Leaderboard

IRL, I'm the entertainment writer for a local family of newspapers. I've had people tell me that they wait to get my review before deciding to see a movie or not. Even if they disagree with my review, they trust that I'm being honest with my opinion. In other words, I - as one person - have the ability to influence what people in three counties see in theaters. Never underestimate how much influence you can have with your friends and neighbors.

That is sad. I admit that I and my family could do better at studying CFM throughout the week. But we do read from the sections almost every day as a family. And I don't think we need to, or are even asked to do any or all the extra little things in the manual. The intro says we should use the manual for our needs, in any way that is helpful to us. So we need to walk a fine line of encouraging people to do better at studying without overwhelming or discouraging them by asking too much. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-doctrine-and-covenants-2021/using?lang=eng I just got called as a gospel doctrine teacher (my first calling since being baptized again!) and I'm hoping that my class will be doing at least some reading. I'll try to figure out the best ways to encourage them to do more. My first lesson went very well last week on section 76

The Church and Political Activism. Politics is downstream of culture. The Church's culture is made up of families. We do the most good in society when we spend our time and energy on raising our children to know the word of God, and have faith in and a testimony of The Atonement of Christ. The Book of Mormon as the word of God. The spiritual hospital that is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Sunday School presidency recently went around to families in our ward and asked the following questions: Is your family actually reading the Come Follow Me manual and doing the extra little things that it instructs us to do? Is your family reading and studying the D&C and answering the questions that the manual asks? Is your family reading the Book of Mormon daily? The results were astoundingly awful. Very few even opened CFM. Very few read the assignment. Almost no one was reading the BoM daily (or even close to daily). A reasonable number were reading the scriptures "sometimes" outside of Church. Do we really hope to change the world through political activism if we continue to "treated lightly the things which we have received"?

I don't think God can or at least is willing to change a person's heart. That would severely encroach upon a person's agency. What he can and does do is entice them to have a change of heart. This not only does not encroach upon a person's agency but makes agency possible. 2 Nephi 2:16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. I think often these enticements come in the form of experiences that help us see more clearly what he is offering and then leaving it up to that person to choose to accept or reject it.

I understand and agree. If you meant BYU-H attendance then I tend to agree about not having that be the hill I'd die on. Unless......somehow I determined that the broader fight (freedom, censorship, etc.) needed to be fought on every front including that one...which I'm not sure I would..... Unless I felt that not fighting it at that level meant that down the road some law or rule would force me to vaccinate my child with an experimental non-FDA-approved something or other... So it's a bit of a tough choice honestly. Really though, it's another battle in the war. The war is raging. But is every battle necessary to win, or is retreat viable in some cases without actually hurting the cause? It is my fear that the conservative approach tends to always be retreat. And obviously, hence, the war is being lost. Of course we know that in the "real" war, that the "right" side will win in the end. But in the meantime, what sort of horrors will we face because so many are willing to just shrug off each new thing as "not the hill to die on". I really don't know. I'm just speaking theoretically. In practice, I just don't know. It's so hard to judge when it is the time to declare, "The line must be drawn here! This far! No further!"

What if you firmly believed there was a real chance your child could suffer serious side-effects from it, up to and including possibly dying -- whereas the chances of your child dying from getting Covid was pretty much nill? What if, whether you believed it or not, that was the reality, being hid by all the censorship and political motivations and the like? What hill do you die on? Because the potential unnecessary death of one of my children seems a pretty good theoretical choice to me. Obviously the question is somewhat rhetorical. Because clearly if that isn't the hill you're prepared to die on, you must not believe these risks are as potentially severe as others do. But do you recognize, at least, the reality that some do, indeed, have those sorts of fears, and that those fears have some actual reasonable bases behind them? Just curious.

Whether you’re religious, not religious, or kind of religious, I’m convinced this is the purpose of life for all: To learn to love. We start off in life, hopefully, with a good set of parents who give us their unconditional love as an example of how to love others. We progress to love those in our immediate circles be it family, friends, or someone you love for the love they share with you. We have kids of our own and love them as our parents loved us. And from there a few of us advance beyond to love those outside our inner circles who don’t provide us with anything in return other than the sense of joy that can come from service. Regardless of how advanced we are along the path of learning to love, whether we’re still crawling as an infant or at a light jog, we are all learning and hopefully increasing our ability to love step by step. Personally, I feel like I’m barely learning how to walk when it comes to loving others outside my inner circles without expecting anything in return. I have, however, been fortunate enough to cross paths with a few exceptional people in my life that exude love. These people I think of often and hold in high regard as examples I look up to. Being someone who believes in God, I believe our life experiences are designed to allow us to develop empathy for one another and help us advance from a state of self-interest to selflessness. And even if you don’t believe in God, you might agree life has a way of molding us in this regard if we allow it to. Why is mankind prone to limit its love to its own inner circles? We often reserve love for family and friends only, exclusive to our little empires. For one, all of us are in the process of learning to love, and no one in this life, besides Jesus Christ, has ever mastered love. We need to start with the inner circles we have as building blocks preparing us for further advancement. We need to start somewhere and hopefully someday be able to begin walking in the Savior’s footprints He left as an example to us, and embrace a higher way to love. To those who have set a lasting impression on me of this type of love in my own life, thank you for showing me it’s possible. It inspires me to do the same even in my own limited, finite ability. Love is connection we all seek and transcends any one specific culture, religion, or ideology. Mark 22:37-39 “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” John 13:34-35 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Off topic-before I joined the church I sort of did feel like the world was doomed and everything was miserable. After I joined I sort of got an infusion of optimism for both myself and the world at large.

I wholeheartedly agree. For me, I keep coming back to what war we are actually fighting. What is the overall goal and what does it mean to win? I would assume, as we are members of the church, that exaltation is the goal. As priesthood holders, our goal is to get everyone else there with us. If that is the war being fought, over the souls of men and women, then things that don’t work towards that goal are either distractions at best or tools of the enemy at worst. For me, liberty and freedom from tyranny can certainly be valuable tools in alleviating the human suffering and conditions inherent from a fallen world. But those are only a means to our end goal. (And to be quite honest, it seems they have been rare throughout much of history.) So, are liberty and freedom worthy battles to fight? The Book of Mormon teaches that they are, but with the caveat that we also love our enemies and do good to them that hurt us and pray for those who despitefully use us in the process. In other words, our hostility towards those who oppose us put us in jeopardy of falling short of our main goals. So, it seems to me WHAT battles we choose to fight are less important than HOW we choose to wage them. And, as I tend to become distracted and angry when it comes to certain political issues, it is probably best that I avoid them lest I should be choosing which hill that I spiritually die on.

And that is my point. It’s not the hill that I’m willing to die on because, quite frankly, there are far more important concerns for my family. (Not of COVID vaccines, but of whether my child should go to BYU-H! 😁) To your point: I would say that when confronted with any choice in which a policy exists, for which I refuse to bend, I am left with three options. I can fight, I can leave, or I can adhere. If I am forced into a corner where no other alternative options exist, then I either fight or adhere. All of these options have consequences that I should weigh before making an important decision. So, to circle back again, the question remains as to whether this is the hill someone wants to die on. Because, IMO, getting a vaccine most likely isn’t the real issue for those wanting to make their stand here. Rather, I would assume that they are actually desiring to stand and fight for a deeper issue. (Ie. Removal of liberties, rebelling against social norms, rebelling against religious authority, rebelling against the opposing political party, standing up for religious ideals, simply wanting to bash the church, etc.) But, perhaps it is just that simple for someone. Maybe they have determined that this is the issue of their lifetime. This is the final line in the sand and they absolutely refuse to cross. And there is just no other school that should even be considered except BYU-H. I am certainly not their Master or their Judge. It just seems to me that a re-focusing of priorities might be needed. (That is not to say that I also don’t need to reprioritize the things in my life!)

We will be fine, relax. Life is actually getting better. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2016/12/23/14062168/history-global-conditions-charts-life-span-poverty @Carborendum-aside from my raging cocaine problem, I think I fall short as an LDS because I just don’t see the world ending in three hours. I do believe we are living in the latter days (surprise!) but like how God created the Heavens and the Earth, I feel like His “six days” could be hundreds of years. Also, study after study shows that the world is getting vastly better in wonderful ways.

Congrats bud!!!

To me, this is the crux of the issue. In matters of righteousness, there can’t really be compromise. No unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of God. God sets these boundaries and commandments and only He is Judge. In all other matters of good/better/best there will most likely need to be compromise. A happy marriage is a set of compromises. A happy family requires compromise. Politics is a set of compromises. So, to keep things in perspective, I have had to acknowledge that in social issues, whether decisions are poor, good, better, or best, there are going to need to be compromises. And in this case, ‘vaccination requirements’ is not a hill I want to die on. (Pun executed in poor taste only somewhat intended.) Because we so often think of the church schools as being intertwined with God’s doctrines, we tend to look towards the decisions they make as ways to more closely align with Him. In reality, those decisions are mostly just sets of compromises between the righteous desires of the Saints and the ideals of a fallen world.

This is really wonderful news. Congratulations! I'm very happy for you. (Regarding the rebaptism, though I'm happy for you about the gospel doctrine calling, too.)

So do you guys remember when Mike Lee compared Trump to Captain Moroni? I remember when I watched this I just busted out laughing. Not because I thought it was ridiculous...but because I knew that so many people would find it ridiculous and just HATE it because they were thinking small-mindedly on the matter and have strong biases. Which was true. In other words, I laughed because it was inadvertent trolling. I don't think Mike meant to troll (he certainly does sometimes, but I don't think so this time). I think he was sincere. But boy howdy is such a statement geared to raise hackles. Anyhow, I bring it up in regards to "sides" and who's "side" we're on. Charlie Kirk isn't a Latter-day Saint. Ben Shapiro isn't a Latter-day Saint. Tim Pool isn't a Latter-day Saint. Jordan Petersen isn't a Latter-day Saint. Trump isn't a Latter-day Saint. Etc. And so, obviously, if that's the criteria for "sides" then none of them are "on our side". But is that the criteria? We're talking the political (and by that I mean our government, institutions, and the like) arena here, right? What "side" is "our" side in that regard? I don't believe in party-line thinking. I know you two don't either. But in general principle, what's the standard by which someone counts as "on our side"? I knew what Senator Lee meant. I think Latter-day Saints who were thinking myopically were bound to take his comparison of Trump to Captain Moroni as a comparison of righteousness. That's obvious nonsense. And Mike Lee didn't mean that. He's not an idiot. He knows very well Trump is not righteous like Captain Moroni. What was he comparing then? Obviously, the fight for "the cause". Which cause? Well, the principles set forth in the Title of Liberty: "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children." This is what Senator Lee meant. There is (was) a man at the head of our nation fighting for "the cause" of freedom. Was it a perfect comparison? No. Few are. But the point was obvious. Do you want to sell out your rights to religion, freedom and family to someone who hates them and is actively working to destroy such, or do you want to vote for the man who's fighting tooth and nail to protect such? So I cannot help but wonder where we quibble over "sides" based on specific foibles, personality traits, or individual points with which we disagree. Because when I consider Charlie Kirk, I think there's no doubt what cause he fights for. And there is no doubt that cause is aligned with mine and my "side". Yeah, I think he's wrong here. Private schools have the right to require vaccinations and if students don't like it, go somewhere else. It's really simple. But as an overall "side" goes...Charlie Kirk is one of the frontline warriors fighting the good fight. Of that there is little doubt in my view.

I suspect that the impact of such a prayer, if acted upon by divine powers, would be, at the most, nothing more than one influence on the subject's decision making process, and not an elmination or overthrow of their agency. Influence on a person's agency is not the same as a nullification of that agency.

Oh, this one is easy. (Easy to answer, perhaps much harder to implement.) The answer is one of stewardship. Vort is talking about a parent raising a child, and you are talking about a grandparent trying to have influence with grandkids, when the kids may not want it or not care. It is not in your stewardship to raise someone else's children. I've lost count of the noble, righteous, good grandparents I know, who suffer terribly at this truth, sometimes to the extent of flat-out denying it is true. The topic hearkens back to this thread: Requiring Private School. Or, let's get to the point, using money to control others My answer there would apply here too: @Traveler, I hope to some day be burdened with the plight of watching my kids not making the choices regarding my grandkids that I want them to make. When that time comes, I expect to be able to come here and drill you for answers. And you, who had participated in this thread and then went out and sorted through it all with your grandkids, will by then be an expert, and will have many useful tips for me.

this is a gross oversimplification. Basically, Vatican II changed the liturgy of the Catholic mass. Pre-Vatican II, the mass (except for small parts)was in Latin. Post Vatican II, you could find Latin masses (I went to one as a kid) but they were rare. I think they did not qualify as fulfilling your Sunday obligation, but I’m not sure. Pope Benedict, the pope in retirement, basically (and again, this is a huge oversimplification) said it was “okay” for Catholics to go to the Latin Mass while Pope Francis, the current one said it’s not with his latest teaching. It’s the classic battle of traditionalists vs those who have trouble with change. That’s what it boils down to. Pro-trads think change is blasphemy. “Modernists” (a pejorative in the Catholic church in some circles) feel the Latin Mass is out of date and not understood by the average Catholic.

@NeedleinA This is late, but my area (in the South) also had a significant number of members choosing to not renew recommends. Executive secretaries and ward clerks sent reminders and tried to schedule appointments and a surprising (to me) number of people still chose not to renew their recommends. As I browsed through this thread I didn't notice any mention of Elder Rasband's Oct 2020 general conference talk, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/16rasband?lang=eng. He said: He also reminded us of Howard W. Hunter teaching that we should hold and be worthy of a recommend even if we don't have access to a temple. He shared: Aside from reminding members and trying to schedule appointments, another approach we took was to remind them of the Lord's teachings using this talk by Elder Rasband. But I'm not sure it had much affect.

That thought does sound gloomy indeed. But I don't think that will be the case. D&C 121:29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ... 32 According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest. I think most of what we view as having to be endured is tied to this mortal and fallen existence and is geared towards producing a specific result, namely an exalted being. Once exalted there will still always be work to do but I think the struggle part goes away. Can we rightfully say that God struggles in his work? I don't think we can because he has all power and knowledge and though he still feels sorrow because of some of his children what he doesn't feel is doubt, fear, despair, insecure, unsure, worried, fretful, impatient, tired, or any of the other negative things we deal with while enduring. He knows, always, what needs to be done and he is able, always, to do it. A far different experience from ours in this life.

The command to endure to the end is specifically tied in the scriptures to being saved and as such is referring to this mortal probation: 2 Nephi 33:9 ...enter into the narrow gate, and walk in the strait path which leads to life, and continue in the path until the end of the day of probation. But in a more general sense, as @mikbone implies in his post, there really is no end to the need to lead a godly existence. But once a person is exalted how much "enduring" is really required? When Satan is locked away and the natural man is brought into complete submission to the spirit (if the natural man even exists anymore) and the temporal challenges of this life are behind us what is there left to endure? Yes the choice to do or not do good will always exist but if there is nothing enticing me or pressuring me to choose the bad I don't know if I would label that as enduring.

There is an often overlooked third path. It's the path of apathetic lack of thought, reason, or argumentation. This third path isn't born of any sort of belief system or agenda, other than the desire to satisfy perceived short-term wants. In other words, there are a bunch of people out there who think the church should allow gay marriage (or pants on women, or beards on BYU students, or what have you), because being nice is more better than being mean. The brain cells just don't rub together to form anything more complex than that. This is why arguments from these people seem to be so goofy and asenine - because since they're human, they want to love and be loved. Which means when someone calls them on whatever dumb idea they just pushed, they try to defend it, because appearing smart and right is a way be loved. Anyway, I know this is a third path, because I used to be one of these people until about halfway through my teen years, and I was friends with many like me. I can't begin to convey the large numbers of people who attempted to ascribe some sort of deeper thought or meaning or reasoning or agenda to my beliefs and actions. All were strawmen, attempting to uncover, define, and argue with things that simply weren't there. As I keep abreast of current culture, I find this third path is still well-peopled. If you understand that picture, you've plumbed every depth that mindset has to offer. No further agenda-seeking necessary. [To clarify - I'm not saying everyone who isn't on one of Vort's first two sides is on this path. Consider what I'm talking about to be a 4th or 5th path if you wish.]

I only read Benson as: " help preserve freedom and extend the gospel ". On a personal note...Republican, beer, bikinis, Trump aren't part of what I envision when it comes to helping preserve freedom and extending the gospel. I see a need to fight for freedom because through it the gospel can be spread and lived to its fullest. I personally have no allegiance to a political 'person' or a 'party'. In both cases I have to take the lesser of two evils. To their credit, the media has been doing a bang up job repeatedly drilling into our brains that conservatives = bass-ackwards Jerry Springer inbreed hill billies not even worthy of NOS Grey Poupon. As much as I tried to fit their mold, all my cousins and sisters were already married once I got off my mission.

I often take "end" to mean aim, purpose, cause or objective (as in means to an end). That would render "endure to the end" as "remain faithful and consecrated to the cause, which is the immortality and eternal life of man..

Oh...woe is Vort.