Leaderboard

I had to provide another source to The Saints' Herald's last testimony of Emma. What we had originally linked to an anti site. So links have changed.

If I remember correctly...Mormon Doctrine 1st edition was the edition that had incorrect doctrine and had to be changed. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. Plus I wouldn't use The Work and the Glory as official teachings either. It's a historical setting with fictional characters so not everything in the books are historically accurate.

On June 24, 2019, President M. Russell Ballard, acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, spoke to outgoing mission presidents and their companions at the Missionary Training Center. He gave insightful instruction regarding how missionaries are to invite people to baptism. His primary counsel suggested that anytime a missionary extends an invitation to someone they are teaching, especially for baptism, it should be "Spirit-led." While the idea of following the Spirit while performing missionary work isn't new, a few of his comments following his introduction made some waves by encouraging us to reconsider how we approach missionary work—particularly in inviting to baptism. Traditionally, missions throughout the world have preached the importance of an invitation to baptism very early on in the teaching process—perhaps the first lesson, or even first contact—but President Ballard instructed that this is not the standard we should set. It was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept... View the full article

1) We don't perfect ourselves. Christ does that when a person is His disciple. 2) Justice is freeing, sin limits you. 3) Each person will have 1000+ years of pobabion before the Final Judgement. Is that not enough? Do you think a person's heart is gig to suddenly change at year 500,435?

That's how the gum analogy was taught to me in a combined Sunday School class many years ago. The object lesson involved bringing out a stick of spearmint gum and asking if anyone wanted it (plenty of hands went up) followed by chewing it and reissuing the offer (no hands went up). We were taught breaking the law of chastity has permanent (in mortality) consequences like the gum that had been chewed. It's best to stay pure in the first place for this reason. However, some of us may have already strayed from the ideal and it's important to understand that through the atonement we can be made clean again and just like a fresh stick of gum... with the caveat that some consequences like STD's and pregnancy could still bring about lifelong challenges that we would not have had to face if we hadn't strayed in the first place. I've never understood the push back against what seems to be a fine analogy.

Hi and welcome NobleIntent, Good wish - they tell me it involves a lot of being patient, rolling with last minute changes to schedule, and making sure the two of you occasionally place yourselves first. Bishop is much harder, but counselor can involve a lot of meetings on Sunday and youth night.

Antifa, like the Brown Shirts are a bunch of kids who want to beat people up with no ramifications, the "enemy" is irrelevant, although it's being pushed by an anti-American, anti-Free Speech agenda. But you need to find the head of the snake. Trouble is, the snake includes the people who are meant to investigate such things.

Glad you're doing better, but this marriage sounds like it never should have happened in the first place. Guys who get married, and go live with mommy and daddy, but still want to be married, shouldn't be married. It doesn't matter how much better you're doing - he's either unable or unwilling to be a husband. I'm sorry.

If I understood you correctly, you're trying to say Antifa used to be like that but they've morphed? No. Antifa has always been like what they are now. Their first known activist act was to throw molotov cocktails to prevent conservative speakers from speaking at Berkeley.

I really like the play Wicked. I couldn't stand the book though. It was....gross. NPH has never tried to convince me of anything. I feel left out. 😂

Believe me - it is much harder for me to believe it than it is for you. The Traveler

This. It's not so much about whether a boycott works or not.

For the record. I won't buy Nike. They gave money to a guy who gave money to a cop killer. Sometimes it is the principle that matters. I have some other things to say about Nike and their chosen spokesidiot, but then Pam would ban me for language.

I normally don't get involved in with these discussion, because I feel that it's a subject that's been beaten to death a million times over. But against my better judgement, here I go-- 1) "Modesty" is not defined as "what clothes you wear". Rather it is the attitude of meekness and humility, by which we carry ourselves and work with others & God. What clothes a person wears is part of that, but only one small part of the picture. While clothes should be talk about some, it should only be a small part of discussion, not >90%. 2) A disciple of Christ's first and foremost by modest because it is what Christ commanded them. The secondary reasons for yourself and proper self respect. The third-ary being mindful of interactions with people-- no you're not responsible for any else's thoughts or how they feel! But that also doesn't mean you have license to be complete jerk and oblivious to those around you. Let's just be reasonable and mindful of others-- basic courtesy type of things. 3) In the past, we've done a pretty poor job culturally teaching modesty. Neglecting majority of the picture, some downright awful lessons/teaching strategies, lack of personal responsibility, and a lack of focusing on God first and foremost. I'm speaking of general trends here, obviously some people/teachers were a lot better and some a lot worse. 4) Nowadays I do feel like the general trend of church culture has gotten a lot better about staying focused on the real focus and definition of modesty. With again, some folks being way better than the average and some way worse.

Well I think we all agree that what the church says is true: ”Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity.” where the argument comes is the idea of it being the girls fault if men have bad thoughts. Which we all agree is false, but we’re often times taught in a way that suggests that. here is where the sins lie in a generic situation of a man listing after an Latter-day Saint woman who is dressed immodestly (and I am very confident in this). 1) the dozens of men who lust after her sin in their own lustful thoughts. The woman is clean of all their sins. 2) the Latter-day Saint woman sins because she is more worried about comfort, style, or social norms than she is about the struggles of the men around her and the commandments from the prophet. 3) a third potential occurs later when/if she says “I can wear what I want, these men need to deal with their own thoughts”. Which is just another way of saying “am i my brother’s keeper?” As spoken by the Man called perdition.

I have a yard with a lot of trees, and as such I need leaf raking a lot. It is impossible to find a neighborhood kid to do the job. Everyone is a tree service, which is a shame because I would much rather give my money to a neighborhood kid than some company.

To me there is a difference between being right and choosing the right. I've found that sometimes when people talk about "being right" they mean that they want others to know or acknowledge that they are right. Personally, I think sometimes winning an argument is not as important as keeping a relationship.

I believe they sign their own recommends. Just like mission presidents.

Church welfare farms, I understand, contain many sacred cows. As did tithing yards, back in the 19th century.