

Even revising PV's joke, the answer suffers from an off-by-one error. Let's sidestep the not-a-question issue by changing it slightly: [O]Write a good test problem and answer it. ([O] is a simple notation to keep track of the original problem) Now we don't need a question and the original problem can satisfy it's own constraint (assuming it is a 'good' test problem (I'm not fully sold on that, I suspect it's poor because the prof couldn't come up with a good one)). The proposed solution is: [P]Write a good test problem and answer it. Write a good test problem and answer it. Where [P] is the problem and is the solution. If the [O] requires two statements to follow as an answer, then [P] also requires two statements for an answer. The prof should dock points for an insufficient solution for the student problem [P]. This of course assumes that the "answer it" portion of [O] requires correctness. The solution then should look something like: [O]Write a good test problem and answer it. [P]Write a good test problem and answer it. [s:P1]Write a good test problem and answer it. [s1]Write a good test problem and answer it. Where is the solution to [P] and [s1] is the solution to [P1] ([s:P1] being the statement that is both the solution to [P] and a new problem). We don't need [P1] to have a correct solution because we aren't receiving marks for solving problems that are themselves solutions (in other words, [O] requires a [P] and a correct , which for our given [P], requires both a [P1] and an [s1], but neither [P1] nor [s1] needs to satisfy [O]'s requirement of being "a good test problem" or of being a correct answer respectively ( still needs to be a correct answer to satisfy [O] and "a good test problem" to satisfy [P])). A simpler solution is where correctness is not required in the solution. In that case, I think the null solution would be the simplest and the student should be docked for inelegance. This is the scenario where a proper [P] and could be: [P] Solve 2 + 2 Purple, because ice cream has no bones With that understanding, the simplest solution to any given [P] would be the empty answer. So that yields the following solution: [O]Write a good test problem and answer it. [P]Write a good test problem and answer it. Either way, writing 2 lines is unsatisfactory.

On a positive note, the only way we get to the point that we destroy ourselves and the Savior returns is if we have more "victims". You see it was a "victim" (Cain) who brought murder to the world, it was "victims" who murdered 6 million men, women and children in what we know as the Holocaust, it was "victims" who bombed Pearl Harbor and raped Nanking, it was "victims" who created what is known as the killing fields where an estimated 3 million people were murdered, it mostly has been "victims" who have have forced the extinction of entire species and who needlessly kill dolphins today in Taiji. Satan wants you to think of yourself as a victim. Some examples of successful groups who clearly thwarted Satan's plans are the early Latter Day Saints, Jews post WWII, immigrants who fled SouthEast Asia, South Korea and Cubans immigrants fleeing communism. Blacks were once actual victims. Today many are "victims" and I think it would be in Satan's interest to keep them there. I myself have had good and bad (atrocious actually and I felt completely powerless and helpless) experiences with Police. The wonderful thing is I never had my parents give me this enlightening "Talk". So for me I look at it like this cop is a Jerk. If I'd been raised with my parents, media, the most powerful man in our nation telling me that the world is out to get me because of the color of my skin, I wouldn't walk away thinking that this officer is simply a big jerk, but that he's targeting me because of my race and it would confirm and compound my feelings of "victim-hood". The idea of "White Priviledge" dehumanizes white people, discounts their own personal struggles and Goliaths they've had to overcome and ignores completely the content of ones character. Some of the examples are more true then others but many are just outright false and some caused me to lol. Like this one... 35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race. How about the privilege of being able to apply for a job and know that you and the other candidates are being considered on your merits and not have to fear you will not get it because your white. One privilege white people certainly do not enjoy is the assumption that they are where they are because of "White Privilege". Will condemning people based on the color of their skin lead us to a colorblind (as far as judgement, MLK never meant colorblind as in we don't enjoy diversity as was mentioned in another thread) society? It's an odd way of getting there don't you think? The Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about looking outward. Your solutions will never work as they all focus on making people look inward and embrace "victim-hood" as a solution. Only when we embrace forgiveness, exercise long-suffering, and love our fellowmen like ourselves will we see an improvement and perhaps a delay in him wiping out the evil on this earth.

I really hate that for some reason, there is no inversion of discrimination. Discrimination isn't strictly a negative term. It simply means you are treating things differently, whether you discriminating for or against something doesn't make it reverse, inverse or any other verse of discrimination, it's just discrimination. Why do I wear green shirts more often? Because I discriminate for them. It simply means I'm noting the difference between things and making a judgment call. /end off topic rant about misuse of a word.

Either I'm tired or totally nerded out because I laughed at Vort's joke. So for those who don't get it, here's the explanation.

Vort if I'm not passionate about what I'm reading and responding too...then I don't say anything, and often when I do post things my passion comes thru. I don't think anything is wrong with that. Let the moderators decide if things get out of hand. Bottom line - You didn't introduce contention...PC is just unintentionally killing his thread with his comment to himself..ignore him he's not laying blame. I had a comment already and saw his post and figured he wanted it to die so I bailed. ...nice going PC I'm always captivated by what you have to say..so when you came back I didn't want to jinx it by even welcoming you...lol and now your leaving again...just stahp! Pretty sure civil debate is allowed and despite the subject matter and heat surrounding this issue things have been super civil.

Sometimes I feel, I think, like Mormon. I realize that there are problems in political solutions and that mankind in general is reliant on divine assistance to achieve and maintain liberty. Though I have little concern about my eternal standing with G-d, I am greatly concerned with the impact to my mortal existence that have and will inevitable come from the current trends. Having tried to insulate myself and my family from what is happening - however, I have personal experience with how fragile are those things that come by the arm of the flesh and how futile my efforts are. I was unpleasantly surprised at how horrifying and quickly things of this world can be lost. We can say things of the flesh are not important until we suffer a significant loss of such things. We like to say we become spiritually stronger - but the bottom line is that being humbled or what is often referred to as being humbled is only appreciated when the trial is over. I had thought myself stronger - it is not so much the personal yoke as it is the concern for those that look to and depend on me. In all honesty there is no trail if one can see a light at the end of the tunnel but is hardly even a simple exercise. I may still be arrogant and in need of more humbling because I believe I can deal with more than most. But I am not sure I can deal well with what is coming to get just myself through this next trial. There is a saying when we are white water rafting. If the boat overturns and you are caught in a swift current - you have to deal with your condition and cannot be concerned if others will or will not survive. You have to trust them and their preparation - if you cannot trust them - then do not take them on the river. But I always worry when those around me are having so much fun that they will not pay attention the the rapids (turbulents) quickly approaching.

I see your point, but I'd phrase it differently. Many of us can stop being racists. Maybe most of us. A few, tragically, cannot. But their days are numbered by the melting pot. The fact that some people require the melting pot to stop being racist doesn't mean that everyone requires the melting pot to stop being racist. In fact, the explosive growth in the number of multiracial children itself is evidence that a whole lot of single-race parents are not racist. Bravo to them.

I don't know much about sin, but an article I just read illustrates virtue pretty well. Pope Francis has just fired the head of his Swiss Guard for being too military. The article I read contained this section, which made me cry: In a dispassionate one-sentence notice, the Vatican's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, announced on Wednesday that Daniel Anrig will no longer serve as the commandant of the 500-year-old corps after the end of next month. No official explanation was given for the decision, but it was widely rumoured that the Argentinean Pope, who has established a warmer, more inclusive style of governance since being appointed pontiff in March last year, found the commander's manner overly strict and "Teutonic." The 77-year-old pope is said to have been appalled recently to have emerged one morning from his private suite of rooms to find that a Swiss Guard had been standing guard all night. "Sit down," he told the young guardsman, to which the soldier said: "I can't, it's against orders." The Pope replied: "I give the orders around here," and promptly went off to buy a cappuccino for the exhausted soldier.

Don't go. I've enjoyed everyone's comments in this topic, respected all the opinions I've read, and learned a lot about Ferguson. You wouldn't cheat me out of this in future topics, would you? So what if a few of us lock horns now and then? If things get out of control, someone can call in these mysterious Warning Points to calm everyone down. I worked as an enumerator in the 2010 Census and was astonished by the multiracial character of our nation's children. Some day, perhaps even in this century, the vast majority of Americans will be multiracial, and there will be fewer Fergusons because nobody will identify as totally of one race.

I so stole it from fb lol

if you wish you can take your name off the emailing list if you desided you do not want to receive these emails.

For LDS members, can you add a slider with "Liahona" at one end and "Iron Rod" on the other? I can adjust according to my feeling each day.

Lethal in Europe.

Silhouette, Sorry to read this; hope you find a way out soon...

Regarding blessing the food "again". The food is still there, isn't it? No one stole it. It hasn't gone bad, has it? Your enemies have not poisoned it, have they? It's still nourishing, isn't it? It will prevent your going hungry, won't it? There are myriad reasons to bless the food "again", or at least give thanks for it. You could request that it "continue" to bless you. I see no issue with "vain repetition" here, as long as your heart is sufficiently meek and humble enough to realize that the food CONTINUES to be provided by God. As with pretty much everything, it's all about intent. It's sort of like tithing, to me. Some argue that tithing has already been paid on such and such an amount by someone else, so they question whether or not it's necessary to pay tithing on that same money "again". The truth is that tithing isn't about scorekeeping what has or hasn't been paid on an amount. It's about whether YOU keep the commandment of tithing, or are you going to try to slide by with the excuse that it's already been paid on this amount. Same with blessing the food. We are thankful for it once. Does that mean we are not thankful for it the next time it satisfies our hunger and gives us strength?

A very fascinating discussion indeed. For me my faith is constantly shaken due to issues that I've shelved time and again. My testimony of the Book of Mormon is based on an answer to my prayer of faith where I felt a great peace come over me that I believe to be a witness of the spirit. If I am stubborn in my contention that this feeling was from God than I have my answer and there can be no higher appeal to be made. This is great except that I have have felt the same feeling on numerous other occasions that seemingly led me astray (not into sin, but the answers that came didn't turn out the way I interpreted the feeling to indicate). This leads to a conundrum that is at least two-fold. On the one hand I can't trust the feeling that I perceive to be the spirit guiding me to be constant and true, on the other hand I can trust the feeling... but not my interpretation of its meaning. Either way the result is the same. If I can be wrong about interpreting it now or in the past, how do I trust that my witness of the Book of Mormon or anything else is true. How do I trust spiritual witnesses in the future? So if I take the spiritual witness off the table for what I can rely on to build my testimony and faith, I feel left with reconciling my faith doctrinally by digging into the scriptures. This works to a point as I feel confident that the scriptures make a very compelling case for "mormonism" as it were, but obviously proof is elusive - hence the faith thing. I've fought with this for over a decade, but I have never felt as sure about the gospel truth as I did when I received my testimony of the Book of Mormon which seems forever tainted by the possibility that I set myself up to have a feeling that I convinced myself was an answer when neither are true. The other struggle is that I have never enjoyed attending church services, so part of me would love to prove the church wrong so I could stop going, while on the other hand I would be devastated if the organization I have dedicated so much of my life to - paying tithing, going on a mission, home teaching monthly, etc. is a fraud. Are unresolved cyclical doubts the same as shaken faith syndrome?

Well, I don't know exactly what you are going through Priesthoodpower, and I can't know what you wife is feeling, but I don't think submission is a good thing in any case. That sort of reaction seems like a way to stop the conflict and maybe placate the situation into feeling peaceful and supportive when it truly may not be. What I mean is that "being submissive" could actually be rather dishonest and defensive. And that just decreases the trust in the relationship. I'd rather see the two people listen more and seek to understand each other more in empathetic ways. I know I tend to do better when my partner listens to my feelings, my concerns, and even my disillusionment in non-reactive ways. And when I feel deeply understood and supported, I know I get less defensive and feel more willing to reciprocate in supportive ways. If I feel judged, I don't do as well. Are you like that? I don't know what it is about your wife's new parenting that is alarming you, but you are still married and she is still obligated to negotiate parenting practices with you. I don't see a problem with you sharing your concerns/fears,etc. Hopefully she can adjust to meet your needs. Of course if you harbor fears and resentments without talking or your approach feels like an attack....well, you'll probably experience more disconnection. And that will be crappy.

It seems logical to me that one's testimony could falter even if they recieved a true witness. Whether we like it or not, Joseph Smith is a pivitol figured in which we must place much faith in order to believe our 'witness' that the church is God's one and only true church. If we doubt Joseph Smith, it seems completely illogical to not also doubt the Church's claim of being the only true church. They are 100% correlated in my opinion. IMO This is possible even when having the kind of testimony that you describe.

Hello "Newbie". It must have been so difficult for you to experience your wife's concerns with testimony. Probably felt like the earth was shifting under your feet as she suddenly seems like a different person and as you grapple with how to handle this inside your mind and inside your relationship. Had you interviewed me earlier in my life, an experience like this might have scared the pants of me. But now, I see these experiences as really important opportunities. Opportunities to strengthen the marital bond, opportunities to learn how to use "trials" to grow and expand in wisdom and love, and huge opportunities for God to provide individual tutorials. If I had any advice for you, it would be to exercise faith. This is perhaps just some spiritual weather....like a wind storm that blows around a lot. And my guess is that the intensity will most likely die down in time. Have faith in that beautiful person you met and married. Have faith in who she is and in her inner strength to weather storms like this. Next, practice bridling your inner protestor! Instead, listen to her feelings. Get curious. Allow her to talk it out and be her soft place to fall. Seek to understand without judgment. Can you do that? Listen without judgment? That ought to challenge you. :) When fear fills our minds, its like mud on the windshield and we end up in crazy panicked swerving if we're not careful. Use the spirit of love and peace and a faith-filled willingness to slow down your emotional reactions and anchor your responses. Remember the vision of the tree of life? Remember how those who hold tight to the rod still experience the mists of darkness? That's all this is. Just a little mist of darkness. And yeah, it's scary. But remember what perfect love does. It's casts out all that fear. Lean instead on trusting yourself, your wife, your God, and in trusting that earth life is suppose to stretch us in these ways. My experience is that fighting processes like this creates unnecessary pain and suffering. Submitting with a teachable spirit brings growth. Best wishes to you as you figure this out. Misshalfway.

After more than a few years in leadership and mission work, I saw a lot of people who claim the letters are ignored. It may be because they didn't have the specifics as stated above. The statements are important. It could also be the Bishop isn't effective. There was a letter format found searching the Internet that had all the specifics. In short, write the letter to the Bishop, that is the "requirement". I'd follow up with a phone call. Don't be concened about perception or being lectured. A good Bishop won't require any more than the letter. They deal with this all the time. Personnally, I'm sorry to hear it. I know inactive members feel harrassed by visits when having requested no visitors. Leadership is always changing and people don't remember who the "no contact" members are. Some leaders refuse to respect privacy. They all have a story about the inactive member that was "saved". I wish you the best and welcome you to come back and be re-baptised when you are ready. :)

I'm too lazy to do all that reading. We don't drink coffee or tea (black or green) and we don't drink alcohol. When our Bishop asks us if we "obey the Word of Wisdom", as a qualifier as to if we are worthy of a temple recommend (worthiness is also required for some callings), we don't need to answer on anything other than the coffee/tea/alcohol qualification - anything beyond that is our personal choice and how we allow our food and drink to affect our personal spirituality.

On the contrary, I think it's very well-supported Biblically. But as with many Biblical doctrines, it's a matter of interpretation, and most sectarian Christians would not accept our interpretations. Nevertheless, it certainly can be supported from a correct (LDS) Bible reading.

I second this. And *hugs* Bini.