Leaderboard


Popular Content

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

  1. 1 point
    Maureen

    Canadian President and Blackface

    It was "brown face" and "black face" and unfortunately Trudeau is our Prime Minister. 😊 M.
  2. 1 point
    scottyg

    Canadian election

    The problem with your response is it's length. It is that you, and sunday, and the majority of people on the left today are reading too much into things. You are making it more complicated than it needs to be. All 3 things are bad to do, but one cannot equate calling someone a name to punching them in the face - the latter is worse. The actions of those who followed Hitler and killed innocent people were worse than the words that he said in some speech. One cannot abdicate their own agency. You cannot say that his words made them do those things...that is the plan of the adversary. We are responsible for ourselves. (Hitler also killed many people himself though, including many other atrocities, so overall he is definitely the worse individual in my opinion) Too many people today have no foundation to stand upon when it comes to their beliefs, and are too mentally weak to tolerate a difference of opinion. Plus, they are full of pride, and so they must keep pushing forward on their position whatever the cost. So, they restrict the speech of others to make themselves feel safer inside their own minds, knowing full well that the reason they still feel so insecure is because their position is not rational...which is why so many on the left are also so angry today.
  3. 1 point
    JohnsonJones

    Canadian election

    I think it depends on what you qualify as such. For some the answers would be obvious...and I think that's what you are trying to make them out to be...however...I will use it to illustrate a different point...that viewpoints do not always align with each other and sometimes what we may view as a way to define it is not how others may see it. To Godwin the thread... 1. Hitler mostly utilized speeches in public. It was not even he who came up with what the Nazi's called the Final Solution, it was his underling. As such, who was the greater evil, Hitler or the Germans who followed him? 2. In the 1940s after the attack on Pearl Harbor the US sent thousands of Japanese Americans to what were basically concentration camps. Now, it was with the threat of physical harm for the Japanese, as well as the fear of them doing harm to the US that caused such a travesty of rights to occur. Some died in these camps. Others remember. Today, too many forget while remember the even greater horrors of the Death Camps of Germany, but of all the crimes against it's citizens of the 20th century, the threat to it's own citizens (the Japanese Americans) and imprisoning them because of it is perhaps the greatest. Which is the greater crime then, the Japanese that the US fought in the Pacific and actually killed, or those Japanese Americans that they deprived their rights from and imprisoned in their own nation? 3. In the 1960s and 70s the Vietnamese were trying to free themselves from a Tyrannical system of Colonization. They were treated as third class citizens in their own home nation. Many rebelled against this system. Into this the US entered. They fought on the side of their colonial masters. Some of the Vietnamese allied with the US, others fought against it. The Vietnamese sought aid, and as the US was siding with those they opposed, they turned to other sources, one of which were the Communist who were more than happy to use them to fight a proxy hot war with the US. The US killed many of these Vietnamese (and they killed many of the US soldiers and civilians that were sent there). Which then is worse...#1, #2, or #3. I know it was made out to be clear cut, but sometimes things are not quite as clear cut as we make them. In the first instance, even without doing the acts himself, WORDS, especially in politics and government have ramifications. Words CAN be the instigator of other events, even if the one who stated them is not the one who actually executes the brutality they cause. In the second, only those oblivious to the deprivation of rights (of which this thread is talking about, the preservation of the US constitutional rights vs. the rights granted in other nations) would say that such imprisonment and deprivation of rights (even though shelter and food was provided as such) is a good thing. Finally, is War that we enter voluntarily a good choice in all instances? Many would rank them as horrible with #1 being the worst, #2 being the second worst, and some even saying #3 was not a bad thing but something that was necessary ( from some points of view). I think the United States guarantees (or should guarantee, though that is being eroded to a degree slowly) certain rights as given in the first few amendments of the Constitution. This is one thing that makes the United States unique among nations. That does not mean all others need to agree with the United States, nor that their cultures see situations in the same way. There could be multiple ways to answer your questions beyond what one may consider the obvious from another's point of view. For those who want the rights granted by the US, they can move to the US. For those who want the rights of Canada, they can move to Canada. They may need to prove that they are worthy of such a thing (as so to attain citizenship, or at least the right to live and work in the chosen nation) but the world is a place full of different cultures and viewpoints. If one wants to move to the UK, or the Japan, or to China even, let them do so if it aligns with their personal ideas and views. It should be no surprise that there are different views regarding freedom, the right to freedom, the right to live as one wants, and how that is defined, in different nations and cultures.
  4. 1 point
    Sunday21

    What's the last book you read?

    Doing so-so. Read Radium Girls about women working with radioactive materials in northern states from WWII forwards. So depressing! But incredibly well researched and written. I was really impressed by the husbands of these women. They stood by there wives through it all!
  5. 1 point
    Alemmedial

    Should i quit my job?

    I quit two weeks ago😟
  6. 1 point
    JohnsonJones

    Is the Patriarchal Order Dead?

    Short answer... No, it is not dead Longer answer... ...though PART of it still being on earth could be debatable. It depends on WHICH part you are considering. One portion would be in consideration to the Line of Joseph and the Patriarch of the Church. It appears that for now, this idea of the Patriarch of the Church has been taken from the Earth for now. We are left with the lower Patriarchs, each with a similar authority of the Church Patriarch, but not as encompassing as the responsibility that he used to have. In addition, it would appear that in some arenas the doctrine taught by the Lord and his apostles in the New Testament has been forgotten, forgone, or taken away. We see this reflected in some individuals conversations in regards to the Temple Ordinances to a degree. I'm not really going to touch upon such things here other than to admit that these types of conversations take place regarding some changes in thought and approach within the Church. Why this occurred, I do not know. It could be that some favors or ideas in relation to us have also been taken away. Why, I'm not sure. Sometimes things are taken away due to wickedness, but as I stated, I am unsure of the exact reasons for what has occurred above. However, as many have stated, the things of heaven are Eternal and unchanging principles, not things that die on the whim of men. The Patriarchal order itself in the practice of the family is still the proper order instituted by the Lord regardless of what happens in the world. It is still found in the Scriptures and can still be practiced in the Home. In this, it is not that the father commands nor demands obedience, but that he leads the home with love. It is more akin to how Captain America and the Avengers team up (Comic Books), or Frodo and Sam (Lord of the Rings), or Joseph and Hyrum Smith. One is typically the Leader, but the tasks they take on are normally more of a co-equal job in which they tackle things together and cooperate and converse with each other on how they will do things. Sometimes it is not the leader that is the one that makes decisions, and sometimes it is the leader who needs support rather than taking charge. In almost all instances, it is a companionship that strengthens each other through cooperation rather than a dictatorship of authority. In this, as the Father is there to lead the home, but NOT be a dictator over it. Leadership is not dictatorship and normally those who are dictators are not really very good leaders. Good Leaders listen to those they lead and try to inspire them to follow them. It is a matter of inspiration and encouragement rather than one of dictatorship and force. Something else to consider, that may be dying, but not dead yet, or in better words, slowly fading from the Church but not taken away from it yet, is that of the Patriarchal Order in the Priesthood. There are some here that would disagree with what I am about to discuss. This Order is the highest one in the Priesthood. To obtain this Priesthood authority, it CANNOT be held solely by a Man. It is ENTERED JOINTLY by him and his spouse. In this way, his wife ALSO holds the Priesthood. Through this order of the Priesthood in the past, women have been able to call down the powers of their husbands priesthood in blessings and other things as seen in Church History. They are JOINT holders of this Priesthood authority. The natural order of this leads to the Man being the Priesthood Holder in the Home. He is the one who leads in the Priesthood. The ONLY instances (that I know of) when I wife called down upon the priesthood of her husband was when he was absolutely unavailable and normally other priesthood holders would be unable to help her in that instance. It does NOT mean she leads or becomes the priesthood holder in the home, but if church history is an example, that she can bless her children and home in his stead if he is absent. Though this is no longer really something we practice, it can be seen as having been done in church history. It indicates that this is a JOINT power, but also emphasizes the proper order and leadership of it in the home. Without one, the other cannot possess it. A MAN CAN ONLY have this Priesthood authority and enter into this order if they are Sealed together in an eternal union. Without a spouse, the husband loses this authority. To be clear, it is NOT a separate Priesthood, but a Priesthood authority, or natural order from the Priesthood. It is still the Melchizedek Priesthood, but a higher manifestation of it. It is the more complete manifestation of it rather than a separate grouping. This particular order of the Priesthood is the Highest there is, encompassing all others within it. It is under this authority that men act as a representative of the Lord in their homes, and in their absence the mother also has equal hold. This helps them to lead their children in righteousness, and guides them to bind their children to them both spiritually and eternally. This has not been taken from the earth or the church (that I know of) yet. It may be in the future with the way things are going (I don't know the future), but currently, it is STILL here. Thus, in this way the Patriarchal order is still among us for our present time, in my understanding.
  7. 1 point
    Anddenex

    Is the Patriarchal Order Dead?

    There are two main aspects that have caused disobedience to the Patriarchal order: Feminism and Chauvinism. The article you provided highlights misunderstandings of the Patriarchal order from the male perspective and culture when he talked about the young woman and what her fiance said. That was/is a common misunderstanding of the Patriarchal order. Our modern day feminists desire to equal (same as) their male counter-parts as they ridicule "gender roles." I agree with others in the sentiment that modern day feminism is a cancer, combined with male chauvinism, has resulted in far too many infants to loose their lives while in the womb. Modern day feminism is definitely not in agreement with the order of hierarchy of God's kingdom. I would also say modern day chauvinism that misrepresents the Patriarchal order is also not in agreement with God's hierarchy and how the Patriarchal order is to be practiced and applied. I find it very telling how a perfect, glorified Mother in heaven, chooses to be "unsung" in our lives. Yet, earthly daughters (feminists) are seeking to deny, not partake in, and even to demean other women who choose to honor the Patriarchal order. Our modern day feminists are not like our Heavenly mother. They desire power, fame, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, and much more. Modern day feminism and chauvinism is the reason why according to a website since 1980 the number of abortions have been over 1 billion, and that the US alone has had over 60 million. I would be curious to know if these are accurate statistics. Man and women who are unwilling to protect the newborn is evidence of a nation, people, who are denying the Patriarchal order. No, feminism is not the antidote to overcoming chauvinism. Truth is the antidote to conquering error. Sadly, even members who have the Spirit given them choose to deny principles of truth for power, glory, fame, lovers of themselves, etc... In saying that though, Chauvinism is just as much a part of denying the Patriarchal order as is modern day Feminism. No, the Patriarchal order is not dead.
  8. 1 point
    To be a Patriarch means to lead by example; filled with patience and love. I think of God and Father Lehi as two obvious examples. I have always struggled with patience, especially with my kids. I have been working on it for the last few years and I am improving. It is basically learning how to look at my children as Heavenly Father sees them. I was inspired by this talk: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2017/04/walk-with-me?lang=eng "On another occasion a phone call came when I was a bishop—this time from the police. I was told that a drunk driver had crashed his car through the glass into the lobby of a bank. When the bewildered driver saw the security guard with his weapon brandished, he cried, “Don’t shoot! I’m a Mormon!” The inebriated driver was discovered to be a member of my ward, baptized only recently. As I waited to speak to him in the bishop’s office, I planned what I would say to make him feel remorseful for the way he had broken his covenants and embarrassed the Church. But as I sat looking at him, I heard a voice in my mind say, just as clearly as if someone were speaking to me, “I’m going to let you see him as I see him.” And then, for a brief moment, his whole appearance changed to me. I saw not a dazed young man but a bright, noble son of God. I suddenly felt the Lord’s love for him. That vision changed our conversation. It also changed me. I learned important lessons from these experiences walking with the Lord in doing His work. I would like to share with you three of them. The first is that God notices and will support even the newest and youngest deacon. You need never feel that you are too small or too insignificant for Him to take notice of you and the service you are giving in His name."
  9. 1 point
    Traveler

    Is the Patriarchal Order Dead?

    Before I begin, I must first say that the greatest resource for me understanding the patriarchal order has been my wife. And yet I still struggle to understand our relationship - I am of the notion that she is wiser about relationships than I. I do believe that there is a great deal of misdirections in marriage - both in regards in what it means to be a husband or wife as well as what is meant to be a parent. May I begin by comparing a marriage to a contract to purchase something of great value. This should not be too difficult - Jesus compared the covenant to own a membership in heaven to purchasing a pearl of great price. In college I knew men that owned and adored their car. They spent hours maintaining and caring for their car. I recall one friend that would say, "I do not loan my car or my girl to anyone - in that order!" I personally do not think that it is a bad thing for a man to think of his wife as his possession - if, she is his most prized and precious possession for which he would sacrifice everything else. In fact I believe that most ladies would not mind being such a possession and yearn to be the very center of their man's attention - knowing that he would sacrifice all else he has (including his life) for her every benefit. What happens when that most prised possession is damaged in any way - even the most insignificant scratch? Why all resources possible are immediately brought to bear to repair whatever damage there is. Sometimes others wonder if the most prized possession is owned or if it is exercising the ownership. In every case that I have known where a woman is discouraged from being a possession it has always been because she feels strongly that something else is more meaningful and important to him. The other issue seems to be leadership - Leadership is not giving direction (laying down the law) to everybody else. The first principle of leadership is love and the second is responsibility the third is sacrifice. Because of our history of kings (and politicians) there seems to be an idea that leaders are served - but the reality is the other way around - leaders serve their followers. I grew up in a very strict home. My parents laid down the law and there was zero tolerance for bucking the system - I know because I was a born system bucker. But their method of laying down the law was different that what I have seen anywhere else. My parents said to me that I was free to do anything I saw them doing - in short if they ever broke a rule or law - I was free to do so as well. If I ever wanted to do something that they did not do - then the rule was that I must seek permission based on a reason to do so. When I was about 11 I wanted to go to Disneyland. I was able to earn my way in a contest working for the Deseret News. I believe leadership is the act of doing and being the example of abiding by the laws and rules you make. Any exception immediately becomes the new law or rule. The greatest sign of corrupt leadership are those that make exceptions and excuses for themselves. I am of the notion that if leadership is a problem in a patriarchal marriage - it is because the leadership is corrupt. There will always be resistance to righteousness - but it is my belief that the #1 most common failure the divine patriarchal order among the Saints - is in the failure and incompetence of the patriarch. I am forever grateful for wife the supports me - even when I fall short of my responsibilities. Our 46 years of success is mostly because of her - I owe her. She is more important to me than I am to myself - more than money, more than our home and investments - more than all other things over which I have any stewardship. I would rather lose even an argument in which I knew without any doubt that I was right than to lose her. And I know I would lose her if I was weak in my resolve to honor my priesthood and my role as a husband and father. The Traveler
  10. 1 point
    Just_A_Guy

    Is the Patriarchal Order Dead?

    The patriarchal order is far, far more than gender roles. It’s thrones and kingdoms and inheritances and legacies passed from parent to child, from now to infinity both backwards and forwards through time and eternity. I happen to think that traditional gender roles, righteously applied, tend to strengthen the patriarchal order. But men in LDS families not enjoying quite as many prerogatives as perhaps they once did, does not constitute the “death” of the patriarchal order.
  11. 1 point
    MarginOfError

    Is the Patriarchal Order Dead?

    What part of the Patriarchal Order do you think is dead? For what its worth, feminism helped teach me the skill of viewing my marriage as a partnership in which decision were made by discussion and consensus--which is exactly what the article you link to describes. It was through the lens of feminism that I began to understand the principles that were taught by Elder Larsen; it was through feminism that I learned to better implement the Patriarchal Order, as described by Elder Larsen, into my life. So help me out here. If you want to investigate this question further, I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that the meaning of "feminism killed the Patriarchal Order" is self explanatory. Because it isn't (unless you're intending to preach to your own little choir).
  12. 1 point
    Vort

    Is the Patriarchal Order Dead?

    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.
  13. 1 point
    Alemmedial

    Should i quit my job?

    Ok who prayed for me? Things got better today. Probably anatess praying I get a brain. Jk anatess thank for your help.
  14. 0 points
    Traveler

    Canadian election

    Sorry - I was quoting @JohnsonJones Thanks The Traveler
  15. 0 points
    NeuroTypical

    So who’s going?

    One more day...
  16. 0 points
    Sunday21

    Canadian election

    @scottyg Reminds me of the ‘who would you throw out of the boat’ questions that people used to ask as under graduates. I am not in favour of throwing people out of boats!
  17. 0 points
    priesthoodpower

    Is the Patriarchal Order Dead?

    Im 43 yrs old and recently divorced from a 15 yr temple marriage. I come from a strong Mormon family that goes back to the pioneer saints in Utah. I read that article and I can tell you that my parents relationship lacked a lot of the elements in that article, they divorced (8yrs ago) after 40 yrs of their temple marriage. The issues and behaviors that affected their marriage manifested itself in my own marriage. In my experience the patriarchal order is in trouble because of a lack on the mans part. We need to educate and teach this more to our young men.
  18. 0 points
    NeuroTypical

    So who’s going?

    Saturday lunch: Teen daughter: Mamma, I need you to take me to Area51 for the run. Mamma: Daddy: Not until you prove to me you can Naruto run. Teen daughter [posting on facebook]: My mom just said she would drive us all to area 51. Who's coming with?
  19. 0 points
    mirkwood

    So who’s going?

  20. 0 points
    mirkwood

    So who’s going?

  21. 0 points
    MormonGator

    So who’s going?

    Got to cull the herd somehow.