Leaderboard

How often has a sincerely held belief, or strong opinion that you held been changed as a result of discussions on this site? What was belief or opinion and what was the posting that changed it? Do some posters have a greater impact on our understandings and beliefs than other posters? I'm just curious. To answer part of my own question, I can't say that I've had a sincerely held belief changed yet as a result of my participation on this site, but then I'm only a relatively new user. I think for me the main benefit that I have gained from using this site is an increasing awareness of the need to be very specific in how to word a post, the inadequacy of language, and the examples shown of the sometimes impressive depth of knowledge and ability to structure an argument that some of the users of this site display. I'm continuing to watch the lessons that occasionally take place on how to disagree without being disagreeable as how to deal with strongly opposing views is something that I think I will be able to learn from this site.

Jamie, to be clear, I am a baptized and active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I identify as 'not Mormon' because, generally speaking, I find Mormons annoying. That's partly cultural and partly me being a jerk.

It is never inappropriate to notify leaders of a position you would be interested in filling. It is only wrong to expect that you will be asked if you volunteer

I probably haven't had " a sincerely held belief, or strong opinion" changed from being on this site, but then again most of the posters on this site also have similar theological beliefs as me, thus similarity in many ideas. Even if there is still some disagreement about various things. I have had small nuances changed, or things to consider. Sometimes things I haven't considered myself. Yes, some posters do have a stronger impact on me, i'll keep who to myself though. I agree that disagreeing without being disagreeable is a skill that does develop here, on occasion. I will note, that despite some people not liking the level of disagreement that does take place, I find that this site feels: #1 much less venomous with disagreement more so than other places i've been #2 much more respectful (generally) #3 much more open minded (even if the open mindedness doesn't mean opinions will change) and #4 often fairly logical with construction of opinions (even with disagreements of the premise) Should note that #5 Somewhat judgmental with lines draw by certain individuals (which isn't necessarily bad so long as it is also respectful)

So in the two camps of "Would go" or "Wouldn't go" there have been heartfelt and well thought out responses. I am not sure what thread you have read, but nothing that I have read has been as you have described. The tone of your post seems to fall into the accusational camp of "If you wouldn't go you are a homophobe and a hater" which is false. As for me? I have already stated that I would attend my brothers under most circumstances. Can you really judge those that have said they wouldn't? Their responses are just as valid.

An observation and not a condemnation of any one person. Why can't we be happy when we see a struggling member that has received their temple recommend rather than be judgmental? We don't need to be perfect in order to receive a temple recommend. There are some requirements, and some of those requirements are minimal. If the temple required perfection from us, none of us would be eligible. I look at our progression here on earth as climbing steps of a ladder. Some of us are on different levels. If you have acquired a further understanding of the Word of Wisdom, or some other doctrine, that particular understanding will put you that much further ahead. We shouldn't belittle those who have not gotten to that point yet. We should be rejoicing they are climbing the ladder with us. Be happy for those who, for whatever reason, may not have the same self-control that you have when it comes to following the Word of Wisdom, but are still eligible for a temple recommend. Be grateful for your own understanding and rather than be dismissive and judgmental, try being loving and rejoice that we are all trying to return to Father in Heaven.

Demonstrating that even a broken clock is right twice per day, MSN put up an article of value -- in fact, one of the most amazing and fascinating articles I remember reading in a very long time. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/no-one-could-see-the-color-blue-until-modern-times/ar-BBi3GwP We see (and hear, and feel) what we have been taught to see (and hear, and feel). We tend to think of things as "true" and "false" or as "right" and "wrong", but in fact our preconditioning determines what kinds of things we are able to sense. For example, feminism as a whole is an ugly disease, not because it contains no truths -- on the contrary, it contains many truths -- but because it teaches its adherents to sense things in an ugly way. In contrast, the gospel is as true at least as much for how it teaches us to view things as for what it teaches us to believe.

First I'd just like to say that I love it that anatess and TFP are so concerned about the "lie" being told in this story. There is a beauty in the razor-sharp precision and attention to detail that each of them have in the way that they perceive and describe the world. I love this about each of you! Keep being who you are. Don't ever pretend to be someone else or I'll be disappointed in you. I enjoy reading posts from both of you. Second, I sure love the way that man "lied" to his spouse. Beautiful story. I want to be a LIAR... just like that man.

Why? Because I'm an unthinking, brainwashed, sheep who gullibly accepts anything without any thought given to it that my mommy and daddy told me? I don't see any problem with believing that some aspects of the Book of Mormon may be driven by the same historical bias that all history is. I do, however, as a general rule, take the concepts therein as either A. factual or B. meant to be described the way they are to teach truths even if the expression may be point-of-view rather than concrete reality. In other words, I think there is a distinct different between having a general understanding of potential historical bias and writing off anything one disagrees with or views as problematic (particularly based on our own cultural biases, which for some reason in today's world everyone seems to think we're somehow above). To treat the Book of Mormon as nothing but a historical record is mistaken. It is, primarily, scripture. That places it firmly into a different category of communication, and changes how we should accept and view the things therein. It is not a historical record that just happens to contain some religious thought. It is a religious text that just happens to contain some history. And it's writing, editing, preservation, and translation were under the control and domain of the Almighty. But did the Nephites have a small-world, us vs. them, self-cultural-centric understanding of the world? Obviously.

When they have the only dad in the campground who's drinking water and soda instead of starting off the day with a pot of campfire coffee and then demolishing a 12 pack of the cheapest beer in the county, it's pretty obvious.

Hey, I am still Forever Strawberry Fields! Website launching soon! Seriously! I have been trying to get a hold of Honor in like FOREVER! I wanted to tell her that she dated my son before she got married! Here's a hint..... Basement Kitchen, family room, river Rock fireplace, 70 inch big screen. Total cabin feel, cedar slats on the wall, pine trees. Honor, does this ring a bell? LOL!

Or possibly you saw color photos of the Ordnungspolizei, who wore pretty similar, but dark green uniforms. If most of the other stuff you saw was black and white, it would be a logical conclusion.

To the victor go the spoils as they say, MOE's post above mine sums it up very well. I accept the Nephi was chosen of God to write his portion of the BOM, but it has his slant on it, as does Mormons portion. A casual reading of the book demonstrates this. Same for the history of the church. Its pretty whitewashed, but again to the victors go the spoils, Brigham Young and leaders that followed him got to choose the direction of how the history of the church would be told to members. Particularly new converts and over time members that were BIC. The good is glorified, and the not so good swept under a rug in some basement.

Because, objectively speaking, it is. It was written almost entirely by two people (Nephi and Mormon) who had deep motivation to frame the actions of themselves and their people in terms of God's involvement. Nephi's record frames the acquisition of the brass plates and the murder of Laban as commands from God, but never really addresses the fact that these were legitimate crimes. Thus, there is historical bias in the record* Again, with Nephi, there's never any mention of the fact that Laman was literally robbed of property that, according to the customs of the time, probably should have belonged to him (namely, the brass plates, the sword of Laban, the Liahona, etc). Nephi stole these (wisely, sure) in the midst of his departure. But a critical reading of the Nephi's records leaves the impression that Laman and Lemuel and legitimate complaints with Nephi that never really get presented. For Mormon's part, with very few exceptions, the Lamanites are nearly always the unprovoked aggressors of any conflict. The nature of humanity indicates this is very unlikely, and so it seems the history is probably whitewashed. The only times the Lamanites are not the aggressors is when they are "righteous," or a part of the Church of God. So yes, the Book of Mormon has a clear historical bias. But that's okay, because it isn't a document that purports to be a complete history. It's a religious history, and I'm not aware of any place in the record where anyone claims it is intended to be an unbiased record. So back to the point, it seems silly to me to expect that a person should have to accept the Book of Mormon as 100% truth when it almost certainly is not. To put it in statistical terms: "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." I would classify the Book or Mormon as useful. * Note: I'm not saying he shouldn't have done those things, just pointing out that the record is in fact biased.

As an avid gamer, I can personally say I have never played a perfectly clean game. Such a thing does not exist. It's media, just like movies. Even the Lion King has violence. That being said, stick to Nintendo and Disney based games if you are trying to keep safe, especially sexually. I didn't start playing videogames until I aged in for the ratings I was playing, and that is a suggestion I hold very strongly for everyone, not just for Mormons. And most games I played when I was younger I played with my father, who knew when to stop things. Epic Mickey, Viva Pinata, some old games like Blinx the Time Sweeper and Ty the Tasmanian Tiger, Zoo Tycoon (and any of the tycoon games such as Roller Coaster Tycoon, etc) are the most innocent games I've played. Rayman has some question content in some of it's editions, but it is an excellent game if you don't play too wildly in the bonus content in the menu. Always remember, these things are often what you make them. If Legend of Zelda gives you bad thoughts, I can honestly insist it is not the game... If very delicate and appropriate things are stimuli for you, seek professional help. Trust me, I know. Once you let your mind on that track, anything can affect it. Finding a way to get off of it is the key. Me, I don't mind the violent or scary games. To me they are just games, and I respect anyone who believes otherwise! I've just been so avid for so long, I don't like to miss out on all the good and positivity games give me. That being said, games i suggest to avoid... Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row For reasons

Plus a fear that some might be wanted as in photo on the post office wall. Lol

It reminds me of when I was at school, in physics class, the teacher was explaining Newton's "experimentum crucis" - when a beam of light isolated from the spectrum produced by a prism was passed through a second prism to see if any further divergence would occur. (It didn't - thus proving that divergence or "splitting" of white light was caused by its containing many different colours. Light of a single colour did not have the same effect.) Anyway, the teacher told us (incorrectly I now believe) that Newton wanted to see if he could split (for example) red light into other, hitherto undiscovered colours. A friend of mine said "That would have been great! He might have found turquoise! They didn't know about that colour back then." What?!! Not know about turquoise? Really? Had no one - ever - thought of mixing blue and green paint together until after the time of Newton? I didn't believe that for one second. Looking back, I think my friend must have read somewhere that turquoise hadn't been "discovered" by fashion designers - or some such people - as a suitable colour for their products until some particular time - maybe the 1960's - and totally misunderstood the meaning. As for blue though, what about the convention that the virgin Mary should be depicted in art wearing a blue headscarf? I'm no art historian, but I believe that idea goes back quite a long way!

Just to follow up with this, there was a 2011 CDC report release that created a new category of sexual abuse called "forced to penetrate" The numbers of men who were "forced to penetrate" nearly equaled that of women "raped" within a 12 month period observed. Approximately 50% of the abusers of men were women. There are other fairly recent statistical reports and studies that are now following through with this and finding the difference to be less than is commonly thought, often due to inherent bias, definitions, under reporting, societal expectations, reports that are ignored etc... Based on this I don't believe this is a men only do it kind of problem, it's worse than most might think for both genders. It's very disheartening.

The great thing about blackholes is the amount of observation evidence that simply doesn't exist...I wonder why that is

I saw this article posted on facebook, I got a completely different view and feel from what was presented there. I REALLY like your take on this. Also of interest is Gods ways are higher than our ways. I bet he knew about the color blue ;D Not because we couldn't see it, but maybe not notice it, didn't have the language to describe it, the thoughts for it. Oh, as a side note, i've done color matching tests, and normally get 90%+ on them...but didn't on that green image circle, but when comparing the colors singly in a neutral background could tell the difference. Interesting to note.

Hey, my grocery store may stop providing bananas, therefore, we must regulate grocery stores. If anyone thinks this is about protecting consumers, and not a power grab, is a fool.

I personally think our brains, and our minds, are always growing and changing. But if someone wants to make the argument that there is a threshold of development that is not reached until the mid-20s and that is important in a strong marriage, I welcome the chance to read their reasoning. So far, I haven't seen any argument to that effect, just what looked to me like an assertion. To me, that's not very convincing. Great point.

It's a form of expression, anatess. When Farm Boy said, "As you wish," he was saying "I love you". Same with hubby saying he liked burnt toast.

The date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood is one of the hairier issues of LDS history. As I recall, there are a couple of hearsay accounts who claim that either Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery related that they had received the Melchizedek Priesthood a time that they were fleeing from "their enemies" immediately following a court hearing. I'd have to look up specifics, but from what I can recall--Historians can place Joseph in court proceedings before 1829, and we can also put him in one in the spring of 1830 or 1831. But, there is no evidence of Joseph's involvement in any court proceedings between the date of the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood (May 15, 1829) and the restoration of the Church on April 6, 1830. This suggests, from a historical standpoint, that either a) someone's memory was flawed, or b ) when the Church was organized, Joseph didn't technically have the Melchizedek Priesthood yet.

And Jane, I'm pretty annoyed about the floods we had in Brisbane, Australia in 2012! Try to be a little more punctual please. :)

I'm unsurprised at your shock, seeing as how being "shocked" at "homophobia" has been all the rage for the past decade. But you are badly mischaracterizing the arguments and completely glossing over the underlying points of those who have expressed opinions contrary to your own. Before you call names and shout people down, you should at least understand their point.

I have a threshold of suspension of disbelief, that is dependent on the media. Falling off a cliff and surviving breaks the suspension of disbelief, but in a cartoon not so much. This is how I approach most films, interstellar mostly passes, not because of solid science, but that it is reasonable within the fantasy universe that it creates. (However, Strong gravity tidal forces should rip things apart, or fingers "touching" a wormhole.) The resolution towards the end was unbelievable, I don't think he'd go searching for the woman that hated his guts, nor leave his daughter to die alone.

I guess that's why the missionaries got that funny look when they went to point something out during the fourth discussion and realized I had highlights, underlines and margin notes through the whole thing. I'd still love to find a Quad done like one of great grandma's Bibles; imagine printing it in the regular font, but centered up on 8.5x11" paper, so you have huge margins to take notes in. She still ran out of room in a few places, even with tiny handwriting.

I've been a member all of my life and there are still things that I am learning and new understandings. I've read the Book of Mormon numerous times and each time I find something new that I didn't see or understand from my previous readings.

Its a mission problem, not a ward problem, so I think the best person to resolve it would be the Mission President, and not the bishop or ward mission leader. I think the missionary is in error and I suspect the President would be somewhat concerned about this. I believe if the investigator was to contact the Mission President directly and explain the situation, that the President would quickly and correctly resolve the issue and then use it as a teaching opportunity for the missionary, and maybe for the whole mission, thereby benefitting the investigator, the missionary and the mission. I think it would be a little awkward for you to make the approach to the Mission President, but with some coaching and advice, I'm sure you could adequately prepare your friend to make the approach. I'd be interested in knowing how things turn out. I hope your friend is not put off by this experience. I note that every now and then a speaker in General Conference will say something along the lines of "every time I read the scriptures, I learn something new," thereby suggesting that although they believe 100%, even they don't understand 100%.

If she believes the church is true and will follow the prophet she should be baptized. There is an interview system to determine this. I think the missionary is out of line.

If you only pay $300 a month for rent, and manage to drive a reliable vehicle that is valued at $700, then you are rich!

Just for awareness, heart disease is the leading cause of death because the heart is usually the first organ to fail in old age. Additionally, all deaths that do not have a clear cause are classified as cardiac deaths, meaning the person died because the heart stopped pumping blood. This is true for people of all weights. It has very little to do with diet and exercise and more to do with how we define death. This isn't to say that there aren't legitimate problems with people obeying some aspects of the word of wisdom. But do keep in mind that proper diet and lifestyle habits are an immensely complex and individualized balance that involve personal body chemistry, self control, chronic conditions, and even choices of hobbies. Very few bishops are qualified to evaluate all of those dimensions on every individual in their stewardship, and any that are qualified are likely to be physicians and nutritionists professionally; to bring that professional perspective into their ecclesiastical responsibilities is rife with professional ethical questions. This is why bishops are only expected to evaluate external, binary states of obedience regarding drug and alcohol use. More importantly, a good bishop isn't going to sit upon the throne of judgment for every member that comes into his office. A good bishop is going to teach and inspire each member to judge him or herself. I won't complain if you want to get on bishops' cases for doing a poor job of that. But if you think the slovenly and gluttonous are getting free passes into the temple, you need to find a way to communicate that to the slovenly and gluttonous. But if you want it to have any kind of impact, you'll need to find a better way to share those feelings than what you've done here. In this thread, you've come across as judgmental and arrogant. If you want to be effective in conveying your message, you'll need to learn to be compassionate and genuinely concerned for the spiritual and physical well being of those around you.

Para - It seems to me that you're using the supposed neglect of enforcing the do's to justify and rationalize your use of the don'ts (opiates, mj).

Thanks everyone for your advice! I am still learning so much about the church and everything that goes along with it. Yes I do live at home but I am well over 18. I had a long talk with my father yesterday and was very frank about my decision. He tried to shame me so I wished him a good night and went to bed. I've decided that the best thing for me is to not bring up religion and to just come and go to church and to other religious activities and let my actions do my speaking for me. Next time someone in my family says something negative about my choices I will simply ignore it and engage them in other conversations. My father is normally very logical as he is also a retired engineer. I realize that he has extremely strong biases against the Mormon faith. Though after our talk last night I do not think that he will be making any openly negative statements anymore. He has not made any today. But he has made several comments about the changes I have made in my life over the last few months. I think that he is recognizing that it is my faith that has given me the strength to make these changes. Thank you everyone for your advice!

How do we know this? It's the common wisdom of our day, but what evidence do we have that abusive women are rare? I know from personal familial experience that men and children abused by women (wives and mothers, respectively) usually never say anything to anyone. A man who did those kinds of things would be rejected and probably arrested. I like almost everything I have read from WBMW. I didn't agree with that particular column, but it was no more outrageous than many other columns that I read every day on the Internet, usually spouting leftist tripe. Yet she's crucified for this one column. I think that's wrong.

paracaidista508, It's not enforced evenly because that is not the point. Many, many things are not enforced evenly. With most things, we are taught correct principles and left to govern ourselves. There are, however, certain things that our leadership has determined are strict lines. The evenness of the matter isn't relevant. The line is the line. But that hard line is only for temple recommends. Anyhow, the culpability we will have before God is really significantly more important. That is a point that so many people seem to miss. There's this whole, "temple recommend=worthy" concept that permeates the church. It is invalid. Likewise is the, "this won't get me excommunicated" concept (another thing that is highly uneven). But our standing before God will not be uneven. God is no respecter of persons. We will stand accountable for our choices, whether we "technically" qualified for a temple recommend and/or membership in the church or not.

Elder Quentin L. Cook stated (and before some of you jump on me, I am NOT saying this quote states we should attend gay weddings but it tells us how we, as Latter-Day Saints, should be towards people choosing to live an homosexual lifestyle and not just merely someone struggling with same sex attraction but not acting upon those feelings. Then each one of us can ponder on our own and evaluate if we are striving to live by this or not, both in every day life and the way we express ourselves towards gay related topics in the forum.

Is it a lie when everyone knows it's not true, and when everyone knows that everyone knows that?

I think you're missing the point. I'm sure the wife knows perfectly well that her husband does not "like" burnt toast. He says that as a way to tell her he loves her. Similarly, he is not teachng his children they need to learn to like burnt toast; he's teaching them that there are far more important things to worry about than whether the toast is burnt.

This is very interesting, and I had a similar thought, but a different conclusion. If I had a child that was getting gay married, likewise, they would also long since know where I stand, etc., on the matter, and there should be no ambiguity on the matter whatsoever as to their understanding that A. I love them in spite of it and B. That I will not attend. Because of this, I believe that any expression or determination that they have that they are not loved would be, as I have said, a manipulative attempt to coerce acceptance. And they may go so far internally even so as to convince themselves that they are not loved. But it would not be valid. It makes me think of when I was a child and how often I was in a fury in my room, feeling so abused and hated, telling myself that my parents didn't love me, etc., because of the injustice they had imbued. As an adult, I fully well know that non of this was valid. No matter the strength of my feelings and expression, the truth is that in retrospect, I know full well that my parents very much loved me, that their actions, including punishment and the like, were motivated by love, and that I am a better person for it. I know that their acquiescing to my petulance would have been harmful.

I would disagree... I think that has been implied.. Maybe not intentionally by the poster in question but we are talking about how what we think we are saying is not what others hear. You are a perfect case of that Folk Prophet. Example This seems to be a perfect example someone going because they think they can to more good by being there rather then not and running the risk of alienation of the people they wish to save. Your response was to edit out all the details of why in her post leaving just the word "Supporting." While I am not Eowyn and she can speak for herself. I know I would not like to have my position on the subject reduced to simply "Supporting" (Gay marriage by inference) There is a whole bunch of context, reasoning and intent completely stripped out of her answer to justify yours. Now we have acknowledged that this is a subject that requires thoughtful prayer and consideration... That both sides could act for good reason or bad reason. And I am sure that was the implication the leaders of the day were to trying to make about Jesus too. Thank you for showing for just another example for my case.

Indeed... However we are talking about a situation were two main group have seriously different ideas/understandings of the harm involved. One person's to avoid watching their loved one hurt themselves... is in the eyes of the other hating them/ not loving them enough. This is a fundamental disconnect (Anatess' understanding and acceptance of her mom's action is a very rare exception) Just as is not wrong to avoid the situation, and that doesn't make you a hater who lack loves, neither is it wrong stand by your child. This doesn't mean that you are some apostate supporter of those that run counter to the church's teachings. Sometimes like Christ did, we need to eat with the publicans and sinners in the hope that we might by so doing be enabled to save a few.

This analogy does not work. Compare the child dying in the hospital to a broken, shattered, life that someone has because of their poor choices (perhaps including a gay wedding) and giving said person comfort, support, and healing would be more accurate. The literal suicide example would be more akin to having a child invite you to come along and watch them as they actually put the knife to their wrist - and as you watch, smile kindly, show your support, and don't do anything to show disapproval or to try and stop them. Because, after all, that's what true love is anyhow. Right? Right!?

If it were an immediate family member with whom I'm on good terms, I'd probably go. But... this needs to be a prayerful consideration between being there for a loved one (different than support) and standing for my beliefs on sin. 'Course, I also think we should get rid of government - moderated marriage. But I can't say "it's just a ceremony" anymore than I can reject a loved one.

You seem to be under the impression that the reason some of us would not attend is because we're uncomfortable with gayness, gay activities, and are generally homophobic. Whereas this may or may not be true, it is entirely irrelevant to the reasons I would have, and am hearing from others, as to why we would not attend.

I respect your (and anyone's) right to prayerfully make this decision. Calling those who would make a different decision Pharisees, on the other hand, and implying that any decision but one means burning bridges, is decidedly unfair.

The respectful thing would be for your brother to NOT invite his LDS family rather than placing them in an uncomfortable situation. Perhaps he could send a thoughtful letter telling them that he loves them and respects their religious convictions and maybe this would avoid damaging relationships further.

Lets put it another way... If someone told me that they were not interesting in God/religion/spirituality/truth. When I asked them about the Book of Mormon... I would not respond with "Well how can you know for sure until you read it?" Because to me that response would make no sense whatsoever. They are not even being in the ball park of being interested of what the over all subject matter of the Book of Mormon is. The question how can you be sure until you read it... Only applies if you have an interest in the subject matter it supposedly covers. I have no interest in BDSM, or explicit sex depictions. Once it is pretty clearly established that is the subject of 50 shades then I can safely reject it. On the other hand if I was rejecting 50 shades as being inaccurate in it portrayals of BDSM sex then the fact that I was judging before I read it would be relevant. But that is simply not the case here