Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/17/19 in all areas

  1. I do not like this scenario. Individual is suicidal, but fornication saved his/her life. Hey church member...can you blame me for saving a life???!!! Oh, don't try to say that there were other options--"literally no other option." So...if I say it was wrong it's like I'm wishing the person dead. If I say it was right, of course I am admitting that the Law of Chastity (or prohibition on premarital sex) is wrong. That's the setup. Perhaps it was unintended. Maybe the OP is asking a sincere question--there really might be the belief that sex before marriage prevented a suicide. If so, though I was not there, I reject this false dichotomy. Either the suicide could have been delayed/prevented in other (better) ways, or this person simply has not completed the act yet. The vast majority of suicides are cries of pain...calls for help. Compounding such suffering with an added sin ... well, if this soul does end up healed it will be God's mercy--NOT the sexual immorality--that turned the situation around.
    8 points
  2. So, let me quadruple down on my advice: Here's a common notion: "I can't do anything to cause her more stress, she's already talking about suicide, if I called off the wedding, she would kill herself and it would be my fault." That notion is a lie. Believing it is like willingly placing chains around your neck and selling yourself into slavery. What's worse, it's not slavery to a person, it's slavery to an illness. What's even more worse, is when someone has someone else catering to their illness, and acting out of fear of that illness, a big motivation to not be ill any more goes away. "I know he loves me because he helps me not feel suicidal." Why would she ever try to get healthy? She'd always be wondering if she was taking the thing away that has you loving her. She'd wonder if you'd leave her if she got healthy. Somewhere in your fiance, Sven, is a precious young lady, an inheritor of a divine birthright, a daughter of God. That lady needs to be running the show before she's ready to be married.
    7 points
  3. dprh

    Membership in the Church

    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/04/the-gospel-in-our-lives?lang=eng I just finished listening to this talk. It is often true that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. Since I've been excommunicated, I've begun to realize all the things I took for granted as a member. I wait with anticipation until I can take the sacrament, pay tithing, serve in a calling, even say prayers in church. If you are able, please participate and enjoy these blessings.
    6 points
  4. Fixing someone's suicidal thoughts with premarital sex? Yeah, no, not the best idea. "I tried everything else but nothing worked" - her problems are not yours to fix. They are hers to fix. If I were you, I'd postpone the wedding, read a bunch of books on suicide, attend some premarital counseling sessions. I would not marry someone with unresolved suicidal issues - it's not fair to either of you.
    5 points
  5. Speaking as somebody who spent way too many years in the suicidal camp (due to sexual abuse)-- Two wrongs never make a right. If you truly love this girl, you will strongly encourage her to seek the medical attention she so desperately needs. You will treat her as the daughter of God she is. You will not use sexual favors as a bargaining tool in anyway. Any "help" you think using sexual favors will do is nothing more than a temporary illusion that will only hurt both of you. You can't give another person their self esteem or "prove" to her that she's important: she needs to discover her value for herself.
    4 points
  6. Textbook manipulation... robbing you of agency through extreme guilt tripping. There is literally a lot of options - if you're in the USA, the best one would be to take her to a hospital and tell the admitting nurse she's suicidal.
    3 points
  7. NeuroTypical

    The future

    This one has an easy answer. Your hourlong video is of random nobody citizens being stupid and bad. The person holding the severed head of Trump is Kathy Griffin, an emmy award-winning celebrity with gigs on Dancing with the Stars, and CNN broadcasts with Anderson Cooper. If you want something similar, you'd have to show up with some celebrity on the right burning Obama in effigy. You see the difference, don't you?
    3 points
  8. MrShorty

    How Wide the Divide?

    For some time now, @prisonchaplain has recommended Blomberg and Robinson's book. On one trip to the DI this summer, I came across a copy in good condition and decided I would pick it up and read it. Finished it this morning. A basic synopsis of the book: The book consists of 4 chapters (plus an introduction and a conclusion) that cover four topics: Scripture, God and Deification, Christ and the Trinity, and Salvation. Each chapter consists of a portion authored by Blomberg explaining the Evangelical beliefs on that topic and concerns with the LDS position, a portion authored by Robinson that explains the LDS beliefs on that topic and LDS concerns with the Evangelical positions. Each chapter includes a joint conclusion where they summarize the similarities and differences. We can talk about any of the chapters, if anyone wants to. A couple of overall impressions that stood out to me. I don't know if I was expecting some kind of ecumenical "bring us all together until we are singing Kum Ba Yah together by the end of the book", but my first impression was how neither author attempted to "gloss over" any of the main disagreements. Both authors, not in a mean spirited way, explained concerns and disagreements, while firmly explaining their convictions and their reasons for belief. For the most part, neither author made any concessions to the other in terms of belief, but neither did they attempt to misrepresent the others' arguments, either. I felt like each chapter provided a good opportunity for the reader to decide for him/herself just how different. The other impression that stood out to me was my reaction to some of Robinson's arguments. Maybe it is our inherent "mistrust" (or unwillingness to rely on or whatever this is called) of professional theologians/academicians, but I found myself occasionally wondering if the official Church leadership and publication people (correlation committees) would completely agree with what Robinson put into this book. Our Church is more "top down" authoritarian, and Robinson is not among those who are responsible for declaring and explaining doctrine in the LDS Church. He has been published in the Ensign and by Deseret Book, so he is certainly not a nobody in Church publication circles, but he kind of is a nobody. His opinion is just his opinion and carries no real weight. I doubt that anyone in the top councils of the Church would have serious misgivings over what he put in the book, though. When all was said and done, I thought he did a good job of summarizing LDS theology on those points as well as anyone else (especially considering that we don't really have a rigorous theology to refer to). Overall, I thought is was a good book. It does a good job, at summarizing each side of the chosen topics and how (most) Evangelical churches and the LDS Church can find agreement and disagreement.
    2 points
  9. That's what stuck out most in the book for me. It modeled convicted civility. I'll admit I've had some less-than civil discussions on religion in the past and, although scoring points is fun and the intellectual exercise is stimulating, it frightens spectators. I've also attended a number of InterFaith dinners/activities and, I gotta tell you, the lack of conviction is frustrating. If we're getting together as Mormons, Muslims, and Methodists, I'm gonna need you to give a Mormon, Muslim, or Methodist answer to the questions. The discourse was so spineless that no one could stand for their beliefs*. In contrast, this book showed two believers, who believed differently, able to really explore each others' beliefs because each had a well-defined belief and the courtesy to let the other define it. *see what i did there
    2 points
  10. One of my daughters hates Monopoly. She doesn't like bankrupting other family members, nor winning by driving others to lose. Most of us enjoy the game and like beating each other. We call it competition, and consider it good fun. Too often real life can be a zero-sum game in which winning means others losing. Maybe Monopoly did my child a favor--showing her the virtue of living her life so that everyone in her circle of influence ends up blessed for doing life with her.
    2 points
  11. dprh

    Membership in the Church

    I agree. Losing those blessings was difficult to see while I wasn't living my covenants. I was, unworthily, partaking of the sacrament, serving in callings, etc. It helped ease my guilty conscious. But now I'm on a path of repentance, I have felt the Spirit stronger and more often than I have in decades even though I no longer have the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
    2 points
  12. We have that boardgame... but do you know that we've never played it? We like monopoly - we have several different boards including a Star Wars one. There's not much life lesson you can take from Monopoly except that when it comes to ganging up against one of the kids or ganging up against my husband... I always end up ganging up against my husband. What can I say... I'm blood related to my kids but not to my husband.
    2 points
  13. anatess2

    The future

    I'm not politically affiliated in US politics. I'm Filipino. I call it as I see it. What-aboutism is well and good but if you're comparing apples to oranges it doesn't do anything but excuse the bad apples. Maybe you're right. Maybe there are just as much political violence in the right (I disagree, but whatever... my kid wears a MAGA hat in purple Florida and gets harassed... they went to DC with the YM and they were instructed strictly to not wear their MAGA hats - these are ordinary kids that can't wear an ordinary MAGA hat to avoid violence)... But the fact of the matter is... you now have the Mainstream Media, Pop Culture Celebrities, Information Dissemination Platforms, Colleges and Universities all monster painting one side of the political spectrum in broad daylight without even the pretense of objectivity. Everything is politicized. The pictures I posted are not some random whack job down the street. These are supposed to be respectable high profile people and organizations that a lot of people looked up to. The regular joe on the street is bombarded by these monster paintings from every angle such that they can't even watch a movie or sit through a commercial without this hitting them in the face. It is a daily thing! Just yesterday, we were again bombarded by another vicious false allegation against Kavanaugh. Before that, we were bombarded by a sharpie-marked weather map. Everyday, it's another racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, fascist, Nazi with concentration camps accusation - right there on the mainstream by mainstream high profile people. There's no what-aboutism that can compare to that.
    2 points
  14. Perhaps it helps that Prof. Robinson was kind of a nobody. The lack of official-representative status allowed him to explain LDS beliefs without the fear that non-members would take his statements and use them as fodder for the next 'Anti' pamphlet. It also allowed him to offer a more fleshed out version of his explanations, so we Evangelicals could understand them better, because he did not have to be overly concerned with misstating church doctrine, since his sections never pretended to be official church statements. Still, your reluctance to give too much credence to a non-official source is understandable. As FYI, I suspect one purpose of the book was to offer a model for how church members and Evangelicals could engage in respectful, 'convicted conversations.' As such, though both authors are professors, neither can speak authoritatively for their respective faith traditions--similar to how members and their Evangelical acquaintances would be if they were having similar conversations--perhaps even like we do at thirdhour.org. ;-)
    2 points
  15. The Folk Prophet

    Goodbye

    Dear friends whom with I have now long associated, It is with regret that I have made the difficult decision to abandon this forum. There are a variety of reasons I've made this decision but the primary one is that the More Good Foundation and the progressive, false, mistaken lean of so many of their articles has made me more and more uncomfortable. I am, indeed, deeply uncomfortable with some of them and have considered leaving before accordingly. Deeply, deeply uncomfortable. I have to follow my conscience. I do love the association and the discussion when it is doesn't turn nasty. The times it does turn nasty is the other reason I've made this decision. I've backed way off on my involvement from years past partially because of the nastiness. But part of that, I knew, was my fault, and something I had partial control over. The articles I have no control over. I will check my private messages now and again for a few months. If any of you want to stay in touch otherwise then PM me and we can friend on Facebook or something. But I have simply become too uncomfortable in this particular house to continue dwelling here. And, yes, I am writing this in a snit. I don't expect it will do any good, and many, many more would need to join me in the abandonment before it might do any good -- though I suspect that it might not even then. Apparently the More Good Foundation, without change of leadership, is going to continue down this path. I consider that path highly insidious and destructive. There's been hardly a constructive article written in the past few years. That which isn't harmful tends towards trite and shallow. Because it is difficult for me to leave things hanging and not reply, which would defeat the idea of leaving -- I likely won't read or reply to any comments here in this thread. It is, truly, a difficult thing for me to just walk away. But I feel I need to. And all I can do is that which I feel is right. See you on Facebook if you like. Goodbye, Charles P.S. Those of you who weren't my friends and held no charity or kindness for me -- well...I wish you well too. But regret the parting slightly less, if I'm honest. P.P.S. I'll still be at the get-together at Tucanos and look forward to seeing those of you who are attending.
    1 point
  16. The patriarchal order is the order of the heavens. It is eternal. It can no more be dead than God can be dead. But if we reject the patriarchal order, then we are dead. Feminism is a virulent cancer, and will inevitably kill those who do not root it out of their minds, hearts, and souls.
    1 point
  17. MrShorty

    How Wide the Divide?

    I am problem one of the frightened spectators, because I think fear is a big problem for me in having these conversations. Too many examples (a couple of my own experiences) where it wasn't handled well, and I find myself preferring to completely avoid the conflict rather than figure out how to work through the conflict in a good way like these two did. Assuming that it will ever be my place to fully enter this dialog (outside of the anonymity of an internet forum like this), I will need to get over that fear before I can make a meaningful contribution.
    1 point
  18. mordorbund

    How Wide the Divide?

    As far as the content, I thought Robinson perhaps carried a bit too much of his pre-conversion Protestant notions of Grace with him still. But I must admit that I'm probably left over from the old guard in this respect. Well, maybe not. But I will say that this is the sort of discourse I'm hearing from the younger people. One thing that I especially appreciated was Blomberg stepping in after Robinson answered a question about a Brigham Young teaching and instructed the audience on the impropriety of using doctrines that haven't been taught for 150 years as "typical" Latter-day Saint beliefs. I hope our friends on this forum see something similar when the Trinity is brought up (an attempt at accurate descriptions of belief rather than heretical strawmen).
    1 point
  19. Traveler

    Membership in the Church

    I am glad to see your post. You are so needed - now more than ever before. Welcome. The Traveler
    1 point
  20. My comment may seem harsh as I do not know you, her, or her situation, but you should not marry this girl right now. She has issues that need to get resolved, and she should seek professional help and counseling. Yes, it was still wrong, and you should begin the repentance process ASAP.
    1 point
  21. scottyg

    Membership in the Church

    He is a master at sleight of hand. Most people never notice the flaxen cords.
    1 point
  22. I struggle enough with St. Paul's idea in 1 Cor. 7 that my sexual availability/unavailability might mean that I am at fault for my spouse's sin. I don't think that is right. I am even more uncomfortable with elevating that to the next level where my sexual availability/unavailability might be at fault for my fiancee's/spouse's very life. Any variation of "I will kill myself if you don't have sex with me" is all kinds of unhealthy and wrong -- even if I were to make concessions in the moral right/wrong department. I agree with NT, it is not fair to you to be yoked to someone whose very life depends on your sexual availability. If she is not currently in treatment for her suicidal ideation, then she needs to enter treatment. Get her emotional state back under control, then worry about how you are going to go forward -- including how you will deal with the moral right/wrong part of the question.
    1 point
  23. Just_A_Guy

    The covenant land

    1 Nephi 15:8.
    1 point
  24. Vort

    The covenant land

    Asking random questions about specific scriptures, as you are wont to do, is not an effective way to understand them. You really need to read the scriptures in context. Any explanation would of necessity be incomplete and possibly misleading. If your questions are sincere, I suggest you spend the next five or ten years reading, studying, comparing, and praying about the Book of Mormon and the Bible, with perhaps the other LDS standard works thrown in. You will find many answers—many more than you will ever find asking random one-off questions on a discussion list.
    1 point
  25. MrShorty

    How Wide the Divide?

    @prisonchaplain Now that you mention it, that is another big take away from the book. How to have a respectful conversation about these religious differences. I think that model can even go beyond LDS-Evangelical relations into other denominational relations (perhaps even the big Catholic-Protestant divide). Just modeling the ability to "disagree without being disagreeable" is a valuable skill -- especially with a topic that can be as charged as religion.
    1 point
  26. 1 point
  27. laronius

    Membership in the Church

    The problem is that all too often we don't even recognize that it is gone. I would submit that you had actually lost most of the blessings of the gospel before you were excommunicated. Not being critical or judgmental of you (I think its true of many of us to one degree or another) but as we stop living some aspect of the gospel the Spirit's influence in our lives lessens and in many instances we don't even realize it. Satan keeps us so focused on the things of the world that we fail to notice the darkness gathering around us. I applaud you on your journey back to finding what has been lost and your call to participate and enjoy the blessings of the gospel is an important one.
    1 point
  28. laronius

    The covenant land

    At the conclusion of the "Millennium" Satan will be let loose once again and for a period of time (we don't know how long) wickedness will again exist in the world. There will be a final battle where the wicked are destroyed. Judgement will be passed and Satan and his followers are then cast out into outer darkness for good. At this time the earth will be cleansed with fire and will transform from a Paradisaical type glory to Celestial glory.
    1 point
  29. Jane_Doe

    Dealing with trauma

    @Fether, what you're experiencing isn't "silly" at all. Your body has an adrenaline fight-or-flight response for a reason: to keep you safe. On July 4th, your body had that response kick in, and it served you well (no major injuries to you). Our bodies don't forget scary situations like that: this is a base self-protection instinct that Heavenly Father hard-wired in there. It's not remotely "silly". Now, obviously it served you well on the 4th, but now we need to adjust to a current danger level (which is rather non-existent). Having been through traumatic experiences, I will say that: -- one ingredient is time. You can't "think" out of an intinstictal response. Give it time. --When you hear a dog bark or another trigger, just let that response flow through: yes, you're on alert, and then let the "all clear" response come naturally too. Let your body work through things. -- Talking through what you're feeling will help your body work it out as well. -- If its' still bugging you in a few months, a little therapy is an downright amazing thing (I see from previous posts you're already good with that idea).
    1 point
  30. Fether

    Dealing with trauma

    Thanks, I’m pretty comfortable with the idea of going to therapists. I think everyone regardless of how they feel should go. They are incredible.
    1 point
  31. scottyg

    Canadian election

    Yes, yes you can. Discrimination is discrimination. No one is exempt. Are you telling me that if I walk into a restaurant and the owner refuses to serve me because I am white and male, that that is not discrimination?
    1 point
  32. Vort

    Canadian election

    As a rule, Gizmodo is a terrible source for understanding or interpreting law. Blindfolded justice, Sunday21. It's the only justice. Anything else is injustice. You seem to have gone from arguing what's "fair" to instead arguing what the courts do. What the courts do is often wrong. I'm concerned about what's right. Saying "I can fire YOU because you're merely a white man, but I can't fire YOU because you're a protected black transsexual" is the very opposite of just. If the law protects one, it must protect the other. If it does not, then you have an unjust, corrupt police state, which is apparently what Canada has become.
    1 point
  33. https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Life(1977vers).PDF Each child gave you $24K in retirement. I like the older version. The newer one plays like Chutes and Ladders by comparison.
    1 point
  34. Fether

    Canadian election

    I’ll repeat what Vort said just to drive it home. There are no laws that favor or support any minority/majority in the country. Only laws that make it illegal to discriminate in ANY fashion. White or black, male or female. We have no “historically disadvantaged” concepts in our law. It is equally illegal for me to fire someone because they are a straight white male as it is for me to fire a black trans gender Muslim. The concept of “discrimination” is different between us just as it is different between the left and the right here in the USA. to many far left liberals and, from what it seems, Canadians, discrimination can only occur to minority or “disadvantaged” groups. In the USA, discrimination can happen to anyone, even us at the top of the “privilege” pole. The straight white christian republican male.
    1 point
  35. Vort

    Canadian election

    Nope. Not the same idea at all. American justice is blind to social status. Is anyone else dismayed to see such a corrupt and patently unAmerican perversion of justice being blithely accepted by our northern neighbors? You know not of what you speak. Please do find the case. When you do, you will discover that it bears little resemblance to your claim, though it's exactly the false narrative that the MSM wants you to have. A Google software developer named James Damore was participating in a private discussion about Google hiring policies, assured by Google that he was free to speak his thoughts openly and candidly. So he did. He wrote a long post in which he argued that the preponderance of male software engineers over females was rooted, not in gender-based discrimination, but in the fact that fewer women chose to study computer science and programming. He further argued that women were generally less suited to such engineering roles due to differences in temperament and interests. A common enough belief, and not without studies backing it up. Google's response? They fired him. No one who loves liberty can view that situation with anything other than outrage. Yet to date, Google has not been made to account for its wrongful termination of Damore.
    1 point
  36. I'm sure you are right about that as it pertains to the general membership of the Church. Admittedly, I have been one of the more vocal in this thread arguing against the change, however, I do not base it on my political views. My political views certainly favor private gun ownership, and like @NeuroTypical, I am uneasy because of the realities of gun free zones. However, I find myself mostly confused because of my understanding of the Doctrines of the Restored Gospel, and the words of Christ where He directly sustains the constitution of the United States and indicates that He established it. The constitution includes the 'right to bear arms', and that it 'shall not be infringed'. 'Bear', meaning to carry or to be equipped. 'Shall not', as in nearly identical verbiage to the Lord's when dictating/inscribing the 10 commandments. Too many people argue about the reasoning behind why the right to bear arms exists, but the reasoning is ultimately irrelevant. The Lord prohibits His Latter-Day Saints from consuming alcohol, there are two reasons for this given in D&C 89 (conspiring men and the weakness of some saints). Ultimately, those reasons are irrelevant, because the Lord Himself forbids it. Likewise, the reason that every American's 'right to bear arms shall not be infringed' is irrelevant, because the whole point is, that in order to be certain that reason is 100% fulfilled, the right must not be infringed. So, my quandary is this, if the Lord Himself established our constitution, why then is a policy being implemented that conflicts with with the rights and principles established in the constitution? If it is my God given right to carry a weapon, why would the Church specifically and intentionally infringe upon a right which they teach to have been established by God? I await the upcoming General Conference because, as we have seen recently, many decisions have been enacted and then followed up with an official announcement declaring the change to be directed by revelation. I suppose we'll see.
    1 point
  37. Refresh my memory. It seems that there was an earlier version of the Game of Life that included number of children in the final "score" (if memory serves, each child was given a fixed dollar value when figuring your final worth)? I seem to recall winning one round in part because I had several children, which gave me a sizeable "bonus" at the end which pushed me over the top. I want to say that this was in the '80's maybe early '90's -- though the copy we were playing could have been older still.
    1 point
  38. What is the exact line where one should be deemed mentally unstable? Who makes that determination? Can such a designation be appealed and/or rescinded and what would be necessary to do so, and how long would it take?
    1 point
  39. The Folk Prophet

    Goodbye

    For those of you who asked for the update, we're having a little boy.
    1 point
  40. Many, many defensive firearm uses do not involve a trigger pull. Many.
    1 point
  41. CV75

    The covenant land

    See 3 Nephi 15:15-20 and 2 Nephi 29:12. Jacob 5 is about the Lord transplanting nations to spots of ground all across His vineyard.
    1 point
  42. Anddenex

    The covenant land

    The easiest one is the children of Israel and the land that was covenanted to them, which they had to travel to. The simple fact that Lehi was provided a promised land is reason enough to believe that the Lord would have covenanted with others in sending them to a different land also. There is no record, at this moment, of Australia being a covenanted land to a specific people; however, as the Book of Mormon mentions Christ did not just come to the American continent and visit after his death and resurrection. He went to other sheep, and other sheep could have easily have been people in Australia and other islands, we simply do not have their record yet. We know God though has covenanted land. Why only America? It hasn't been only America so it is safe to make the assumption other islands, continents, could very well have been covenanted.
    1 point
  43. I have a friend who echo this same sentiment. They're in the save-me-from-foreclosure business and later went on to actually teach a lot of this stuff to their clients.
    1 point
  44. NeuroTypical

    Goodbye

    I get your reasons and your decision. Imma stick around and be a thorn in the side of those who would destroy the church from within. I figure when it comes to MGF authors, they are acting out of the usual idealistic clueless ignorance that goes with being a college student learning about English and journalism. And I figure their notions are best addressed out in the open, with them writing articles, and folks responding. If I ever think the folks who pay for/run/own this place have nefarious goals, I'll change my tactics. But for now, silencing my voice isn't what I think is in the best interests of this place.
    1 point
  45. Shame shame shame shame SHAME on the More Good Foundation for publishing this article. I cannot even begin to express my disappointment. I do believe this may well be the final straw with me. I do not believe I am comfortable being associated to any degree with them any longer. Sister Coppersmith is lying. It is and was nothing but rebellion and pride. She lied to her bishop. She's lying to herself. She's filled with pride and trying to bring others into her pride-based thinking. Those in charge at The More Good Foundation should know better! They should hold their writers to higher standards or truth. Shame on them!
    1 point
  46. Reading from another source, I saw that the city of Phoenix made it crystal clear (snicker) that the court ruling applied ONLY AND FOREVER JUST to the specific shop in that specific case. No wider application possible, sez Phoenix. Idiots.
    0 points
  47. I've already designed their mother-in-law suites...
    0 points