Leaderboard

I agree with part of what you are saying. Too many in the past have used the Church as their crutch to lean against without developing their own spiritual legs to stand upon. But true spiritual self-reliance is not about enabling us to step away from the Church but to move closer to it, to become a support instead of a burden. The ultimate end of self-reliance is the development of individual ability to be consecrated to the Church and its mission to build the kingdom of God. So the true irony of self-reliance is its goal of helping us become one rather than separate.

While I can appreciate your thoughts and opinions on this...I feel like sometimes we can take things a bit too seriously as well. Sometimes we just have to lighten up and have some fun. That's what this was...just an attempt to have some fun.

Thanks for clearing that up, that is exactly what I meant. The "Culture" of our religion, or any social organization where a group of people gather, is going to have this element of judging and controlling in it whether it come from a member in the group or a leader. In my own home I am guilty of micro controlling my wife (at the time) and daughters with the way they dress, what they watch/listen to, who they hang out with etc... My rules in the home are based on the standards and values of the church. This is a reason why my daughters are frustrated with me and have lost interest in the church. My two oldest are 16 and 12 and I no longer force them to attend church, two hours before church starts on Sunday I announce that they should get ready, when the time comes only me and my 9 yr old are out the door. About 5 yrs ago I remember our stk representative saying in a WC meeting that "we are losing our youth", and the solution coming down from SLC at that time was the come follow me curriculum which made the class lessons more interactive/involved hoping that this would keep the kids interest. Fast forward to today and we are talking about the classroom being the secondary source of learning. To me it sounds like we are saying "ok, ok we no longer are able to control our youth and get them in the class room, parents its your responsibility and your home is the primary place for gospel learning". I would argue that we are moving the goal posts (culturally not doctrinally) because ever since I have been a member from birth the chapel (church, seminary, scouts) was our primary source of gospel learning.

::shrug:: This is what I would expect "draining the swamp" to look like. Is Trump my favorite? Nope. But I love that so many creatures on both sides of the swamp are being exposed for the stagnant, bottom-dwellers that they are.

I can hear the conversations now. "You spent how much on this?" "You make this thing, but you still won't fund NT's next trip to SLC?" (I hear these conversations because they're coming out of my mouth right now. Not too shoddy, though!)

I recently participated in a practice interview for an intern in our company who wants to eventually apply for a full-time position. His resume listed a vague volunteer opportunity in Sweden for two years. I quickly ascertained that he was LDS in the interview and later asked him why he did not list his mission openly. He said that others in the company has advised him not to do so because of the discrimination that might occur. IMHO I don't think people are afraid that you will "preach the gospel", I think there is flat-out bias against LDS people, especially in states like CA. I wouldn't be surprised that in the future religious people who don't share the current views on gay marriage and gender will be legally discriminated against because companies will say that our mere presence makes for a hostile work environment. In that sense, our views on morality could eventually make us unemployable. Those who refuse to fly the rainbow flag will effectively be marked. Hmmm, now where have I read scriptures about that???? Personally, I have always listed it and have never been shy about my faith, but I think that I grew up in a different era. However, I often post on Linkedin, and I recently posted about my mission in Japan and how much it taught me about business. It had a picture of me and my wife in front of the Sacramento temple with my son who was heading out on his own mission to Fiji. That post received almost fifty times as many views as my normal boring business posts. Go figure.

Yes they are as well as Ask Gramps.

As I listened to the 48-minute video it reminded me of why my wife and I decided to home-school. Both of us had been public schooled, but we wanted something different for our family. We called it: "Learning is a Lifestyle" and that became our philosophy and motto. Everywhere we went, and everything we did was an opportunity to learn. The classroom never ended. It was very successful and our children have grown into hard working well-rounded adults. Academically most of them earned full-ride scholarships to college so it worked well in that area too. If I were to name this new program I would call it "Gospel Learning is a Lifestyle" and it would have fit into our home learning philosophy perfectly. When our kids were young we would often have family home evening five, six, or seven days a week. The one thing we wanted was a home-based seminary program that we could use, but because we didn't live in a remote area the Church would not allow us to use the existing home curriculum for seminary. It seems to me that the natural extension of this new home-centered, church supported Gospel program would be making the seminary program home-based as well. It would be a major change but I guess we will see. I taught Seminary and I loved it, but it is definitely a major disruption to family life in the mornings. So, bottom-line is that I am super excited for this program because it fits perfectly into my views on life and education!

I passed both of the A+ exams today. On to the next exam 🙂

This to me highlights the different ways people can live out faith while being in the same church. For me (from birth to today), the chapel has NEVER been the primary source of Gospel learning. The Gospel was/is something to be lived 24/7. The best learning happened in your metaphorical closet- private moments with God. Always been told to read my scriptures, pray, and have been enriched when done so. My family growing up was admittedly not very diligent in having formal Family Home Evenings or scripture reading, but I always knew where everyone's faith was and we could talk about anything whenever. On Sunday morning, you'd hear people tell their stories about how they were impacted by God throughout their lives and it was a structured time for that sharing... or (more commonly) you'd somewhat ignore them and think about things with God in your own life. It's just interesting how people can have such different experiences.

In good news, FB has apparently dropped it's censorship of the church's stuff on religious freedom. It no longer gives you this message when you try to share the link:

A couple things. I don’t believe for a second that the church was intentionally trying to control the Saints. And in the case of your grandfather, I am almost positive it is church policy to not allow “church gatherings” like bible study or group FHEs to gather without the presence of a bishopric member present, I remember wanting to form a bible study group a few years back and it got shot down. My reaction to it after being explained the reason of needing a church leader present was “of my goodness that makes perfect sense”. If one person in that group is spiritually sick, it can spread like the flu. Without a spiritual healer present, it could lead to apostasy. Not that it WILL, but it was a policy to protect the saints. Now I actually do prefer this change to allow us to gather, but the original policy made sense. Lastly, someone turning out to be a temple President is not cause reason to say “they should have been allowed to break policy because obviously they are so righteous the rules didn’t apply.” But I do believe this is a fantastic shift, the youth program. Looking back on my life, the gospel was discussed and talked about almost entirely at church. Fast forward to my life now, I have through my own self interest and by the grace of God developers a life style where the gospel is learned, discussed and spoken almost entirely at home and supplemented at church. For many, the 2 (once 3) hours of church were their spiritual highs for the week. What it needs to be is a little bump on our spiritual graph and an opportunity to share what we have learned and strengthen each other.

A few things come to mind for me. First, I agree with some of what Anddenex and ScottyG said. This is absolutely a part of a sifting process, just like Come Follow Me. And those who follow counsel are indeed obvious. The children and youth program is simply the next step. Those who follow the prophet's counsel will experience blessings, and those who don't will, regrettably, be spiritually left behind. This is a part of adding oil to our lamps. I serve in a certain stake position, and I assure you Come Follow Me, and adherence to it, or not, is a common point of discussion and worry. The same for the new children and youth initiative. Becoming more spiritually independent is a pattern that began at least as far back as when Preach My Gospel came out. Gone were the days of memorizing discussions word for word, and instruction was to be more spirit-led. Then similar changes came to youth Sunday School lessons, then Gospel Doctrine lessons, then of course Come Follow Me. We are being led line upon line to better, or more closely follow the spirit. I see it as similar to Moses raising the brazen serpent. "What do you mean, if I follow these silly instructions, I, or my family, will be healed/protected? Pffft!" In a sense we have a front row seat to the Law of Moses being superseded by something better. Quibble about policy vs. doctrine, but the changes we are seeing are not arbitrary, and are necessary. The new children and youth initiative, as I said, is the next step in this progression. We are being prepared, both for obvious challenges such as the world growing more and more wicked, and our need to better qualify for the guiding influence of the spirit for yet unseen dangers and challenges. President Nelson said as much a year and a half ago. I also agree with Traveler that the day ‘may’ arrive where we will have to do it on our own, at least for a while. Think of the 10 virgins. Think of the warning to be spiritually prepared. "In the coming days we will not be able to survive spiritually ..." Imagine the necessity of qualifying for, recognizing, and following the spirit if it’s just up to us. That would not be the time to start figuring out how the spirit, or power in the Priesthood, operates. Although parents have always had the responsibility to teach the gospel to their families, there is now more onus for us to insure it happens. Come Follow Me, and this new initiative bear this out. As an example, a close reading of what is and isn't in the new youth program may suggest mutual is going away: Support for the youth in regard to gospel study- Home-Centered: Prayer, Scripture study, Home evening, Sabbath Day, Family History. Church-Supported: Sabbath instruction, Seminary. I can almost hear some members now (well, in January), "In MY day we had all these programs to help us. Road shows, Church softball and basketball, Duty to God, Faith in God, Young Woman's medallions, Scouting, and Mutual. How are we ever going to provide our youth the support they need to have a chance in this wicked world? What are our leaders thinking!?" In reality, what program or check-list can ever match the sacred right parents have to claim revelation for their children? In the end, we are either led by Christ through prophets, seers and revelators, or we are not. To whom much is given much is required, but don't forget to whom much is required, much is given! As an addendum, don't be surprised if we hear something new about sisters this coming weekend. 😉

Here is the link for anyone wanting to read it: https://thirdhour.org/blog/buzz/movie-ratings/ Overall, once again, the article is seeking to make a good point; although, misinterpreting a prophet's counsel isn't the best way to go but not new to the Third Hour Aritcles (i.e. the prophet's counsel was only to the youth. This would be an inaccurate interpretation of a prophet's counsel). The Strength of Youth is not mentioning rating because we are a world church and other countries do not have a rating system. Example, when my wife, in her youth, went to EFY they became friends with a young man from Holland. The young women were talking about movies and he chimed in talking about all the movies he watched that were good. All the movies he mentioned were rated-R in the US. So, poor guy, in his hopes to join the conversation he didn't show himself well. He had no clue what a R-rated movie was. So, it is obvious why the Church in the Strength of Youth pamphlet doesn't focus anymore on ratings. So, I would say, nothing new, same concept we often see on Third Hour now with articles. A more liberal approach as if the prophets/apostles (not just Benson) who spoke on R-rated movies. If the article just simply focused on content I think it would have been great. But trying to interpret a prophet's words because it was only given to the "youth" -- which they weren't -- isn't the best approach at all.

Youtube block and throttling Steven Crowder is one thing and is not a new issue. But censoring it ONLY in the USA?? YouTube isn't even trying to be sneaky about their political leaning. I would be interested to see how searches go from forum members in other countries. Being in the USA, I searched "Steven Crowder Change my mind" and the only videos from his page came up in the "watch again" section. In the actual search results, the first video from his channel was 30 videos down (which no one ever scrolls past the 10th video) Thoughts?

Well I didn't have anything to do with it but thank you.

I love it! I'm grateful for Third Hour since I have an uncontrollable interest in everything. Well done to the creators. I admire talent in those areas!

@Vort I don't see it saying or even approaching it as the Priesthood IS the force. They are using it like a parable. To me, your complaints could just as easily be about Jesus' parables. "I can't believe anyone would say that the kingdom of heaven is like yeast left in dough!"

I don't know, I thought it was kind of cute. I don't see anything to be concerned about, it's just a silly little video..

Given the grief we Latter-day Saints take for our supposedly "sci-fi-ish" doctrines and the mockery we endure from anti-Mormons who talk about "Kolob" more than the book of Abraham does, I'm disappointed to see that so many of this generation dive into such ideas head-first. The bottom line is: Star Wars kind of sucks. It's not even half-baked philosophy; it's contradictory, grandstanding nonsense posing as philosophy. It is designed for exactly and only one purpose: To make money. Obiwan Kenobi is the best of the lot, and I would not want him teaching my children. In Macbeth's words, Star Wars "is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." The Priesthood is not the Force. Please, please, PLEASE stop making that comparison. The Priesthood is the power of God. The Force is riciulous magical nonsense. And the prophets most certainly are not Jedi warriors. Sacred things should be treated as sacred. Star Wars is not sacred. Please, show a little dignity when talking of sacred things. I was going to write something self-deprecating and apologetic for my curmudgeonly attitude about this, but I decided against it. I'm not sorry. We don't (or shouldn't) compare the restored gospel to Star Wars for the same reason we don't (or shouldn't) draw cartoony comic strips about God and Jesus Christ teaching the saving doctrines of the gospel. True, many people can't see what is possibly wrong with that, and many will claim to feel "inspired" or "touched" or "moved" or "uplifted" by such things. But in these things, we should not be little children. We should be adults. We should exhibit taste and decorum, and keep sacred things sacred. The gospel is not Star Wars®. The holy Priesthood of Jesus Christ is not The Force®. The prophets are not Jedi Knights®. Satan is not Emperor Palpatine®. We do not wield the Light Saber® of Truth.

The only time the Church truly "micro" managed the people was during the Law of Moses; however, one might say the Church "micro" managed during the New Testament as they were seeking to live the Law of Conservation (i.e. two people gave up the ghost because they did not give up all they had to the Lord). Joseph Smith taught the following that we are governed by principles. The Church has been obeying that principle since the beginning of the restoration. How individual local leaders have implemented and acted isn't "always" the Church. Now, we may have a different connotation behind the term "micro" control/manage. If we look at scriptural history, we ought to be wary when the people tune out the Lord's servants and do as they wish. We can find plenty of evidence from scripture how this turned out for the people. Duty to God. Personal Progress. Faith in God. These were never programs that "micro" managed. We are in full agreement though that we need to discover the power within us; although, the concepts of being self-sufficient, home-centered, and moving at your own pace aren't new principles of this program. Our modern day prophets have been teaching for a very long time, at least since Joseph Smith, that we need to discover the power within us as Brigham Young taught that we live far below our privileges (i.e. Holy Ghost, Personal Revelation). All the programs previously were aimed toward the same goal. The problem though, not the Church, is that members were relying on the Church to teach their children.These programs are to help us more fully recognize our responsibility as parents, and the responsibility our children have to learn on their own also. This new program really doesn't have anything to do with the Church "micro" managing its members. I have never felt "micro" managed by the Church. By some members, sure, not the Church.

I think we are all familiar with Pres Nelson's statement from his first GC as the prophet: "In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost." If we combine that with the whole idea of a home centered and church supported approach I think we are being told that gone are the days (if those days ever existed) where parents can delegate part of their responsibilities to the Church in raising their kids. The world is simply becoming too dark to expect a couple hours on Sunday and a couple more during the week to keep our youth safe. If parents and families don't raise the bar and start creating a Proclamation on the Family home their children will be in grave danger notwithstanding the Church's efforts. Remember, half the virgins were foolish and not ready for the Bridegroom's coming. Imagine how many youth will be raised in those homes. Its a sad thought but we live in a sad world. Of course we do what we can to save as many as possible but we fool ourselves if we believe this new youth program needs to be some all encompassing venture to be successful. The whole point of the program is to help youth and families learn to become more spiritually self-sufficient.

In the pamphlet they have a section "Adjust and Adapt" which you may like. As it gives some detail right now pertaining to the uniqueness of wards, families, and children. I love how they are emphasizing personal revelation. The pamphlet specifies three rewards: rings, medallions, and emblems in the "Motivation and Recognition" section. True, my experience is the same as you with regards to rewards/trinkets and parents and youth. I remember one youth though when he completed his task, "Where's my reward"? The parents didn't care, but he cared a lot. Yes, I am thinking right now, parents and wards will have more flexibility. They can add to what the Church is already doing. The hope in that though is that we are careful of "comparisons." We humans have a tendency to look for the limelight -- "look at what my ward is doing with our youth." And that personal choice becomes a "judging" tool on others --- hope not. Not to be negative, but the example that comes to my mind is the policy/practice change from my mission with 30 discussions. Instead of judging how well a missionary is doing by things that matter, 30 discussions turned into the battling ram by zone leaders even if you were baptizing but not achieving 30 discussions they made you appear as a disobedient missionary. I didn't disagree with the promise and target, but how it was implemented by 19-21 zone leaders -- eh, not so much. Especially when you are baptizing and they are not, but hey they made sure they always achieved that 30 discussion goal.

You are not alone in feeling that you have never done well "under these kinds of goal-setting programs." I am hoping I will become better, but more importantly to help my children to understand and follow through toward achieving a goal. We went over last night with the kiddos their goals. We plan on having a personal one-on-one to define their goals in a measurable way, and then plan daily activities that will help them to achieve their goal. I really liked from the video how the family helped the one child in passing the reading test. Family members served their brother to help achieve a goal. Service is one of the ways to increase love also for family. From what I can view from this program (the video and the pamphlet): 1) Home centered, it is the responsibility of the father and mother to make this happen, while the Church (wards) are their to support goal achievement. It has always been this way, but now it is much more addressed. 2) Parents who fault find with the program are going to be an impediment. There is no perfect program. 3) This may require more time on the young men and young women presidents with parents who are less-active, not active, but the program is even for them. 4) Children, as they properly apply, will come to know the Lord's voice and his love for them sooner. They will properly know come to know how to set and achieve a goal. They will also come to know how to deal with failure and how to keep moving when failure happens.

Launch day is the first Sunday in January - everything up until then is preparation. One impression for me is that we are preparing for a time when most will not have the freedom to assemble outside of our homes for worship. The Traveler

If you are within 2 - 3 years of returning from missionary service and are looking for employment, you may include it under a section for civic affiliations and service. Do not list it in your employment history. The only thing you need it for is to explain what was happening in those two years. Even then, it may come with some risks (see below) If you returned more than 5 years ago and have no work/education gaps in that period, do not put it on the resume at all. Putting a mission on your resume doesn't add to your work experience, and when it's more than five years ago, doesn't say much about your employable skills or commitment to anything. For instance, having a mission on the resume doesn't speak to commitment if you've held 5 jobs in the past two years. Your recent (past ten years) history carries much more weight. Worse, putting anything religiously affiliated puts the employer in an awkward spot almost immediately. In the U.S., religion cannot be a factor in employment decisions. By putting a mission on the resume, you have tossed your religion into the arena and the employer may now feel the bind of making employment decisions carefully. Congratulations, your first impression is to make life a little more stressful for your hiring manager. It's usually best to just leave it off.

Yes. It is who you are. Pros laid out correctly should overshadow any misguided cons they might have. Depending on your age, it explains where you have been for the past 1.5-2 years and why you were not employed.

It feels to me like there’s going to be much more to the program than we’re currently being told. Apps and manuals are referenced in the literature we got today, that are not online yet. Hints are dropped of medallions/emblems for recognition, but never explicitly described. My biggest concern at this point is that Just_A_Girl and I will get excited and start planning a program/curriculum, only to find them incompatible with whatever specifics the Church does roll out whenever it gets around to doing so. (I thought launch day would be today, but apparently it’s in November sometime. Not sure how much more we really know today than we did a month ago? . . .

Exactly. I serve in the Bishopric in our ward, and with almost every family we can tell who is following the "Come, follow Me" program and who is not. Some of the youth I talk to have a different/new feeling about them as they are now in the scriptures more each week. Some homes and families, sadly, have not changed one bit, and are being left behind as others progress.

I am thoroughly looking forward to it and to hear more on November 17th. A lot of the success of this program will be the focus on home centered and church supported. The church is there to support the individual and family goals that are established in the home. Fathers and mothers (more so fathers) to be more involved in their sons and daughters lives and their goals if we are actively pursuing this. As with the Come Follow Me in the home, you will begin to see another diverge between families who are applying this in their home, and families who are not.

First, you made the right decision to speak with your bishop. I will add some thoughts for you to think about, while providing another witness on what others have shared. Second, bishops are in a peculiar situation when it comes people repenting of sins and confession. I have read posts where people are berating a bishop for asking too much detail. With exclamation points of, "How dare a bishop ask for more detail"! Even on this forum. Maybe he doesn't want to be that bishop, which may lead to necessary details and events being left out for full repentance to be achieved. Third, if the sins you feel you needed to share are different from the sin expressed to the bishop (unrelated and separate events), then yes I would recommend talking with your bishop again. Let me provide an example so I am clear. If someone were to have sex, break the law of chastity, and they met with their bishop and said they had sex, pre-marital and didn't tell the bishop about the petting and necking and are feeling bad. Well, I think the bishop understands that when a person has sex typically petting and necking are involved. So, they are related and the bishop doesn't need to go into detail. It is covered. Now, if a person said they had sex. The bishop didn't ask about any other events. The person is now feeling bad because the bishop didn't probe further and the individual didn't mention the other person they had sex with also. Then yes, these are unrelated events. They are separate, and do have impact on decisions of worthiness and outcomes. Finally, if you are unsure, as others have shared, you can always go back and talk with your bishop again. The point of the repentance process is to become once again "one" with Christ via his atonement.

5 Oct Saturday Morning Session HB1 The Morning Breaks (vs. 1, 4) From All That Dwell Below the Skies As I Search the Holy Scriptures HB85 How Firm a foundation (congregation) Faith Now Let Us Rejoice 6 Oct Sunday Morning Session HB267 How Wondrous and Great (vs 1, 2) High on the Mountain Top A Child's Prayer HB304 Teach Me to Walk in the Light (congregation) True to the Faith Love Divine, All Loves Excelling 6 Oct Sunday Afternoon Session Come Ye Children of the Lord I Stand All Amazed HB243 Let Us All Press On (congregation) More Holiness Give Me

There is an old joke that starts out: "How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?" The answer is - "One, but the light bulb has to want to change." Please forgive me if what follows sounds harsh - but your posts appears to be naive and full of what I believe are false assumptions. The scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and modify behavior. As a species humans are considered a highly intelligent species. Of course there are variations (bell curve) of individual intelligence within our human species but in general humans have the ability (programed) to learn and modify any cognitive behavior. You mention a possible cure in the future. The problem with what most think of in terms of a "cure" is that they think of something external to self that fixes (or cures) with minimal individual effort or commitment. Human have the ability to override any cognitive inclination and replace it with whatever they would by the sheer power of intellectual reasoning and individual will. In addition there has been a great deal of research in to changing individual behaviors beginning with Pavlov and Skinner and even the dark arts of "brainwashing" by Joseph Goebbels. Two points I would make - #1. is that outside stimulus can be utilized to modify a person's behavior - but point #2 - regardless of how much any behavior is triggered or stimulated by outside stimulus - intelligent humans can modify "conditioned" (acquired or learned) responses. There is scientific research into what is called the lowest cognitive level of learning - we can even talk about several other cognitive levels of learning. Once a cognitive learning cycle has taken place we may call the learned or acquired behavior a habit. However, if habitual behavior is also rewarded with various chemicals within an individual (either natural through the brain releasing endorphins or the external induction of chemicals - we call the resulting behavior an addiction. But even in the face of such learned or dependent responses - a intelligent person can force an intelligent override and create a self determined response - outside of previously acquired responses. The entire reason for the bill being given; is not because it is impossible for some LGBTQ person to be changed from such behaviors but rather; the bill is specific to an effort to legislate anyone from thinking that certain sexual behaviors are problematic for anyone. But the legislation is awkward because it does not clearly define what is unacceptable sexual behavior or unacceptable influence over someone else's sexual behavior. For example - the bill does not deal with someone that is LGBTQ trying to influence someone that is not LGBTQ from being talked into "trying" it - but it does try to influence anyone that is not LGBTQ from influencing someone that thinks they are LGBTQ from trying not to be LGBTQ. The bill demonstrates that society is programed to deal unintelligently, irrationally and immorally with sexual behaviors. The Traveler

Is it a moon?