Leaderboard

And sometimes we need private family time. If we find ourselves only finding family time through church activities we need to re-evaluate.

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. We can't help others effectively if we aren't taking care of ourselves as well. I think we can get to a point that we just have to say no to some of these activities. Especially if it is affecting our own family unit.

You guys need to learn a magical word: "No". "No, I won't go to the barbecue this week. I want to spend the night with my spouse" "No, I won't go to addiction recovery class. I need to stay home and rest." "No, I won't let you make me feel guilty for taking care of myself and my family."

With all due respect, StrawberryFields--isn't this precisely the kind of selective outrage I was describing? This man--this father--had a good (maybe not perfect, but good) relationship with his children's mother, who he did indeed "love" at one point. But he dissolved his family for the most execrable of reasons--to go (literally) whoring off after a relationship that he thought would be more sexually satisfying to him. There are reams of academic research papers about how, even under the best of circumstances, divorce is intensely traumatic for children; and that where adultery/abuse/addiction/inordinately high conflict are not issues, it's better for the children if the parents stay together. On that point, the science (to coin a phrase) is settled. This "father" you learned about has damaged his children in a way that will come back to haunt them for their entire lives, and he gets a pass. But, the church steps in and says "you know what? We're not going to put that guy's kid in a covenant relationship that will necessarily damage the parent-child relationship further", and it's the church--not this lecherous lout or his home-wrecking boytoy--that we condemn for not knowing what love is, for destroying harmony, and for being dismissive of a child's best interests.

Here's a fun light-hearted exploration of what Annie is seeing here: http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/index.htm This one is so me, it's funny:

What is the difference between bullying and disagreeing, Annie? For example, if a person points out the flaws and weaknesses of another's arguments, is that "bullying"? If a person brings his or her own experiences or quotes scripture or studies in substantiation of his/her opinion, is that bullying? If more than two people disagree with a given poster, are they "ganging up" on him/her in a bullying manner, or are they simply expressing their (perhaps deeply held) opinion to the contrary?

It's easy to call those you disagree with bullies. It ends up amounting to the same thing you're accusing them of however.

Speaking of making assumptions... First let me be clear that I couldn't possibly care less whether or not anyone agrees with me, nor do I have a "distaste" for anyone who does. I am in agreement with the Brethren; if anyone disagrees with me they should take it up with them. As for my observations, they are just that---observations. Assumptions and prejudice aside, I believe they accurately portray the situation. "Squealing" is an apt description of how most of the detractors responded to the policy announcement. Rather than wait for an explanation or clarification from official channels, they immediately threw a conniption fit and began name calling. "Bigoted", "Hateful", "Abhorrent", "Despicable", "Disgusting", "Spiteful", and "Vile" were just a few of the adjectives used by Mormons (the faithful kind I suppose) and non-Mormons alike in the news articles and videos which I have read and seen. So there are a lot of people who are genuinely concerned because it does effect them or someone they love personally. I acknowledged in my post that there may be some who are genuinely concerned for the children. But I maintain that the vast majority of detractors are only using the kids as sympathetic props. What they are really concerned about is that the Church has upset the LGBT crusade; a crusade that demands acceptance and tolerates no dissent. Why didn't anyone make a fuss about this policy for polygamist children? Easy, because polygamists have their own church and have no desire to attend our "fallen" meetings anyway. Just an assumption on your part. I personally know of a case where a woman left a polygamous marriage and took her children with her. She moved into the home of her sister who was an active member of the Church, and she began regular attendance. After a long court battle her husband was awarded joint custody, and despite the fact that the children (by that time) wanted to be baptized they were not allowed to do so until they turned 18. No doubt there have been similar cases elsewhere. Further we all know members of this forum who have children who are gay. What if they have children? The concern for these members is genuine and born of love not rebellion. Repudiating a unanimous decision by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is a decision born of rebellion not love. I believe the Lord would want us to put a loving arm around (figuratively) around those who are struggling with this and try to help them. I'm not opposed to helping those who are "struggling" with the decision. But I haven't been talking about those who are "struggling". My comments have been directed towards those who have come out in open rebellion. And I have little regard for them.

Here is what the church handbook says on the matter of family, callings, and activities. Some wards and branches love to get together often. But when activities start to negatively effect the family, or individual, it is time to take a step back. I don't think that means our husband needs to drop his calling, it simply means not attending every activity. Sometimes a bishopric members feel they needs to be to every activity but this is not required.

Or alternatively the smarter you are, the less money you spend to do the same amount of work

Elder McConkie taught: What of the mystery of our Lord’s birth? Indeed, why should God even have a son? Is Jesus the Son of Man, or the Son of God, or is there a difference? Was it necessary to have a Savior and Redeemer, or is the Koran correct in teaching that God had no need for a son because Allah has but to speak and a thing is done? By what power could Jesus atone for the sins of the world, or rise from death’s dark tomb, or ascend physically into heaven? Is the atonement truly infinite and eternal, applying to all worlds and all created things? [...] It is our friend Paul who tells us: “Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Timothy 3:16). We agree. But all these things are beyond carnal comprehension. God dwelling in the flesh! How can anyone understand such a pronouncement unless quickened by the power of the Spirit? The revealed word to Joseph Smith announces that endless torment does not last forever, and that eternal damnation is of limited duration. In spite of the plain meaning of words, the divine word is that eternal punishment and endless punishment do in fact have an end. “For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it,” the Lord says, as he gives to these words a special scriptural definition. As he says, this is done so that the concepts involved “might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory” (D&C 19:6–12). As it is with such a mystery as God dwelling in the flesh, or as eternal punishment having no reference to the duration, but rather to the kind of punishment, so it is with all else embraced within the designation the mystery of godliness. The doctrine is what the doctrine is, and the concepts are what the concepts are. It is of no moment whatever that they spread confusion among uninspired worshippers at divers shrines, or among intellectuals whose interest in religion is purely academic and who rely on the power of the mind rather than the power of the Spirit for understanding. Gospel truths are known and understood only by the power of the Spirit. Eternal life—which is to know God—is such an infinitely great reward that men must study, ponder, and pray, with all their hearts, to gain the needed knowledge.

Most of the people who are screaming about this issue have no association with the Church whatsoever. Those people need to sit down and mind their own business, in my opinion. They've never been members, have never had a desire to be members, and so this has no affect on them at all. They need to look for another church if they are seeking. But there are some I know of who will be affected by this because they have been active members. I honestly haven't seen much posted by those people. I imagine they're prayerfully considering what this means to them, rather than holding picket signs. Many of those people, I believe, don't have an 'agenda' except perhaps they're afraid for their children and feeling pressed to find answers. One of my questions, for instance, about a couple I know of who have adopted children, and who have been active in the Church, would be what it would mean if the only parents the children have ever known were forced to "divorce" or split up in order to stay active. Seems to me a loving gay family might be better than no family at all. But maybe that's not true. These are the things that bother me about the decision. I'm not saying the Church is wrong. I support the decision so please don't assume I do not. I am not sure I LIKE the decision, but I support it. I just am wondering what those who ARE affected by this are thinking . . .

I happened to speak with my stake president about this policy and he expressed a great amount of grace on how and why the policy was implemented. The news headlines did no justice to what he communicated, nor the guidance he said he had been given. If you are struggling with this, I plead with you to pray with an open mind, and if needed ask those you trust within the church for better understanding.

We all have different personalities. As mentioned, communication via text is not as easy to pick up on those personality characteristics that affect the way you communicate. I read someone's post with a general idea of what this person sounds like (so yes, I've given you all personal voices in my head when I read your posts---totally not weird...) based on what I've picked up about this person. But I don't truly know what any of you are like (besides what you've stated on this forum). So we have a tendency to misread, misunderstand, and mistranslate communication via text, which is not as prominent in communication in person (but still possible). We also don't trip over our words or say "um, ah, uh" like we do in typical communication. We get time to think out our responses and correct any errors. I feel like I was going to get at some grand point but now I've forgotten and am going to leave it at that. Main point: communication via text has it's downfalls!

I don't remember, or wasn't involved in the initial spat whatever it was. But I was taken a bit aback when I noticed a poster weaving in an insult to this forum in general in nearly every post made. I know some of our discussions can become intense, and some of us have sharper edges than others but lds.net I've felt has been a great forum. I've learned a lot here, and as I became more familiar with each posters style I learned to recognize that in nearly every instance when we choose to ask clarifying questions and seek to understand instead of to take offense we can have some great intense discussions. I've learned so much about other faiths here, and I've learned how to defend and more eloquently express ours. I've never felt personally attacked here and I think I've disagreed with just about everyone at one point or another.

My favorite: Mormons are all right-wing warmongers. Did you know they use steeples on their buildings to hide MX missiles inside? Also, could there be a more obvious symbol of misogyny and male dominance than a steeple? It's a phalic symbol! My response to said accusations: Sir? Or uhh, Madam? ..rather than stoop to your level and make counter accusations of, ahem.. steeple envy?..and recreating the world around you in your own image etc etc., perhaps I should instead simply refer you to the wisdom of Sigmund Freud who once so aptly pointed out that: "Sometimes a steeple IS just a steeple."

Very likely... Also note that in the real world face to face... people who regularly miss various social cues while interacting with other people are commonly said to have a social disorders of some kind. Yet on the internet we try to have social interactions in a medium that strips away a lot of the various social cues we use in real life, and then we wonder why people misunderstand us. Perhaps understanding that, we would be more likely realize that our reactions need to adjust accordingly

Back in middle school, I was grabbed by a hulking mass of a student much larger than me, and thrown up against a locker. He pulled a knife and menaced me with it, saying something to the tune of "I cut mormons with this knife. Are you a mormon?" In the '80's, that's what we called 'bullying'. These days, it almost seems like folks think if someone gets their feelings hurt, it must mean bullying has somehow happened. Not from where I'm standing. That said, some behaviors are not acceptable on this forum, regardless of whether they can be considered 'bullying' or not. Forum Rules 2. Please be conscious of the fact that although LDS.NET is aimed towards an LDS audience, that the membership of this site consists of friends from an array of different backgrounds, beliefs, and cultures. Please be respectful and courteous to all, and know that everyone who is willing to follow the Rules and Terms of LDS.NET are welcome to participate and be a member of LDS.NET. Keep in mind that anything posted, uploaded, or otherwise displayed on the site should be understandable to friends of other faiths as well as to members. Please define any LDS vocabulary that friends of other faiths may not understand (i.e. Mutual, Relief Society, and Deacon.)3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated. 4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Realize that sometimes it is very difficult to be able to express how one feels through written words. Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post. 5. No cursing or crude language. Any swearing, including filter skipping, will result in an automatic one week suspension....12. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this site to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Etc. As others have said, if you see anything like this, the correct thing to do is report the post.

Indeed... the problem that seems to be is when someone says "I disagree with your view on illegal immigration because . . . " and the person you are talking to hears "you are just a bleeding heart liberal, and your view on immigration are stupid." It happens repeatly

Indeed, tone is a tricky thing. Certain topics get people more fired up than others and that can warp the mood one way or another.

While I agree with with the idea in theory... I want to nip the request/requirement the bud. The proper place to report such post/words is with the report a post function.. Dragging it out in to public and rehashing it is exactly what we do not want to have happen. Lets talk in general terms only please

One of the reasons I joined this forum is the respectful atmosphere. Noticed it right off. If anything, sometimes the live and let live attitude is a little too much to take. But that's just me.

Because we aren't perfect. Because without the Atonement to take care of our mistakes, we cannot move forward and properly learn to be like Heavenly Father. Sin cannot exist in God's presence. Our Savior ' s Atonement gives us the opportunity to move past sin and allows us the change of heart necessary to grow, learn, and become like the Father. In a nutshell. (Tomes have been written on this.)

Today, this video and a few articles on the lds.org website were brought to my attention by a kind person on this forum. I had never seen this talk before and I was brought to tears as it hit home. Everybody needs to watch this. Everybody. I was especially touched at about 18:00 where she specifically speaks to Teachers and Leaders. The song "I am a Child of God" still makes my gut tighten when they sing the part about having "parents kind and dear." This was the first time I've heard someone validate those conflicting feelings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=773&v=Rs4XJURtSug Some advice was given in several articles on lds.org. This one by Ann Prit was especially good, imo. How to Help Those Who Have Been Abused• Be a friend. Many people who have been abused feel distant from others. Don’t feel that you have to solve their problems; just be willing to listen empathetically. • Be trustworthy and dependable. Many abusers held a position of trust and then violated that trust. It can help survivors immeasurably when they are able to consistently count on others. • Facilitate their activity in the Church. Be sensitive to the possibility that survivors of abuse may feel unworthy and uncomfortable in Church settings. Let them know that the scriptures which describe God’s love for His children apply to them. Provide opportunities for them to serve others, and show them that righteous living can bring joy and happiness. • Withhold judgment. Unfortunately, some people who have been abused may turn to questionable activities to dull their pain. Without condoning their behavior, realize that as they work through their pain they will be better able to keep their bodies and minds free of things that are harmful to them. • Don’t expect them to quickly “forgive and forget” or “just get over it.” Until the issues have been worked through, the effects of the abuse may still be an ongoing and painful part of the person’s everyday life. Genuine forgiveness may take time, and it does not happen by merely denying one’s feelings and avoiding the issues. • Be sensitive to the needs and feelings of the abused when teaching, speaking in sacrament meeting, or giving comments in Church classes. For example, when talking about families, be aware that not every person has a family he or she wants to be with. Holidays may be especially difficult for those who have been abused, particularly Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. When talking about enduring trials, recognize that the Lord never intended anyone to experience abuseso that they could learn lessons from it. Abuse is always wrong and is condemned in the strongest terms by the Lord’s prophets and by the Savior. • Help survivors of abuse understand that they are not bad because bad things were done to them.Appropriately place responsibility on the perpetrator. Don’t imply that being abused was the victim’s fault. People do not have to repent of evil that was done to them; in fact, they cannot do so. It can be painful for abused children to hear about divine intervention for the righteous. Although Daniel was saved from the lions, does that occur all the time for all of us? Clarify the truth so that any who have been abused and not rescued will understand that they are still worthy individuals. • Teach the importance of respecting others’ bodies.Emphasize that all have the right to keep their bodies private, regardless of another person’s status or authority. • Never give up in bearing testimony of the power of the Savior. Lovingly testify that we can access His marvelous power and love again and again. Ann F. Pritt, a therapist, is a member of the Kaysville Ninth Ward, Kaysville Utah East Stake.

Because we do "need" activities for different reasons (like the ones I originally stated). This doesn't mean that because those individuals need activities in a different way than I do that we all don't need to be remembering the purpose of our life (as you've stated in relation to attending church activities). But we can and should view our personal needs in relation to church activities. If you disagree then we can agree to disagree about that.

Another thread mentioned 2 Nephi 28 (related to All is Well in Zion -- but entirely missing the point, imo), and my bishop also shared with me this scripture from it today. I think it interesting as related to some of the reactions seen: ...and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish; For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good. (vs 19 and 20)

I'm going to respond to this with my own understanding of what you're asking....because I'm not 100% sure. I have many friends in my YSA ward who truly need the activities. They live alone. Their family is not in the same state. They are new to the area with very few friends. These activities help them to find friends, make relationships, feel included, and therefore do not result in becoming inactive. They need the socialization and want to be involved in activities (in which we have an activity EVERY day of the week) and this is actually great for them. They go to work from 8-5 and would either be at home by themselves for the rest of the night, or at the church activity with a good group of friends and a healthy activity. Without it, they may fall into bad habits, find the wrong group of people to hang around, spend money on unnecessary activities, etc. My Bishop is pretty adamant about having lots of activities for that reason alone due to a lot of independent living YSA members with no family close to home. For myself, I live with my family and attend the YSA ward as I'm putting myself through undergraduate school. I come home to my family and hang out with them, do a lot of homework and studying, and call it a night. I usually don't attend the activities because I don't need them in the way that my friend does. Do I still go on occasion? Well of course. It's my ward family. But is my situation different than my friend's in the way that we view church activities? Yes. Same goes for family ward with a family of 5 kids and a family of newlyweds. They need the church activities in different ways. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by "need" or maybe you didn't. I don't know. The struggle with text communication.

Lots of social activities? There are a great deal of people who would LOVE to be in such a close knit ward. My ward has maybe 5 big social activities a year. My suggestion is that if it is putting strain on your family, simply just don't go to some of the extra activities, no problem. No need to go inactive over it. I'd still recommend you and your family attend activities on occasion, for you, your husband, and children, all people have various levels of socializing that are good for them.

I doubt it; carlimac-it is called social conditioning. The actual instances I mean real instances of situations are very rare. Just like actual homosexuality is fairly rare (1-2% of the population). I'm telling you, people don't realize it and have fallen into the trap-but it is an agenda by some very skillful people-read After The Ball. You see, if you can make claims that tuck at the heartstrings-no matter how ridiculous it ends up being. Get enough people (and it doesn't take many in today's society of knee-jerk social media mob-mentality), to make up a few scenarios-spread it like wildfire, people get indignant about it and then amplify their voices using social media. One can even astroturf it-spread fake twitter accounts-bots, have paid people write up stories (not saying it is done in this particular case) then one or two voices become 10-15 or 20. Then even though people start out thinking-hey this type of behavior is morally wrong, well I know Billy and he comes out in support of it. People know that well if I speak up I might be labeled a bigot, or racist or whatever favorite "uncompassionate" name they want to call you and I believe I'm a good person, I'm not hateful. I don't like this and it's morally wrong, but I'm just not going to say anything. And then when the voices get loud enough, people think, well maybe I really am wrong, maybe I am being bigoted, hateful, etc. by having this viewpoint-I don't want to be hateful so since everyone else thinks its hateful it must be. Social conditioning to the destruction of society.

The greatest threat to liberty, peace and prosperity is the morality of the people. Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1800s wrote something along the lines of "America is great because America is good and when she ceases to be good she will cease to be great". The whole entire underlying fabric of society is being ripped to shreds before our very eyes. The underlying fabric, where-in culture is propagated down through generations, where individuals learn right from wrong, good vs. bad, how to treat each other, what to do, when to do it is in the family. "Honor thy father and they mother, that thy days may be long in the land the Lord God has given thee" It's not just talking about being obedient as a child-it is talking about honoring and reproducing the same (or similar) attitudes and culture. Honor how they lived, replicate it for the next generation and your days-the days of your culture, your attitudes will be long. Don't honor their lifestyle and it will be gone. You mentioned a father who had children and then found a male soul mate. This isn't directed at you, but which is it? Is it something you are "born with"-and if that is the case why would he have even married and had kids? Or is it a lifestyle choice? This man's family was destroyed by a conscience decision to sin-drape it in whatever you want to call it (finding himself, being happy, etc.). Why would a father do that? He would do that because the actual social moors that in general keep behavior like that in check are completely gone. 65 years ago, no one would accept it-he would be an outcast and shamed for disregarding his solemn responsibility as a father to provide for his family. 65 years ago-no one gave a rip about your "feelings". He feels alone, so what-he has a responsibility to provide for a family and no amount of "feelings" can take away those obligations. The height of being a man was to be in control of your feelings-not to let them rule you. Today, his actions are celebrated, he has "found himself", he is "being true to himself", to heck with his responsibilities-it doesn't matter, it is all about him, him, him and more about him. America used to be the one country that had absolute rock-solid morals-today it is a cesspool. Other cultures have better morals than we do. Shoot take music, I love listening to some good rock music-I find better rock music out of Europe without all the F-bombs, sexual references, etc. Lyrics that actually tell a story and are poetic in English no less. I can't find anything like that in the States. Our freedoms that were won came about because or hard morals, because individuals took responsibility for their actions. They owned up to their choices. And morals start at the root-the family, it underpins everything. Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as just a different way to live is a grave, grave danger. Not for the actual numbers of people who embrace it, but for what acceptance of it as normal means. Because what it means, is that by and large this country no longer has any moral fiber or backbone.

In Lehi's vision of the tree of life he saw many who had grasped the iron rod and partaken of the fruit... Then they look around and see the great and spacious building. They see the people of that building laughing, at them mocking them, scorning them, and they feel ashamed that they grasped the rod and partook of the fruit... and they fall away and are lost. Predictions of a mass exodus from the church over this action might turn out to be true or they might not be. But wither people leave or not has no standing on if the Church is being lead by God or not. At some point the church will be sifted. The wheat and the tares will be separated that could very well take the shape of a mass exodus.. It is my opinion that what we end up being (wheat or tare) is directly related to how firm we are in holding on to the rod (aka the word of God)

I think it interesting to note this verse in our Doctrine and Covenants 1: 16, "They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall." Elder M. Russell Ballard confirmed in our past regional stake conference that the brethren, all 15 of them, are united with regards to what policies are given in the Handbook of Instruction. Verse 14 of Doctrine and Covenants section 1 further declares, "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people." We are also given truth that whether by God's voice, or by the voice of his servants it is the same. The united efforts of the prophet and apostles are the Lord's words; this is the Lord's voice to his people. When serving a mission, and after, I have heard many times, "I can not in good conscience accept the Word of Wisdom for it is man's doctrine." In other words, they are unwilling to accept the Lord's counsel and commandments as given by his servants. The irony is when members say the same thing when the prophets and apostles declare something new, or provide additional guidance. We aren't rejecting the prophets and apostles, we are rejecting the Lord's words. This is the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood. We accept the Lord's servants, which is as sign we accept the Lord, and by accepting the Lord we give a sign we accept the Father, who then in turn gives all the hath. Laman and Lemuel couldn't accept their father was inspired, when their will was pitted against Lehi's. The people in Jerusalem were good people (our father isn't loving), he is a simpleton a visionary man who thinks he is following God. What is heart breaking is members of the Church who reject our Lord's will as given by his servants the prophets. However, the only scenario that I have heard that offers compassion (Christ like compassion) is the active father or mother whose spouse decides to become openly gay. That father, that mother have my compassion, and I assume as this continues other policies in light of this will be given, in the Lord's due time. At this moment, this is the Lord's will. I have no problem accepting in good conscience, and love, and charity that the Lord speaks through his prophets and I know they are inspired and lead by God.

I think this would hypothetically be a good idea, too. Except when I tried to do this I was accused of being patronizing and disrespectful. These were much younger family members ( Millenials) and it was a slap in the face to me. I'mma staying outta their way now. They obviously don't want my help. They don't want to "get through it"! They just want to continue complaining and gasping in righteous (or un) indignation at how the church is targeting gays only to cover their fanny. They are getting such a rise out of this whole thing.

It is interesting to me how often when individuals deal with life choices between that which is good and that which is evil – It seems that those with poor choices want to blame those making right choices and choosing the good as being mean, self righteous and controlling. We see as a major theme in the Book of Mormon between Nephi and his older brothers Laman and Lemual. The covenants of the LDS church are for the singular reason of preparing families for eternal life with G-d in the “Kingdom” of heaven (Celestial Kingdom). There will be no same sex marriages or families or even children bound in the Celestial kingdom. The truth may sound harsh, mean and controlling. Shakespeare wrote, “Nothing is as good or as bad as it seems, only that thinking makes it so.” If truth is harsh, mean or controlling to you – it is likely (very much likely) that you will find lies to be the more enjoyable but it is only because you are thinking it to be so. The reality is – anyone is welcome to come and participate in our worship services. However, to become a member one must be willing to take upon them the name of Christ and denounce the world. Until a child is able to denounce same sex marriages – they are not ready for baptism. The sad truth is that being bound by law to apostasy until the child is 18 – is not a problem of the Church or its covenants – It is a problem of the world and apostasy in the land in changing the definition of marriage contrary to the covenants of G-d and his church. Sad as it may seem – the mistake is not in the covenant of baptism and any harm done to children that cannot be baptized is not because of the LDS church but those that have changed the laws of the land. One last very important point – any injustice that befalls anyone in this life is overcome through the atonement of Christ.

I'm not sure I want to know which category I fall into. Probably the goof ball one. :)

Don't you think you run the risk of making false accusations? If you are claiming people have done some bad thing, you need to be able to back that up with concrete examples. Otherwise, your accusations are without foundation.

Vort wasn't asking you to call put people just, just words. We have just words here on the forum. No body language. Pointing out phrases can help clarify meanings and intent.

I see this far too often on my job as an elementary teacher. It's too often a joy to declare others bullies. I'm going to be honest: I rarely see true bullying here and I've been here 5 years. I don't think I'm inner clique, either. Be it known that feeling less than stellar over a disagreement is not bullying. Bullying is a,long-term attack against a specific person. I guess I see personalities here that are what they are. It's also necessary in Internet communications to be frank and to the point. This can come off as harsh. If you see what you sense is bullying, quote the statement for clarification and/or inform the mods. A vague sense of discomfort is useless.

No, I don't believe that. There is a difference between bullying and disagreeing. People can disagree in a kind and respectful manner.

I feel people are twisting her words. She said "After laughing at people who called the Church a cult all my life, now I'm feeling like I'm actually in one. I do not believe that the LDS Church is a cult! I love the Church. " There are many definitions of the word "cult" and she states that may not be the correct word. The British Dictionary definitions for cult include the following. The last definition may be the way she is FEELING, that certain members of her branch or ward are pushing her husband to do more than he is physically and emotionally capable of doing and still maintain a healthy family life.FEELINGS aren't facts. They are FEELINGS and they are valid, no matter how far from the facts they seem.This is not the first time I've heard this complaint. LDS members have a pretty high rate of burnout, in my experience. And a burnt out Priesthood Leader or his wife are not good to anyone. They certainly don't need more guilt poured on. cult /kʌlt/ noun1.a specific system of religious worship, esp with reference to its rites and deity2.a sect devoted to such a system3.a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents

Not everyone that joins lds.net joins it for the forums. They also join for the article side so they can comment on the articles. And a great majority of the names you see probably joined as a means to spam. And then there are those who joined years ago and have just quietly gone away.

Becca you are wasting your time arguing with him, I been there done that. Any perspective other then his is wrong and he is not shy about trying to find fault in others opinions.

Lily I know what you are going through, in most wards it seems that our leaders are generational in that they serve in their callings for an X amount of years then the younger generation take over those calllings and so on and so forth. The old timers will sometimes feel like..."oh, I done my time to serve now its your turn MR. NEWEST COUNSELOR", and so Im wondering if your husband is feeling that pressure from the other leaders that are trying to delegate too much to him? maybe? In either case I honestly do not feel there is any loss of blessings should your husband ask to be released. It might be better since he probably doesnt want to be serving half-heartedly and under stress. I notice in some wards that there are adults that have learned the system and ways around it. For example the most common one is "oh, I work on Sundays", thats always the easiest way to avoid callings with out having to flat out deny a calling and get on the Bishops bad side. I do have to say though, the most admirable and respected members I know are the ones that are doing what your husband is doing, and doing it out of pure love and faith for the Church and its members. Right now there are several in our ward council (namely the RS president, Primary President, 2nd counselor bishopric) who are being pulled left and right in their callings but seem to enjoy the challenge. BUT, these 3 individuals are over the ages of 50 and their youngest kids no longer live at home. ...so, you can pray all you want but sometimes the Lord gives you answers right in front of your face and if the quality of your life is deteriorating then that might be your answer. I would see nothing wrong with your husbands decision to ask to be released.

Several years ago I began "grave hopping" with a broom and a camera. I found this great site call FIND A GRAVE. I have been contributing to that site for years. It's a free site where you can post photos of headstones. It's been a great blessing to me. The broom is used to clean of the headstones before snapping the photo. ;-)

My point tends toward sympathetic rather than legalistic.

That's a valid concern, but I think the Church's policy merely makes de jure what was already de facto. A divorced parent who baptizes their child into a religion that teaches that the other divorced (gay) parent is "living in sin" and must divorce his/her partner in order to get right with God, is creating a claim for parental alienation which could easily result in loss of custodial rights. Harsh realities like this are a big part of why the Church fought tooth-and-nail against gay marriage in the first place. Because the Church simply can't be in the position of putting underaged children into a covenant whose ramifications are that their legally-married parents must divorce. We knew then that for all practical purposes, conversion/retention of these children would be well-nigh impossible. Granted; but to the degree that these people passively accepted other events/decisions that had much more trauma on those children (a parent's divorce for the sake of pursuing a homosexual relationship, a child's adoption by a gay couple . . . )--the most charitable thing I can say is that there's some real myopia going on there, and I hope they can work past it. I don't deny the reality of those feelings; but given that baptism is a covenant rather than a simple rite of passage into a social club--these feelings are (to put it bluntly) a tail that should not wag the "dog" of Church policy. Oh, sure . . . but with conditions. They will wail piteously in the bloggosphere--and, eventually, in the courts--every time their kid comes home having had another lesson about the Proclamation on the Family or the Law of Chastity. They will make smug assertions about how the "rising generation" will be more "tolerant", and the Church's reversal on the sinfulness of gay sex is only a matter of time. They don't want their kid raised in the covenant of Mormonism; they want their kid raised in the society of Mormonism, with the hope that someday the covenant will be fundamentally eviscerated. They don't understand that the society is merely a product of the covenant, and that to diminish the one is to diminish the other. Like Guinevere and Lancelot, their desire to completely possess the thing they love will lead to the destruction of the very attributes that made the thing attractive in the first place.

Right. I think this is what bothers me most. But realistically, this sword has two edges, both beneficial to the Church. With this rule in place, it will be difficult for same-sex parents to even STAY in the Church, and if they left, that would solve a big problem for the Church, really. Then they wouldn't have to even deal with it at all. It almost feels like a chess move. Again, I do not believe the Church needs to change for anyone Just not an easy one, this.

That is not what this policy says.

We don't have "Danites" today, but the Lord did command the Church in Section 123 to gather up all the libelous information published against the Church and preserve it, noting the authors, and publishers in the process. This "evidence" is to be presented to the heads of governments in a final plea for redress and justice for the persecuted saints. This will be one of the last steps be done before the Lord judges the nations for their persecution of the Church. You can be sure that, since the Lord commanded this, that there is some department at Church headquarters that is involved in doing this. Records are kept and they will be part of "the books" from which the world will be judged.

We would have expected nothing less from Beefche.