Leaderboard

Sorry to pick at a nit and risk distracting from your post topic, but I want to mention that Jesus never said to the woman taken in adultery, "I forgive you." What he said was, "Neither do I condemn you." Very different. This life is our time to prepare to meet God. It's not a time for condemnation, even by God. His hand of mercy is ever extended toward us. But we mistake God's lack of immediate condemnation as forgiveness at our own deep peril. Repentance, and only repentance, brings forgiveness. The Lord says to each of us, "Neither do I condemn you," but always includes the addendum, "Sin no more." As was true with the woman taken in adultery, so the same is true for us. God withholds, at least temporarily, his condemnation, so that we have a space of time to repent. But our condemnation is not withheld permanently. We must take advantage of this period that we have been given to choose righteousness and life over misery and death. If the woman taken in adultery did not heed the Master's command to "sin no more", it is guaranteed that her condemnation eventually came upon her in full force.

I want to thank you for this, but probably from a different direction than you would normally think. Today has been particularly difficult for me. I was asked earlier today to write a letter for an old acquaintance. I first met this man in the church almost 46 years ago. While I've known him he has done all sorts of criminal and other types of acts. He was called as a High Priest many years prior to me, even with that type of record (and part of the reason at times I've struggle with me and others not being called High Priests when we were younger, and yet some of those who are blatantly wicked seem to be granted such things at times), and was a member of the Bishopric, something which was not blessed upon me until more recently. He has never felt remorse for what he has done. He has always felt he could get away with things. Despite all this, we have been friends. He has helped with charity at times in helping others, and some of his actions were due to a flawed sense of morality on his part I suppose. That said, crimes and actions finally caught up to him. He was sent to jail and is now guilty of murder. He is awaiting sentencing. Some others who know him sent out messages asking for people to write character references or letters for this man. I was asked if I could write a character reference for him this morning (not that it was due this morning, just asked if I would by someone today). I immediately felt conflicted. Instead of writing a character letter I wanted to write a letter to the judge asking for them to lock him up and toss away the key. He still doesn't really have any remorse, the only remorse he has on this is that he finally got caught. He had been committing adultery and in the process of events that led him to murder someone innocent. It was simply the capstone of a long life of doing things and seemingly to get away with it. There were other events of questionable nature in his past, including other periods of questionable indiscretion that he simply waltzed on by seemingly without being touched. I was his friend, and yet here I was wanting him to have as severe a punishment as possible. I had to ask myself, had I truly forgiven him. Was this desire out of wanting him to pay for the crimes he was actually in prison for, or some deeper rooted grudge out of anger and frustration. I have had a tough time trying to sort this out today. I have had very mixed emotions and truly wanted to write a letter exactly opposite of what he wanted and send it in to hopefully make him have the harshest sentence possible. Even if the church gave him a free pass, I suppose I wanted him to at last have some repercussions of the damage he had done to others. I couldn't get past this mindset today. I've tried. I was not making any progress. How I could feel that towards this man who had been an acquaintance for so long, who we've kept in contact despite being in different areas for such a while was in many ways driving away the spirit at times for me today. We are to forgive all men, and I thought I had forgiven him a long time ago...so this was suddenly a new struggle. Perhaps it was because I suddenly was not just expected to let him on his way, but actually write something to show that he was of good character. It set many emotions of pain and anger inside me. I couldn't seem to resolve it within myself. Then I read your post above. Ironically, the spirit used it to talk to me. My problem was that I had already condemned him in my heart, something I am NOT qualified to do. I am not his judge (nor even in his church leadership). I am not the Lord and have no right to judge, and yet, within my heart I had done so. I know this man probably has no remorse about his actual crimes and sins, but it is not my place to decide whether he's condemned or not in this life. It is the Savior's and as you have posted, the Savior (as far as I know) has not condemned the man in this life either. It is up to the man whether he will actually repent at some point or not, but it is simply my place to try to truly forgive him for any offense that I may have seen done. In this my sin was that I was not as forgiving as I should have been. Instead I wanted justice and to a small degree, I suppose revenge. That is not the Lord's way. AS I realized this, I had a huge burden taken off my heart and I now realize I don't have to feel these feelings towards him. I don't plan on writing a letter on his behalf, but I don't have the desire anymore to write a letter asking for a harsh judgment either. I am happy to allow whatever happens, to happen. If his friends and family write letters to soften his sentence, so be it. I can continue to write the man letters in jail to show our friendship, and to visit him occasionally, but there is no need for me to feel anger or frustration over this issue any longer. I should leave it in the Lord's hands as I should have all along, and let the Lord handle it as he will. If the Lord forgives the man to exaltation, then I should be happy for the man, and if instead the man suffers for what he has done or pays the price, I should also accept what the Lord wills in the matter to be done. So, I know you posted it probably as a different matter, but your post helped open the way for the Spirit to help me overcome a great struggle I was having today. I thank you for the post that you made.

Moving from Genesis into Exodus, I find there's a distinct change of flavour. (Has anyone else noticed this?) I find sequels are so often like this - it's the same characters (in this case Israelites, Egyptians and God) but the atmosphere surrounding them doesn't seem the same. But the first thing that really struck me was 2:11-12, when Moses killed the Egyptian. This episode gets discussed so often - sometimes in regard to whether or not Moses was a murderer. Some say that he was not a murderer, because he only did what was necessary to protect the Israelite. But I've always found it hard to believe that Moses - the son of a princess - could have had no other option. Why didn't he just say "Hey Mr. Slave-Driver-Sticky-Beaty-type-person! My mum's a princess, so would you please, if only out of respect for her, stop hitting that man?" It seems far more likely that Moses simply "lost it". However, if he did just "lose it", it seems strange that he checked first to make sure no one else was looking. And maybe - just maybe - his position wasn't as elevated as Charlton Heston gave us to believe. Perhaps the interview went something like this: Moses: Hey, stop beating that man! I'll tell my mum on you if you don't! Egyptian: What, the princess? Everyone knows she's not really your mum! You're just that oiky-poiky Hebrew kid she adopted 'cos she felt sorry for you, so go away and mind your own business! Moses: Not till you stop hitting that man! Egyptian: Whacha gonna do if I don't? Kill me? Moses: If I have to, yes! (Looks around to check no one is watching.) Egyptian: I'd like to see you try! Come on buster - kill me! It's the only way you're going to stop me beating these horrible Hebrews! Come on - I'll wipe the floor with you! (They fight, and Moses kills him.) The problem with this, though is that if everyone knew Moses was an "oiky-poiky Hebrew kid" then very likely the king would have known too and Moses' life wouldn't have been worth thruppence. (Unless of course it was a different king, who had relaxed the "kill all Hebrew boys" policy.) Another possibility is that this particular princess had many "sons", most of whom were Egyptian, and most people thought that Moses was just one of these. However, consider this, from Acts 7: What really bugs me here is that if Moses intended for the Hebrews to support him, why was he so anxious that no one was looking? If he had intended this to be a flashpoint of rebellion, wouldn't he have wanted spectators? Of course this was written by Luke - a Greek, not a Jew - who may not have got his facts quite right. (I wonder also where Luke got the "40 years old" from, as Exodus only says "when Moses was grown" - though doubtless someone better scriptured than me will clear that up.)

After reading your initial post a few quotes came to mind. " . . . neither be partaker of other men's sins; keep thyself pure." -- I Timothy 5:22 "Mercy detached from justice grows unmerciful." -- C.S. Lewis We definitely should not encourage people to continue gross sins in their lives. We should speak the truth to others in love with wisdom (see Ephesians 4:15) and encourage others to turn toward God. Sometimes (many times) it is best to say nothing as the person is not ready to receive counsel.

By remembering that the whole purpose of this life is to see if we will "Do all that the Lord commands" Before we can 'do all that the Lord commands' we have to know what the Lord commands. Those that know God's commands are instructed to make it known to others. Full Stop. Nothing in any of the Lord's commands call us to try to compel them. Instruct Sure. Compel no. They either will or they will not. Once they know what God's commands are they are free to choose and we need to respect that choice even if we disagree with that. Once we have made it known and followed that commandment we are expected to follow all the other commands. "Love One Another", "Love thy Enemies" etc. etc. Thus we instruct and we Love. If we find that some of our loving action are being taking as "permission to sin" Then we have a Paul not eating meat sacrificed to idol moment and adjust accordingly. If however we let the mere possibility of such a misunderstanding stop us from Loving then we are making our own choice to disobey.

There could be several answers to these questions... Many of them simply hypothesis regarding it garnered from other stories. Here is but one of many. One thing the Old Testament does is to create a type and shadow, or a story of prophecy regarding a coming Messiah. In this, Moses could also have been seen as a type and shadow. If we use this story, then there would be a prophesied savior for the Hebrews. This Savior would have certain qualities and would be known. The Savior would be a prince, and perhaps the rightful ruler of the Hebrews. He may have been born under certain conditions which fulfill the prophecy. Moses had a similar situation at birth to one several thousand years later where many babies were killed (at the time of the Lord it was to prevent a King of the Jews prediction or prophecy). It could be that a similar situation was here, that this was done to prevent a Hebrew Savior that would lead the people from Captivity. Thus, we see a type and a shadow where similar events occur. If this was a prophecy at the time, it would be well known to the Hebrews (and possibly also the Egyptians...indeed, if the dialogue of the above occurred where Pharaoh was trying to destroy the Male Hebrew babes due to prophecy, he and many others would have known about this). Now, whether it was seen as Moses being the fulfillment of this when the Daughter found Moses, or if Moses later found out about the Prophecy and put it together and thought it could be him is unknown. Most likely this prophecy came from Joseph (of the coat of many colors fame) who prophesied about his descendants or Jacob...once again...all speculative on my part. If Moses felt he was the one prophesied he knew that he would be a Prince (or was a Prince) who was to free the Hebrew People. He did not know the vehicle as to which this was too happen, but if prior speculation is correct, if he was trying to fulfill the prophecy than Pharaoh would probably be against him if he knew Moses was trying to fulfill it. Thus, avenging the death was not just a matter of Moses and Murder, but stopping Moses from being the fulfillment of the prophecy to lead the Egyptian Slave force out of bondage. Eventually Moses became this Savior, using the Power of Heaven to convince Pharaoh to release the Children of Israel. This too is a type and a shadow. As Moses helped to free them physically from bondage, the Lord when he came as the Savior saved the Jews (and all men) from spiritual bondage. When Joseph Smith was doing a NT translation many things came to light in the short translation that he did. If one reads the Book of Moses one finds far more there than an initial read of Genesis. It is possible if he had ever gotten to do the full treatment of Exodus (or if we had it if he did) that similar thoughts and ideas would have come to light regarding the story of Moses.

You bring up some interesting points. First, I would say Luke was probably sharing the story of Moses the way he learned about it. Since Luke was a Greek convert, I'm sure his formerly Jewish fellow saints taught him about Moses, and this may be the version of events they taught at the time. Secondly, it's possible that they had access to records we don't today. I teach history, and it's incredibly depressing how many records have been destroyed throughout the millenia before we even had a chance to look at them. Luke may have been recording accounts he had of Moses's intention that we don't have access to today. I believe Josephus in his book Antiquities of the Jews reports Moses as being around 40 when he killed the overseer. He was a contempoary historian of Luke's, he lived from 37 to 100 AD, and he doesn't appear to be making things up out of whole cloth. He had access to some sort of historical records when he was writing his book. My personal opinion, so take that for what it's worth, is that he killed the overseer for beating the Jews and hurting them and tried to keep it from being known by other Egyptians. Despite being alone, at least that's how I read Exodus, other Jews knew of the event, someone saw what happened and at least whispered about it. Otherwise the one who told him off in Exodus 2:14 wouldn't have known about the murder. Moses seems to have been afraid his deed was widely known and this was part of what encouraged him to flee Egypt. If he had done this to lead the Jews into rebellion by showing they could trust him to protect them from the Egyptians, why would he be afraid if it was known? Now we could be missing scripture, I believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, and know that part of this story that clarifies what's going on might have been lost which could make Luke's account more correct. We just don't know. At the end of the day, as a Latter Day Saint, I have access to records other than those in the Bible that I believe in. We have the Pearl of Great Price which contains things we believe were lost from the Bible that were written by Moses, as well as an acocunt of him appearing as a ressurected being to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland temple. I realize these are only of value if you belive they are true, but since I do, it's clear to me that Moses was either morally correct in killing the overseer, or God forgave him for a sin done in ignorance before he learned more of the gospel (as he undoubtedly did at the feet of his father in law Jethro).

This is definitely something I have struggled with over my life. There have been many times where my own self righteousness has condemned me far more than the person I was passing judgement on. But I'd like to think I've made some progress in my life towards being more compassionate and loving. I think the answer to your question comes from one of my personal experiences. I was a member of the local branch presidency, the First Councilor, when a member of our congregation was called in for a disciplinary council. This member was guilty of breaking the Law of Chastity, and had been working with the Branch President on regaining their full standing in the church. I remember distinctly, as if it was yesterday, the strong feelings of inadequacy I felt being in that position. I thought "what right do I have to judge you, when I am guilty of many sins in my own past?". But I also felt nothing but love and concern for this member, and was excited that they wanted to come back into the fold. Never at any time did I feel superior to them, or that they should be cast out for their weaknesses. They were trying to regain their hold on the iron rod, and it was my job to help them get there. We gave this member instructions on how to continue with the repentance process and sent them on their way. I share this experience, because it taught me how I should react to those who fall from the path God has set for us, including myself. We never condoned this person's sin, and if this member had not been repentant we would have had to have taken further steps, but never once did I feel superior to them, or feel as though I had the right to condemn them. I think that's how you stand for truth but refrain from enabling at the same time. Exactly as the Savior did with the woman caught in adultery. He loved her, and protected her from the self righteous, but also taught her truth and did not shrink from telling her to get her life back on track. It can be hard to do as a fallen human being, but as always Christ is our perfect example in all things.

I'm also reminded of a bit of LDS news I saw years ago - an LDS guy went out of his way to befriend one of the regular General Conference protesters. They've struck up something of a friendship. The critic stays at this guy's house every 6 months when he comes to protest. They work hard on keeping things civil, and his basic goal is to love this guy as genuinely as he can. And another bit of LDS news from years ago, where we had choirs of Young Women go sing hymns in close proximity to the protesters. One young woman shared an experience where they were singing sweetly and beautifully, and she made eye contact with one of louder sign-waving protesters and smiled at him. He paused for a moment, looked at his sign, looked almost embarrassed at his own behavior.

For me it is like the parable of the Prodigal Son. Getting the courage to return home, ask for forgiveness and hopefully be allowed to just be a servant is difficult - Perhaps I never hit bottom or failed - but just realizing I had soiled the family name was enough. Perhaps the difference is that I am a 5th generation member and my biological parents were righteous and took great care to teach me correctly. I also had two older brothers that were from the mold of my father. One has a near photographic memory, the other a relentless long suffering but compassionate nature that never gives up and never even started something that was not incredible. Both fearless in their accomplishments and forever profound examples. Then there is me. I have never been rebellious, but always the one distracted and never quite up to family potential. In essence caught between two worlds. My family where I am the quintessential underachiever and the world outside of family - where I am an amazing overachiever. The Traveler

I was a bit sloppy there - I should have checked the context of the Luke quote: he is actually quoting Stephen who according to the Wikipedia page probably was Jewish. However, I don't suppose the quote is 100% verbatim, so we may still be getting Luke's interpretation of the story.

Nothing... But when a person's strong feeling cause them to be patronizing and looking down one's nose at people, because they disagree with them, that is when a person enters rule breaking territory. When it causes a person to attack members of this forum, the church and or the church leaders because they are not in lock-step agreement with what a person strongly held feeling because they do not act the way a person thinks they should... Well that behavior is explicitly called out as unacceptable in the rules

First, engage the class with with what is called a learner readiness. Second, as has been taught for some time now teachers are there to teach people and not to teach a lesson. Teacher's are not there to "stand and deliver" (lecture) the class. Stand and deliver should be used sparingly. If you find you are the only one speaking for a long period of time you are missing the purpose of the Come Follow Me program. Third, study the material and be prepared to follow the Spirit, not a well planned lesson (stand and deliver). If teachers are thinking to themselves, "I want to teach this," then teachers might be in a position to quench the Spirit. There is a difference between following the Spirit and following a lesson. Have a plan, but follow the Spirit. Fourth, discover the principles that will apply to the class and then have them ready should the discussion lead that way. Fifth, remember teachers do not have to get through the "whole" lesson that was planned. If teachers find themselves thinking, "I have to get through my whole lesson plan," then you are teaching a lesson not people. The purpose is discussion. The purpose is to follow the Spirit. That means someone might make a comment that needs more time, or might take the discussion into a different direction that might be more beneficial to the class than the planned lesson.

The sign is pure propaganda. We don't have signs saying "We love our adulterous brothers". We don't have signs saying "We love our pedophilic brothers and sisters". All the sign signifies is indoctrination and propaganda that anyone who can't control their thoughts and feelings, that anyone who has unnatural proclivities should be coddled . . .except only a certain special group of individuals. It doesn't apply to anyone else . . .except a special group. I didn't say you were selling me something. I gave you 2 options. Figure out who you can not criticize and those are the people who hold the power.

Well, I don't know you personally. 😁 Why not both? Our leaders tell us that the process of the brethren unifying behind something, whether it becomes revelation or policy, starts with a lot of study and prayer, then a lot of discussion, sometimes argument. Not that much of a stretch to think the brethren started with a bunch of legal and insurance analysis by lawyers and risk managers, throw in scriptural analysis, prayer, discussion, arguments, and eventually the minds of the brethren, led by the spirit after all that study and work, aligned on what we now see as a revised policy? A policy instituted to help manage institutional risk, avoid accidents, proclaim peace... and accompanied by the understanding that not everyone will abide by it, and lives may be saved because of that fact . (I wonder if the policy against using meetinghouse kitchens to cook food was easier or harder...)

I'm sure it is. The supreme irony is the topic "the Church opposes anti-conversion therapy", when the entire purpose of the Church is about conversion therapy.

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.

It's ridiculous to call out specific sins and say "we love them". Why not have a sign that says "We love our children who are druggies", "We love our children who are bullies", "We love our children who are pregnant". It's pandering to the emotionally weak "woke" individuals who think that the mere profaning of words makes something true. It in effect states that prior to this sign being put up, we didn't love them. It signifies that only by bloviating meaningless words to pander to the world that we love them. Until people wake up and realize the absolute stranglehold the LGBTQ+ velvet mafia has on people's thoughts, their ideas, and how they have suppressed the righteous desire to help people overcome their weaknesses, this junk will continue. This group is sacrosanct-they are the new religion, with their priests, alcoyates and high priests. It's why the story about Katie Hill is buried. She is a priestess in the new religion and cannot be touched. As a people we have traded the One True God for a false god. Good luck!

Sorry no I voted to leave. I took a lot of time looking at the available information and realised that there was not enough to make a properly informed decision. I never believed the "Boris Bus" I didn't want rid of immigrants, but did see that the EU is a bloated bureaucratic system and that too many interests dilute reasonable argument and effectiveness as an entity. I didnt for one minute believe that it would be a swift and easy exit (no divorce ever is) and knew that France and Germany could not afford to let us out without a bloody nose, as a warning to any other nations thinking this could be a good option. What I did think was that Parliament would have to good of the nation at heart, be able to come up with innovative solutions to the obvious issues and negotiate with a little more persuasion....I know, how foolish !! The biggest issue is that MP's are not acting like parliamentarians. As for Farage...... he is an odious man that has stirred up racial tensions throughout the country. He tries to be "a man of the people" but his only interests are his own economic gain.

Maybe a difference between you and me: My biggie repentance event was preceded with years of believing I was evil and doomed and horrible and a bad person, unworthy of love, who would be righteously rejected by all the good or smart people. I didn't believe I had done wrong, I believed I had no value, that I WAS wrong. Compared to the pain of internalizing that lie for so long, the short-term uncomfortableness of discussing some stuff I used to do but hadn't for years, then going through a quick process of renouncing and changing my walk, followed by being forgiven/redeemed/cleansed? Accompanied with the revealed truth that I was indeed a loved son of God, inheritor of a divine birthright, a good person? Forgive me while I jump for joy. I have to jump, in order to keep my heart inside me, because it's leaping for joy whether I go with it or not.

So, my experience is that reading/studying (and yes, even video gaming) and caring for a non-mobile infant are not mutually exclusive. The schedule overall does sound really tough, but it also sounds like that won’t be a permanent thing. Similarly, your baby will eventually do better at sleeping through the night; which will make those early-morning hours even more productive for you. What does concern me a little, is your wife basically making it impossible for you to get more than five hours of sleep a day, while she herself is (presumably) getting, or at least has an opportunity to get, much more than that. That’s just not sustainable for any length of time, IMHO. But, she apparently doesn’t want to change this (or several other facets of your marriage you find unsatisfactory). There’s no silver-bullet verbiage you can use that will finally make her “get it”. The fact is that you are both very young. You’re not perfect, and neither is she; you’re both being kind of self-centered in your own ways. Each of you will eventually grow out of it—or you won’t. You’ll find a way to live with her demands, or she’ll quit making them, or you’ll start ignoring some of them and she’ll accept that . . . or your marriage will end. Those are really the only four options here, long term.

Although this thread isn't about ministering/HT, sadly the reality of this statement is too true. Since the change I have had only one ministering companionship reach out to me. I have had new ministering brethren who have never contacted me, nor have they let me know they care or have a "more genuine care and concern for their brethren." At least now, there is no hiding our love, because how we now serve as ministering brethren is a direct reflection of our ability to honor the first two great commandments, and we can't hide behind the stigma "You are only doing this because of duty."

Yes, and the solution is always a system. Back to this lgbtq topic, the gospel of jesus christ is a system, im confident in our current and future prophets that we will find solutions.

Of the twirling is so common! One of the students I taught would make fart-like noises with his mouth when he was nervous.

We’ll call it the “minority-face government”.