Leaderboard

So, I'd just like to remind us all of the site rules to which we all agreed, when joining the site. https://thirdhour.org/forums/announcement/1-third-hour-forum-rules-please-be-familiar-with-these-rules-before-posting/ Specifically,

You're going to have a really hard time making a religious argument in Mormonism. Or any Christian religion, for that matter. There are plenty of stories in scripture to justify the use of violence in self defense, and plenty to justify pacifism. There are also a lot of ways to interpret the words that get included in the scriptures. For instance, "those who live by the sword perish by the sword" can be interpreted in light of when it was said--Jesus needed to be put on trial, and fighting their way out was going to thwart God's plan. His instruction could just as well be interpreted as a caution that those who follow power and strength will be consumed by power and strength. It need not have been a call to pacifism. So, no, I don't think you can make a strong religious case for either policy on firearms in church buildings. You may proceed to make the case here if you wish, but I won't attempt to stop your arguments from being ripped apart. The simple matter is, the scriptures are--when read in their entirety--ambiguous on the matter. I'll be completely blunt in stating that I do not believe this is an "inspired" policy (even though its one I agree with). You'll have a very hard time convincing me that this policy isn't about insurance. Honestly, I don't see why that should be a problem.

Okay, I'm probably one of the strongest gun control advocates on this forum. But this is just silly. policies regarding carrying guns in places of worship have nothing (let me make that stronger...NOTHING) to do with ordinances, or religion, or reverence. This is a debate between very strong feelings about the conflict between public and personal safety. Priesthood ordinances don't give a flying squirrel turd whether you are carrying a weapon or not.

Gotta admit I was kind of hoping he'd lose, but at 152 seats it should be fairly simple for Prime Minister Trudeau to form a minority government. Still he came within a hairs breadth of becoming the first PM in Canadian history to lose his first re-election campaign. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50134640

One of my past jobs was helping people with their public speaking skills. I've seen a LOT of strange ticks out there, way stranger than what you describe. They're all just facial/sound habits picked up from somewhere and don't really mean anything.

I have no doubt that both of you would feel the same way. You are both people of great integrity. (I'd say men of great integrity, but @mirkwood is going though a gender fluid phase.) However, I have grave concerns that in our highly partisan culture, many other conservatives would not feel the same. I know this is dead, but I wanted to drive the point home with this. Youtube censored a DNC candidate, whom Crowder does not agree with at all, and here he is making an hour-long video that he fears will be removed/blocked. The right voices are far more concerned about equality and freedom for all than the left voices are. The problem with politics expresses itself most on the left side of the aisle.

Ohh... you just jumped discussion trains... What you said is that anybody who tells you that LGBTQ is a whole lot more than just sex is indoctrinated or selling you something. But then you jumped to "We love our LGBTQ kids" is indoctrination and propaganda. Ok. I can jump trains too. Yes, anybody paying money for a billboard is running propaganda. But that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The Church have ads on billboards too - yes, they're propaganda, no that's not a bad thing. Ohhh... now so I'm indoctrinated. Hah hah. You really are something alright. I don't know. I criticize anybody and everybody except Senior Moderators on this forum because I'd rather be here than be banned. For now.

KIDS. See... this just goes to show how culture has changed soooo much within 5 years that LDS folks didn't even flinch seeing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and especially TRANS to label KIDS. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-jury-rules-against-dad-trying-to-save-his-7-year-old-from-gender-transition

Good security is not noticed, but quickly there if needed. Heh - actually I disagree with that notion. A lot of open carriers are idealistic immature people, flaunting their rights and trying to get into arguments. Sort of the 2nd amendment version of an 18 year old yelling at their parents about how they can get a tattoo and mom can't do anything about it. The open carriers I trust when I see them are off-duty retired military/law enforcement, or people who work on ranches and stuff, and need to come in to town for something. Any idealistic patriot militia gun nut people like me (and maybe MoE) are suspect until I get to know them personally. All of my comments are about conceal carry permit holders - i.e., people who carry concealed. I.E., people who you meet every day in grocery stores and movie theaters and gas stations (and church), and it never dawned on you that they may be armed until you read this post. Depending on where you live, 2-10% of random law abiding people are permit holders. Maybe one out of every 20 random people you walk past in a day is a permit holder. Agreed. I am not suggesting the policy is uninspired. I am suggesting there are folks who look at the policy, consider the eternal consequences of kneeling in front of their Master and being asked "why did you violate that policy", and they figure they've got a reasonable answer. Again, I have absolutely zero problem with anyone who doesn't want to carry a gun. I fully support everyone's rights to not arm themselves. Glad to have ya. You're ok in my book. If you could have similar good thoughts towards those who carry for protection, it'd be good all around.

Israel is telling a similar story. Israel PM Netanyahu fails to form government ahead of deadline https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50132760

It's an unfortunate mannerism she adopted from Dad, or the biology teacher, or the drama coach, or her mother's best friend growing up. She thinks, or at some point thought, that it made her look sophisticated and lent her gravitas, or maybe that it's a clever and endearing way of signaling disapproval without actually calling anyone out. But at this point it's almost more of a behavioral tic that she doesn't really think about. Or then again, maybe not. But that's what I'm going with for now.

Just to be clear, Genesis 30:4 reads: And [Rachel] gave [Jacob] Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her. Similarly, Genesis 30:9 reads: When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. Bilhah and Zilpah were Jacob's wives. That's what concubines were in ancient Israel, wives, not merely mistresses. Bilhah and Zilpah did not have the social status of Rachel and Leah, but they were certainly no mere kept women. They were wives, and their sons were fully legitimate, being counted among Israel's (i.e. Jacob's) "twelve tribes" and gaining full inheritance rights, equal to Leah's and Rachel's sons.

Dating can be discouraging... If you are looking for hope... that is in Christ and his promises that NO blessing will be denied the faithful. They might be delayed per the perposes and plan of God but not denied. Put your faith firmly in him, do what you know he wants you to do to the best of your ability. Then trust in him and his promises

This is bad advice, as we marry who we date. IF the OP wants to marry in the church her best option is to date guys who are already members. OP try online dating, even people from other countries. I have a single brother he needs to get married....just sayin.

Yep! I have been ordained 4 times. Deacon, teacher, priest, and elder. I imagine they had some similar organization built then too. Someone with authority. I imagine anyone who God seems worthy. How is it performed? No idea. Not sure. Peter James and John were the “first presidency”, but did they replace he selves with other apostles? Not sure.

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back, and thanks for all the great responses. Plenty of food for thought! What you mean of course is that you don't care, because you consider the matter to be of no material importance. I agree with you on the whole, but its human nature to want to fill in the characters a bit, and guess what they might really have been like. (Otherwise why would Cecil B. DeMille have bothered making The Ten Commandments?) Even if the "spoiled brat" theory is right, you don't sell your kid brother into slavery just for being a spoiled brat, so either way there was something for Joseph to forgive - but like I said, this wasn't what I wanted to talk about anyway. A "fair price" for anything is basically what you can get for it. I had an argument with my family a few months ago when I told them over lunch (I'm full of random gems like this) that if you can find a 1973 Rupert Bear annual, in which Rupert has a brown face on the cover, then that's worth about £20,000. They reacted that it may be worth that much, but no one would pay it. But its the very fact that there are people willing to pay £20,000 that makes it worth that much. If no one was willing to pay anything for it, it wouldn't be worth nowt. Whatever's scarce is by its nature valuable - particularly if what's scarce is also vital for survival. This is how war profiteers thrive. We rely on them during the war, but once the war is over are we grateful to them? As Jesus might have said, "they have their reward". Whatever Joseph charged for the grain, it was clearly more than the Joe Schmo Egyptian could reasonably afford; Joseph and Pharaoh between the pair of them used the famine as an opportunity to screw the common man over, swell the royal treasury and increase the power of the central government at the expense of the common citizen. I would indeed, if that were what socialism really taught. The way I see it, the money which is taken from my salary to pay for the National Health Service still belongs to me, and I claim it back whenever I go to see the doctor. It was a socialist government that established the NHS, but none of the conservative governments that followed it have presumed to reverse this policy. (Communism is another matter, and I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about the relationship between that and socialism.) Well if it was, then fine. I'm barking well and truly up the wrong tree. But if so (and the writer of Genesis is presenting the facts fairly) why doesn't it say? Things that are bought with income tax (schools, the police, prisons, the army, law courts...) - or indeed any other form of tax - we are not expected to pay for again when we benefit from them. Well you could be right there, but if so then the writer has missed an opportunity for a "consider her ways..." type lesson. Call me cynical, but I tend to think that it comes to the same thing. Joseph/Pharaoh had them over a barrel, and it made very little difference whether he/they took their property by force or not. I need perhaps to brush up on Mosaic law before responding to this - though I wonder if it is quite correct to talk about "The Law of Moses" at a time long before Moses was even born. I suspect though that you're going to tell me that the principles already applied, even though they had not yet been codified. (Just as Newton's laws existed before Newton.) Very interesting though - I need to look into this further. (Having finished my slow-read of Genesis I'm moving into Exodus now - so I'll doubtless be ranting about Moses soon enough!) You may have something there - you didn't mess around with kings (especially Pharaohs) in those days! Well I can only speak about the scripture classes I had as a child - but from what I've heard from others, their experiences weren't much different from mine. Of course you don't tell kids all the gory details of the OT, and not expect them to grow up scarred for life...and therein lies the problem. Why indeed? Yes, I know the "new" Pharaoh was worried about the growing size and power of the Israelite community in Egypt, and who they might side with in a war, but I can't help wondering if just perhaps the chickens were coming home to roost. Maybe you're right: perhaps I'll change the title of my book to "Joseph: He wasn't really as bad as all that, you know!" By "mistress" I mean "woman you have sex with who is not your wife" - but if you think "concubine" is the correct word, OK I'll use it in future. I was talking about this with my wife last night and my 15-year-old daughter heard us and wanted to know what a "concubine" was. When I attempted to explain, I found myself having to explain why a concubine is different from a mistress - not easy as (to put it in my daughter's words) "they both mean cheating on your wife" Well OK - "ugly old Leah" was a bit of silly hyperbole on my part. What I really meant was that Jacob never fancied her, and only married her because Laban tricked him. (The trickster got tricked - now that was poetic justice - even though Jacob paid him back later.) But I should be more sensitive. (There's a nasty part of my personality which would have done well as a tabloid writer!) Absolutely! I was going to bring this up myself in another post, but you beat me to it. Poor old Reuben: he had one moment of weakness (well, one that we know about anyway) and as a result his tribe becomes the "also rans" of Jewish history. And lets not forget that Judah had sex with his daughter-in-law; unwittingly I grant you, but he thought that she was a prostitute - which doesn't quite absolve him. Having it away with your father's concubine (in your father's bed to boot!) would seem to be in a different league to that! I hear you - though another part of me retorts that just because Joseph/Pharaoh had a legal right to screw the people over, they didn't have to do it - or at least not as badly as they did. But it's not easy to read about the ancient world without the lens of the 21st century, or consider what we would have done in the protagonist's place and judge him/her on that basis. We have to remember also that it was God who sent (or at least allowed) the famine in the first place, and could easily have stopped it at any time - just as he commanded the great massacres later in the Bible. I'm reminded of the end of the movie Time Bandits, when the kid (forgotten his name) asks God why so many people had to die; God replies "You might as well ask why we have to have death at all!" The kid then retorts: "OK, why do we?" but gets no reply. [I've run out of time - I'll have to carry on later.]

You're not there to be an expert. You're not there to lecture. You're there to encourage discussion as everyone brings the shards of what they know together. Those are the best teachers.

A few ideas: "Scriptorian" is a made-up word used to describe someone who appears to be more educated in scripture than you are. It's purely a comparison thing. Don't think twice about it. If you love the scriptures, that will make you a "scriptorian" compared with many in your class who have never yet developed that love. Don't apologize to your class for your lack of expertise. You have not wronged them, so have nothing to apologize for. (In fact, an apology might be seen by some as an indictment of the bishop for calling you to that position.) Don't cut yourself off at the knees in an ill-considered attempt at humility. We're all ignorant; that's the nature of our lives here. No need to apologize for the fact. By the same token, don't be shy in sharing that maybe you're ignorant about this or that. It's not an apology, but a factual assertion. Your lesson should not be a series of proclamations that you don't know anything; if that's the case, you haven't prepared for the class. But there is no shame in saying, "I really don't know what this here specific passage is referring to." Amplifying on the above: In general, do not broadcast your ignorance or bring up topics you can't explain. That is not what gospel doctrine class is for. Gospel doctrine class is for teaching gospel doctrine, not for speculating about non-doctrinal topics, bringing up questions you can't answer, or proclaiming your ignorance. Have fun! Teaching gospel doctrine class is, in my opinion, the funnest calling in the Church. Preparation involves reading the scriptures, something you already enjoy and want to do anyway. You have no great responsibilities other than teaching. You don't have to spent three hours on Tuesday at the meetinghouse. You don't have to interview anyone. No one comes to you with problems about temple recommends or personal challenges in their marriage (or if they do, you get to quickly and kindly suggest they talk to the bishop). And people are so gracious and thankful for your little efforts at illuminating the scriptures. The enjoyment-to-work ratio is very high.

Here is what I found: 1) The church does not oppose banning conversion therapy, the mention explicitly that many forms of conversion therapy are extremely harmful and that the church does not practice such things. The following is a direct quote from the letter: "Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert," or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual. Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion, and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction. Those, including youth, who seek therapies that constitute sexual orientation change efforts will not receive them from FS counselors. Instead, FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding sexual orientation issues in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pe1iaining to their faith. Gender identity. While many issues of gender identity are not well understood, FS counselors do not provide therapies designed to change a client' s established gender identity. FS counselors assist youth clients in understanding gender identity issues, including gender dysphoria, in the context of their families and social networks, their expressed religious identity, and their self-determined personal goals, including those pertaining to their faith. FS counselors assist young children in healthy identity exploration and development. They also help parents of young children in understanding gender identity and gender dysphoria issues experienced by their children so they can appropriately assist their children in their identity exploration and development. Family Services supports the ability of other responsible practitioners to provide ethical treatments... " 2) The proposed bill, as it stands, will protect youth (age 17 and younger) who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria from incredibly harmful conversion therapy techniques. But it will ALSO prevent those same youth that ALSO wants to continue living the gospel as taught by the church from receiving professional help. They would be stuck receiving guidance from Bishops and parents (which we can all agree is far from ideal). The following is quoted from the letter from the LDSFS. 3) The LDSFS has positive feelings toward the anti conversion therapy law that was proposed earlier this year. The letter says "HB 399 represents a good-faith effort to grapple with some of the fine distinctions that must be drawn. We are confident that additional discussion among stakeholders and the people' s representatives in the Legislature can produce a workable legislative solution that addresses many of the concerns raised here. 4) The church is in favor of putting this bill through the legistlation to get it passed. The letter says "With respect, the Governor and DOPL should allow the Legislature to perform its constitutional function in this important policy matter." 5) Lastly, here is what the church proposes the changes should be: "If DOPL is not convinced to leave the issue of conversion therapy to the Legislature, it should amend the Proposed Rule to clarify that each of the following practices does not fall within the definition of sexual orientation or gender identity "change efforts": * Therapies that assist a client in achieving the client's self-determined goal to modify or cease behaviors or expressions that the client determines are inconsistent with the client's values, or that are objectively dysfunctional or destructive. (ie allow therapists to assist youth in living the gospel dispite their homosexual / gender dysphoria) * Therapies that address premarital, extramarital, irresponsible, abusive, or predatory sexual activities. (ia including discussions about the Law of Chastity in therapy sessions) * Therapies that discuss the client' s moral or religious beliefs or practices. * Therapies that account for the client's capacity for sexual fluidity. (ie Discussing the potentiality of a shift in their sexuality) * Therapies that explore other psychological conditions as potential contributors to reported gender dysphoria. (ie suggesting that in some cases, they are not "born" that way) * Therapies that account for gender fluidity in children or for the likelihood that gender confusion or dysphoria in prepubescent children will desist without the need for medical interventions, including therapies that encourage a wait-and-see approach. (ie suggesting that these feelings of gender dysphoria may just be a phase of exploration and that they will cease. * Therapies that explore factors associated with sudden onset gender dysphoria. * Non-coercive, age-appropriate therapies that seek to assist a client in resolving gender dysphoria without the need for medical interventions, including counseling with parents about appropriate ways to facilitate identity exploration and development." Ultimately, the church wants to allow the youth to decide what kind of therapy they want to pursue and not be forced down the path of living a homosexual/transgender life as pushed by the current standing of this rule. If you want the truth, go to the source. If you want your narrative, find a website (or many) that supports it.

I can't 'love' this comment enough. You said what I was trying to find words for. 25+ years of living a double life, of being convinced I was a telestial person, not redeemable, of lies to keep my family together in this life because i KNEW I wouldn't be with them in the next life. That was hell. Confessing to the Bishop, to my wife, to the Stake President, to the Disciplinary Council, going to therapy, changing my habits, going through withdrawals, suffering panic attacks, 12 step programs. These repentance steps have all been difficult, even heart wrenching, but definitely wonderful.

In my youth, in my journal I wrote that I had discovered that the worst part of sin isn't the sin or even the consequences - the worst part comes when I realize how wrong and damaging is the sin and go through the process of repenting. To accommodate this understanding I have altered a quote from Alma, "Wickedness never was happiness but it was fun while it lasted." I must also admit that I am quite perplexed when someone talks about how wonderful repentance is. When repentance is done with - then the universe is wonderful and all is aligned but for me repentance has always been more painful than committing the sin. So much so that I wonder if some just pretend and do not really repent just to avoid the hassle, pain, suffering and trauma of it. The easy part for me has always been the sin - the hard part has always been repentance. When someone says that repentance is easy and no big thing - I wonder, "Are you still tempted to commit the sin? Maybe you are not quite committed enough to repent of it and determine not to ever do anything even like that again." And it is not just putting myself through the process; it is also realizing what I put Christ through. And so, for me, I find the big dramatic sin more likely to focus on and go through the whole process. But the little insignificant sins - as stupid as it sounds - are much harder to come to grips with and convince myself that even such a little sin is worth the hassle of repententing and being done with it. The Traveler

Welcome! 1. The fact that many of Smith’s nominally “Christian” contemporaries pitched a hissy fit when Joseph claimed to have seen the Savior and heard His voice suggests that for all their good intentions and Biblical allegiances, they preferred (or at least, had been brought up such they were only capable of contemplating) a dead, muzzled, predictable Jesus rather than a living, speaking Jesus with a mind of His own. 2. Speculations aside, we really don’t know the mechanics of how Jesus’ mortal body was conceived; other than that it occurred in such a way that a) no mortal man was involved, and b) Jesus inherited a number of His Father’s physical attributes, just as any son would. Whether there was some sort of specialized “covenant” between the Father and Mary, and/or whether that covenant might be called a “marriage” relationship, are matters of pure conjecture.

A while back we had some homeless people coming into our building while we were having sacrament mtg and they would go into the kitchen and prepare themselves a meal. Then they would pop popcorn in the microwave. Imagine sitting in the chapel and the smell of popcorn comes drifting in. And you thought the sacrament bread tasted good, this was down right distracting. This went on for about three weeks before we realized what was happening and told them they can't turn our church into a movie theater.

If you really want to see me get up in arms about something, talk to me about use of the kitchen. I detest that policy. Funny story: for the Fourth of July this year, we had a pancake breakfast at our ward building. We cooked the bacon at the church (gasp...horror). Two hours after we left, the fire alarm went off. The bishop of the other ward got called in to assist the fire department and they could still smell the remnants of bacon. We got a pretty nasty e-mail about how we triggered the fire alarm by cooking bacon in the building. Here's the catch though...that was almost four months ago, and the fire alarm does. not. stop. We have to temporarily disable it every time we go into the building. The fire department has notified us that they will not respond to any alarms from our building until the issue is fixed. Still not fixed. Despite all this, we still are under scrutiny because, clearly, cooking bacon in the church broke the fire alarm. (I can't roll my eyes hard enough)

maybe? I only get maybe?

A lesser-known cousin of John Barron, I’m sure.