Leaderboard

SALT LAKE CITY — Saturday, November 14, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement regarding the attacks in Paris: "With people around the world, we mourn today as we consider the horrific tragedies that have occurred in Paris. We pray for those affected, for their families and loved ones, for the leaders of nations and most especially for the people of France as they struggle to recover from the violence and loss they are feeling so deeply. We have directed that flags on Temple Square be flown at half staff, and that the French flag be flown here as an expression of our love and support for them. In these hours of uncertainty and despair, we ask members of the Church everywhere to join with us in our prayer that the peace of the Savior Jesus Christ will provide comfort, healing, understanding and hope." http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/french-flags-temple-square-love-and-support

There is a fine line between being charitable to those who are struggling with this and supporting/enabling their doubt. Somewhere in the conversations there has to be empathy for the pain, but also a strong conviction of truth expressed and a reminder of how to approach problems we don't understand. As I did this as a loving, caring aunt and cousin to a couple 30-somethings, I was patently dismissed by one and shouted at to stop patronizing her by the other. My reaction in these situations with close friends or family is to always to back off and get the you-know-what out of their way. If they aren't going to listen without coming back at me offensively, then I'm not so likely to sit around patting their heads or stroking their egos. They are on the wrong side of this and so many other church issues right now. They aren't likely to feel the spirit when they are so put out with the leaders, criticizing them shamelessly. I care about these relatives but they are wrecking their own lives and I think they know it. I just find so many within this 20-40 generation to be spoiled, entitled, critical and incredible cynical about nearly everything. Without fail when church issues come up they hop up on their "it's not fair" bandwagon, complaining at the tops of their lungs. There is very little demonstration of humilty among this crowd, and at the same time they have this faux horror at the injustice inflicted by the most humble and loving of the older generations. They are know-it-alls and think the rest of us can never understand quite as deeply as they can. They are quite full of themselves in their "fairness and equality for all" crusades. It's tiresome.

So this mass exodus... Is really just a cleaning up of church records? So that the records more closely represent what we see in the pews on Sunday?

Iron rod/Liahona is a false dichotomy, because the thing about the Liahona is that if you didn't do EXACTLY what it said-- --it quit working.

The following quote comes from an April 1971 Sunday afternoon general conference address by President Harold B. Lee. Is a “liberal” in the church really an oxymoron? Personally, I agree with Pres. Lee. I cannot see how a person can support “liberal” practices and claim to believe in the Gospel. Many of the liberal practices of today go against what is taught by the Church. Liberals support: Abortion Full government control of the economy (socialism) Euthanasia Eliminating the right to self-defense (2nd Amendment) Free health care for all Ignore laws on illegal immigration Homosexual marriage Abolish death penalty Protect Social Security at all costs Welfare, lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of welfare Heavy taxation (socialism) www.studentdailynews.com I'm sure that a good Latter-day Saint won't support some of these policies, but I ask, “Can you be just a little bit liberal?” Isn't it like being just a little bit pregnant? Or maybe I'm wrong in this. I can already hear the keyboards humming from those who say that there are GA's who vote Democrat. (I don't think the republican party is any better) But think about it. In the Gospel, a person cannot pick and choose what they believe. It is an all or nothing situation. The commandments of our Heavenly Father, the structure of the Church are not open to modification because we don't agree with them. “...How strict are the commandments of God” (Alma 37:13). When someone modifies the teachings of the Gospel to suit their beliefs and feelings, what that person is doing is telling God to agree with them, not them agree with God. Heavenly Father is completely inflexible when it comes to us obeying him. For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. (Doctrine and Covenants 3:2) I really am not sure if someone can be a liberal and still have a testimony sufficient to return to their Heavenly father.

Most of those people had already left the church. This just gave them something to stand behind to justify their actions.

Here's an article I wrote for the Examiner that got picked up by Mormon Times, Deseret News, and some other sites. I think the only surviving version of it now is on this site: http://www.ldsliberty.org/partisans-and-the-saints-choosing-a-side-or-choosing-the-right/ Using politics to divide the Church is dangerous. The Lord will take care of dividing the sheep from the goats. There are people on the extreme right and left in the Church who have the spirit of apostasy. Both sides criticize the General Authorities. The left criticizes them for their stands on same-sex marriage, etc. The right says that the General Authorities aren't telling us about the "Illuminati" or other conspiracies. Both of these extremes will take themselves out of the Church eventually. In the middle, where there are liberals and conservatives who believe and follow the leaders of the Church, they will find common ground and build Zion. The partisanship and rancor lead us away from Zion. I figured out a long time ago that the Church thrives in the tension that exists between the two sides. If either side gained dominance, left or right, it would destroy the Church. The sectarian Christians already tried to do this in the 19th century. If they held complete political power without opposition, we'd never get approval to build another temple. They would use their political clout to block the work. Likewise, if the left had all the power without effective opposition, we'd face similar efforts to hinder the kingdom's progress. We benefit from the tension between both sides keeping each other at bay so that neither gets a monopoly on power.

Exactly. As long as everyone fully understands that the health care is not "free", any more than the public roads are "free", then I think I have no principled objection to publicly-funded health care. But it is in no good sense a right or (as the US government likes to name things) an entitlement. EDIT: Let me add a clarification to this. Public roads are a legitimate concern of government. I am not at all convinced that health care is a legitimate government concern. But if the people want the government to regulate health care and, specifically, want the government to collect taxes which are then spent for health care, I may not have a principled objection. But no one should confuse this with a "right" to health care insurance. There exists no such right, either in the US or anyplace else in the world. That is not what the word "right" means.

A scary movie is not the authority on what "hell" is really like - it's based on writer's imaginings on the topic. Try to see the film for what it is - a carefully constructed set of edited images and sounds designed to scare us. If horror films are making you feel so bad as to think you are destined for "hell" - then it seems they are messing with your psyche. A better option might be to stop watching horror films and use your time to view media that will uplift and fill you with hope, laughter and joy.

I have found that the church has a very good method for people who cannot abide by the gospel principles will leave the church. The faithful will stay regardless of politics.

“There are the dissenters who leave the Church, either formally or informally, but who cannot leave it alone. Usually anxious to please worldly galleries, they are critical or at least condescending towards the Brethren. They not only seek to steady the ark but also on occasion give it a hard shove! Often having been taught the same true doctrines as the faithful, they have nevertheless moved in the direction of dissent (see Alma 47:36). They have minds hardened by pride (see Daniel 5:20)" -Neal A Maxwell

Mmm. Dr. Polper.

Those who openly and publicly denounce the Church and its leaders are, by definition, disloyal.

Not to worry, Yjacket; I'm not suggesting America fight a war against ISIS (especially to bail out the French for what would be the third time in under a century). The French were not shy about demanding an end to the Pax Americana, and now that it is indeed winding down--there are going to be power vacuums and violence, and the French are going to have to find a way to deal with that. The results are horrifying indeed and the French people have my utmost sympathy--but that sympathy does not extend to sending Americans to die for them (again). On the other hand--ISIS are some bad, bad SOBs. Churchill was often called a "warmonger" for insisting that Hitler really did mean all those crazy things he was saying, and the fact is that the picture I painted harmonizes pretty well with what ISIS' ideological leaders tell them they have the right to do to infidels--not to mention the reports of the unfortunate souls who have actually had to live their lives under the domination of these goons. And I doubt these reports are being deliberately filtered in order to whip up American sentiment against ISIS and lay the groundwork for a military campaign--remember, it was barely two years ago that President Obama wanted us to get involved in the Syrian civil war, on ISIS' side. At any rate, whatever these terrorists are out to accomplish--I really doubt they're getting their kicks and giggles out of a few more traffic cameras, or the NSA's data collection, or the renewal of the Patriot Act.

From google's dictionary (since it's important that if we're gonna discuss a topic like this, it would be best first to agree on which definition we're going by): ...and cuz the very next paragraph in John A. Widtsoe's book after the "It is folly..." bit, starts with this sentence: ...or maybe I should just go make popcorn, in case this is an action-adventure thread... (minutes later: "Wow! Who knew there were so many smiley faces to choose from!)

In one year, you can easily clear a $10,000 debt, assuming you are living at home. Even if you work only a $10/hour job, 2000 hours (a year's worth of work) will net your $20,000 -- $18,000 after tithing, and probably $15,000 after taxes. That will pay off your debt and give you a good start on what you need for your mission costs. A year and a half of even minimum-wage work can pay off your debt and get you in a financial position to serve a mission. If your parents are willing to help out a bit, you could even go part-time to a community college and earn some college credits over the next 18 months, which would help you out post-mission. During that 12 to 18 months, you can continue preparing for your mission, studying scriptures, and deepening your testimony. Good luck.

I am deeply saddened by those who are reacting instead of pondering over the Church's (and the Lord's) policy. Follow the prophet. "A ship that will not obey the helm will have to obey the rocks."

And just think, up until June 26 2015, everyone was all "All we want is the right to marry. Give us that and you and your church can go do whatever it wants." They didn't want to tell us what to do, they didn't want us to tell them what to do. It was such an easy choice. Right?

I was contacted by a ward member the other day about a certain multi-level-marketing (pyramid scheme) scam that is run by Orrin Woodward and Chris Brady, two of the greatest scammers ever. I mean, these guys are genius right down to Google bombing and selling support product to support their other failing product. They are also pros at manipulation by edification. I can say no to this stuff easily. That is not the problem. The problem is that I care about the ward members and it really bugs me when I see them getting sucked into this stuff that is most likely illegal. How do I approach the member and tactfully tell them they are being scammed and they are perpetuating a scam? Sincerely, Str8Shooter, The guy who has no tact and says awkward things that totally offends people when he is trying to be nice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04OEfvS2Lcg

At least six times in the D&C the Lord says how doesn't matter (search for "mattereth not"). So at least sometimes, it doesn't matter how we do something, just that we do it. (I think this is where that "anxiously engaged" principle comes in.)

If political positions cause a person to reject core concepts doctrines, then yes, they are who President Harold B. Lee is referring to.

Yet the op went on to equate it to political positions.

If individuals would have read all of the content provided by the OP, they would have read the description of what "Liberal" means and is being discussed. Here it is, ""The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs.... He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations...." A core concept would be marriage, marriage between a male and female is the only marriage ordained by God. An individual who would teach otherwise obviously would have liberal leanings. A core concept, we are commanded to be virtuous and that sexual relationships are only between a male and female who are lawfully married (husband and wife). Anything outside of this is sin, and should be avoided. A member who believes, "Sexual relations should be practiced before marriage so that you may be a better companion to your spouse," obviously would have liberal leanings. This tends to be true. A liberal Mormon will have a hard time remaining Mormon because they will continually fight against core principles (i.e. Marriage), which substantiates the notion they don't have a testimony of the core principles and doctrines. Also note the stipulation, they set out to reform (change) the core value to suit their beliefs, thus when the rains come, and the storms beat, their faith is upon a sandy foundation. Edit: Thus, President Harold B Lee has more to do with "which way you face" rather than political leanings.

Why does this matter again? Either they do, and they get that opportunity through baptism for the dead, or they don't, and they still get that opportunity through baptism for the dead.

It's not really free. Someone is paying for it.

If they hate you, that's a good thing, isn't it? That means they won't try selling their product to you anymore.

What "evidence do you have of their legality/illegality? A quick google search finds several "ripoff" accusations, some attempts to get people to call their AG and so on, a lot of "these guys are shady". I was concerned for the "recruiter", I would be tempted to phrase my "no I'm not interested" to include something like, "because I've researched this opportunity and found that it is led by two guys with a lot of questionable accusations directed at them. No matter how good the opportunity sounds, I do not want to get involved in something with this much potential to be illegal."

Irony: The gift that keeps on giving.

It's not a matter of us agreeing or not. It's a matter of hypocrisy. You are, by your theory, declaring yourself sinful for even expressing the theory. It's just interesting that you don't seem to be aware of that.

In California to be an attorney you have to pass a test, at 70%. California is liberal, you only have to know 70% of it. I suppose it's the same for doctors. 70% is good enough. Accountants, I think it's higher, 75, 80 or 90% or it used to be, but that's a national test. Do you believe God is a liberal, that he will accept 70% of the 10 Commandments? You only have to obey 70%? I doubt it. And area 70 described at Stake Conference last week, take a paper cup when you are bbqing. It will burn in the fire. Fill another paper cup half full of water. It will also burn in the fire. But fill it 100% full and it won't burn. I think God is the same way. 100% or nothing. A conservative. Not to follow the philosophy of man, but to adhere to a policy of strict construction, of complete compliance or adherence. I think religion is a test where you have to have 100% to pass. Now, I understand that there are other churches out there that don't believe that, because they want more members, or because they are 'liberal' or whatnot. I call them 'easy churches'. Once you are 'saved' that's all it takes. Just show up on Sunday and you're good to go. It seems to me this church is not like that. That there's more to it than that. dc

I'm not sure there's going to be much value in getting into a semantic debate. I will acquiesce that their actions will well be deemed rational by them. In my book, that doesn't make them rational. It is, rather, a common idea (and more common all the time) that emotion = rational. What we feel makes darned good sense, right? -- because, you know...feelings. But feelings aren't reason. Reason is reason. And "rational", by definition (per Merriam-Webster, at lease) is: : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings In my book that means any acts of war or otherwise that are based on vengeance, hate, pride, etc., are irrational. Sure, one can claim that their actions are rational by virtue of all sorts of things that make them feel justified. I don't think that truly qualifies said actions as rational though. Perhaps the confusion I have is in the strict idea of true rationality vs perceived rationality.

I find this idea perplexing at the very least.

Their own Facebook page polled the folks who planned to attend. Of 950 respondents, only 60-odd considered themselves "active" and fewer than 40 of those calmed to have attended weekly.

I'm with Eowyn on this one...

I think there is a huge disconnect. It's quite possible to believe government should and shouldn't regulate certain things without necessarily embracing them. For instance, I'm okay that government makes the consumption of alcohol legal, but that doesn't mean I embrace drinking or think being an alcoholic is okay.

No. Ballroom dance competition and performance costumes, for the most part, should not be worn with garments. Even if the woman's dress, for example, had enough total coverage to do so (which some do), they are dancing and the dress flies up, often exposing dance briefs. You simply cannot wear them with garments.

The reality is, however, that "charitable" and "shaming" are not mutually exclusive. Whereas I entirely agree that we shouldn't intentionally berate others who are merely struggling, even a simple suggestion that they hold on with faith (an entirely charitable and reasonable suggestion) may, indeed, cause them to feel shamed in some cases.

No. It's highly problematic for a lot of reasons, but in point of fact it is not "letting the terrorists win". The terrorists want to be running things here--full stop. Victory, for them, is being able to take what they want, kill whom they wish, and rape whom they desire. In the interim they couldn't give a flying flip about how many civil liberties we do or don't have.

It will happen in the US. We are training to counter it when it does. It is only a matter of time.

This is something about the church (or its members) that makes absolutely no sense to me. We dress modestly/wear our garments except if we want to take a job where dressing immodestly is part of the job?? I guess that means if we want to take a job that requires us to...oh...I don't know...drink...smoke...do drugs...have sex (I hear being a sexual surrogate pays pretty darn good)....then it's all hunky-dory because, hey, it's just part of my job, right? Orthodox Jewish women dress modestly. They wouldn't dream of dressing immodestly just to make a buck or two.

(2 of 2) Yet no one has said anything even remotely approaching this. This is an absolute mischaracterization of what has been said, which is, "Women, you should be modest." Hold it. Aren't you the one talking about porn actresses? I would not say that's "nothing". I don't understand. Did anyone suggest it was not their choice? No one except, perhaps, you. And it is an evil choice. That is the point. Shame on them for choosing immodesty. Ah. So, if I choose to run around stark naked, that is simply a choice between God and me, and you have no right to say anything about it, or even to tell your children that Brother Vort really should put on some pants (or at least underwear) before going on a walk. Right? This is simply nonsense, Becca. If a woman freely chooses to dress provocatively with the intent of tittilating men, you say that it is not at all her fault that men are tittilated; it's all on the men. Therefore, we need not teach our daughters modesty, because they can run around stark naked and the men simply shouldn't get excited. This is a fantasy land, and a truly ugly one. Real people (at least healthy people) would never act in such a manner. Just as there will always be murderers. That doesn't mean we should quit teaching against murder. So, BeccaKirstyn: Do we teach our daughters about modesty, or do we not? If so, what are you complaining about? If not, why not?

NOTE: I am not by any means denying that we have a big problem of women dressing, speaking, and behaving immodestly. I am not denying that this is driven by various worldly factors. I am denying that this is strictly a problem of the way women dress, speak, and behave; and that it can be solved by addressing only that side of things. If you only teach the young men that the young women ought to dress modestly, you're teaching them that their reactions to what girls wear aren't their fault cuz the girls never shoulda been wearing that in the first place. The prevalence of a problem does not, in my opinion, seem relevant. It is possible for men to be immodest, and we should teach everyone that modesty is the standard for all of us, regardless of gender. Immodesty includes appearance, speech, and behavior. Immodesty includes watching that porn made for men. Immodesty includes the ogling of men and women. Immodesty includes the tight muscle shirt intended to attract / impress the girls (even if the girls' biological reaction isn't always as strong as the male biological reaction), as well as whatever skimpy outfit the girl is wearing. I object to addressing the issue one-sided because that's part of our problem. Even the dictionary (google's in this case) contributes to the wrong opinion that only women can be modest (and therefore immodest)... Their definition of modest: A man can't dress or behave so as to avoid (or encourage, if we reverse this) impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid (or encourage...) attracting sexual attention? They certainly can. Interestingly, "immodest" is defined as "lacking humility or decency." - men (and women) can certainly be guilty of that, as well as the reverse of modest, whatever the word is for that. As I mentioned previously, I would hope that long before we get anywhere near porn, we're teaching about the sacred nature of the human body, about the importance of all of us dressing, speaking, and behaving toward ourselves and others in a way appropriate to that sacredness (and that we're not teaching that modesty is just the way women dress).

I think this is a little like saying that yeast infections are not a female-specific problem, or that breast cancer is not a female-specific problem. Both statements are true, technically. But no health care professional would make such a statement. There is not (currently) nearly as much of an industry for male-centered pornography as for female-centered porn; what exists is mostly homosexual in nature. The reasons for this are obvious: The natural man is attracted to nekkid women, loves to see women's body parts, up close or in a more overall context, and in general just likes the look of an attractive women sans clothing. The natural woman does not typically have this same response; the sight of a nude man, even an attractive one, typically doesn't do a whole lot for a woman. Thus, women commonly trade on their sexuality with regards to men, but men do not trade on their sexuality with women -- or at least not in the same way. Female immodesty results in catcalls, ogling, appreciative looks, indecent proposals -- in short, attention, much of which might be perceived as positive. Male immodesty typically results in mocking and insults. So the two simply are not equivalent, and the difficulties of immodesty are nowhere near equally divided between the sexes.

Um...I assume every endowed and faithful person does. it's part of the covenant.

or the use of a hat... or the absence of a hat...

One simply can't slack on being offended. It's a trait that needs to be exercised. I think this is great as well. Exciting.