Leaderboard

For the bishop it would depend entirely on how close you are to him. It is not an automatic invite thing. As for paying the YM... the YM leaders are most likely trying to instill the attitude of self-less service in the boys. Payment might be declined... That being said the scouting side of the program usually does fund raisers for summer camp and new gear... Put it as a donation to further their activities (whatever they might be) and you might be able "pay" in a way that furthers the goals of the program.

If you're outraged over the riots in Baltimore, you should be. If you're also not just a little concerned about how a man can be taken into custody for 'acting suspiciously' and somehow, during transport, while handcuffed, end up with a severed spine and a crushed voicebox then you're also part of the problem.

I would feel far better about Constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court justices were all as honest as Antonin Scalia. When you interpret the Constitution, it's not supposed to be done with an eye toward establishing a desired law; it's supposed to be done with an understanding of the intent of the lawmakers. If you don't like the law, get your lawmakers to make a different one. But when the Constitution is "interpreted" however the current political winds are blowing, that is the same thing as saying that there is no Constitution.

I love the remarks that I am reading here and I would like to contribute even in a small way if possible. It seems to me that scripturally we seem to be in an area that is at best sketchy; that is we don’t know a lot of details about the pre-mortal spirit life and the pre-spirit life as intelligences that we can point to in scripture. Much of what we hear comes from non-canonical sources and some would even question if there was an evolution from intelligence to spirit; I like to think there was. There is a very good read by B.H. Roberts called “The Immortality of Man” written in the Improvement Era of 1907. I will give you the link at the end. If you look at the notes at the bottom of Roberts' paper you will see that not all of the general authorities at the time agreed with Roberts, and then some changed their minds to the positive later. After reading Robert’s paper I decided to write down what I thought might be some attributes of the so-called intelligence state for my own personal study. I put down 15 items not intended to be all inclusive but just as a basis to study. A couple of the 15 were that an intelligence was capable of judging, was capable of making choices, had moral agency. I found that D&C 93 had a lot to say about these things and I tend to agree that if you had choice, you could obey or disobey then you could sin and that the infinite Atonement could reach back (See Rev 12:7-11) and take care of these things. Not to long ago I read somewhere (this is lame) that God observed Christ in the intelligent state for eons of time before he was chosen to be the Christ/Messiah. I so wish I had the reference to that paraphrase now, because to use that without a reference is lame. I am sorry. If anyone else has seen that I would love to know where it came from because I tend to believe it. B.H. Roberts“The Immortality of Man” (enjoy) http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/Immortality-of-Man.html

I don't find the "constitutional" talk very compelling. So what if it is or is not constitutional? The constitution doesn't define right and wrong, good and bad. If we were to find a constitutional loophole that allowed for the free massacre of a people would we simply support it because it's "constitutional"? Of course not. I am supportive of the constitution. But when the laws of the land start using the constitution to justify things that should not be justified, I'm not going to just tag along all hunky-dory because it's been declared "constitutional".

If you are knowingly and deliberately breaking the law - you cannot claim to be a victim of consequences - especially if the consequences are the result of someone that is not knowingly and deliberately breaking the law. I would also state that I personally have had experience with how professionals report national news items - I do not trust the news outlets to report accurately without some bias. I am also aware that police officers must pass rigorous background checks and significant training. Demonstrators or someone being arrested by the police have no such requirement. BTW - I use to live in Maryland (Saint Marry county) and found the state over ran with political corruption and the education so deplorable (for example high school students that could not recite the alphabet) I moved from that state - so I already have a bias that political officials of Maryland are very much a part of the problem and doing everything they can to blame someone else. I am not about to even consider blame of front line police officers trying to do their job without definite proof that can be used in court - especially over a community that will turn on their own small businesses and ruin them - far more than just disrespect for the law. What has not been covered in the news is that insurance for homes and small businesses does not cover civil riots. Uninformed idiots think businesses can recover because insurance - are sadly mistaken and misinformed. Those in a position of authority and gave a stand down order - in my mind - such disregard for law abiding citizens trying to make a living is close to criminal. I would not even think about opening a business in down town Baltimore - would you risk your livelihood? It may be possible to blame all this on police - as many are trying to do. But anyone that thinks about the circumstance should realize that before you can justify blaming the police (which may be completely justified this time) that one must blindly pass through a lot of others to get there. There may be a few "bad apples" but I do not know anyone that is suggesting that is the problem in Baltimore, St Lewis and much across this country. I think the welfare mom that lost her temper with a son demonstrating against the police best represented my thinking when she said that she reacted realizing that she may someday have to call 911 for help.

My point is that I think there is a mistake in calling someone that is breaking the law - a victim. I also think you are mistaking concerning imminent danger. At the least the perception of imminent danger ought to be considered? - but perception (as it appears to me) is at the heart and core of the Baltimore problem. So if individuals of certain cultures are documented to have different perceptions - do we treat them differently - or is the idea of different treatment for different cultures the essence of the problem?

Question for Supreme Court nominees who have already been on the bench at a lower level: When was the last time you felt that the Constitution, or existing statute, led you to make a ruling that you found personally repugnant? Anyone who can't point to such an incident within the past two years, is unqualified for the Court.

No, we do what we've already done; decide that the use of a deadly weapon is ONLY justified when someone's life is in imminent danger. If a suspect is running away and the only thing that will stop him is shooting him... then he gets away. That's how it works. How desensitized a culture we are where people will say it's better to kill someone and end their life than to risk the possibility that they might escape, especially if they haven't even committed a violent crime. This isn't war.

Get your own attorney. Make some phone calls, explain the situation. A good divorce attorney can help you out.

In today's world - it is hard to be outraged over the Baltimore riots or the loss of life in custody - when taking into account so many other things also occurring. Both the riots and loss of life of someone resisting custody, seem to me to be well within the parameters of trends very prevalent in our day. I am more surprised with the shock many engineer despite trends and even divine prophesy concerning the direction we as a society seem determined to follow concerning the importance in keeping marriage as an institution that defines family (birth and raising of children) as the moral means and foundation of society.

I personally have found that all empirical and spiritual evidence indicates that G-d exist. But similar to your symbolism with water and wetness - there are good parallels but like so many good references to symbolism - it can be taken too far. With my friends and colleges that deny G-d - I have discovered that the main reason non believers do not believe is because of the many false concepts of G-d that circulate in religion because of symbolism of him being taken way too far. Without the revelation of the restoration and the Gift of the Holy Ghost I would not believe in the g-ds of modern day religions that have so thoughtlessly rejected the restoration. But to my doubting and not believing friends - I put forth the notion. If you can believe that in the billions of years that your universe has been evolving that all we see in existence - including the intelligence life on this obscure planet - and that such has evolved and came about without any divine assistance - what is to stop the evolving intelligence for discovering the parameters that cause such things to take place and duplicating the effect? I submit that is what we see is possible to happen by random chance - that if G-d does not yet exist - that such intelligence is possible in some future. And that if there is any possibility that a G-d could exist - then they are under obligation to intelligently prove that he does not - in order to have any credibility for their rhetorical logic to now reject the notion is valid.

I think that Alma 42:22 lays out the mechanics 22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God (and that "ain't" guna happen). And all this happened before the foundation of the world was laid down maybe 5 billion years ago give or take. My most fundamental questions started about 60 years ago after joining the church at the age of 12. I had sold new papers on the street for a couple of years by then. I had been a heathen but new some things about several non-Christian religions. I was the only son of a divorcee and the only one in my family to join the church. After I joined the Church one of the first things that caught my attention was I heard people say that Christ paid for my sins. Having been a newspaper boy I knew that if someone paid for my sins, there had to be a transaction involved which raised many questions in my mind. Since Christ lived some 1955 years before how did he know me, a no account son of a divorcee when there were bigger problems in the world? How did he get a hold of my sins which I hadn’t committed yet? How is a man (I didn’t know He was a God at that time) nailed to a cross equivalent to my sins? How does that work? Within a year or so I figured since I was now a Christian that I had better read the Bible. And believe it or not at the age of 13 or so I made it all the way from Genesis to Leviticus. And in Leviticus I read: 1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord. 1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. My mind caught on the word “accepted”. I knew as a paper boy that I would not accept any less than 10 cents for the Honolulu Star Bulletin because I had to account for the number of paper given to me and I got a penny for each paper I sold, and had to pay 9 cents for those not accounted for. But I would accept more than 10 cents. On occasion I would hear my favorite words, ”Keep the change.” Anyway as I pondered the word “accepted” I thought that maybe it only had to be a token sacrifice. I held that belief for some years until I read D&C 19 and it shook me. That experience cured me of thinking it was a token sacrifice. Reading on now I read Leviticus 16 where it says: 6:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness For the first time I thought I could see that sins are transferable. This is probably not coacher doctrine but I was still in my paper-boy mind. I thought to myself that there must be a law somewhere that says you can transfer sin because God has told them to do it and it is acceptable. For me I was satisfied that Christ could in effect get a hold of my sins and pay for them. Further reading and life’s experiences have enabled me to come to a clearer understanding of the unfathomable infinite Atonement. In the ocean I have explored and have a fair knowledge of the first 30 – 40 feet of the unfathomable depths. Rare occasions have allowed me to go some deeper. It is the same with understanding the Atonement. Difficult experiences in life will enable a person to go a little deeper. In my opinion reason alone won’t get you there. I love the Atonement and would love to hear other people's learning and experiences.

It is kind of like marriage. You can study it, be told about it and you can even date some; all of which will assist in progressing - but you will not have knowledge of marriage - not really until you experience the full spectrum of it (including the results).

Couple of things-- 1) Everyone needs friends, including you. Do your best to reach out to your wards, local interest groups, playdate mommy's, whatever floats your boat. Friends are important for everyone. 2) Document any threats he makes to you. Document = write on paper within a hour of happening, say what happened, sign and date it. 3) In regards to the girls clothes: that is not important. My apologies for being blunt, but if you're going to live in the past then your future will never be brighter. Make the changes you can today and move forward. 4) You are correct, separation is not the same thing as divorce. Divorce = resolve any legal bindings between you two (complications for kids of course). Separation = you are still married, but not living together, not sharing financed, or otherwise connected (it's quite flexible definition). 5) Excommunication: honey, you got enough on your plate to without adding possible church disciplinary action.

Paying a bishop would be inappropriate, he was right to decline. However, he might take a gift. After the Bishop officiated at my wedding, I gave him a gift card to a nice restaurant so he and his wife could have a date. (Yes, it is sorta bizarre that cash is not ok, but restaurant gift card is).

NO!!! Chocolate is proof that God loves us.

If I were in your shoes - I would ask my son and his to-by wife if they would like the bishop to be present at their wedding dinner.

lol...on this I don't know that there's a "right" answer unless somebody has had a vision or revelation their not sharing with the rest of us

Faith is the actuality of what we hope for. We hope for eternal life; that actuality is faith. We hope God hears our prayers; that actuality is faith. We hope Santa comes; that actuality is non-existent, so by definition we cannot have faith in it. At least, that is my understanding of Paul's teaching. I would note here that faith is much more than this; Paul's teachings help us understand faith, but they do not totally explain it. They are barely a beginning.

I would like to mirror those that have said to just stay out of it. All you know is that he is receiving help, trust the bishop to aid in that. You have already done your part, it would seem, by giving this man a raise. I would simply respect the fact that he felt comfortable telling you about it and leave it at that. There are many that while receiving assistance still have internet, cable, cell phones payments, go out to dinner every once in a while, go to the movies, etc... there are many many things that one could give up and save every penny, and the bishop, the EQ, the RS... are all aware of them and help them along their way. Yes that includes smoking.

I think what Night is trying to say is that if someone needs the Church to help them by paying their electric bill, that frees up funds from their paycheck to buy cigarettes, when they may possibly have been able to pay that particular bill themselves if they didn't smoke.

This is one of the most touching things I've ever heard :)

I would just point out that on your list of "things that don't exist"--all three of those things are basically fanciful human interpretations, but rooted in things that do in fact exist (I believe the common wisdom is that "mermaids" got their start from sailors who saw manatees in the distance. There are large reptiles that look an awful lot like dragons; and of course those photos of the Nessie show something--even if it's just a stick of wood, rather than a serpentine sea monster). The problem of "who created God?" is speculatively intriguing to me--and of course, Mormonism's view is unique in that it basically ascribes to God (and to all mankind) an uncreated, eternally existing core which developed (evolved?) into its current form with the assistance of some "higher being", and that the chain of higher beings--so far as we are aware--stretches back into infinity. It's certainly mind-boggling; but ultimately but I have a hard time seeing it as logically more problematic than either the mainline Christian idea of God who "was just always there". And the secular scientific notion of a "big bang" encompasses an ongoing debate that is really pretty analogous to the Mormon/mainline Christian views of God's past. The idea, as I understand it, is that prior to the big bang the universe consisted of an immensely dense particle of mass existing in a void so empty that there was not even such a thing as "space" or "time"; and that either this particle was "just always there" (analagous to the mainline Christian view of God), or was this particle was the most recent result of a perpetual cycle of expansions and contractions that stretches back into infinity (analogous to the Mormon view of God).

The question isn't whether anyone is being discriminated against. They are. Just as a person with no money may not walk out of a store with a loaf of bread, whereas a person with money may walk our (in exchange for said money). The person without money is being discriminated against. The "discrimination is always bad" ideology is false. The question is not, nor should it ever be, whether there is discrimination in who can and cannot marry. There is. The question is whether that discrimination is right or wrong. The -- it's discrimination so it's wrong -- argument is a simpleton's lie used to further agendas.

Here is my experience. We suffer from out sins until we repent. There is no set amount. If we don't change then we will continue to suffer because we continue to live in sin or in our blindness, is what the scriptures say. The atonement doesn't take away suffering, per se, but what it does do is enable a person to endure suffering well and with joy. The atonement provides power for you to change. This has been critical for my understanding of the atonement. It has been so important for me to understand that the atonement is an enabling power. It doesn't take away suffering. Let me illustrate this by using myown life. I was sexually abused as a child and was exposed to pornography at a very young age (at least 4 years old). I grew up with a sexual and pornography addiction. For all intents and purposes, I was born with a sex and pornography addiction. For many years I was stuck with my addictions. I struggled to change and to overcome. I tried everything. I went to church, I did my callings, I tried to stop viewing the stuff, I went on a mission, I paid my tithing, I went to the temple, I spoke with the Bishop, SP, I prayed, I read the scriptures, I tried to do my callings, HT, etc. Yet, despite all my efforts, I could not overcome my sins. To keep this short I will say that eventually I came to realize that I had no power to overcome my sins and my addictions alone. In fact, I came to realize that I was foolish for thinking that I could somehow man handle my weaknesses and just "will" them away. No, it takes the power of God to change one's heart. It takes the power of God in order for mankind to change. The Atonement of Jesus Christ provides the power. As we act in simple humility and meekness, we will be given tasks and things that we do, for sure, but these tasks are simply a token of our obedience. Our actions that we do, not matter what they are, will not save us. If we obey God and do the things He asks, He has promised to save us and to redeem us. It is God's work to redeem us. It is His responsibility to change me. It is my responsibility to allow Him to change me. Somehow, because of the atonement, my simple, useless acts of obedience, become powerful tools to change my heart. Remember too that replacing a stony heart with a heart of flesh is a major operation and it can take time to complete. Being patient with the process is also key. -Finrock

Dude, if you think that just being part of the the religion of Islam means one is oppressive to woman, you've got some serious issues. Polygamy in and of itself is oppressive to no one; as long as each party enters into the agreement free of choice it's not oppressive. (which can be said the same of any marriage as long as it is entered into free of choice one does not force another human being to do something with the threat of physical violence it's not oppressive.) Proponents of homosexual unions who oppose polygamy have absolutely 0 leg to stand on. They are hypocrites.

Always better to check sources than to voice an unsubstantiated opinion or supposition. From Handbook 2: 10.12.4 Young Women Who Are Pregnant out of Wedlock or Who Are Unwed Mothers If a young woman is pregnant out of wedlock, the decision to participate in Young Women classes and activities is left to the prayerful discretion of the young woman, her parents, and the bishop. If a young woman age 17 or older has a baby out of wedlock and chooses to keep the child, she is welcomed into Relief Society, where she can be taught and helped in her new responsibilities. She no longer participates in Young Women. If a young woman under 17 has a baby out of wedlock and chooses to keep the child, the decision to participate in Young Women is left to the prayerful discretion of the young woman, her parents, and the bishop. If the young woman participates in these classes and activities, the child should not accompany her.

I've alwasy felt that spending 8-10 hours over the easter weekend being able to get instruction straight from the apostles, rather than your standard 3 hours from local leaders and neighbors. is pretty darn special and probabbly the closest we have to an actual church holiday outside of the the weekly sacrament.

My own interpretation is this: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not have "holidays" in the same sense other churches have them. Rather, every seventh day (Sunday) is a holy day for us. We do observe other Christian holidays in a cultural sense, so that Easter is always mentioned and the First Presidency offers a devotional before Christmas. But there is no "sin" in refusing to celebrate or even recognize Christian or other "holidays" through the year. We worship God every hour of every day, and we keep the Sabbath day holy. The other holidays and feasts are superfluous.

When you sing at home do you piccolo note?

Well I know that practice is re-choired.