Leaderboard

I guess that depends on what you mean by "room in the Church". There is always room in the pews. As long as people don't disrupt meetings or use such meetings as an opportunity to preach against the Restored Gospel, they are always welcome. But if you're talking about being baptized—that is a different matter. Those who are baptized are under covenant to live the gospel. If they choose not to live the gospel, and especially if they openly flout gospel principles, they risk being excommunicated. Such people should never be baptized into the Church; doing so does the Church ill and puts them in a situation to condemn themselves by disobeying their covenants. We should definitely be sensitive. But by the same token, we should always preach the gospel in clear tones. Some things are perhaps not "core doctrine" and might be better left unspoken in certain instances. But the sanctity of the family is absolutely central to gospel teachings. Why should the girl go crying to her mother because an obvious and very important truth was taught? The only possible way she could have taken offense is if she connected up the dots and came to the conclusion that living a lesbian lifestyle is anti-family and thus anti-Christ. If that were the case, she should neither take offense nor go crying to her mother, but should reassess her beliefs and commitments, and decide whether the path of lesbianism or the path of the gospel were the one she wanted to walk. I realize she's a youth and not an adult, but if she's old enough to go to seminary, she's old enough to ask herself some hard questions. You cannot walk the gospel path and a path of sin simultaneously.

When Christ says “my yoke is easy” I’m interpreting this to mean Him saying that living the gospel is easy, or keeping the commandments I have given you is easy. It must be true because Jesus said it, but at the moment, I don’t understand how it is true. I see a major disconnect between what Christ said – “my yoke is easy” and the lived experience of many, many people and I’m not sure how to reconcile this lived experience with what Christ said. Jesus isn't saying that keeping the commandments or living the Gospel is easy. On the contrary, because he IS cognizant of the fact that we're weak individuals and living the Gospel isn't always a walk in the park...he shows us exceedingly love and compassion by offering to take away our burdens! SIN WEIGHS US DOWN. We also know that the Law of Moses prohibited yoking an ox and donkey together because they weren't the same kind. And here we have Jesus's invitation!...even though we could never compare ourselves to him... He sees our hearts and invites us to take HIS yoke upon us to show us how he truly sees us: Family! And if THAT is not a perfect example of how we ought too see everyone we meet I don't know what else will.

When discussing God's love, it's worth noting that it comes in different forms and varieties - some of which is universal and some is conditional. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2009/10/love-and-law?lang=eng As for what we should teach our youth.... https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng I had a YSA bishop once who gathered the men and women together for a talk about chastity. He spoke very plainly about the Church's standards and then shared the following: My first year as bishop I hemmed and hawed when I spoke on this subject. I don't do that anymore. I've spoken very plainly and directly. The reason is very simple. I've seen the heartache and hardship that follows when you break this law, and I love you too much to not warn you."

So it would seem that the new mRNA vaccines absolutely fail to meet the definition of "gene therapy", in that it doesn't modify/alter human DNA. And it would seem they absolutely meet the FDA and CDC definitions of a vaccine, in that it stimulates the body's immune system to produce immunity. Would you concur? Also, when the CDC, FDA, Mayo Clinic, and scientific journals across decades, all seem to be in agreement, and "Some guy on the internet says his doctor said something else", can you understand why people might be willing to discard the random internet guy and his random doctor's opinion, instead going with what appears to be broad international multidecade consensus? Furthermore, why would they use the mRNA? I assume because it's the mRNA utilized by the virus. If that's the case, then it's stretching semantics to call that somehow intrinsically different from using weakened or killed viruses or surface proteins. It is of the spirit and nature of a vaccine. What else can you reasonably call it, except to make up a new term for it that will be defined as, "A vaccine that targets based on virus-utilized mRNA instead of actual virus proteins or DNA/RNA"?

Vaccine or not vaccine. Gene therapy and not gene therapy. When I grew up there was a clear distinction between "immigrate" & "emmigrate". There was a difference between "further" and "farther". But today, there are no distinctions between them. Such semantic shift happens quite easily with a combination of near homonyms and widespread ignorance. With technology, it isn't due to widespread ignorance, but because of rapid technological advancement. Sometimes society comes up with new things so fast that are the result of multiple parties all pursuing the same technology in different ways that no one is really calling dibs on naming it. So they just use the same name as something that is about 95% the same thing and elicits the exact same reponse as a vaccine. So why the problem with calling it a vaccine.

If I had to make the choice between being a victim of repeated racial slurs or the victim of a Homicide ... While I wouldn't like either option the choice would be easy. The slurs every time. And I would figure most people would also make the same choice. In fact it is such a clear choice I would think it so much that I would question the reasoning ability of anyone making a different choice. As such the seems that the moral outrage calculus is easy... Homicidal actions are wrong... and so are racial slurs. Greater then lesser in our expressions of outrage. So when someone expresses their outrage at the racial slurs but the Homicidal action gets a 'well that is bad too' it does call into question if we are operating on even remotely similar moral/ethical systems. Sadly that does seem to be the way our society is going. When racial slurs are used to justify homicides, physical attacks, or property destruction. I think we need to be very clear that no it is not acceptable in any way shape or form.

Well, I'm not sure if I should feel shame or relief or just plain "huh?" Sam's contacted me to ask about my recent experience. I told them. I doubt anything will come of it.

I actually liked his music as a kid. Unfortunately, I was just interested in the hook and recognizable tunes and danceable beat rather than real musical genius. But with the benefit of more age and musical training, yeah, he was talented. I still like Billy Joel better.

Fether, what do they want? I think that really is the crux of the issue here. I would agree with Vort—anyone is welcome in our meetings, and we want meetings to be conducted generally with kindness and sensitivity and tact. But: —Frankly, you can go to any church and wind up in the Terrestrial kingdom—this church’s raison d’etre is to see its members exalted. —We cannot administer the ordinances of the gospel to those who are unwilling to keep the laws and covenants associated therewith. —We cannot quit talking about sin in our own meetings just to placate the feelings of those who want who continue to seek community and fellowship with us but also persist in committing (and even justifying) the sins that our doctrine tells us will sabotage our quests for exaltation. —A platitude like “to be anti-family is anti-Christ” is perhaps hyperbolic, vague, and otherwise not my particular cup of tea; but if it’s going to send someone blubbering, out of the room, crying to their parent—to quote our current President: c’mon, man! Everyone (including single people) has a family. The vast majority of people who are at least semi-functional, love their families—or at least, love the idea of having a stable, healthy family. If she is that bothered by the idea that Jesus wants her to have a loving family, then her problem goes far beyond whether her baser desires tend to be activated by an issue of Playboy versus Playgirl. There’s some other social or familial or psychological pathology going on here—and while (see above) as a church and as individuals we want to be kind and tactful and sensitive; we simply cannot be expected to foresee every trauma, mental illness, or libertine social movement that may have stuck its filthy maws into and made a nervous wreck out of any random adolescent who finds themselves sitting in our pews. At some point, there needs to be a little less drama queenery and making-an-offender-for-a-word; and a little more saintly give-and-take and two-way burden-bearing.

Let’s talk about my safety. I’ve read some bad side-effects from tricking your body into believing it has COVID. If I don’t want the vaccine, what precautions are vaccinated people taking to keep from giving it to me?

Very interesting. OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) said: Every employee who was/is required to get the jab should be aware of this.

Who are you to judge his faith? You worship the true Christ so you can sin any way you want as often as you want, and you're still going to be saved. Anyone who pleads Christ that doesn't sin the same way you do is just worshipping a "false Christ"? So you get a pass. But anyone else is doomed to hell. How convenient. It must be nice to be able to judge other's eternal destiny with such certainty without ever having to worry about your own.

It is rare that I forget much in the way of significant events in my life. In fact, many stupid, insignificant events which I wish to forget stick in my mind anyway. But recently I've been having a series of flashbacks. I've had memories of things I'd completely forgotten about start to make their way back to my consciousness. Two extremely shame-filled moments have come to the front of my mind recently. Since they tend to exemplify my greatest sin of commission and omission respectively, I tend to think that the Lord has seen fit to remind me of them because it is high time that I address them. I honestly don't know if I was prepared to address them until now. But I thought I'd at least share one of them because I'm going to guess that it is one that many have a problem with. ********************************************************* Around 4th grade or so a little girl moved into our school district. Her name was Kim (I'll withhold her surname for privacy). She was a cute little waif of a girl. By little, I mean she was the shortest person in the class. We all welcomed her. To my knowledge no one ever teased her. I even waved "hi" to her and gave her all the common greetings whenever I saw her. But I now realize that I never actually got to know her. I never carried on a conversation with her. And to my knowledge, no one ever did. Time went on. She was always there. I always greeted her as usual. By the time we went to high school, I never really saw her anymore. I was in advanced classes. She wasn't And such classes were on opposite ends of the school. But I knew she was in the same school because she lived just a couple blocks from me. And I never even visited her house. One day I found myself in a different place than normal and I had to take a different route to make it to my next class. I passed through the west side of the school where the druggies and gangsters hung out. As I was thus traversing, I saw Kim in the middle of the cloud of smoke that frequented the area. Our eyes locked. I had never really thought about what happened to her. I never really thought about who her friends were. I never really thought of her at all. But right there I realized I'd never realized what path she ended up taking because of a dearth of good friends. I gazed at her as if to ask, "What are you doing there?" And in a true Thoreau-Emerson moment, her expression seemed to respond, "What are you doing there?" To my shame, I shrugged it off and went on to my class. Somewhere in my mind I was justifying to myself: I'm too busy right now. I have to get to class. Besides, she made her choices. All of that was true. But the memory now haunts me. What if I had invited her to my home to even ONE birthday party? What if I invited her to play with me? What if I even carried on ONE conversation with her? What if she had just one good friend? Would she have turned out any different? Earlier this month, a new family moved into the ward. The attended for two weeks. Then they disappeared. No one has said a word. Then my son brought up their name. He mentioned that he had been trying to get a hold of them. Amazing parallels and contrasts. Lately, I have been doing what I can to get to know those who are attending, but aren't (if we were to make schoolyard equivalencies) the "popular kids". I don't really know if I can do anything to help them in their struggles or ease their burdens. But at the very least I can be there to say, "I'm your friend. I care about you." Some people who are down and out are afraid of becoming a "project" for ward leadership. And maybe sometimes that's the attitude with which it is executed. But I certainly hope that we do it with the attitude of "maybe I can't do much for you. But I can at least be there to say I'm your friend."

For those that desire sources - to dig deeper the following comes from Chapter 5 of "Biochemistry" 5th edition I thought to add another item to this discussion. That is, how does the COVID-19 causes death. I was informed that the actual cause of death (my doctor) is what is called a "Cytokine Storm" that is set off by the COVID-19 virous. Again, we can get into semantics (of which I am not an expert) but there are some of the opinion that outside of cytokine storm immune failure we should not say that a person died of COVID-19. But we are now getting into debates were even the experts are at some odds because COVID-19 can be somewhat of an indirect killer, especially for example, those with respiratory degeneration from age, smoking or other causes. Again - I am not the expert. However, COVID-19 looks very different to me than pandemic examples of the past, both in what appears to be the origin as well as the cure. I am not convinced that the virus is what we would think of as "natural". I am also impressed in the current solution - I do not believe for a moment that if left to politics as usual to our current circumstance that we would have a mRNA solution. But I will leave it as an exercise to the reader if we are looking at an new innovative type of therapy more closely related to gene manipulation verses the concept of modified virus (vaccine) to "train" one's immune system to produce the correct antibodies. It also appears to me that those that do not desire "the shot" are genuinely concerned with the misinformation that abounds in our current political arena. I cannot say that I blame them. Fox News reported (Tucker Carlson) that at least half of the "experts" at the CDC have not yet summited to "The Shot". There appears to me to be sufficient fodder to justify whatever position one wishes to take and that we can also justify any political position to this mess. This I believe can only lead to lack of trust and without trust a society will die inside as surely as an organism will die from within; from a cytokine storm. The Traveler

Thank you my friend.

Uhh. . . Can someone love the gospel and not love Jesus Christ at the same time? I'd say the two are mutually exclusive when it comes to a point of not even trying. (Looks like you responded to this already) Perhaps not directly, but don't we see a little of that from King David? His circumstance was certainly different as he committed a major sin and then experienced continual remorse and a desire to repent; Fether was not referencing people who want to turn away from their sins, but those who want to continue to live them. If they can't come to terms with the unfairness, they have a lot more to learn, and a lot more looking around to do. How is their life any more unfair than a child who is sold into slavery and sexually, mentally, and physically abused their entire lives until they die or are killed? How is their life any less fair than someone who never has the opportunity to marry, and yet lives their entire life having to cope with normal sexual desires? If they struggle with that question of fairness, their mind's eye is shallow and they need to recognized the endless pit of unfairness that exists in our mortal world.

Growing up, I heard many slurs against homosexuals and homosexuality. Most of them were heard in my public school; no such things were ever said in my home, and almost none were heard at Church. Those times I did hear such things at Church were invariably from the mouths of one or more of a few young men my age or a little older who thought themselves edgy and cool, and who attended Church only because their parents "made" them. The only thing I have ever heard taught at Church or by Church leaders about homosexuality is that it is a perversion of sex, a sin, and a practice that we ought never to embrace or even experiment with. That teaching seems pretty much baseline for such a topic. To teach less than that would be to do a grave disservice to our children who need to understand gospel principles. Again, I do not remember ever having heard a teacher or Church leader demonize someone struggling in sin, including homosexuality. Based on my own experience, I doubt such a thing is common. I appreciate your sincere concern for your brothers and sisters who may be facing such issues, but I suspect many of those who claim to have experienced such bitter persecution have in actuality experienced Church leaders, teachers, and members talking about fleeing from sin and not allowing it to pollute us.

I do agree with the principles and doctrines you are referencing. I do not wish for the church to start baptizing people who are actively reveling against basic principles such as marriage and gender. Ive just been diving into podcast interviews with LGBTQ Latter-day Saints including Matthew Gong (elder gong’s son) and Jeff McLean (Michael McLean’s son) as well as others. In many cases, they break down crying in these interviews because they love the gospel, they love God, but they can’t come to terms with their feelings and how it could be fair that they are given this lot in life, probably one of the very hardest things to expect to be obedient to. Assuming what they are sharing is true, it is immensely traumatizing. I do not desire a change in doctrine or policy, rather, it breaks my heart to see these inner conflicts and I just hope we can be more sensitive. We had a young man in my own ward who came out as gay. I don’t know what things he experienced or how people spoke to him since he was a teacher and I was over the deacons. But he and felt he couldn’t come to church at all anymore. But it breaks my heart to think of all the things he heard about homosexuality in just passing or from a teacher who was under the assumption that no one in the room could possibly be gay. Similar to how speak about porn use, or word of wisdom struggles, premarital sex and any other potentially embarrassing or serious sin... we ought to be careful of what we say in our conversation. Preach the doctrine, but be careful not the demonize those who are facing the very thing being discussed. Telling a child (or anyone who is young in the gospel) that is struggling with their sexual identity and being a saint that being anti-family is anti-Christ is wrong in my opinion. I think it is true, it is absolutely true. But there are better ways to teach youth about the contents of the family proclamation than by starting the class off by saying “you are anti-Christ if you are gay”. It’s similar to prefacing a law of chastity lesson with “I know none of you have problems with this because you are all good kids, but we need to talk about pornography”.

Two relevant scriptures 5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost? (Book of Mormon | Alma 39:5) 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. (New Testament | Matthew 5:11 - 12)

@Vort I guess the core question is “If someone rejects one portion of the gospel (ie they choose to live a homosexual lifestyle), is there room for them in the church if they accept the rest?” and follow up question. “Should we be sensitive when speak about such issues in classes?” for example, there was a girl at a local seminary class who was lesbian, but was struggling with what to do between church and her sexuality. In class they were speaking about the family proclamation and the first thing the teacher did was write in large letters across the board “Anti-family is anti-Christ”. She left and called her mom crying. Should the teacher have been more sensitive? Should the girl just suck it up? This is a common enough situation where I think it should be addresses

Thanks Traveler, fairly answered. Sure. 1. Gene Therapy: The FDA's definition of Gene Therapy is "Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use". Source: https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-gene-therapy The Mayo Clinic's definition is "Gene therapy involves altering the genes inside your body's cells in an effort to treat or stop disease." Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/gene-therapy/about/pac-20384619 A 2001 article published in JAMA, "Gene and Stem Cell Therapies", says "Gene therapy can be most simply defined as the genetic modification of cells to produce a therapeutic effect." Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/193525 It quotes a 1993 article published in Science. 2. Vaccines: The FDA says "Vaccination stimulates the body’s immune system to build up defenses against the infectious bacteria or virus (organism) without causing the disease." Source: https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/vaccine-development-101 (note - no mention of modifying or manipulating genes or DNA). The CDC defines a vaccine as "A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease." Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm (also note the lack of mention of changing the target's genes or DNA). 3. Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines: These are indeed new technology, that uses an mRNA string instead of weakened/dead COVID virus. But there is zero modification/alteration of human DNA/genes happening. @LDSGator already cited some articles, here they are again. They quote the CDC: So it would seem that the new mRNA vaccines absolutely fail to meet the definition of "gene therapy", in that it doesn't modify/alter human DNA. And it would seem they absolutely meet the FDA and CDC definitions of a vaccine, in that it stimulates the body's immune system to produce immunity. Would you concur? Also, when the CDC, FDA, Mayo Clinic, and scientific journals across decades, all seem to be in agreement, and "Some guy on the internet says his doctor said something else", can you understand why people might be willing to discard the random internet guy and his random doctor's opinion, instead going with what appears to be broad international multidecade consensus?

I did not intend to single anyone out but rather join in the discussion the two of you were having and to include anyone else interested. From my own experience with COVID-19 there were 3 days between when I was infected before I knew I had been infected - during which time I spent with others and could have passed on the virus though I had no symptoms. But I did not. My immune system works quite well. In the last few years the sickest I have been was when I received the second singles shot and was quite sick for 24 hours. I am of the mind that my skiing (in winter) and cycling (the rest of the year) has something to do with not getting sick. I believe that healthy individuals that are active and eat intelligently seldom get sick and when they do - it is seldom severer. I believe such healthy individuals are less likely to spread something even during a pandemic. At least that would explain why I did not spread COVID-19. From the data - the shot is 95% effective - which means that those most at risk can still get sick even if they have the shot and since a large % of those that contract the virus will never show symptoms and are less likely to spread the virus than those that develop symptoms. It is my understanding that the worse the symptoms the more likely that the virus will be spread. This would mean that the greatest efforts should be made in contract tracing those with symptoms. It was my intent not to get the shot; mainly because I was infected, showed no symptoms and recovered. However, my wife was in tears when I had a chance and did not get the shot and did not. Her sister convinced her that I was putting myself, my beloved wife and everybody else in critical danger for not getting the shot. There are things more important to me than my opinion and in some cases - even my desires. I did it for my wife. The truth is that I so not mind sacrificing for others. For me it is kind of like Joseph Smith Jr. giving himself up before he was murdered. I believe that everyone has a right to choice - even when their choices are sick and wrong - but in the case of you @LDSGator- I do not believe such your choices in this manner are something for which I ought to have personal concerns. As far as I can determine - you both made the correct choice. There are some things that the medical profession is very good at doing - but more and more I am coming to understand that freedom only comes with responsibility. Thus if someone relinquishes their responsibility for their own health (and I could make a long list of things people deliberately do compromise their health) to someone or something else - That is their real choice with whatever consequences that will be. But it is no longer their choice. The Traveler

No. Not possible. The kingdom of God is given to us to prepare us for exaltation, not some lesser thing. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never encourages people to strive for less than what God wants to give them. That is opposite to God's purpose.

We as a Church don't teach that. Where we "end up" is far beyond our sight, and in any case we are commanded to seek after exaltation. (Just using the term "end up" in describing our eternal inheritance bespeaks a misunderstanding of what we're talking about.) Seeking after any other kingdom of glory is never mentioned in scripture.

I'm fairly sure that the answer is no, it's not legal. I'm also fairly sure that as long as there is sufficient room and no property damage takes place, most cops won't waste their time ticketing someone for doing so. Maybe @mirkwood can provide insight, or at least give an informed opinion.

Simple: If the President/Congress are of your political party, they're only doing it to protect the rest of the population. If the President/Congress are of the opposing political party, they're obviously bringing down the yoke of oppression upon us to lead us into a dictatorship.

All of a suddent this discussion below is making much more sense