Leaderboard

I had plenty of non-LDS family members who gifted me money when I left on my LDS mission; and I’ve always figured I’d do the same for them. If their ministry were explicitly anti-Mormon, I might elect in lieu of cash to give them something they could personally use no matter what they were doing (a good pair of shoes or a winter coat or luggage or something like that) . . .

My name is Drew, I am originally from England but have lived in the US for 32 years. I have been a member of the church since I was a child.

Hence why I am not a fan of debates like this. The only common ground here is the Bible, and someone who spends his life studying it and learning all the ins and outs of it is far more advantaged than one who has MANY more sources of truth. It’s like pitching the 70 year old man with a doctorate in English and literature from Harvard against a 9 year old who is obsessed with dr Seuss in a competition of who had more dr Seuss books memorized. What is really being debated here? In atheist vs Christian debates, it becomes purely a battle of philosophy and wits.

Just pulled up the debate on you-tube and watched a few minutes right in the middle. The pastor was asking Kwaku various questions. I would give Kwaku about a B+ in his responses; not too bad overall. The problem with these types of debates is that the fact that a debate is occurring is the inherent flaw. A debate can only effectively apply to the beliefs that extend from the shared foundations of the debaters. For Example: Once, on my mission, while shopping on P-Day, a Muslim man came up to my companion and I to discuss a few things. We politely acquiesced, and since my companion knew that my father was Muslim, he decided to let me take the reins in the discussion. The sincere believer with whom I was discussing was inviting me to watch videos of imams debating pastors and was telling me that he though I would find it interesting and about how he was amazed at how blown out of the water the pastors were. I proceeded to explain to him that it would be pretty useless for me to watch those videos, because I already know the pastors were wrong; I explained that although they were Christian, their version and interpretation of Christianity was false/incorrect and so the imam's would be debating and 'disproving' things that I already know are not true. Suffice it to say, he was very confused, haha. On a related note, a small but notable part of my interpretation of the flaws within the Quran extends from the fact that the Quran explicitly preaches against Trinitarian Christianity, but is not forward-thinking enough to preach against any other form of Christianity. I would suggest that, for any debate to be truly effective at presenting the positions of both sides in a way to enable to audience to come away edified, it would involve both sides presenting the beliefs they feel are the most important to address, why they believe as they do and then, if there is to be a question/answer section, the questions should be provided by both parties in advance so that they may prepare an answer as they choose. Debate, in general, would best be used as a problem solving mechanism, not a source of entertainment. A religious debate should never really be a debate; it should be people discussing why they believe what they believe in a sincere and straight forward way. But of course, I suppose that would take all the 'fun' out of it for so many.

The first option. My son has a local mission that is concerned with ministering to members of the LDS church, which is why I didn't want to donate to his church. My daughter and her husband have volunteered in that mission but it isn't related to the one they are going on in Bolivia.

Not sure this clarifying question helps, but here goes: Are they going to Bolivia to be Baptist missionaries and spread the word as they understand it, or are they going to Bolivia to teach Bolivians about the "evils of Mormonism" or some such? Because the first isn't really spreading a contrary gospel...

I agree with @prisonchaplain. I would not financially support one of my children on a mission for another Church. The only exception might be if it were one of those short-term service only missions, where preaching 'another gospel' would not be part of the agenda. On a similar note: My father, who is Muslim, did not speak to me for three years when I married my wife in the temple. We have been hanging out and talking, just like before, for about seven years now. Stand for your principles; things will work out as they should. Remember Christs words, "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father." I can almost guarantee that standing your ground will have a more 'positive' impact than donating. Why? Because if you donate, your children may see it as evidence of you gradually coming around to their way of thinking. If/When you still present contrary views, they could take it all the harder. Anyway, I wish you the best and I hope you are able to maintain a positive relationship with your children.

Perhaps a non-LDS perspective would help here. First, I would never expect an LDS member, family or not, to support my ministry. Likewise, I doubt that many LDS members would ask their non-member family to support their missionary work. If donations are offered, that's special and great. As for donated across denominational lines, it depends. If a church is opposed to LDS teaching--and frankly, most are--then it would be difficult for a member to support that church's work.Personally, I believe you would be justified to only support LDS missions. If a child acts upset about being treated differently I suspect that is a tactic. As a funny aside, I've been watching youtube videos in which children come out to their parents...as conservatives. They claim it's much scarier than the gender-related stuff.

That's the beauty of procreation: It's only a next-generation problem. I don't have to worry about whether or not the earth can sustain 5 generations of growth, or even your "forever" growth. I only need to be concerned whether or not the earth can sustain one more generation. And @anatess2 has already posted a video that says, yes, the earth can sustain the next generation of growth. Add to that the fact that Wisconsin farmers are paid by the government to dump their dairy and plow produce back into the ground, and I'm confident that there's enough in the US to sustain another generation. All this lends strength to the Lord's witness that "there is enough and to spare" and that the global problem are one of distribution, commanding that "man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart ... his portion". <shrug> science raises a warning, engineers find a solution. We should be grateful for those that raise the awareness so the solutions can be found before there's a crisis, but let's not pretend that the doomseers have the only solution.

The Democrats will do whatever they wish in the House with no effort to appease any Republicans. It will be partisan in the House regardless of any Republican effort. The idea that the Democrats want the process of impeachment to continue (including in the Senate) into the 2020 presidential campaign (requiring any Senate Democrat running for president to be absent from active campaigning) would be politically unwise for their party - let alone the country. The only thing worse than turning over impeachment to the Senate during the 2020 presidential campaign would be to fail to reach any impeachment articles to be turned over to the Senate in over a year of the House committee efforts. In short I am suggesting that the Republicans allow the Democrats all the rope needed for them to hang themselves on this as their primary issue - for running the government or their presidential campaign. The Traveler

This is a narrow path to navigate and could be difficult to make the right choices. Temple Recommend questions have this...though recently changed... and These used to deal with groups that promoted things that were not in line with the church as well. My thoughts would be if you were supporting a Baptist Church or a Baptist Mission simply out of your own volition, that would not be in line with being a Faithful Saint. HOWEVER...as it is your daughter...I still would not feel you would be in line to simply support a Baptist Mission. ONCE AGAIN...HOWEVER...IT IS YOUR DAUGHTER and as such you have obligations to support them. This is not just financial obligations, but also with love and as a parent. Because it is your daughter, I would say you are obligated to help her in financial situations if you can help her (normally if one needs help in our church we also advise them to see if they have family that can help them prior to looking at other alternatives). If this means she has food and housing wherever she is going in the world, even if that happens to be a Mission with another church, at least you are helping to keep her fed and housed. This can also mean supporting them emotionally as a parent to a child. Many times our children do not choose what we choose, but we still love them (or hopefully we do). As we love them we may not support their choices they make, but we can still support them with love. I think it would be up to you to discuss it with her about how far and what you feel right about supporting her in life and with her choices. I think you could absolutely support her in regards to a mission financially when it comes to being able to have food and other necessities similar to what one may pay for when supporting an LDS missionary. This does not mean that you should support her buying personal tracts or other such items that promote their religion, but many mission expenses are not paying that. They are paying the necessities of life such as food, shelter, and other items. IN this, it probably depends on the church they attend and what it or they spend their resources on for the most part. Most mission funds spent are for the necessities of life or to help others in need that are on those missions. As it is YOUR CHILD, I would expect that you should help them if they are in need. This is the way I think that you can justify supporting them on their mission, not because you are supporting their mission for another church specifically, but because you are supporting your child and their needs in life. Every parent should support their child if needed, and in this I would think there should be no exception. However, make sure that you are doing it out of love and support for your child, not to support another church specifically, and I think you should be okay in the choice to support your child in another country, even if they are on a mission for another religion.

@Serviteur du seigneur since you've moved on to nationalized insurance can I take that as tacit acknowledgement that my points are valid and you need to reconsider your population control ideas?

I've always liked the ones that include service of some kind. Something like a clothing drive, or putting toiletry bags together. I think it helps bring a real Christmas spirit.

Smoked ham mashed potatoes rolls No Christmas party (or any party really) can fail if those are present.

I agree and would also add that it is impossible to know of G-d's works (Law, Ordinances and Covenants) without the Comforter and the keys of the priesthood. The Traveler

Don't forget the Jaredites! That was a unique way too 🙂

Our very favorite thing is having the primary sing. Having the primary do something ensures that parents attend. Seeing children do ...anything no matter how badly puts everyone in a great mood. We keep trying to tell the primary teachers that expertise is NOT the issue. We just like looking at the children. Also no food that stains if you have carpeting. No purple grape juice or beetroot. Feed the children and elderly first. (I always have a snack in my purse because this takes a while.)

Directions for a WoW-compliant CoJCoLDS latte: 1 mug of hot milk 1 Tablespoon of Postum* 2-3 teaspoons of sugar Mix well * Or whatever faux-coffee atrocity you prefer. 🙃

I didn't notice "Latte" either. But I served my mission to Italy, and "latte" is Italian for "milk" (which is why the coffee concoction is called a "latte"—apparently, it contains milk). So despite living near Seattle, I'm not sure I would have made the coffee connection anyway. I would more likely have thought it was the Church of the milk of gospel truths.

https://thirdhour.org/blog/faith/ces-letter/ Thanks @dsnell. This was a good read.

Sigh... Per the quote in the OP I have a heterosexual identity and a church identity. And they need to live in harmony with each other for my mental health... that seems reasonable. However my church identity puts real limits on my heterosexual identity. Many aspects it does not care about but two it very much does. The first is the Law of Chasity and the second is Priesthood or Relief Society. Both those force my expression of sexual identity into certain channels. For example my church identity does not allow me to have sex with multiple partners. Yet one does not have to look far to see many people seeing that as part of their sexual identity. If I were to do so I would experience mental trauma as various aspects of my church identity came into conflict with this expression of my sexual identity. This trauma would lead to me deciding which was the most important part of my identity, which part I wanted more. This test is exactly why we are here to determine if we will follow God or if we will follow something else. Now for me my sexual identity and my church identity aren't in that much conflict... that just means that my testing is going to be in another area. For those of the LETTER Soup group their sexual identity (whatever it is) is going to be in more conflict. And that conflict is going to cause trauma, which we can and should be sensitive to. But in that sensitivity and desire to help we should not try to undo the test they have to face. They to have to make a choice on what is most important, on whom they will follow just like we do.

Thanks JAG. I don't personally agree with the authors sentiment and thoughts. I wanted to hear what others thoughts (before sharing my personal thoughts) pertaining to this response to our Prophets speech at BYU. I thought the speech was spot on and something our Father in heaven needs us to hear and understand (or hearken unto). My limited knowledge of this type of research reminds me of a class at BYU that debated free will vs. determinism, or free will vs. behaviorism (total control by our genetics). The article I read was in support of free will and provided all the examples. The Behaviorist then took those same results and showed how it was actually evidence for total behaviorism (we are products of our genetics, we have no free will). So, when someone begins to state facts pertaining to this type of "theory" my experience brings me back to this learning, which tells me this individual is believing the results actually highlight her truth, not reality. When I say reality I am meaning, we are living in a Telestial world. If a person desires to live and be apart of a Telestial lifestyle -- and that is who they are -- of course they are going to be happier if everyone says, "Hey, its OK. You are who you are. God made you this way, ergo it is good -- eat, drink, and be merry"! The Telestial mentality doesn't like the word "repentance" which means you can change "wrong" behavior or behavior that is against God's law.

You can be obedient to the laws of god, which are motivated out of love, as well as be respectful to LGBTQ and their experiences. But the second anyone suggests the belief that being LGBTQ is as acceptable to god as the heterosexual life is where the seeds of apostasy start.

OOOOOHHHHH!!! Jaredite dish-barges are TIGHT!

I’m not in the armed forces or anything, but I thought this was pretty funny when I saw it