Leaderboard

"How do you treat homosexuals"? Seems like a weird question to me, in league with "how do you treat brunettes?" or "how do you treat tall people?". People are people. I admire LP for trying to go the extra mile with historically downtrodden individuals or groups; but frankly--I, personally, just don't have that much energy. As to the whole gay rights movement, I figure--If you think a gay (or brunette, or tall) person is doing wrong, and your relationship is such that you feel comfortable telling 'em that--okay, tell 'em; otherwise, mind your own business. If you think they're trying to get you to aid and abet their wrongdoing--by all means feel free to speak up and tell 'em no, same as with anyone else. If you think they're trying to implement a political policy that will have negative long-term social consequences--again, speak up, same as anyone else.

A couple of random observations: 1. I know LinkedIn tries to act like a "social network"--a "professional Facebook", or something--but in my mind, it just isn't. I see it as a tool for finding potential clients and employers and, to a lesser extent, identifying possible colleague to consult with on a difficult professional problem; but otherwise--I'm just not interested on what people post there. If a lot of other people share my view of LinkedIn, that might be part of the issue. 2. I have a cousin who's involved in the music ministry of his Evangelical church, and he's posting songs, sermons, and scriptures quite frequently. It's kind of at the point where I just think "oh, well, that's what he does" and I don't make it a high priority to go over and read/listen to whatever he's put up. On the other hand, when PC puts something out specifically for his Mormon brethren to read (and maybe pick apart), I automatically figure "well, this MUST be good!" and I'm more inclined to click on over. :)

Hugging short people is sinful though.

Anatess, let's pull this together. I am saying that wearing orange AT A CHURCH OR WARD is appropriate. I suppose it's like a widow wearing black at church for a week or two, after the funeral. Of course you and Vort sympathize with the Christian martyrs. Further, you probably agree with any political perspective one might interpret from an orange-wearer. My whole contention is that wearing a color to sympathize with martyrs (again, non-combatants, who's only 'act' was to refuse religious conversion) should not be considered the kind of political-statement-making that is inappropriate in a sacred setting.

JAG is astounded that we allow some of the self-editing (i.e. political correctness) that abounds in society to creep into our own communications. I hate political correctness, but I'm still guilty of engaging in it. Certain topics arise, and, at minimum, I think much harder before I speak. My phrasing is more cautious. And, yes, some counsel gets left unsaid. Does that make me part of the problem? It depends. The line between being sensitive and understanding vs. being timid and ashamed may be finer than we realize.

If showing solidarity with Christian martyrs can be interpreted as political activism, then I would suggest that those in heaven, who cry out to the LORD, saying, "How much longer must the martyrs' blood go unanswered?" are guilty of the same impropriety. I get the idea that siding with the dead, when there is warfare, can always be seen as political, but I disagree. By that understanding, every veteran's funeral is political, and antiwar protestors might consider them open game. No. Wearing orange is a way of honoring Christian martyrs. If others choose to make me a political enemy because I honor my spiritual brothers--now fallen dead--then that is their delusion. I'd be shocked and dismayed if my spiritual leaders took my orange as an inappropriate political protest.

I am currently pondering the new-to-me idea that the various united orders failed, not because imperfect humans were incapable of living according to a "higher law", but because each variation of a "united order" was in reality not an application of the law of consecration, as we have always believed, but a futile effort of communistic economic and social order, and thus doomed to failure. Which raises* the question: What would an actual economic implementation of the law of consecration look like? Which admits at least two possible answers: *Note that it does not "beg the question". That means something else. It would look like nothing ever before seen and impossible to reproduce in our fallen sphere. It would look much like a healthy family.I lean toward #2, but it really does beg the question (note the usage). What does the economic situation of a healthy family look like? What are the dynamics of adult siblings caring for themselves and each other? There are interesting implications, such as that you value your nieces' and nephews' well-being as much as that of your own children. I find that a bit foreign, and as such, scary -- certainly I love my nieces and nephews, but not above (or, truth be told, even as much as) my own children. And if my nieces and nephews should hold equal value to my own children in my heart, why not my grandnieces and grandnephews? Why not the neighborhood children? Why not the children of my enemies, or the children who taunt and torture my own? Such a world seems alien to me. I don't know what to make of it. I don't know even whether to believe it. I certainly do not know how to live in it. I suspect that businesses in Zion, in the celestial realms, will look much different from businesses we have now. I very highly doubt that corporations exist in the eternities, and I feel sure that the "profit motive" does not exist as a principle there, or at least that the "profit" desired is much different. But when you take away capital ideals, caring for oneself, independence, and profit as motives, I don't understand how to build a working society. It is like removing all money and financial tokens from an economy, then telling it to run. (In fact, it's not like that so much as it is that.) Don't know. I would be plenty willing to try it, as I covenanted to do over 30 years ago. But if it's a reestablishment of some kind of Smithian/Youngian united order, I have no confidence that it will do any better today than it did 150 years ago.

The orange-clad martyrs were executed because they were Christians. That ISIS targets others for other reasons does not detract from the fact that these individuals were killed soley for their faith in Christ. To honor slain martyrs, brothers in the faith, must not be construed as some kind of political statement--certainly not in an American church or ward. IMHO, unless a bishop forbids this action, the wearing of orange by Christians should be viewed much as flying a flag at half-mast.

I kind of happen to agree with PC. These men died for their religion. They were given a choice to convert to Islam or be executed. They chose to stand with their religion.

Yeah. Except Satan is also a spirit child of God. It's really just how you view it though. As I see it, who we "are" is fallen mortals -- which is not who we should be striving to be. Who we "are" is imperfect. Who we "are" is carnal and sensual beings, natural men, who are enemies to God. But like I said, it's really just in how you view it. I don't think we disagree.

Call it irony, or call it hypocrisy, but I just read an opinion column about a Christian chaplain that is facing possible "discharge with cause" from the Navy. He served 19+ years, and did four years as a SEAL. His actionable offense? He, in his role as an Evangelical Christian chaplain, responded to requests for pastoral counsel, by telling sailors what the Bible says about homosexual activity and premarital sex. The pregnant-out-of-wedlock sailor, and the gay sailors took copious notes, and then filed discrimination charges against him. The opinion article was defending the Navy's choice to get rid of "chaplain hater." He called him Fundamentalist, Dominionists, Gay-hating, 'Christian right,' and about a half dozen other childish labels. He labeled the Liberty Institute, the Family Research Counsel, and my denomination (the chaplain's endorser) with similarly scathing labels. The bottom line for this writer was that the chaplain had a right to his foolish bigotry, but when he acted on his beliefs (by speaking them during sought-for spiritual counseling), he crossed the line. Soulsearcher has explained this before--it's payback. Our side has done similarly in the past. I get it. At this point, our answer ought to be to keep doing what we do. Stop whining, speak truth, and let our careers end where they may. We believe in God. He sees, and knows. I won't look for trouble, but neither will I cower.

I agree with anatess but might even take it further. Be who you are is no value whatsoever. Be who you are meant to be -- now there's a value. There is also a big difference between humbly facing weaknesses with strength and courage, and the celebration of those weaknesses -- even if said weaknesses are thorns in the side that will never be removed in this life (a robustly debatable concept when it comes to preferences, tastes and inclinations). Note: this response is in regards to anatess's post, and not necessarily directly related to the OP question or the video (which I have not watched).

Huh? The majority of Christian religions do not believe Mormons are Christian because Mormons believe Christianity is centered in what Christ taught? Sounds very......logical.

It would be just because it's built into the Law. If you keep the Law, your are saved. If you break the Law, you can receive the full punishment of the Law or invoke the grace of Jesus. It's the same rules we have now and we accept that it's Just (if it weren't, then as TFP points out we couldn't have faith in God). The question is, does the sacrifice have to be built in? It sounds like you think so because there is some legal debt that's incurred, but against whom? God the Lawgiver? why doesn't His Law simply include this clause? Traveller's model suggests the Law is greater than God and God must conform. Why do you think the sacrifice must be? Careful, you're starting to sound like Paul. :)

how would this be just for those who never break said law? The sacrifice allows the debt or penalty to be dealt in full. if god says oh its ok you broke the law but you've changed, so you are pardoned from the law, then the law becomes null.

There are two parts - justice and mercy. But mercy cannot rob justice. In order to be merciful there must be a sacrifice for the sake of justice. Therefore in order for G-d to be merciful - G-d must redeem or pay for the offense. This point is the very question of this thread - G-d is not all powerful and must himself conform to the power of justice in order to be just himself and have power over justice so he can exercise the power of mercy.

The reason is because we are talking about mutually exclusive conditions. If Jesus became lower than the angles he could not, during that interlude, be a G-d greater than angles. His sacrifice had to be real to be a real sacrifice. Pretending to be lower than the angles is not the same as being lower than the angles. It is a lie to say something is so when it is not. Also if the Father indeed grants the power of agency (free will) to any individual then he cannot be an "All Powerful" G-d; because there is power that someone has that he does not. This does not mean that G-d does not have power but it does mean that we must rely on him for that which we do not have the power ourselves. It also means that the power he gives us is real and we are under just as much necessity to utilize the power he has granted us as we are under necessity to rely on the power that he has that we do not. This is why I love and understand that we are saved by grace after all we can do. What we can do is what G-d has granted (commanded) of us to do - including repentance.

The same as I treat short people.

Why of course .... Was just there this past weekend

My kids are lucky. Coming from a racially mixed marriage doubles their cultural choices. They can safely marry either Caucasians or Latins!

Sure it matters. I would like a Super Duty (which is why I use it as an example). Why? Because I think they're cool looking and I enjoy the idea of being higher than others on the road...uh...not sure what that says about me. But a farmer who would actually haul stuff with it. Heavy stuff. Stuff that would justify the cost? Yeah. I think it matters. The reality is that a lot of stuff I want is based on shallow, unimportant reasoning. For a United Order society to work, everyone has to let go of all those reasonings. And that is not an easy thing to do, especially when it comes to toys. Say for example I get the funding or what-have-you for a new bicycle for a child, but Bill next door carves a wooden horse for his kid. A. I feel guilty. B. Bill feels judgmental. C. Bill feels jealous. D. Bill complains about my extravagance. E. I complain about Bill's unecessary self-reliance when we should all be able to get our kids bicycles. F. Etc. Insert any particular device. Why did Steve down the street put 16 gig of ram in his computer. I only did 8. Who really needs 16? I mean, come on! That's wasting the Lord's money, right? What about that riding lawn mower. Shouldn't we all at least be willing to push our mowers for the kingdom? And why is that guy's yard so big? He's wasting water, and for what? I have more kids, but I make do with a small yard. In short, it's the same petty jealousies and the like that we deal with now, but exaggerated a hundred fold when we're all supposed to have all things in common. Of course who knows how it would or could or might really work, if at all. But I don't see it working until we as a people can all legitimately not care -- wait...more than that -- be happy that Brother Johnson down the street drives a jacked-up super-duty with 40" tires even though he's a computer programmer. :)

"Hey, let me buy you that hamburger."

Well, I don't think the profit motive would be *as much* of an issue (though I would respectfully disagree with Vort; I think the Church's attempts to implement the United Order previously suggest that even in a Zion society there is some sort of tangible link between doing one's job extremely well and enjoying, thereby, a moderately higher standard of living for oneself and one's family). But even if one completely rules out economic ambition, I do rather believe that a) technology and commercial/trade practices will continue to develop and improve gradually over the course of the Millennium; b) while those who live in the Millennium will be good, they will not be perfect; and c) the Milennial economy will not be some sort of Divine Corporatism wherein every business judgment is effected by celestial decree and "let's not bring this product to market" is synonymous with "THOU SHALT NOT bring this product to market". If an engineer at ZionSearch comes up with a new subroutine that he thinks makes the whole program better, but his higher ups reject it for whatever reason, and the engineer believes they have made a mistake--I can see a situation where the engineer amicably parts ways with his employer and launches a start-up to see what the consumer market thinks of his new idea. It's competition, but not cutthroat--they're just fellowlaborers for the common good, each trying to implement his own vision of what that means and each, without ego, adopting a may-the-best-idea-win attitude.

Do what? startup a Zion Business that gives tours of Nauvoo?

The other story circulating in my head is how the Church got the Welfare system rolling. From the Church History in the Fulness of Times manual, the story is told of how the Church was concerned about members getting hit hard by the Great Depression. They found a stake president (Harold B. Lee) who seemed to be doing pretty well on a local scale and asked him to implement something on the general level. President Lee was worried about taking on such a large undertaking, only to be amazed that the infrastructure he needed was already set up. (the manual doesn't go into details, but I think of the Presiding Bishopric and the Relief Society Presidency, along with the granary they had since Sister Wells followed President Young's council to start storing wheat). I think we may see something like that here too. I think we'll find some Zion-minded entrepreneurs have been conducting business in a way that, when applied more generally via the Law of Consecration outlined in the scriptures, fits perfectly in the Zion culture. I wonder if I would leave my current job to work at such a company? What if it meant less stability or a pay cut?

Crypto, that seems self-evident, but is it? Well over 70% of Americans still call ourselves Christians. Unless the business world has turned truly hostile, have brave does one have to be to read a religiously-oriented post at LinkedIn? I get that people may not want to "like" one--but viewers remain anonymous. Besides, this might not be a problem with FB or LinkedIn. Rather, it demonstrates that LDS.net might be quite a bit more popular and exposed than most of us realize. If the Pentecostal preacher gets more views on his Easter sermon at an LDS website than actually heard it when it was delivered, that's ... well...it's certainly interesting.

Is this post-resurrection? Because having a perfect body would make any kind of labor efforts interesting.

It may be apples and oranges, because I have to go by "likes" on FB. However, LinkedIn allows me to see views, and there's no comparison between here and there. My most-visited post had about 32 views, and I'm almost always over 100 here--even when I just post sermon notes. In fact, I just checked my Easter sermon notes. 215 views. :-)

Money could even exist, Don't have enough? That's okay have such and such product anyways. Enjoy have a nice day!

The default business structure in capitalism (and, I submit, in fallen human nature) is management trying to get as much labor for as little compensation as possible; and labor trying to give as little labor for as much compensation as possible. I like the ideas of profit-sharing, prolonged employee leave, accommodations for family life, etc; but I think these need to be reciprocated by a labor force that puts in a full day's work, doesn't produce shoddy workmanship, and is as willing to suffer financial hardship with the ownership in the hard times as it is willing to take a share of the profits during the good times. I am, frankly, highly skeptical that any Zion business can remain viable for long if it must continually negotiate with a Babylonian labor force. Zion capital and Zion labor are interdependent; and in a Zion society both sides understand this symbiotic relationship. As for a consumer market: I can see the economy becoming sufficiently prosperous that very fine goods are indeed available. But I think you'd see them being priced according to their actual quality rather than snob-appeal. I don't think people will care whether the bag is Gucci so much as they'll be interested in the actual quality of the materials and the workmanship. I think competition will be very much part of the economy--but it will be a friendly competition, with an ample safety net for those who are out-competed and decide to try their hand at some other sort of labor.

Executing Christian employees--non-combatants--in country, was an act of religious terrorism. They died for their faith, not their country or their politics.

Both of my parents mothers were nurses. Over dinner, they would sometimes tell horror stories about having to sew motorcyclists back together. Needless to say, motorcycles were taboo in my house. Personally.. the "rush" is not worth the lack of personal safety. But the rush is important to some people. So we love them.. and pray for their safety.

Angels of Mercy Whispered in our ears Ere the moment of our birth ‘Return one hundred years After living on this earth’ Some may live much longer Some may live far less Some are just born stronger With some born in excess Some are born in poverty Though some achieve success Some have earned their liberty While some still are oppressed But those who are born meeker Have learned what true love brings Though experiences were bleaker They have learned to use their wings These angels are among us Each and every single day They normally don’t raise a fuss For service is their way If you should have a special need Concede it unto God Whose loving Spirit moves with speed To, these waiting angels, prod So when our time is surely come And all our deeds be known We’ll know who spoke with angels’ tongue Beneath our Father’s throne. Then a query in our ears Ere the moment of our death ‘How well have you spent your years? While you lived with borrowed breath?’ The answer you accord To this question is profound Were you an angel for the Lord? While you were on the ground? I pray the God of Glory Sees within your life's parade A sweet angelic story Full of charity conveyed. Aeglyn April 2015

You are woefully misinformed. This is, quite simply, absolutely and unequivocally false.

Knowing how many in the world wish all Jews dead...one can only wonder at why such a hard line. Having lived in West Germany many years, I would have not remained there and that was in the 1970's. Anti-Semitism is alive and well throughout the world, not just anti-Israel. Even the short history of our own faith is one in which we had to fight or flee. Put that is a context of 1,000's of years and you will understand, "Never Again". I grew up in Atlanta and our largest Jewish congregation on Peachtree St was bombed when I was a boy. We felt our windows shake.

I work in a production facility so my work is extremely repetitive and I'm efficient at it. I suppose you could compare it to washing dishes all day. Anyway, we are all allowed to listen to our mp3 players (excluding forklift operators, etc) while we work. It passes the time. I used to listen to music, then I got bored of it. I have not skimmed through anything. I've listened to all standard works multiple times. In the last couple years, I've probably listened to the Book of Mormon at least 50 times in both English and Spanish. When I get home, I spend my free time pondering what I've listened to, researching reference materials, reading books and commentaries by authors such as Gileadi, Nibley, etc. My mind has been opened to up to many wonderful and powerful insights. I have truly feasted on the words of Christ and have been filled with the Spirit. I don't watch TV or spend my free time doing much else. I've read the Book of Mormon almost 100 times in my life and I've finally begun to understand the things that Isaiah taught, etc. I plan to spend more time studying Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul, etc. Oh, and Joseph Smith. People might say the Old Testament and some of the doctrines, which I study are not relevant, but I tell you they are more relevant than ever. They point to us. They are all telling us exactly where we're headed.

You can certainly ask. But don't base your happiness on whether they change or not. If you do you will be utterly miserable.