Leaderboard

I've been reading a book titled Untangled. (Damour, https://www.amazon.com/Untangled-Guiding-Teenage-Transitions-Adulthood/dp/0553393073). It is a self-help book of sorts for parents of teenage girls. Dr. Damour talks about how the adolescent mind goes through a massive restructuring between the ages of about 12-16 (give or take a couple years). There is some evidence that habits and patterns established during this restructuring become ingrained in the personality, and can be extremely difficult to counteract. Exposure to drugs and alcohol during that time can result in life-long dependency issues, because the teenage brain more-or-less "decides" that the external chemical is a normal part of its function. One time may not be enough to create that addiction for many, but there's no way to know if any one person is prone to go from one time to dependency. This is a place to trust the stuffy-old-boring-adults. One time isn't worth the risk.

There is a story of President McKay being served rum cake and indulging enthusiastically, to the consternation of his entourage; whereupon he declared that the WoW prohibited *drinking* alcohol, not *eating* it. Those who know me know I’m not typically a fan of using such legalistic gnat-straining when discussing which Gospel-relates behavioral standards one might be justified in ignoring. As for me personally, I choose not to eat coffee or alcohol. But given the conflicting precedent, I have a hard time getting too offended when I see another Church member eating rum cake, or Flemish stew, or mocha ice cream.

I ignore pretty much everything the Democratic Party stands for except the stance on abortion. A party that promotes the murder of babies is enough for me to never consider supporting it, regardless of its stance on any other issue. There is no way to separate that one policy stance from the overall character of the party.

Agreed! I ran into a site with a bunch of quotes related to freedom of expression that I thought would be worth sharing:

https://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/AlcoholEvap.htm

Given the amount of criticism the teacher received, I would find it odd if she now claimed the student never explained the meaning of it, and she only got blamed after the incident happened. If I was that teacher, I would have had my NEA rep with me, in front of news cameras, within minutes of the critical news reports--insisting on my innocence, in that the child did not explain what it was. Indeed, a 5-day old ABC news story indicates the teacher apologized, saying it was a misunderstanding--that she thought it was dirt. The grandmother indicates her grandson tried to explain what it was twice, and the teacher was not listening. So... I suspect she made an assumption, and really did not pick up on how upset her student was. As others have said, this story ends okay. The teacher will not face permanent discipline, and the child was allowed to have the cross re-applied. There's no need to be get stuck in this narrative--but neither does the teacher need defending. She made a foolish rush to judgment, and it bit her pretty hard.

I beg to differ. If it is true that the child tried to explain what the ash cross, and the teacher made him wipe it off anyway, that is pretty disrespectful to Catholicism. The fact that the Catholic church is facing a separate, very difficult scandal, does not excuse the alleged action of the teacher. Also, the notion that the child/parent or church institutional is playing the victim to deflect attention form the child molestation issue is a stretch, imho.

The notion of alcohol cooking out is certainly popular, but it is scientifically unsupported. The alcohol content does reduce over time, but it would take much more time to cook off entirely than most foods actually spend in the oven or in the stovetop.

There's a reason we don't have an explicit list of every possible circumstance. It's up to us, individually, to do the best we can to follow the WoW sincerely. If somebody's using legalistic technicalities, that just means that on some level they feel they probably shouldn't do it but are looking to justify it. Meanwhile, someone else might sincerely believe it's fine. Which do you supposed would be judged more sternly? I personally know where I draw the line, but somebody else may draw it either more permissively or less. It doesn't make either of us more spiritual than the other, assuming we're both honestly doing our best according to our understanding.

In Matthew 13, we are told that Jesus spoke in parables so that some would come to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, while others would not. I am wondering if one of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven is that the parable of the sower portends of the final judgement and resurrection? It not only speaks in binary terms of those to whom it is given to know, and those to whom it is not given (v. 11); as well as those who hath and hath not. (v.12), but it also speaks in matters of degree in relation to the ground upon which the seeds fell--i.e the wayside (outer darkness?), the stoney place (Telestial Kingdom?), the thorny place (Terrestrial Kingdom?), and the good earth (Celestial kingdom?) with its three types of fruit production (3 degrees of Celestial glory--30 fold, 60 fold, 100 fold?) ; where hell consists of those who hath not or once hath but the hath was taken away, whereas heaven consists of those to who once or still hath,. What do you think? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think she does. I don't always agree with anatess, but I always pay attention to what she writes.

This. "Because God said so." really is the core of it, and if we obey faithfully then we will receive the benefits. When the WoW was first given, it was at a time when it was commonly believed, even among physicians, that things like opiates (like laudanum), cocaine and tobacco were good for the mind and the body. No doubt conversations happened at the time where people thought members were odd if they obeyed the WoW. "If your Prophet really is hearing from God, how come he doesn't seem to know what doctors know? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?" But who had the last laugh there? So when people in my life look at me funny and say things like "What's wrong with tea?" or "You know, doctors say a bit of red wine every evening is good for you." I just shrug. I dunno why. I just do. And yeah, a lot of members assume caffeine is the reason for the prohibition on coffee/tea... even to the point where official functions discouraged caffeinated sodas. I feel like that's trying to hard to calculate the rationale and virtue signal by doing more than what's expressly defined. (Not in all cases, but many.) I was glad to see that's beginning to loosen and fewer people are saying it. When my son got married in the Temple, the reception was held at his ward building and dark sodas weren't allowed -- because of the possibility of stains, not the caffeine. That seemed pretty reasonable to me.

One of my favorite quotes from Spencer W. Kimball.

I think this is one level of understanding the parable. Just as the war in heaven continues in this world, behaviors such as those described in the parable of the sower continue into the next world.

It ceases to be a major win for Satan individually when someone, just one person, corrects his own usage. So this has certainly already begun, in a similar fashion to what Spender W. Kimball once said, "“When Satan is bound in a single home—when Satan is bound in a single life—the Millennium has already begun in that home, in that life” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 172)." This is also happening collectively as the Church manages the changes as the Lord accepts our offerings (similar to D&C 124:49, except this particular project will go on unimpeded by any enemies that I can see).

There have been accounts of Muslims in the Middle East having visions of Jesus. They listen, because Islam teaches that Jesus is a prophet of God. Jesus tells them He is the Son of God, and because they've been prepared to listen to a prophet, they now have to wrestle with what that prophet has said. Many end up converting to Christianity. Had they not been Muslim, such a vision might not have had the same result.

I do not think it is okay at all. Similar to what Vort said, many people try to find ways around commandments, and focusing in on the "drink" aspect of section 89 is one way that can occur. What if I decided to pour rum on my pancakes in the morning? I'm not "drinking" it...so it must be okay right? Hypothetically, even if it isn't wrong, I choose to avoid the appearance of evil. Many larger sins and misdeeds have come from a path that started with less. To me, rationalization is one's way of making reality fit their desired narrative.

From President Nelson's October 2018 Conference talk: "If we will be patient and if we will do our part well, the Lord will lead us through this important task..." "We will want to be courteous and patient in our efforts to correct these errors..." In the original announcement he said, "We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. In recent weeks, various Church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months."

The thing is - you stated that the grandmother is an uber Catholic trying to get oppression points - something we don't see any support for - then you claimed the teacher's career is in jeopardy - something we don't see any support for. An administrative leave doesn't end teachers careers. The way I see it, it seems like both are exaggerations stemming from your own bias. Wanna know how tempest starts in teapots? Exactly this.

Giving it a watch now.

There is a fascinating near death experience account by a Christian.... . about a Muslim friend being in heaven.... because he accepted Messiah Issa - Jesus - Yeshua in the final moments of his life while a zealous Christian friend of his did NOT make it into heaven.... because she refused to forgive her friends who did not visit her in the hospital while she was sick........ This principle is logical... and fits with many scriptures..... and can increase our fear of G-d. https://www.near-death.com/religion/christianity/emanuel-tuwagirairmana.html

Now you can tell your friends that they are not actually removing Christ out of Christmas when using Xmas. 😊 M.

I don't think anybody disagrees with you as far as this one singular incident goes. The concern, in my mind at least, is that big atrocities start with small, relatively trivial incidents. Since we've already mentioned the Holocaust, I ask this question, as a way to illustrate a point: Do you suppose that the persecution of the Jews in Europe began with the Star of David armbands, or is it more likely to have started with little acts here and there? I don't think many of us are worried that Christianity (or any denomination of it) is destined to experience a full scale holocaust at the hands of others. I do think that many of us are paying very close attention because of a cultural climate that has made it quite clear that Christians are the one demographic it's now always okay to push around, Catholics in particular. This kind of stuff never just goes away on its own. Granted, in this case it isn't non-Christian vs. Christian, but it DID take place in a public school environment, and the teacher was citing school rules, not her own religious beliefs. The matter has been resolved and everybody's fine, and I'm glad. I suspect the equitable outcome had more to do with the location of the incident than anything else... but that's just me speculating.

This isn't accurately true. I had friends, atheists who would use "X-mas" because they did not believe in Christ and did not care about a "Greek" interpretation of the X. So, "Xmas" does have things to do with taking the name of Christ out of Christmas for many people I grew up with.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/comments-from-the-fountain-pen-forum 🤣

I don't have daughters, I'm a Boys Mama. I've never been called to any service related to Young Women. But if these questions were asked to me, this is how I'll answer: 1.) What are good ways to help me feel strong when I really feel weak/tempted? There are 2 commandments - 1. Love God, 2. Love others as ourselves. All our decisions can be measured on those 2 commandments for our entire lifetime. How does it bring me and others closer to God? It doesn't matter if it's one inch closer, or one millimeter closer, or even not closer just yet. But one should strive not to step one inch backwards because the slide farther from God is a lot easier and faster. So, when one is feeling weak, just stand still and gather strength - no matter how long it takes - before taking one millimeter step forward. 2.) Is my first role and responsibility being a mother and caregiver? What if I make more money than my husband? Yes. A woman's life calling is being a Mother. And remember, one does not have to have their own children - biological or adopted - to answer the calling of Motherhood. Motherhood is a virtue that one develops within one's self that manifests itself in service to the rising generation. How much money one makes has zero relevance to the calling of Motherhood in the same token that how much money one makes has zero relevance to the calling of Fatherhood. Money is simply a tool to either fulfill or detract from one's calling. Just like a bird does not need money to survive, a mother does not need money to care for a child. Money simply makes things a whole lot easier. But if the pursuit of money detracts from Motherhood, then that money did not make things easier to care for the mother nor the child, that money made you fail in your calling as a Mother and left a child either without one, or with less of one. A Father cannot replace a Mother. 3.) Did we all know each other before the veil? Speculative. Maybe we did, maybe we didn't. 4.) Why does it matter what I wear? What you wear sends a message - whether intended or not. The easiest demonstration of this is going to a Football game between the old rivals Steelers and Ravens. You may not know anything about football and just happened to get invited to the game by your die-hard Steelers fan friend, so you simply grabbed the first thing out of your closet to wear to the game - which just happnes to be a Purple shirt. You meet your friend at the stands on the Steeler's home side and get boo'd by everybody around you because... Purple is the Ravens color. As you can see, what you wear matters. We are reminded every Sacrament Meeting that we may be willing to take upon us the name of Jesus Christ - what we wear can give the opposite message of that. There are many things we wear that may give cultural messages that are opposite of Christ's teachings. For example, wearing a hijab would indicate you are a follower of Islam and non-Christian. Wearing jewelry with Satanic symbolism could send a message that you are follower of Satan. Sporting the latest teen-age rebellion look (back in the 80's it was punk rock) would give the message that you are a teen-aged rebel - whatever that means at the time in your culture - which may, or may not, align with the message of Christ. There are many ways to express one's self in one's attire that doesn't detract from one's taking on of Christ's name - for example, my son's favorite color is green. It is a very very rare occasion that you will catch him awake wearing an attire that doesn't have any green on it - even if it's just his shoelaces. And now's a good time to quote lyrics from some song - "If you choose not to decide, you still made a choice." 5.) How can I break the habit of using bad language? Language is thoughts put into words. You want to break the habit of using bad language, have better control of your thoughts. Thoughts is influenced by culture. This is evident in my experience as a multi-lingual. When I'm speaking to a Bisaya, my thought patterns adjust to the Bisaya culture as I speak Bisaya such that when an American catches my attention I have to blank out my brain to switch it to American culture so I can speak English in American fashion instead of speak English translations of Bisaya words which results in heavily accented broken English. So, you will notice, that you tend to use bad language when you are with that culture of people who speak in that manner. To break that habit, you either have to take steps to change that culture within that group, or control your thoughts so you don't adopt the culture of that group, or avoid that group altogether. 6.) Why are temples so luxurious and expensive? Why all the time, effort and funding? Wouldn't it be easier and more efficient to spend less on temples? Temples are not more luxurious than they need to be. And yes, they are expensive but not more expensive than they need to be. This is the House of the Lord. Just like the question about what to wear, the House of the Lord reflects the work of the Lord and contains specific instructions from God on how the Temple should be built to perform the work within. The House of Lord is doing the great work of salvation, especially for those who have died and cannot do the work for themselves. The Church spends a lot of money in service for the living. They also spend a lot of money in service for the dead. Both work are important in the mission entrusted by God to Man - to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 7.) What's the harm in trying drugs and alcohol just once to see what they are like? See my answer to the first question - one millimeter forward or stand still. One millimeter backward makes it easier to slide all the way farther from Christ. We stay away from drugs and alcohol because we made a covenant to do so. In any case, you don't need to try anything to see what they are like. A modified quote from one of my favorite movies, "I’ve never had rectal bleeding before, but I’m pretty sure it's bad."

Yeah it seems to me that there's fertile ground here for some kind of antitrust lawsuits to happen. My fear is that these companies will sway public perception enough to get politicians in power who are friendly enough to them that they'll be safe and secure in their power for the forseeable future.

The problem is that these companies are actively moving to crush any contenders to challenge them, by any means necessary. Gab, an alternative to Twitter, is constantly being targeted with takedowns from hosting companies and the app is being backlisted form app stores. When Pateron showed its true colors, a competitor started to gain traction but then PayPal refused to process payments form them. So while these companies technically aren't monopolies, they are circling the wagons and protecting each other so that they are effectively monopolies. These social media giants have immense power over information. Much more even than all the governments of the world combined. They have demonstrated their ability, willingness and intent to manipulate information to influence the outcome of elections. They have spoken about this openly.

It's a standing joke between my wife and me that movies we see on recommendation of my friends or what I've heard turn out to be duds. Early in our marriage, we watched some stupid movie called Baron Munchausen based on how funny I had heard it was. Neither of us cracked a smile, and about 45 minutes into it we turned it off and I went and got my money back (only time I've done that). That has happened other times, too; hence the inside joke. So when I suggested A Hundred Foot Journey as a recommended movie, I was please to get, not flak, but a rejoinder of more or less, "Yeah, Vortling II said that was a great movie. I've been wanting to watch it." So I'll let you know after we watch it, maybe this coming weekend.

Then the follow up question is, why would it need to go dark immediately before the change? They can easily progress by small and simple changes until all things have rolled out. Sure, human nature could mean, they may miss a site and then when informed they make the change -- NO BIG DEAL -- changes are being made. That's the point -- CHANGES ARE BEING MADE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. Similar to "lds.org" which is right now informing people on the site that it will be changed. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill with changes that are already taking place.

Watched a few found footage horror films over the weekend. The best one was called "Butterfly Kisses," which was set near where I live. It was an unusual take on the usual found footage genre in that it was about a filmmaker who is trying to build a film using the found footage, and trying to be taken seriously by the community. It's sort of a documentary about a filmmaker doing a found footage movie using actual found footage. What made it fun is that it's presented to make it ambiguous on whether the paranormal phenomena in the original footage was real or faked, with the documentary filmmakers themselves being unsure. I liked it.

I think perhaps an example more similar to members of the church and what they may experience would be easier to understand why this was not the right course of action for the teacher to necessarily take. A teenager has a temporary temple recommend. The teacher tells the student that they must burn the recommend and toss it in the trash. The student tries to tell the teacher that it is not something to disturb the class (in fact, it is in their pocket and not public display), that it is a religious thing, and that this is something given to them by their church authorities. The teacher ignores the student for some reason and tells them to burn it now. The student, rather than raise more of a ruckus does so. How would Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respond to such a story. This may not be a perfect match, but I think it is a decent parallel to how offensive the teacher's suggestion and request was. This is not some frivolous item and is FAR better known than youth temple recommends. The student had a pretty serious religious ceremony they experienced. Even if ignorant, the teacher could have EASILY looked up or found out about WHY a student may have something like this on that specific day. It is NOT secret and very well known. Even if it is easily redone to a degree, it was still disrespectful to the religion, to Catholicism, and to the child. In the same way, a teacher doing the above to a youth that is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could be seen as sparking outrage in Utah or the surrounding areas if done to a student. Perhaps we may reason that we, personally, would feel no problems if this occurred, but there would be those in the surrounding area that would be HIGHLY offended if a teacher did this to a student and forced them to burn a temporary temple recommend and toss the ashes. I find that it is great that no party took greater offense then they did (and in fact, perhaps others have taken greater offense than the child or their parents, and the teacher seems to also have a greater education on the subject so all turned out well in the end). However, I do not think it is right to give the teacher a completely free pass on the incident. All seems forgiven though, and if the offended party was willing to forgive and forget, we probably should be willing to do so as well.

But why is the rum gone?

You'ld have very soggy pancakes. M.

@MormonGator, if we call out the adult teacher for disrespecting her 10-year old student's religion, do you not believe we may avoid future holocausts? Again, the problem is pretty resolved, and I am glad. However, it certainly was a problem, and the story deserved to be published. It gets to what our country is supposed to be about...in fact, the story reminds me of Article 11 of the Articles of Faith.

Prince has it as well, and most of the online refs I see cite him. But my recollection is that the first exposure I had with the story came via Woodger; I was interning at Covenant in 2004 and was involved in preparing her manuscript for publication. Then again, that was fifteen years ago . . . (Good gravy, I’m getting old!)

Found it! https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/373460.David_O_McKay_and_the_Rise_of_Modern_Mormonism

My natural response to when someone begins their response with “there is a story of...” is What is the source? Brigham young has been quoted saying many things... some of the most popular are fabrications.

Utah teacher’s unions seem to be very strange beasts. There have been a couple issues lately where they’ve basically hung their members out to dry.

I agree with you. Since the phrase "hot drinks" was officially interpreted as referring to coffee and tea, in my mind I replace "hot drinks" with "coffee and tea". That would seem to disallow consumption of those products, whatever their final form. I don't see it as a huge deal, but if there are spiritual blessings associated with keeping the Word of Wisdom—which obviously I think there are—finding an excuse to "eat" coffee instead of drinking it would not help to secure those blessings.

@SpiritDragon @Anddenex, your statistics is US only, so I can't comment much about that as I am not versed in it. In the Philippines, though, a decline in public health vaccinations occurred in the past 2 years due to an incident of vaccine contamination that scared off parents to all vaccines. We were at 85% vaccination rate for measles in 2014 (MMR vaccines are offered free in public health clinics all over the Philippines) and as of the beginning of 2019, we are down to 55% (interesting statistic testament of our success in live birth rates but crazy staggering at how fast vaccination herd immunity can be compromised even with free vaccines). A measles outbreak was declared last February when 4,000+ children were found to have measles which is over 120% increase from last year and 500+% increase from 2014. 76% of these children were not vaccinated. 70 children have died in the Philippines this year alone. You might wonder... what about adults? Well, it's a cultural thing. The culture is very focused on child survival rates so our statistics is geared towards them. Now, here's the interesting thing - Australia was declared measles-free back in 2014. This year, 11 cases of measles were found in Australia - ALL OF THEM CAME FROM THE PHILIPPINES. This is the thing about herd immunity. It's not as much you or your child dying of measles. It's the survivability rate of the highly contagious virus in the area. It has not become an epidemic in Australia like it has become in the Philippines because Australia has achieved herd immunity. The country is hostile to the virus.

If the world wide web has taught us one thing, it's that if a bunch of people adamantly claim something then it must be true.

I'm feeling a little bit tired so please bear with me if I come across a little more grumpy than usual, but I need to get this out. I'm really tired of people throwing around the idea of love as a justification for being open to the sin of homosexual actions. I really am. Because if love somehow makes it not so sinful anymore, then I guess I don't need to talk to my bishop if I: Fall in love with another man's wife and run off with her Fall in romantic love with my sister and run off to be with her Fall in love with someone who's underage and take her away to be with her Fall in love with a pet and... well the less said about that the better Oh... wait, you mean love doesn't justify those actions? Funny, that. I guess love isn't enough to justify sin after all.

This is not true. NOTHING in scripture supports a single word of this. This is the stuff that creates Divorce in heterosexual marriages. That idea that Love is simply a FEELING rather than a DECISION, a direct product of God's gift of Free Agency. Feelings can be beyond your control. For example, feeling desire can be beyond your control. Feeling fear can be beyond your control. But Love NEVER will be. It is the greatest commandment and making it something out of our control makes God cruel. Love is, therefore, 100% under our control. You can choose to Love or Not Love. You can't be forced nor denied to Love. Disagree. LOVE has never changed definitions. People mutilate the definition to fit their own purposes. The abundance of liberty simply allows people to cater to their hedonistic natures and serve it in a morally attractive platter they want people to accept as Love. "forms?". There is only one love. There are different EXPRESSIONS of it. I don't love my son differently than I love my husband. I simply express that love differently for my son than for my husband and such love comes with different obligations for the different people in my life which prioritizes or puts people in heirarchical order in our limited capacity to love in our mortal form. But there is one love. That all encompassing desire to bring someone with you closer to Christ - be it your son, your husband, your parents, etc. etc. The objective of mortal existence is to learn about love so that by the time our mortal probation ends, we can love as Christ loves - unlimited to all beings. You're going to have to change that alternate universe to make it so that you can only have children within your own gender and that the proclamation of the family is marriage to the same gender. If that is the case, then yes, I can definitely develop what I need to develop to fulfill Christ's commandments. Because I have faith in Christ and that he won't give me pain more than I can bear. I have great compassion for LGBTQ people trying to follow Christ. I believe that giving them wrong principles (homosexuals are deprived of love) gives them more pain than giving them hope. I feel the same way for women who can't bear children. Giving them the wrong principles (not all women can be mothers) gives them more pain than giving them hope.

The difference is... we don't make emotional and physical connections as only possible between those who are sexually attracted to each other.

See... this is why LGBTQ thinks they are oppressed... because of ERRONEOUS things like the bolded above. It is these stupid things that tie love to sexual attraction that oppresses LGBTQ people. The Church does not promote that thinking. Rather, the Church promotes that FIRST comes LOVE then comes the desire to express that Love through Sex. Thinking that first MUST come sexual attraction then love follows is Devil thinking. It is not the Church that gives LGBTQ these hopeless feelings... it is people who go against Church principles.

I understand and sympathize ith what you are suggesting (speaking as one who is old and hasn't married and has faced the likely prospect of never marrying). However, part of what complicates things unnecessarily is confusing love with the sexual expression thereof. We all have hope of attaining a Christlike love even between members of the same sex, though I don't know how important or right it is to have hope for sodomy. And, it isn't just homosexuals who may feel the "pain" of not being able to express their love in sexual ways contrary to God's will and design for His children. Given the 7th Commandment, I dare say that a significantly greater number of heterosexuals have no rightful hope of sexually expressing their love for someone else's spouse. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know I think the answer as to why God commands us to do hard things, and being commanded to suppress a basic human instinct, as those with Same Gender Attraction must do, is a hard thing, is because of the consequences. God tells us this in D and C section 19:15-20 "15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— 19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. 20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit." If we do not follow the commandments we will suffer even as Christ did. An agony that caused Christ, the greatest of all of us with powers beyond anyone who has ever lived, to bleed at every pore and beg God to take away the bitter cup. These scriptures right here explain why God asks us to do hard things. He does not want us to suffer as he did. Listen to the pleading in his voice as he begs us to repent in these verses. Whenever I hear someone talk about how unfair it is that homosexuals can't marry I understand where they are coming from, but I think of these verses. Is it truly compassionate to encourage our brothers and sisters to take part in acts that, if they don't repent of them, will cause them to suffer as Christ did? I think too often we think only of this life and it's consequences. There are many unfair things that happen in this life. My stepfather died on my mission, and my younger siblings had to grow up without a father. It seriously screwed up my mom's life and my brother and sisters lives. Several of them are only now recovering from the trauma. It's not fair that they had to go through that. It's not fair that some children have to grow up in abusive households, or when a life is cut tragically short in an accident, or that some develop Leukemia at the age of 9, or that some are attracted to members of their own sex and cannot act on those feelings if they wish to remain righteous. The question is, will we allow the Grace of Christ to make up for the inherent unfairness of life or will we rail against the unfairness and turn away from the very light that could get us through these troubled times? Anyways, that's how I've always seen it.

The problem is that our culture is drifting toward the idea that the only way to show compassion and love toward someone is to support every single thing they do. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is an idea that people are forgetting in alarming numbers. What makes it worse in the case of LGBT issues is that instead of someone's sexuality being an aspect of their personality, it's treated as the core of their being... so if you disapprove of homosexual behavior, our culture interprets that as hating the person himself/herself. "It's who I AM!!!!" It's a completely illogical notion, but one that has taken in a LOT of people.

Hi Gale, always good to see you! First things first, I'm going to start off with a big obvious statement: none of this has anything to do with "black people" (gag, awkward words there). Someone who is "black" in the 21st American vocabulary is someone of African descent. No one being talked of in the Book of Mormon is of African descent or in others words "black". A big picture thing here: we really don't know how literally or symbolic the "dark skin" was. Things can be interpreted either way. *If* we take these verses in a literal fashion, we don't know anything about how sudden any literal darkening might be. It's very possible that a literal darkening could have been gradual over centuries, either due to genetic drift, intermarrying other ethnic groups, due to tanning from a more outside-focused lifestyle, or a bunch of million other options. We don't get a 21st century scientific explanation, because the Book of Mormon is not a science book, it's book about Christ. So there's a lot of "we don't remotely know the specifics" here. Honestly, I don't really think it's that important.