Leaderboard

Thanks to everybody who responded to my questions. You were all quite helpful. It should be noted though that there are some things in scripture that you simply cannot take to be 100% literal. The Gospel accounts of Christ's life in several places list contradictory and irreconcilable differences in their timelines, as do other books which cover similar stories (i.e. Kings and Chronicles in the OT). That being said, I do for the most part agree. I am personally of the opinion that the truths revealed even in texts that aren't always strictly historical remain true. In my mind, at least, any alteration to the way events actually played out was likely done in the service of a greater truth, and therefor still needs to be recognized. It does, however, provide a bit more interpretive freedom in determining what truth the text meant to convey. Admittedly that freedom can be, and often times has been, abused. That being said, I don't think either LDS or Catholics have an accepted exegesis for every scripture passage, so opinions are to some degree permitted to vary.

If I were in your shoes, I'd sit down with your friend and tell her you saw her photographs and found them quite shocking (your words). Then I'd open a conversation with her about why she is doing it. If there is some intended greater good here, then I might continue the friendship. For example, her photographs might be done to raise awareness about human suffering so society can stop it. I'm not sure I'd like that, but I would try to understand her view. But if it's just her form of expression that she finds fulfilling or profitable, I'll drop-kick her photographs and her friendship without the slightest hesitation. And I'd tell her to her face why I'm terminating the friendship. My own feeling is that our society is starting to find entertainment value in human suffering, which I totally oppose and am sickened by. And I'm glad you didn't swing the ax on me because of my occasional anti-Obama posts.

Ether 8 is a chapter of the Book of Mormon that discusses an ancient kingdom whose political history was more or less governed by a secret group whose allegiances lay primarily with Satan. Not exactly a mainstream LDS view as applied to the US government; but there are certainly Mormons who believe it.

tl;dr = to long didn't read

Depends on where you are at. Here's some data. What do you think? My personal thoughts are if you are the type to be affected by following the expectations of others, you will feel pressure from the majority. If not you won't. I personally haven't been pressured to vote one way or another in a religious setting.

FWIW, I only ever unfriended one person . . . an old friend from Deacon's Quorum days who has since come out of the closet, and posted the results of his "How Gay Are You?" quiz along with some vulgarisms about his preferred manner of intercourse and a pseudo-apology to his mom. I almost immediately regretted it, and have since re-friended him. I just choose to hide his posts from my feed (I didn't originally know that was possible.)

I've never felt a need to "weed out" my Facebook friends, and am frankly mystified by those who do. The only reason I can visualize unfriending someone, is if they were proactively using their Facebook status to hurt me or another of my Facebook friends. Otherwise--I have some pretty twisted friends and family members; and I just assume that other people probably do, too. I don't judge anyone for being Facebook friends with someone who strikes me as a little bit creepy.

He may need to get his eyes examined soon.

To an extent I would concur with your summary, though I do feel a little more ought to be said. On the subject of intent, I still don't think there's much of a distance between our varying positions. For an action that has good and bad results to be okay, you have to be performing the action for the purpose of bringing about the good effect. In other words, if one of the effects was absent, the one you intend is the one that, if lacking, would cause you not to perform the action. So, again, the issue seems to be intrinsically evil actions. Basically the Catholic mindset goes something like this: God gave us a command not to murder, so we cannot murder. As far as that goes, I don't think there's a lot of debate. That being said, I think most people would also agree that some acts resulting in the death of an innocent person are murder, and others that are not. The hard part is deciding where exactly to draw that line. Certainly proximity to the result is a factor, at least in the case of murder. If I shoot an child, then virtually everybody would agree that I murdered them. If in a just war I bomb a large military installation, it probably isn't murder even though there's almost certainly somebody there who's an innocent non-combatant. In most cases it's probably not outlandishly difficult to make the distinction, but in the really hard cases you have to get into really fine details. I recognize that Catholics can get "lawyerly" and "split hairs" in those cases, but again God told us not to murder and, in the absence of divine revelation to the contrary, we don't really have a mechanism to avoid that rule. Where I would contend with the "pharisaic" accusation is that the Pharisees got in trouble by increasing the strictness of commandments (in order to avoid the near occasion of violating them) and they were hipocrites who followed the ordinances but who were motivated by pride more than a love of God. Obviously we are willing to go to great length to cut it very close on some commandments, which I think gets us out of the first half of that. As for the second part, that's probably an issue amongst some people in every church.

I'm using vivid hyperbole to make my point, just as Jesus said that "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." It's not meant to be take literally. I would be quite astonished if any newspaper ever mentioned LDS garments and Victoria's Secret in the same article. :) The SLT has a long history of sensationalizing mundane LDS events and nonevents to goose its readers and fan the flames among anti-LDS simpletons, who often post really vile things in the comments section of these stories.

Garments have a most interesting history - part of which I have lived through. I survived the difficulties in the military with what was considered non-issues undergarments that was subject to ridicule as well as punishment. Though it was too late for me I am grateful for special considerations for those that serve in the military. When I was a young pup - I competed as a cyclist. I discovered that in order to compete (especially in longer century rides) special clothing that allowed my body to breath was a critical necessity. I crafted a letter to "the brethren" requesting special garments that could be worn during training and completion. I received a letter in reply outlining several reasons why it would be better that I not wear my garments during training and competition rather than a special garment be issued - which "the brethren" believed would become an excuse to consider extreme considerations of the physical law of the covenant rather than the spirit of our sacred opportunity.

I have posted about the level of contention at this site before. I haven't been here much in the last year or so. I just didn't have the stomach for the contention. Yesterday I found myself wanting to discuss the news conference with other LDS members. I was hoping there were others who felt the same way I did about the news conference. I was happy. I am confused why there is so much contention over the issue the church spoke on and over the news conference itself. For me the words of our Prophet and Apostles are the last word. I was happy to hear the church say it expects the same respect as other groups are expecting. That is something to celebrate. It needed to be said. It needs to be fought for. Our free society is disintegrating because we (as a nation) aren't allowing all people the same level of freedom. (I am not talking about redefining words, such as, marriage.) One side wants one thing and the other wants something else and if there is a little legal victory then its an all out war to make the other side pay. That's wrong! As LDS members we need more than ever to be Christ-like. Instead we bicker and fight. What I read in the headlines yesterday was so misleading and out right wrong I wondered if they even listened to the news conference. What I read here is was just as disheartening to say the least, definitely un-Christ-like. I was surprised all over again at the level of contention. I was not surprised to see the thread closed this morning. Are we as members going to be part of the wickness? (rhetorical) Sigh.... have at it. I've voiced my concerns and probably won't be back for another year. I hope all of you have a great day (year). Enjoy! :) Edit: Had to add this quote from Russell M. Nelson, Conference Address, April 1989 "My concern is that contention is becoming accepted as a way of life. From what we see and hear in the media, the classroom, and the workplace, all are now infected to some degree with contention. How easy it is, yet how wrong it is, to allow habits of contention to pervade matters of spiritual significance, because contention is forbidden by divine decree:"

I have no love for President Obama or Hillary Clinton, other than that they are God's children as myself. After years of scripture study and my love for the gospel of Jesus Christ and the models, which He has given us from Moses to Hezekiah and all the way through to John the Beloved, if we only do it God's way, He will preserve us as a nation under God. David can still slay Goliath, but rather than going out to the front lines of battle anymore as covenant kings should, David has grown proud and is fooling around with Bathsheba. David has a hard road ahead of him.

Officailly, the church never endorses a candidate or political party. Churches are not allowed to be used for political events, or even voting spots. However, members are encouraged to be involved in the community, including politics. Every November local congregations are read a letter saying effectively "we endorse no candidates, but encourage you to vote". Still talking about official church policy: the church never endorse a person or party, but will occasionally comment on a policy, particulary moral ones. For example, just Tuesday there was a big new conference with the church officially saying "People marrying those of the same sex is wrong, but all people do deserve the right to a place to live." (please no one turn this into a gay-marriage thread!). Unofficiailly, a lot of individuals Mormons do lean Republican because they feel that party best represents their view (see Crypto's data). But there are still plenty of Democrats.

I was in Girl Scouts growing up, and ended up earning my gold award and am probably one of a very few LDS women who were. That process, which is extremely demanding, is far more accurate to comparison with an Eagle project, than my YW medallion. I value both of them highly and appreciate what they both did for me throughout the earning process, but I spent far more time working through the sustainable project required in girl scouts.

I just noticed that. Hehe, For some reason I read the Joseph Smith Translation and thought Claire was talking about the Book of Mormon, not... The JST. I forget that Claire is a bit more knowledgeable about us mormons than most non-mormons. I had in mind that you were non-lds and took your phrasing more generic.

This is a great explanation for some of the potential errors in the book of mormon, but I believe the question was regarding Joseph's translation of the bible :)

I vote Republican. I definitely don't think they are perfect or anything like that, that's why I always refer to myself as a conservative vs as a Republican.. But I think they are more in line with my opinions on social and economic issues. That and it's the best I can do to try to keep the likes of Obama and Hilary, etc, out of the White House.

I eventually came to the realization that there were a lot of smart people who were no biased than me who held to one religion or another. That had to mean, in my estimate, that there was at least some possibility that I could be wrong due to either error, insufficient data, or unperceived bias. That was important, because if you're an atheist, there really isn't any hope. You live, you die, and that's the end. Ultimately, then, it made more sense to me to trust in an unlikely hope than a probable futility. From there, it was just a very long (as in over a year) period of research on various philosophies and religions to find which seemed most probable to me. Ultimately Catholicism won out.

Wait, wait... let me count the pages first! One page... then comes two pages... three.... for..... f-four?..... f-five..... okay, I'm out of the running.

A Gentile failing. Secret combinations have gotten above us. We were specifically given a warning to learn from someone else's mistake and have failed. The mighty nation will fall. It's only a matter of time before our desolating scourge is upon us.

Lol, what's Ether 8?

Not in my ward or any ward that I've been in. Personally speaking, I can't stand the right/left paradigm. Both are wings of the same dirty bird. Doesn't matter which side you choose. The same puppet master pulls all the strings. Ether 8.

Interesting. Thanks crypto!

It seems FB keeps relationships alive that would otherwise die. I've gone back to find old friends with facebook to try and reconnect only to find there is no connection. These are people I once loved and cared for. I remember one friend telling me many years ago that friend just drift apart. I didn't like hearing it. I didn't want to believe it. But, I think life is proving it out. It would seem FB is a cord binding what would otherwise drifted off. I have friends now that I want to keep and I still "unfollow" them in facebook so we can stay "friends" without me seeing the profanity laced junk they post. Some people have little sense. :)

The official stance is... "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly" Beyond that belief can vary from person to person. We have in addition to the account of Genesis in the Old Testament, we have through modern revelation an account of the Lord revealing it to Moses and to Abraham. We also have statement showing that the Jaredites had an account of it and so did the Nephites. Needless to say there is plenty of pointers in the LDS faith to how important God thinks the account of Gensis is given his preservation and restoration of the account. That could lead to a lot of people taking it very seriously

I expect there are things in the OT that are not literal, but as a general rule, we believe what it says happened happened. But there are things that could be artistically described, perhaps -- as Jane Doe suggested above. The problem is, in my opinion, that if you don't give the OT the benefit of the doubt then it's too easy to simply write off anything you disagree with. I find that thinking incredibly spiritually dangerous. So did the flood "literally" cover the whole earth or not? I don't know. Perhaps not. But I see no harm in simply presuming it did. Did a snake talk to Adam and Eve or is the snake symbolic and representative of something? I don't know. Once again, I see no harm in presuming it was a literal snake. Really, in these things, it doesn't much matter though. Whether it was a snake or Satan himself speaking, someone tempted Eve. Certainly the more directly spiritual things I believe though. Simply taking the Abrahamic sacrifice and writing it off as false? Why? I very much believe it actually happened. And what is the motivation for claiming it figurative? Because the stories are hard to swallow? Oh...you mean like a man walking on water, turning water to wine, raising the dead, magically creating food, and coming back from the dead Himself? That kind of hard to swallow? And yet we accept this as valid -- in spite of the fact that they're a bunch of "crazy stories". So why would I write of the OT "crazy stories"? So, yes. I take the OT literally -- for the most part -- and any suspicions I have that there may be some level of figuratism therein, I give the benefit of the doubt to literalism regardless. (I think I just made up the words figuratism and literalism. Cool.) We also believe, in the LDS church, that the Bible, OT and NT are only correct as far as they are translated correctly. We believe there are errors therein. Is it possible that some of the crazy stories are somewhat in error? Sure. But does that automatically imply that the entirety of the book is meant to be nothing but figurative? No. As SpiritDragon implied, there's no hard line "it is figurative" or "it is literal" for the entire OT, though I feel confident that if we dug we could find some sort of teaching somewhere about the literal belief in most of the occurrences therein.

Thanks, JAG. I will just leave her page alone and not venture to it but will keep her as a friend on FB for now.

In my experience, SLT excels at the tiniest of digs.

Well my wife and I are Eleven-Year-Old scout leaders and she earned her Young Women's Medallion. Here's her Response "As someone who has seen both sides of the spectrum in question, I feel I can reasonably accurately answer the question of emphasis on each presentation. I must clarify that I earned my medallion under the old program but I have taken a good look at the new program and my mother is currently a YW leader in her ward. To earn an Eagle Scout rank, a boy must complete no less than 13 hours in preparatory service projects such as First Class, Star, and Life rank required projects and the 8 hours of required service for the Citizenship in the Community merit badge. A boy is required to spend no less than 20 nights camping for the camping merit badge. He must attend scout camp or lots of troop overnighters in order to meet this requirement. He must earn a total of at least 21 merit badges, several of which are clearly defined. He must learn first aid, emergency preparedness, cooking, citizenship, consciousness for his environment, camping skills, physical fitness, personal management and finance skills, and career-orientated skills. All of these merit badges require numerous hours of individual effort. Also required is a great deal of leadership practical experience as a patrol member with specific responsibilities. The final requirement is the Eagle project requiring lots of man hours to complete. While there is no specific minimum number of hours on the project, a good value to shoot for is about 100 man hours. This figure, at least, gives a reasonable idea of the required size and scope of the project guidelines. Under the old YW program, I had to complete at least 2 'value experiences' in each of the 7 YW values per year for the first 4 years. Several of these experiences took 10 minutes or less to complete. The final 2 years I was required to complete 2 'value projects' a year of my own design requiring no less than 20 hours each. The new program is far different. Much like the requirements for First Class or a merit badge, there are checklists of required activities and optional activities to be completed rather than choosing a couple of quick 'experiences' right before your birthday. Also, there is a 'value project' to be completed for each of the now 8 values of your own choosing requiring a minimum of 10 hours to complete (virtue specifies what the project is to be). This award is no longer dictated by what year you are in YW. Many of these requirements may still be completed in less than 10 minutes. The requirements in time and effort for the Eagle Scout and the YW Medallion are vastly different. The Eagle Scout requires a great deal more time and effort on the part of the boy than the medallion requires of the girl. As such, the Eagle Scout receives much more attention."

Remember ....they are sacred

Pale always gets his money.....

Well, I tried to paraphrase it politely. The article used the phrase "navigate though multiple layers of clothing." I'm fond of neatly packed precise wording, but somehow I would never think to describe the act of probing into layers of clothing as "navigation." Suum cuique.

Palerider

I suspect that it is because we have some hidden duplicate posts... I (and other mods) can see where they are and they are counted for me. I am pretty sure you can't see them, and so the count is different. If so I will have to remember this issue and not take post number as a good reference point. Anywho... On to the questions... Cutting the rope. Setting here safely at home reading the setup noticing the 'Mortal Wounds' of my child there is really only action to take. Save as many lives as I can and cut the rope. Its Logical, its reasonable, its also coldly analytical. However if I was really in that situation, I would be confused, stressed, worried, trying to understand and accept the wound that my child took, and the dangerous situation we were in. So much that I could easily mess it up. As for the gunman situation. Its a classic attempt to dodge responsibly. Those applying the force or duress are the ones responsible for the results (aka the gunmen). Plus I would have no reason to trust the Gunmen's to keep there word so I would not believe that I would save any lives. So me personally, I would not pull the trigger. Although I would understand and sympathies with someone that did

I see. Perhaps that explains the two young men I saw at the beach last weekend with white tank tops and black name tags. Returning to topic, I noticed this wonderful article today about the garment survey: http://www.ibtimes.com/mormon-women-speak-out-new-lds-survey-temple-garments-1800906 It contains all kinds information that I don't need, such as the nursing mother who described the search for her breast under all those layers of clothing as an "Easter egg hunt." And of course, in this story about garment surveys, they managed to get in the obligatory mentions of polygamy and blacks in the priesthood.

Slight bit of context. Jim Crow laws specifically enforced discrimination in the public sector and sometimes in the private sector. The widespread use of marriage licenses issued by the state has its roots in Jim Crow laws-it was designed to prohibit whites and blacks from marrying. Jim Crow laws didn't just restrict the liberties of blacks, it restricted everyone's liberty. If I'm a white businessman and I see profit by doing business by integrating whites and blacks, I'm prohibited to do so and my liberty as a businessman is infringed. This actually happened with train companies in the early 1900s who wanted to integrate train cars but were prohibited by law from doing so. Enforcing discrimination by law is every bit as wrong as enforcing non-discrimination by law.

Could be?

I should probably start out with the caveat that you likely have as much experience with Catholic schools as I do. I grew up an atheist in public schools, so I neither attended a Catholic school nor knew anybody who did growing up. If I had to formulate an opinion, it would basically be "it depends on the school." I do think that a good school that integrates the faith well into its curriculum would probably be beneficial. I'm not sure how many Catholic schools actually accomplish that. I know that there's one in my city, and that I would NOT send my kids there. Let's put it like this, the religion teacher there has a degree in music and has a "the rules don't matter if you believe in Jesus" approach to religion. It's like an LDS seminarian teacher saying that you don't need to obey the Word of Wisdom or attend sacrament meetings as long as you love Jesus. I think the most important thing as far as engendering the faith in children goes is ensuring that it is present in the home. I teach a class at my Church for kids who aren't in the local Catholic schools, and most of the kids I have only step foot in the Church for those classes and maybe Easter and Christmas. I try to get across the importance of it to them, but if they go home and spend the bulk of their week watching their parents not care, then I don't know that there's a whole lot I can really do. I do think that would be why LDS probably are "better" at retention. I think that there are a lot of Catholic kids, both in secular and Catholic schools, who simply aren't actually raised Catholic. Again, I grew up an atheist. In no way am I speaking from experience here, just observations.

Too bad...Mitt was mocked by the media and that clown in the WH and as it turns out Mitt was right. If we want to change the direction of America and politics in general, we need to change the media.

I allow my children 2 sneezes and if they sneeze more than 2, I tell them they owe me $5 each sneeze after the two free ones. They are young now so I will collect when they get older hahahaha

Pfffffft tell that to all of these participation awards I have.

I have no idea. The best that I think I can come up with is that discrimination on the basis of superficial things, unchangeable, or situations from which you were born into. e.g. skin color should not be discriminated against. However there are exceptions to a general rule, such as being born poor and and not being able to afford things. Generally discrimination shouldn't cause harm to another human being. Though prison, fines, and even the death penalty could potentially be seen as causing harm. (there is a reason we discriminate against many legally defined criminal acts) Discrimination should largely be based on how an individual acts (say stealing). It's perfectly acceptable for people to avoid jerks/people they don't get along with. There is still the problem with this though, e.g. mental disorders, is it really alright to discriminate against them (probably not, though if for example you aren't capable of being say a chemist you shouldn't be one) I find most arguments pro-discrimination (e.g. required education before entering college) generally have some merit. Don't discriminate against {insert here}, also generally have some merit. The way discrimination is applied in modern society seem completely arbitrary to me.

100 years old, and that program puts to shame most of the expectations we as a society put on our children, which seem limited largely to "don't molest anyone while playing video games".

Looks to me as if this survey appeared as a fairly neutral, routine thing... but then the Salt Lake Tribune, always worried about keeping its reader base energized and barking, described the survey as a bombshell event that could lead to garments appearing in Victoria's Secret catalogs.

to the op don't worry about it. Garments aren't discussed a lot at church, so I can see how people could come to wrong conclusions. And it is nice to know that along with the video the church released that they've come out an asked for feedback.

For better or for worse, the YW Recognition Program (as I understand it) just isn't the equivalent of the Eagle Scout program--the latter has many, many more hoops to jump through and covers, for the most part, a fundamentally different skill set. That said, some of the "Eagle projects" I see in Utah these days leave me shaking my head . . . (Where I grew up, if there was no concrete-pouring involved, it wasn't an Eagle project. Going out with your mom to put safety fliers on a hundred neighborhood doors for an hour one Saturday morning is NOT an Eagle project, kids.) I think the analogue for YW Recognition/Personal Progress is the YM Duty to God (though from a cursory review, the latter actually seems somewhat cushier); and we don't make awarding the DtG a very big deal either.

I know that no harm was meant, but just my opinion. I think we need to be careful with jokes about garments. They are a sacred thing.

Quick, let's rework the rumors; get it out there that the men's garments will change to a Borat-style mankini, and the women's will be sewn together at the knees to make wearing pants outright impossible.

I'm telling you, convert the Pope, and the problems will go away. Go big or go home.