Leaderboard

My nineteen-year-old daughter's funeral was closed-casket. (We had no choice due to the damage her beautiful face had received from the car accident). I had numerous people come to me afterwards who said they had no closure with her death because the funeral was closed-casket. I guess, to them, being able to see the deceased in the casket brought them closure. Maybe her death didn't seem real to them because they didn't see her deceased body? My feelings are divided on whether to have a closed-casket or an open-casket. Whatever the family wants, that is okay with me for I believe that funerals are for the living and not for the deceased. There are many views on what is appropriate or not at funerals depending on personalities, culture, and religion. I'm grateful for my knowledge of the Plan of Salvation, so that no matter what type of funeral I'm attending I have the sure knowledge of "who we are", "why we are here", and "where we are going after death." The death of someone we know and love has a tendency to make us question our standing with God. And, I think it's good to have that period of questioning within ourselves. What do I really believe? Where do I stand with God? Often times with a funeral our pride is pushed aside, and raw emotion and humility is the result. Is there really life after death? If he/she died, when is it my time? Am I ready to meet my maker? What have I done with my life that has made this world a better place? These are all questions that we should be asking ourselves--and I believe not just because of a funeral. With my daughter's funeral the chapel and adjoining cultural hall were full of her friends, neighbors, family, and ward members. We even had a closed-casket viewing. This was more to greet family and friends, and allow them the chance to tell us of their love, and give their heart-felt condolences. The funeral was sad. Her two-month old son had not been blessed yet, and the blessing was performed after the funeral services, but prior to leaving for the cemetery. There wasn't a dry eye in the crowd. At the cemetery, every person who desired was able to put a rose on her casket. (My dear husband had purchased buckets of roses for this, which I hadn't known about. And, I'm so grateful he did). At the dedication of her grave, it was blessed as a hallowed place and anyone who came to meditate would be given solace and peace and would feel her spirit. What a wonderful blessing. For those who did not attend the dedication, they missed a wonderful opportunity to feel the Spirit and to be touched by the Spirit. But, I can understand that it might be too difficult for some people. After the cemetery, it was back to the ward building where the wonderful relief society sisters had prepared a meal for over 200 out-of-town family members and friends. At the luncheon, there was laughter and some teary eyes. It was wonderful to visit with family members who had driven or flown hundreds of miles to pay their respects. To me, this is always the best part of a funeral. (Though, is there really a best part?) I love talking to family and letting them know of my love for them. It's a time to catch up and renew family ties. I cry as I type all this. The grief a parent has over the loss of a child can be overwhelming. And, the loss and grief never goes away. It is always there, hidden away in the recesses of my heart. I may seem normal and composed on the outside, but on the inside I grieve and mourn over her loss. It's not because I lack faith. I have faith and testimony, hope and comfort. It's simply the loss of a child that I loved more than myself, and missing her. I often think of King David's grief over the loss of his flawed son Absalom. 2 Samuel 18:33 "Oh my son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you--O Absalom, my son, my son!" And I say the same in my heart: "Oh, my daughter, Rachelle! My daughter, my daughter Rachelle! If only I had died instead of you--Oh Rachelle, my daughter, my daughter!" Back to the OP. I wouldn't deny my young children the opportunity to feel the Spirit, to grieve, and to see the sorrow that death brings into this world. They also need to know that death is not the end. They need to learn that there is life after death. It is a wonderful time to teach Gospel principles. But, I would not force my children to do something they are uncomfortable with, i.e. kiss the deceased, touch the deceased, etc. If they are going to see the deceased in the casket, then perhaps just a quick glimpse. I think we all know our children and what they can and cannot handle. Follow your parental instincts, and trust those instincts. Don't second-guess yourself.

Contention is not caused by disagreement. Contention is caused by emotional reactions to disagreement. When someone posts an idea and another disagrees, all is well. When the first person reacts to that disagreement emotioinally as if it's a personal attack then things degrade quickly. That's, essentially, from my perspective, what happened in the other thread. An idea was posed. Someone questioned it (not even blatant disagreement) and that person was then attacked as being argumentative and contentious -- and downhill things quickly went. Disagreement does not need to be contentious or uncivil. And, in my opinion, the holier-than-thou condemnation of the discussion process is being slung more by those who are actually causing the contention than it is by those who simply disagree. It is entirely unfair to treat disagreements as if they are nothing more than contention. If anything saddens me, its that -- once again from my perspective -- that there was nothing hateful said in that thread whatsoever, and yet......accusations abound. Why is it that contention comes primarily from those who supposedly have a problem with contention? Why is it that judgment comes from those who supposedly speak against judgment. Why is it that those who preach love can't seem to show love to those they are condemning as hateful? Maybe when the Savior taught us "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" there was a good reason He did so.

Tell your bishop. This is not some minor occurrence. No one will think you're just grabbing attention simply for telling your bishop about this problem. He may ask for permission to share the news with certain others, such as the Relief Society president, in order to coordinate help. My advice is to tell him immediately about your life situation. I am very sorry to hear your husband is acting in such a dishonorable way. Good luck.

My husband recently had a dream about our daughter. She was flying around, wearing a big S on her shirt. I then had a dream about going birthday shopping for this same daughter and finding a supergirl shirt for her. We have concluded that our daughter is Supergirl.

If this ends up being a spillover with the same comments on the closed thread...this one will be closed as well.

I think this also has something to do with the personality of different people. To some people debate is debate, and not personal. To some debate is conflict. To some debate is boring. etc... When you have all sorts of people coming together online it is really easy to misunderstand where a person is coming from and how they feel about things, it makes communication really hard. [edit] I've notice for example that Eowyn doesn't like disagreement but shows great compassion, while Anatess will run right into the roil and not be phased. Vort tends to pick apart ideas and present them from another angle. The Folk Prophet is very willing to state bluntly what he thinks is right. Margin of Error is a bit unconventional, (he's? not been quite so active on the forums since i've been here, so idk him? very well). A small sample of people, but I think that the coming together of all of these people and perspectives is a beautiful thing. Pam is the almighty admin. And Palerider takes bribes ;P and i tend to be more interested in the debate-ish threads....shame on me

Carlimac's OP question is an excellent one. Where does this leave the free exercise of religion? Here we have an organization whose intent is to instill morality and character into boys. But we don't want that morality to disagree with the state-sanctioned morality. What if that morality is based on religious principles? Does that mean that the state officially condemns certain churches? Additionally, we've seen in times past that the state regulates that your religious principles don't belong in places of business, and the rhetoric of politics suggests that religious morality should remain outside the voting booth. So where does that leave to exercise religion? We may still do so in our own homes, and in church. But as we've seen lately with aggressive CPS stories, if the village morality turns against your religious morality you may no longer have that freedom in your home. Will churches still be able to preach a religious morality that opposes the majority, if only on the Sabbath?

All my dreams fit the same dismal template. I enter a classroom and suddenly realize that a critically important exam that I thought had been scheduled for next week was actually being given right now and that I had not prepared at all for it. I do the best I can and turn the test in, and then I realize that my flight to Europe is leaving in 90 minutes and I haven't gone home to pack yet. I rush home and discover that the pipes have burst, my cat has escaped, one wall of my living room has been blown out, and my suitcase is in tatters. Somehow I solve these crises and rush to the airport using a garbage bag for a suitcase. I'm running down the concourse to catch my flight, and I realize that a murderer with a hatchet is chasing me. As I get to the jetway, my feet suddenly slow down as if 100-pound weights had been attached to them. Just as the hatchet swings for my neck, the alarm clock goes off. Dreams actually bother me a lot. I don't like the idea that our consciousness can be propelled by external forces and all we can do is observe and mourn.

It doesn't surprise me. I'm personally convinced, many Californian judges are not only friends of homosexuals but homosexual themselves. (Remember Proposition 8). In my opinion one should pay attention in the future to the fact, that there is a certain parity between homosexual judges and normally oriented ones. Therefore the state or the authorities would have to put those sexual inclinations publicly. And it should be possible to disqualify a judge of suspected bias if he's a homosexual and has to judge about cases around homosexuality.

I'd be fine with my hubby telling me about his dream with another woman, but all he ever dreams about is MMA fighting or snowboarding or skydiving lol

Because she's Mom. She's Dad's wife. She and Dad made us. The disposal of Dad's earthly remains was her call, and her call only. Pretty sure she knew how we felt, but she felt strongly about the cremation. And in the end, his being her husband trumps his being our father. Her relationship was more fundamental than ours, and her loss more profound.

Not really, I just read that particular chapter at the time so that I could intelligibly comment on it. I've only just finished 1 Nephi.

Well, this explains where all that dust came from, then. Continuing... letter I. What starts with I that I wouldn't want under my bed? Well, with two gas giants and all that dust, I'd hope that I am not there, too.

Hate to tell you this, but depending on the relative position of the earth with respect to the other planets, Jupiter or Saturn (or even both) often ARE under your bed...

My younger brother and I were alone with my father's casket (with the funeral home director), and we "pushed the buttons". Honestly, I am not happy that Dad was cremated, and I am not the only one of my siblings to feel that way. But it's what Mom wanted, and we weren't about to tell her to do it differently. Well, maybe one or two were about to tell her, but I think in the end everyone sucked it up. Because really, at that point what are you going to do? And it's Mom's call, not ours.

Well in my humble, uneducated opinion, those calling for this prohibition are only seeing the glass half empty. Didn't the BSA recently change the rules to include openly gay members? It's only gay leaders who are banned. I wonder how many judges this will affect. Apparently they have a year to comply. Will they turn over their merit badges? Honestly. Isn't this a little juvenile? It makes me wonder if those imposing this law have written their own definitions of tolerance and respect. I bet if there are any judges with say, an Eagle, they got it when they were about 15 and this was probably 30 years ago when we all had little knowledge of or interest in anything gay, aside from AIDS. It just smacks again of govt over-reach. And thin-skinnedness. How about that. I made up a word.

They sometimes tell the truth. A few years ago Obama said that the Affordable Care Act would "not add one dime" to the deficit. He spoke truth. Latest estimates show that the Act will add 13,000,000,000,000 dimes to the deficit. (That's 1.3E+12 dimes for the geeks out there.)

Great news conference. This needed to be said. I hope (but I won't hold my breath) that both sides will take heed and continue the debate without stepping on the constitution rights of the other side. What is going on up until now has been disgraceful.

I suppose there are a few clarifications I should make here on Catholic dogma. First, there actually is some allowance for revelation. Jesus represented the culmination of public revelation, meaning that there would be no more prophets in the Old Testament sense. Private revelation, however, still can occur. There are all sorts of revelations given to certain people since Christ which the faith are allowed to, but not required to, believe in. The Church will even put it's stamp of approval on some of the ones that, after investigation, seem likely to be legitimate. Again though, even if the Church says that a certain bit of revelation probably did happen (i.e. Mary at Lourdes and Fatima or Jesus to St. Bernadette), Catholics are not required to believe in those revelations. We believe Jesus gave us everything necessary for salvation during his earthly ministry, so anything beyond that is just gravy. As for Mary Magdalene, there are some biblical scholars (Catholic, Protestant, and otherwise) out there that equate her to the adulteress from the Gospels, but there certainly isn't any definitive dogma stating that. In fact, I would say that the majority of Catholics would argue that it's unlikely that that was her, mostly due to the lack of anything really indicating that it was. While by "inquisition" I'll assume you're referring to the Spanish inquisition, that's actually a somewhat more generic term in the Church. The main office in the Vatican that deals with questions about doctrine, for most of its history up through the 1960s, was called the "Office of the Holy Inquisition." Further, there were a number of wide scale investigations called "inquisitions," most of which dealt with whether a Church in a given area was accurately promulgating the Faith, which in and of itself isn't a bad thing. The Spanish Inquisition specifically did get ugly, but it should be noted that it was also largely driven by Spanish civil authorities and that, to be blunt, any Church that exists for 2000 years is going to have its scandals. As far as "soiling and falsifying Christianity and persecuting prophets," I'll be happy to speak to any particular incident you'd like to address. I'll be the first to admit that the Church has had a few nasty incidents over the millennia, but as a wise LDS person once told me, "the Church is perfect, the people in it aren't." (or something like that)

Ole (of the notorious Sven and Ole jokes, told by Minnesota Scandanavians)

The tone-deafness of written language doesn't help either*. In a face to face conversation a matter-of-fact tone can communicate someone is trying to be dispassionate, or a soft tone can indicate they're trying to gently introduce new ideas into the conversation for consideration rather then trying to declare as if they were coming from on high. Not that all tone and body language in face to face conversations fosters communication but the intent can be a bit clearer. When you have long time posters this can be counteracted by their posting history. For instance, I know that Vort is usually trying to matter-of-factly present information and ideas (or examine the same) not rail at people with spittle specked lips. If you don't have a posting history with someone though it can often be left up to the reader's imagination how something is perceived. You touch on this with your edit. *Sufficient effort and clarification can help impart a tone to the written word (it doesn't necessarily require wordiness) but generally people don't spend that much time on internet forum posts. They tend to write to get their point across to the degree they're satisfied with rather then trying to create a masterpiece of the written word.

Haha!

I generally don't like getting the last word in online discussions...it means you've killed the thread! (sometimes)

Mordorbund likes getting compliments and has an awesome profile picture (Does that work ) [edit] Maybe I should have said mordorbund likes people to talk about mordorbund :)

Oooh!! OOOh!!!! Do me next!!!

I think this is exactly what happened. There are some really good points on both sides, it is sad that the conversation devolved. (and since it happens so often sometimes it's best to keep it at arms length)

I tried that; the delay of giving her 48 hours to respond cost me the chance at almost all of the ordinances. When I contacted FHC, they jumped on it right away and actually got temple workers on two continents to pull the participants doing his and his father's endowments out of their sessions within minutes of my call so I would at least still have that one for each of them. I still haven't heard a word from the woman who reserved and submitted them, and everyone closer than third cousins has been accounted for, so she's certainly not close family. Frankly, that example of "temple worthy" behavior has cost me any chance I might have had of getting that side of the family interested in the Gospel.

"Nothing is achieved if either side resorts to bullying, political point scoring or accusations of bigotry." Jeffrey R. Holland

I would argue that the major downfall in majority-rule systems is largely mitigated by our Constitution. Yes, I said that there are voices now calling to restrict and restrain the rights of the minority, enshrined in our founding documents. However, the beauty of our system is that it is very difficult to change. Even large majorities have failed--many times. We do not have the Equal Rights Amendment, for example, despite approval rates that were sometimes in the 60s. Likewise, though some would diminish the First Amendment, in particular, I doubt they will succeed over the long haul. They will soon return to using intimidation and other culture pressures to enforce political correctness. Thankful, American rugged individualism means some non-theists will side with us just because they don't like others telling us (or them) what we can and cannot say and believe. So, I continue to agree with Anatess--a general majority-rules system, but undergirded with powerful protections for minorities, is the best thing going right now.

When you submit a name for temple work, if the person was born in the last 110 years, you're supposed to have permission for the closest living relative. "Closest" is defined as 1) spouse, 2) children, 3) parents, 4) siblings. You're supposed to have permission, however you can lie when you submit the name click the "I have received permission" button anyways. I think this is highly unethical, but people do do it.

I agree. I've wondered how their isn't a conflict of interest problem with allowing gay judges to rule on these laws. Just as they believe being a BSA would make a judge biased toward gays. Seems hypocritical.

Onions

I may have already mentioned this on lds.net, but it's an interesting story. When Proposition 8 (the state proposition against same-sex marriage) appeared, I was doing the web site for a tiny ultraliberal church in San Francisco. Every week the pastor would post a message on the home page, usually some bland or shapeless critique of the war in Iraq or a pep talk for higher taxes on the rich. I didn't pay much attention to the content of these messages because they didn't really say very much and nobody read them anyway (and I have the logs to prove it). However, when Proposition 8 passed, the pastor sent me an urgent message to be posted on the church's web site immediately. It was a rather frantic appeal to everyone not to judge Hispanics and African Americans, who reportedly supported Proposition 8 in significant numbers. "We must forgive these people and try to educate them," the pastor said. I emailed the pastor back and said something along the lines of, "Gee, the LDS Church also supported Proposition 8, so are you going to include them in your appeal to forgive and be tolerant?" The pastor replied, "Well, no, the Mormons are our enemies." And when I describe this experience to liberal friends, they seem shocked that I would call this a double standard. And I'm pretty libertarian about same-sex marriage. I stopped doing their stupid web site, and the church later closed. Liberals here treat Christian churches the way Superman treats kryptonite. But the general feeling I get is that a lot of Mormons in the Bay Area were really turned off by the Church's boot-camp support for Proposition 8. I heard of Mormons who were badgered and hounded to contribute money or staff phone banks to call voters, and they didn't care much for that. The Wikipedia article "8: The Mormon Proposition" is also quite interesting and describes the unseen political forces that swirl around so many of these social issues like great magnetic fields. This movie was far from fair, and even the San Francisco Chronicle compared it to propaganda.

Just read The Rise of the Horned Rat. Because I am a nerd.

I have recently completed the basic set of training for Scoutmasters. As far as I know, the above is mostly untrue, especially touching manuals and how things are governed. It is certainly true that LDS troops tend to be run much differently from other, non-LDS units. It is also true that, while there are exceptional LDS troops, in general LDS units have a poor reputation among other Scout troops, and often (not always) deservedly so. Our unique system of "calling" Scout leaders rather than having normal volunteers (I would say "true volunteers") is probably at the root of this. It's also a problem that our troops tend to be microscopically tiny. If we could include all Scout-aged young men in the troop, it would often come closer to the regular numbers for a troop (15-30 Scouts). It would also allow implementation of many of the Scouting principles of the older Scouts teaching the younger Scouts what's going on and how to do things, and allow for some actual patrol-building and spirit.

Dreaming is amazing. It's one of the few times our mind can be utterly, ruthlessly honest with itself. As befits my tendency to see down-to-earth explanations for many seemingly miraculous occurrences, I suspect that many of the "divine" or "revelatory" dreams we have are a result of our brilliant minds, far smarter and more honest and observant than we are, making sense of our lives and of the world around them. But don't misunderstand; it's no less miraculous for this. For myself, I would never tell my wife if I dreamed of another woman. The more intense the dream, the less likely I would be to share it with anyone, least of all Sister Vort. :)

In essence as we speak of morals there is no real difference between morals and laws. In essence the two are reflections of each other in any enduring society or sentient individual. The question is far more reaching than just communities in which we live. In essence our morals and laws are reflected of our actual religion - especially in our concept of heaven and eternal consequence - or if you will, karma. Also our notion of moral is a fundamental reflection of our notion of divine nature. If there is difficulty in defining individual moral - the difficulty is in self realization. It seem to me that we tend to lie to ourselves about what our morals really are. Thus we are conflicted inspiring feelings of guilt because we make exceptions for ourselves that we do not make for others. Perhaps the greatest lie is in thinking G-d will accept our exceptions and forgive us for what we will not forgive in others. In this we make our religion false and our morals upside down. I would suggest that we are what we want of heaven. That we live our divine destiny according to our understanding of divine nature and heaven society. Thinking of a better heaven society is an illusion and a lie we tell ourselves to justify our ignorant failures. It not the failure of others that do not deal with us properly - it is a failure within us to deal with others and worse of all -- to deal with ourselves.

I won't go into too many particulars since Catholics and LDS tend to differ a bit on some of these things, but I do think either camp can probably admit to there being some "principle of continuity." Obviously we all have standard issue "mortal" bodies right now. Throughout our lives, from conception to birth to adulthood to old age and death, those bodies change in a pretty radical way. The physical matter that makes up my body right now is probably 99+% different from the physical matter that made it up when I was first born, but we still consider it to be the "same" body. What this means is that, over and apart from the physical stuff making us up, there has to be some underlying unchanging thing that makes us up. For a Catholic, this would be the soul which orders and gives form to the body. For LDS, I think anatess was probably on the right track with your spirit bodies (I'll leave it to other LDS to determine if that's accurate or not). Regardless, we know from observing our physical bodies that there's some unperceived principle of continuity at work. I think that whatever that principle is, it will likely be present in your resurrected body as well.

Seriously, you don't find it in the least suspicious that the same people who pushed to have all teams provide their own game balls -- and who in fact openly said that the reason for that was the different levels of inflation of the ball -- now stand accused of underinflating their game balls? Not even a little suspicious?

Very interesting – your personal views of Robert Eisenman. Prior to 1993 Robert published a book called Dead Sea Scroll Conspiracy. In that book he claimed that the Catholic Church via scholastic suppression was hiding at least 50 Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts and preventing publication of such manuscripts. In 1993 microfiche photos were discovered in a basement of a university in Boston. These microfiche photos were published on the internet despite threats of lawsuits to prevent publication were taking place. Among the microfiche photos 50 previously unrecorded and unpublished Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts were discovered – Just as Robert Eisenman had claimed. Florentino Garcia Martinez was to first to publish a translation of the 50 controversial manuscripts in question. His work was done without commentary – translation only – thus is, in my opinion the most subjective. Contrary to you claim variant reading and textual criticism has drastically increased because of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example several new versions of the Bible (in particular the Old Testament) have been published. There is much more concerning textual criticism and that is why I quoted Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. a Catholic scholar that tries to deal with the changes. I am sure you can find many Catholic scholars that claim every point you want to make. But since you are not familiar with the 1993 controversy you are not informed enough to understand – let alone contribute to the depth of understanding needed for an actual realization of what an unbiased view may constitute.

I'm interested in the answer to Vort's question, too. It's the concept of pushing an idea to an extreme to see if it still holds. I have recently become more aware of this concept during a conversation i had with the hubby. We were discussing a chapter we read together in a Christian book about forgiveness. It reminded me of an unusual idea about forgiveness i had read in an LDS book. I found the book and read the part i was thinking of to my hubby. He said it was an interesting idea and held very well for the flippant example the author used but suggested we use a more extreme example to see if it still held. We did, and the idea didn't hold very well for the more extreme example. It was fascinating. It doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit at all, just that it maybe doesn't always hold for every situation.

Time flies like an arrow..Fruit flies like a banana. Ergo, time flies are less annoying.

When I joined the Church after high school, I ran into many of these very things and others. I had the advantage of not growing up in the Church with whatever expectations of history I would have. Honestly speaking, I found the idea of the stones charming. Researching these findings is good, but as others have said please stick to the truth of your testimony. These discoveries are just things and details. Who are we to put qualifications on truth? We can't say "I will accept Truth as long as the prophet has a red beard, enjoys checkers, and isn't allergic to dogs." (I know your discoveries aren't nearly so trite, but I do feel strongly it's about the same thing. "I will accept Truth as long as the history includes a 5 pilgrimages, neither 4 nor 6, and has a scripture precisely 738 pages long in Times New Roman font." And, possibly what you are looking for, "I will accept Truth as long as it is politically correct by the standards of 2015, not 1827, not 1989, and not subject to any change in politically correct standards for the next ten years." History is what it is. Are magic stones of revelation any crazier than Deity appearing to a boy?

Welcome. My husband and I are converts. Him: Catholic to Baptist to LDS Me: Lutheran to Baptist to LDS. I like to read about other people's faith but I CAN"T STAND too much arguing and then it gets so ugly. I feel we agree on more than we disagree on, so let's focus on that!

I suppose on this one I would start with the full quote in question: He was responding to questions about whether there was a "gay lobby" in the Vatican."If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" First, I would point out that in Catholic (and most Christian) social teachings there is a difference between homosexuality with regards to attraction and acting on those attractions. A person with homosexual attraction who does not act on it certainly does not sin, and as such it is reasonable that Pope Francis would see no fault in that person. Since the question was about a "gay lobby" in the Vatican, it would be reasonable to conclude that the members of said lobby would be celibate clerics, meaning that they would be unlikely to be acting on sexual attraction either way. Even if this is a reference to homosexual people in general, including those who act on the impulse, then the quote still seems reasonable since he included the "and has good will" part. Generally, when the pope (back to John XXIII) refer to people of good will, they are referring to Christians and non-Christians alike who are seeking the truth to the best of their ability. If a person is homosexual, and even if said person acts on their tendencies, if they do so out of ignorance of its sinfulness nobody (the pope included) ought to pass judgement on them for it. Again, the "good will" part presupposes that, if the person is ignorant of the sinfulness of the action, there is no reasonable way they would not be ignorant. That doesn't mean that they haven't heard somebody say "homosexuality is a sin" (most people probably have), but it does mean that they haven't heard it from any source or in conjunction with any argument that, were they free of biases, they should have accepted. On the critique on "criticizing Islam," I think he's more getting at saying one should be respectful when critiquing another's religion, not necessarily that such critiques should not exist. In other words, you can say "Islam is wrong because," but at the same time you should not be deliberately making fun of what other people view as being sacred. I don't think that's necessarily an unreasonable position to take. As for other social teachings, it should be noted that in his recent trip to the Philippines, he upheld Church teachings on things like traditional marriage and contraception. In the past, he has also declared "the door closed" on things like allowing women to become priests. As for why the liberal media loves him, well, as much as I love the guy, he does sometimes make it fairly easy to be taken out of context. Also, some of his views really are what we might consider "liberal" (i.e. on immigration, the economy, climate change, ect). His position on each, however, seems in keeping with traditional Christian values. He's liberal on immigration because it allows for opportunities for the poor in poor countries and helps keep families together which might otherwise be separated by national borders. His stance on the economy differs from the "communism" he is accused of in that communism teaches that you should take from the rich and disperse to the masses, while Francis has advocated the Christian concept of the rich giving to the masses. The end effect is the same, but the means is important. As for climate change, well, whether you believe it's man made or not, if it is there is then you can certainly understand why one might want to curb it. Anyway, that's my take on it

Back to the OP, if this question, "is contraception immoral", had been asked prior to 1930, the answer would've been an emphatic 'yes' from every Christian denomination. At the Lambeth Conference in 1930, the Anglican faith was the first to allow contraception in limited circumstances. After that, most denominations began to allow its use among married persons. The only exception now, of course, is the Catholic Church. Everyone expected the Church to also change its stance on contraception, but with the release of Humane Vitae in 1968, Pope Paul VI did not change, but rather upheld the Church's stance. This document is now considered prophetic. http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2 For those who would like to actually read Humanae Vitae, here's a link http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

This is a bit of a weird situation, I'll grant that. Technically, the Church does not allow "abortions" in the case of ectopic pregnancies, in the same way as it does not allow abortions in the case of women who have to undergo chemotherapy or some other similar treatment. The child cannot be aborted preemptively, but undergoing the treatment is morally licit so long as the termination of the pregnancy is not the goal. This is known as the "principle of double effect," where an action that has a good and an evil result is judged to be okay or not okay. The three criteria required to pass the criteria are that the action me morally licit in its own right (i.e. administering treatment for cancer vs. cancer), that the evil result is not intended (i.e. you do not want to terminate the pregnancy), and the good achieved is comparable in scope to the evil endured. Now, on the subject of sin, I think there are certain things we all agree on. First, God gave us certain commandments which should be followed, both positive actions (i.e. go to Church on Sunday) and negative actions (i.e do not steal). Next, we'd probably all agree that, in the majority of cases, disobeying these commandments is sinful, in that in contradicts the will of God. Also, we'd probably agree that an action that is normally sinful (i.e. stealing) is not sinful when God commands gives us a contradictory command (i.e. telling Nephi to steal the plates). I think the bigger debate from a practical standpoint is the mode by which God may provide for an exception. In the first place, I would argue that God does not provide for exceptions to His commandments via the "still small voice" so much as he employs the "burning bush." What I mean by this is that, while he normally works in fairly subtle ways in our day to day lives, he normally makes a big blatant show of it when he commands somebody to go against one of his commandments. This is important from a practical standpoint, since otherwise you risk scandal amongst the faithful. For example, if a Mormon said that God commanded him not to follow the Word of Wisdom, or a Catholic claimed that God commanded them not to observe their Friday fasting from meat during Lent, neither Church could really recognize that supposed revelation since they have no means to verify it. I would further argue that both the LDS and Catholic faiths have "burning bush" mechanisms in place. For LDS, that's the Prophet and other general authorities, who may receive special revelation in such matters. For Catholics, it's the Magisterium of Bishops guided by the Holy Spirit. The faithful of either faith can generally rely on their respective Church to grant sure guidance in such matters, since they believe that God is working in a very public way through them. Now, in the cases of the original topics (contraception and abortion), the teaching of the LDS and Catholic churches disagree not on the commandment as such, but on the exceptions. Again, either should have the authority (from the perspective of their followings) to make that call. In other words, trying to figure out which is correct is going to be contingent on which Church actually is authoritative. Beyond that I suppose the only issue under discussion that hasn't been broached is that of "intrinsically evil actions" or "intrinsic sins." The thing is, I think that again is based on a difference in metaphysics. Based on the arguments I've seen, I'm under the impression that LDS only judge a particular (not general) actions as sinful or not, while Catholics will actually extend that classification to events and things beyond just actions. For example, a natural death would be considered an evil in Catholic parlance, but I'm thinking it wouldn't for LDS. An intrinsic sin would then be an action that always has some defect. Abortion is intrinsically sinful or evil because it always inherently carries in it the connotation of being directed toward an innocent child, which is obviously a defect for any act of killing (which can sometimes be licit, like for killing animals). Culpability (how accountable the person was for the sin) may then be reduced due to extenuating circumstances (ignorance, fear, ect). As always, if I've in some way misrepresented the LDS perspective, I look forward to correction :)

Lila tanyan wacin yanke. Why does your chief have no squaw? Medicine man Blue Feather says your chief lives in a big tipi where white smoke comes out, where they come in multitudes to adhore him. Big tipi, big chief, many horse, but no squaw. Who makes cooking and moccasin? No good. Yelo.

From a daily Mass-going Catholic mother-of-many, this is a great forum. A few of my very good friends are LDS, and we are very careful to support each other in our faith lives, with no attempts at arguing doctrine or theology. Thought I don't post much, I come here a few times a week to read up on LDS theology and life. You will find Anatess, in particular, an extraordinary poster. I encourage you to read anything she writes.

Hau! Tokeske yaun he?