Leaderboard

http://jeffbenedict.com/index.php/blog/35-blog/378-maybe-ill-meet-a-girl First of all, I found it to be well articulated and an article that would do a lot to convince LDS to be more accepting of openly gay members in our congregations. I didn't know Elder Christofferson has a gay brother. I did find myself balking at a few things though. This line: "Desire gets to the crux of the matter. You can restrain desire. But you can't fabricate it." Ha! Whoever wrote that either isn't a woman or at least hasn't ever had a baby or raised a family large or small. It absolutely can be fabricated and, well...has to be at times. Many times!! I guess that's one reason why I don't have much sympathy for the notion that gays just don't have any desire with the opposite sex. The other part I struggle with is the question of where we draw our tolerance line in the sand. I completely agree that ALL human beings with an honest desire for religious influence should be welcome in our meetings. ( Except perhaps mass murderers with a gun, itchy fingers and no self control in a large crowd.) I think those who have labeled themselves as gays and lesbians should be welcome. But how do we keep ourselves from becoming so sympathetic that we lose sight of the meaning the plan of salvation has in every human life? Don't we have to have some reservations? How do we explain the presence of hand-holding, backrubbing same gender couples in sacrament meeting to our children? And in the case of the family of the subject of the article, what words do we use that make sense to explain this to our children at a family gathering? Do we just toss the whole scenario into the box of unexplainable mysteries and tell the kids we'll understand it someday? Or do we take a stand and boldly say that this uncle or aunt of theirs is doing something wrong, without question, but we still love him or her anyway? It seems like society wants us to just accept it. Not judge it or talk about it as sin. Are we as a church getting closer to that line in the sand where we don't call it a sin either?

Pardon me if this new thread covers a topic that has been discussed before. I searched around the forum and I did not find this specific set of citations that might be useful on the topic of ordaining women. As I see the argument of the Ordain Women side (trying to understand their position), they claim that they sustain the leaders of the Church, but they are not satisfied that the question has been asked regarding the ordination of women. Their indirect assertion is that the Prophet hasn't told them that he asked the Lord and that the answer is no. In all the discussions and debates I've seen around the Internet, I haven't seen anyone make reference to statements Joseph Smith made that are applicable to the question that are recorded in a very common source of history and doctrine, the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Regarding some of the contemporary religious movements of his era, Joseph critiqued a couple of them that were founded by women. Johanna Southcott professed to be a prophetess, and wrote a book of prophecies in 1804, she became the founder of a people that are still extant. She was to bring forth, in a place appointed, a son, that was to be the Messiah, which thing has failed. Independent of this, however, where do we read of a woman that was the founder of a church, in the word of God? Paul told the women in his day, "To keep silence in the church, and that if they wished to know anything to ask their husbands at home;" he would not suffer a woman "to rule, or to usurp authority in the church;" but here we find a woman the founder of a church, the revelator and guide, the Alpha and Omega, contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Four, 1839-42, p. 209). This is the statement that so many of our fellow saints have missed. Having a woman hold priesthood authority is "contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order." The matter is settled. We have it from Joseph. Why does President Monson simply entertain the request of the Ordain Women group to satisfy them and/or silence them? Another principle comes into play here that we find in the TPJS. ...And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case; and that in a council of High Priests...It is a great thing to inquire at the hands of God, or to come into His presence; and we feel fearful to approach Him on subjects that are of little or no consequence, to satisfy the queries of individuals....” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section One 1830-34, p.22) The sisters and supporters of Ordain Women need to understand these two principles. First, Joseph Smith already considered the New Testament to have defined the role of women. They can enjoy spiritual gifts, and even be prophetesses, just like in the Bible. However, they are not called to the priesthood, to hold keys, or to lead the Church. Secondly, even though the Church does have continuing revelation, it is a fearful, awesome thing to approach the throne of grace and inquire of God to satisfy the queries of individuals, most especially when the matter is already settled doctrine. I thought it might be useful for Church supporters to have these two quotes because they are pertinent to the issues at hand regarding the ordination of women. If the Ordain Women supporters are sincere, they should recognize that things are exactly as the Lord has established it and accept it. Their queries have already been answered. The question is now whether or not they will accept the revealed will of the Lord or whether they will continue to badger the Lord's Anointed for something it would not be appropriate to ask of the Lord. If you would like to read more on the topic, please visit my article at the Examiner.

Being too harsh on him? No, of course not. He seems to be having an emotional affair (and perhaps more than that). It concerns me a little bit when you ask if you should give him a second chance "since this is his first offense". I can understand you love him and you care about him a lot and you want to make things work but be very careful in not trying to indirectly rationalize what he did. Whether it is his first or fourth "offense", what he is doing is wrong and he is very lucky to have a wife who still wants to make things work out. Having said all that, it takes two to tango. You need to find out if he is truly willing and committed to put the kind of work that is needed to fix back your marriage. One last thing, nobody wakes up one day and decides to have an emotional affair with someone, certain things has been going on in your marriage that needed the attention of both of you, it is imperative that you get the help of a marriage counselor ASAP who can help both of you to determine what are some of those issues and find a way to help you fix it. All the best!

There was definitely a strong bond between Laman, Lemuel and their father to leave behind all their possessions and follow Lehi to Jerusalem, they didn't have to. It's funny how sometimes we like to compare ourselves with Nephi lol when in fact, a lot of times (if not most of the time) we are like Laman and Lemuel, following and obeying commandments while murmuring. Even though, I can't justify the many wrong choices they took, I think I can understand a bit how they probably felt knowing their young brother was like "the perfect son".

It's times like this that I wish the laugh button was still here, because this post cracks me up in so many ways. Thanks, Hoosier!

Sometimes our Brethren (Bishop, Stake President, whomever) need to be told something. We tend to watch but keep quiet and that's a huge mistake. One of my Bishops would go online and make jokes about sisters being "fat" , he thought he was being funny and he would treat his wife poorly in front of others making horrible sarcastic remarks about her, etc and laugh. One day, when he did it in front of me and a few other members, I told him off. I said very calmly but seriously that if he thought he was being "entertaining or funny", he wasn't. I told him he was being disrespectful, insensitive and cruel and he needed to stop because he was hurting people.

Good Morning Margin of Error. I hope you've been well! :) I read your blog post about the letter. One criticism you made was: "But we talked about how so many positions in the Church require strong leadership skills, and the Church does next to nothing to teach those skills. I mean that quite seriously: the Church does next to nothing to teach its members leadership skills." I disagree with your criticism. The General Authorities are just that, general. They teach general principles. It is up to each stake, ward, and/or branch to take the general counsel and implement it based on their specific circumstances. Also, the Church provides many, many resources for members to learn leadership skills. There are many manuals, books, and training videos that are available to ALL members. Members have been repeatedly and continuously encouraged, commanded, and taught to make use of the manuals and the resources available. Many of these teach specific skills and techniques for effective leadership. They provide examples and they also provide the scriptural backing for these skills. One of the most useful resource is the "Preach My Gospel" manual. It was made for the full-time missionaries but everything in this manual can be adapted to every aspect of Church life and to one's calling. The principles taught are universal. The apostles have encouraged all members to utilize this great resource. If you follow the curriculum in "Preach My Gospel", do all of the activities, answer all of the questions, study the related scriptures, and use the principles as a regular part of your life, you cannot help but to become a more effective leader and teacher in the Church and in your life in general. To address one point you made, the "Teaching the Gospel" section of the LDS.org website provides training on how to effectively teach, including how to ask questions "that get members to evaluate and express their own beliefs". Have you studied the manual, "Teaching, No Greater Call: A Resource Guide for Gospel Teaching"? If you haven't looked at it lately, you really ought to invest time in reading and using it. Further, on LDS.org you can also find the Leadership Training library. There you will find specific training for various callings in the Church, including videos where General Authorities demonstrate how certain leadership roles ought to play out in each stake/ward/branch. You will find many specific trainings on how to be an effective leader; not to mention that there are all sorts of talks, training, and ideas from the thousands of talks and sermons given by general authorities and other Church leaders/members in past conference talks, Ensign articles, and other magazines and books on being an effective leader and teacher. Finally, the pattern of the Church has always been that General Authorities usually train stake presidents. Stake presidents are then tasked with training stake leaders, bishops, and other ward and branch leaders. Stake leaders, bishops, and other ward/branch leaders are tasked with training those within their jurisdiction and stewardship. For instance, the Sunday School president of each ward is responsible for training the Sunday School teachers. The ward mission leader is responsible for training the ward missionaries. The Elder's Quorum presidency is responsible for teaching the Elders...and so on. General principles get taught by the apostles and each leader is then tasked to implement those principles based on the specific needs of their stewardship and to teach these principles to those who fall under their jurisdiction. This is a known and long standing pattern of training within the Church. Those who have served full-time missions will be very familiar with this pattern and those who haven't served full-time missions have probably experienced this pattern at some point in their church life. It is one of the ways that the General Authorities depend on so that stakes, wards, and branches will have effective leaders and teachers. The Church spends a tremendous amount of resources to provide training, training material, and train members specific skills, techniques, and principles about being a good leader and a master teacher. The claim that the Church "spends next to nothing to teach its members leadership skills" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is simply a false statement. I encourage you to become familiar with the vast resources and training the Church provides to teach members leadership skills, life skills, teaching skills, job skills, interview skills, etc. Below are some links for you and for anyone else interested in getting started. If anybody wants to make a powerful difference in their stake/ward/branch, then start using the resources provided by the Church, share this information with your stake/ward/branch members, start implementing the principles in your life, and teach them to those within your circle of influence and/or stewardship. Links: Preach My Gospel https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service?lang=eng Leadership and Teaching https://www.lds.org/callings/leadership-and-teaching?lang=eng Teaching, No Greater Call https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching?lang=eng Fathers Interviews https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/12/really-getting-somewhere-with-fathers-interviews?lang=eng -Finrock

While most people are going to feel attractions to people throughout their lifetimes, even if it's just to recognize the beauty in those around them, there's a pretty consistent danger for bi-folk in thinking that they're "missing something". Because they are. Everyone is. No matter who we marry, there will be someone else who is different or "better" (more to our liking) in certain areas than our spouse. Physically (nicer legs, shorter, taller, stronger, more delicate, etc.), mentally (smarter, wittier, dry humor, kinder, sweeter, sassier, whatever), emotionally, spiritually, morally, occupationlly... Whatever the area... We will run into people on a regular basis who have something that our spouse doesn't. And a handful of times in most of our lives? We'll run into someone we "could" have fallen in love with/married. And most people, regardless of sexual orientation, still have the ability to appreciate an attractive man/woman. The special problem with bisexual folk is that half the world has something our spouse will never have....AND the ability to appreciate beauty is still there, along with most people... So it's VERY easy to conflate that into "I made a mistake". Instead of seeing it the same durn way as we do when we look at our all thumbs husband and appreciate Sally's brother's handiness. Yeah. He's handy. So what? My beaux may put a hammer through a window trying to fix the carpet, but I didn't marry him for his construction skills! And Julie the neighbor down the way may have the best pair of legs I've ever seen, but I didn't marry Elaine for her legs! We're ALL "missing something" in our spouses. It's the "forsaking all others" part. Being bisexual just means that there's an extra billion people in the dating pool to forsake. And a few extra traits added to the list of "I didn't marry ______ for their _______. I married them for ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST (everything wonderful about them as individuals). OF COIRSE your husband is upset & hurt when you tell him you're attracted to other women. How would you feel if he came to you telling you he was attracted to other women? That it's a struggle? That they have things you don't? That's all true, but we don't hurt our spouses by telling them that. We may tease, or have rules allowing wandering eyes, or even be very open about various matters... But "We need to talk. I'm _______." Is a terrifying conversation in any marriage. Especially when it's ANYWHERE in the sphere of "I don't want you. I want someone else."

Since you mentioned Tom Christofferson... here's his story: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57994467-180/christofferson-lds-family-gay.html.csp http://allarizona.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/What-Manner-ALL-2014.pdf I am quite impressed with Tom's Bishop. Tom is still not a baptized member of the church, but he has found a place within the community. (I doubt he was actually excommunicated as he states. Probably just requested his name to be removed. However, based on the time frame, it could've been an excommunication. Today, it would probably just be a request to remove records.) I don't see how those who are in same-sex relationships can also become or maintain membership within the church... but at least Tom's bishop found a way to help keep them in the community. This may not be appropriate for everyone, or even every ward, but I like the effort being shown. And I KNOW his extended family loves and appreciates him and his partner.

I have some thoughts on what Spamlds said. People outside the loop might find the African-American Sunday dress culture to be flamboyant, but that's just what it is, culture. I remember having gone to a funeral of a co-worker, obviously not a joyous occasion, and one of the attending guests who is African-American wore a bright yellow dress with a multi-coloured design flashed across it. This wasn't the first time I'd seen that, however, I'd seen her "Sunday best" type attire before, and typically it was bold and vibrant. If you go to Africa, a lot of their clothing - especially traditional - is very colourful and loud. This isn't mean as a "look at me look at me", it is simply a cultural thing. Just something to keep note of when we see our African and African-American brothers and sisters.

I grew up in the South where Sundays are "fashion shows" for the various non-LDS churches. In some of them, the ladies go all out with elaborate hats and the men wear all kinds of ostentatious colors. It's not unusual to see the discount stores in African-American neighborhoods selling men's suits that are fluorescent green and purple. The clothing worn becomes the object of gossip for the next week. In other non-LDS churches, there has been a movement away from formality, dignity, and reverence. They have rock "praise bands" with loud guitars, amps, and drums. The worshipers come to church in shorts, jeans, and whatever. Reverence is not even a consideration. There is no expectation of hearing the "still, small voice" of the Spirit. In Virginia, there was one nudist church! The ultimate in casual wear... Our standard is that we should be modest, unpretentious, and subdued. Our purpose at our meetings is to worship the Lord and make him the focus, not our apparel. Do we always succeed in this? Not always, because humans are weak. Some people want to be the center of attention and be a distraction. But we have a standard we try to maintain and that is to downplay our apparel rather than to play it up. We often don't realize that what we do sets us apart from other churches in positive ways. I've had nonmember visitors tell me that they liked the absence of the Sunday fashion show. Our dress at church is largely "neutral" and forgettable--like the Men in Black. :)

I love it when a blog feels they have the right to lecture the church leadership on how to run the kingdom. The whole thing reads to me like, "The church should compromise with the devil so they look like nice guys." (Note: I'm not saying Kelly is the devil, but that OW principles stem therefrom). A few specific responses to the article: I find this statement underhanded. It's nice and "Kumbaya" of them, but to imply that if one doesn't find the church leadership's statement's insensitive then that person must not be fair-minded. I'm sure the reverse could be said of those supporting OW. What the author means is his/her idea of fair-mindedness sees it that way and they're arrogant enough to presume that means everyone should see it that way. Half-truth warning! Alert! Alert! The command to "be one" was never intended as a mandate to compromise with evil. This falls to what Elder Holland spoke on last conference. Everyone wants the gospel and their God modeled after their idea of a "comfortable" God, a comfortable gospel. The wicked take the truth to be hard. But it is not the truth that wounds them. It is their wickedness. Since when can the church not choose whom it deems worthy of being listened to? So they should have no choice in the matter? If I start a campaign to start using wine in the sacrament again they should set a meeting with me or they're insensitive? What if I'm determined that the law of Chastity be repealed? If they don't meet with me then they must not be concerned with their members needs. Right? Ridiculous. It really doesn't have anything to do with weakness or strength. The church has no responsibility to reconcile with evil. It doesn't matter if the world views it as strong or weak. Yeah. This writer determines what qualifies as "the prophetic gift".

Obviously it's a relative thing. We are stupid -- relatively. It is not a play on logic. It is the truth. We are, relative to God, nothing. We have a small measure of intelligence...enough to exercise agency. Mortal intelligence is relative among people and not the important part of qualifying for salvation. If one's intelligence is low enough, of course, they are not accountable. But that is up to God. God's intelligence, which is complete, as compared to ours, which is finite, does indeed, in the grand scheme of things, qualify us as stupid. A man that is learned who thinks he is wise shows himself to be foolish. There is only one true wisdom -- reliance upon He who actually IS wise. To be learned is good, IF we rely upon the counsel of God. Why? Because only God truly can see all the truth, with no perception issues, misunderstandings, cultural biases, or any other imperfections in thought and understanding. It's all fine and dandy to talk about the importance of learning and intelligence. To be learned is good. Yes. But it is not the benchmark for salvation. Humility, obedience, repentance, etc. is. Intelligence is not the established criterion. There is no, "Only the smart will enter the kingdom of God" principle.

The question concerns when empirical evidence and logic with reason are incompatible. This question comes because of my understanding that the two must be used together to witness truth. Part of my premise is that G-d will not create empirical evidence to deliberately lie. As per you example – I do not believe G-d is a magician that deliberately creates illusions to deceive mankind. For example, I do not believe that G-d deliberately left behind a preponderance of evidence of evolution to deceive us in order to test us to see if we would believe he created everything separately and uniquely from nothing without evolution. I may be wrong – but I do not believe in an intelligent G-d with such methods and character nor do I want to spend eternity in the presents of such a being trying to guess what is real and what is an illusion.

I wonder if Pam wants some so she can brag too. LOL I wonder if where nature verse nurture comes into play in all of this. (Great wondering!)

I wonder why Angel wonders why it's hard to get her husband up at 3 a.m.

I wonder why the plural for rhinoceros is rhinoceroses and not rhinoceri?