Leaderboard

I think there is a difference between legal prohibition and legal recognition. When the govt threw members of the church in jail for practicing polygamy, that was a legal prohibition that infringed on religious freedom. But had they simply said we refuse to recognize it as a legitimate marriage but you can continue doing it as a religious practice, then that would not have infringed on religious freedoms.

MOE, you know I love ya; but I would respectfully suggest that I find this a bit selective. The context surrounding your second quotation is extremely suspicious of labels. Specifically, the section of the webpage entitled "Identity and Labels" reads in full as follows: We should exercise care in how we label ourselves. Labels should be used thoughtfully and with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Labels can affect how we think about ourselves and how others treat us and may expand or limit our ability to follow God’s plan for our happiness. Labels may impact our goals, sense of identity, and the people we call friends. If labels get in the way of our eternal progress, we can choose to change them. Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained in a 2006 interview: “I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. … We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us. “The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path” (Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction,” 2006). If one experiences same-sex attraction, he or she can choose whether to use a sexual identity label. Identifying oneself as gay or lesbian is not against Church policy or doctrine; however, it may have undesired consequences in the way one is treated. No true follower of Christ is justified in withholding love because you decide to identify in this way. President Russell M. Nelson reminded us: “One day you will be asked if you took upon yourself the name of Christ and if you were faithful to that covenant” (“Identity, Priority, and Blessings,” Ensign, Aug. 2001, 10). As Paul expressed it: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27–28). One day, at the end of this short mortal journey, we will return to the presence of our Heavenly Parents. One day, all other labels will be swallowed up in our eternal identity as children of God. In context, your quotation that "[one] can choose whether to use a sexual identity label" is more along the lines of a rhetorical "you can choose whether to smoke crystal meth", not a permissive "go ahead and take my car on your date tonight, and everything will be fine!". In this case: yes, people have their agency--but one course of action is wise, and the other is not. One course of action is approved by God; the other--at least as a general proposition--He has consistently warned against. Just as a bit of historical geekery--I think we forget just how tenuous the United States' position was during the Napoleonic Wars. Adams reluctantly agreed to these as war measures; he knew they were deeply problematic. I'd highly recommend McCullough's biography of Adams for more on the issue. He had his flaws, to be sure; but Adams was no tyrant. I'll offer some thoughts on Jefferson, in my response to MOE below. Well, yes--the Constitution had to be adapted in a form that everyone would agree with; and so on topics where not everyone agreed, the Constitution said as little as possible. This sort of ties back in to Godless’s point on Jefferson: The filthy little corollary of Jefferson's idea that governments should reform every couple of decades, was that he didn't see any problem with armed insurrections and even wholesale, massively bloody revolutions with the same degree of frequency. So far as I am aware, Jefferson was more or less a cheerleader of Robespierre's Reign of Terror and only much later was more-or-less shamed into acknowledging its "excesses"--before then, I believe he went on-record saying that a revolution that left only one male and one female alive to repopulate a country was preferable to "tyranny". At any rate, the practical lesson here seems to be that if we don't respect the text of the US Constitution because we see it as an extraordinary document borne of the extraordinary wisdom of an extraordinary group, we should at least respect it because any attempt to use atextual or extratextual interpretations of constitutional law to force-fit novel ideas onto large swaths of the populace increases the probability of an armed insurrection. To put it bluntly--if one agrees with Jefferson, then one doesn't get to express moral outrage over the January 6 brouhaha/ mob/ "insurrection". And a significant key to the Constitution's longevity has been its relatively-universally-acknowledged silence, vagueness, or ambiguity on the major political controversies of any particular moment in American history. As for Adams and Madison's comments about a moral populace: When they spoke of the need for a degree of civic "virtue" or "morality" in order for the Constitution to function--I suspect they were defining those terms much more broadly than simply sexual probity (either homosexual or heterosexual). Certainly, sexual profligacy and (in those days before birth control) unwed parenthood/ illegitimacy/ bastardy could be deeply socially problematic in and of itself. But I suspect that Adams and Madison were speaking of deeper core values--concepts like the individual divinely-decreed worth of each human, respect for the rights of others as well as ourselves, reason and rationalism, tolerance, respect for rule-of-law, self-discipline, an ability to take the long view, and a willingness to deny one's baser appetites and even to voluntarily subordinate one's self-interest to a greater good. My understanding is that Adams (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Madison) saw these as part-and-parcel of a fundamental Judeo-Christian moral framework; though certainly there's been a long and lively debate about whether these can sustainably exist outside of such a framework. In that sense: While I agree that American civics is in deep trouble and that a lot of it has to do with the moral decay that Adams and Madison warned about, I think that the LGBTQ movement (and indeed, the sexual revolution as a whole) is a symptom, not the cause, of that moral decay. I think the same of Trumpism, by the way. "Civic virtue" as (I would argue) most of the framers understood it, seems incompatible with most of the core arguments embraced by adherents of either faction.

Someone came up with a list of priorities decades ago, that stuck with me. When looking to meeting your own needs, look first to yourself and spouse. Then close family, and finally the church. In the decades since, "government programs" seems to have been added to the list, right before family. I was born into a church that preached passionately and often against 'the public dole' and government programs. Haven't heard something like that in 20 years. As a finance clerk, my bishops have shared with me how often they work with folks seeking welfare, directing them to govt employment centers and food stamps and low-income aid. I think the general notion is, if we're gonna pay for that stuff with our taxes, we may as well make use of it when we need it. Church welfare is meant to be short term. Bishops will ensure that it's short term. I've seen Stake Presidents counsel with generous-to-a-fault bishops, to ensure it's short term. I'm not privy to the discussions, but I've watched the checks stop on long term needy folks, who end up forced to move to a situation they can afford. The church isn't here to support your lifestyle, and "I'll lose my house" isn't a way to keep the church paying. I've written endless rent/mortgage/car/utility payments, but I don't keep writing them for the same folks over and over. Let me add my enthusiastic support and encouragement to anyone with a short-term need approaching their bishop for help. This is the backbone of church welfare, the reason for fast offerings. Ain't no shame. Your bishop will be happy to work with you, and the finance clerk is happy to write checks to cover bills. And both of us know how to keep our mouths shut, so dignity and privacy is preserved. I pretty much never know the details, my bishop will just hand me a bill and say "pay this for Sis X please".

I would suggest it is both.

This cannot be true, for homosexuals have agreed in affirming that life itself simply is not worth living if homosexuals cannot exercise their passions. To be slightly more serious, I am bothered no end by the blatant dishonesty displayed (primarily by the Left, but truth be told, by people on both sides) in adhering closely and with anal retentive insistence on the picky specific definition of words, until that definition doesn't support their view--at which point they move the goalposts and then remark to their opponents, "My, aren't you anal retentive in your insistence?"

I recall the parable of the talents. Pretty sure that the Lord was commenting on neither church welfare nor the law of consecration. Seems to me that those who understand the parable would not have confusion concerning this topic.

From a talk I recently gave. I address the Law of Consecration, quoting directly from the church website. People really have a poor understanding of what the LOC is and is not. There are some members who believe when hard times arrive we will all pool our food and everyone will have enough. They somehow believe that a miracle like the fishes and loaves will occur for them, or they think the Law of Consecration will take care of everyone. Let me read to you Doctrine and Covenants, section 130: verses 20-21: 20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. If we fail to obey a principle of the gospel, we cannot receive the blessings for another’s faithfulness. Faith without works is dead. If you do not have the faith to follow the consistent counsel from the prophets and apostles to put up some food storage and other essentials for your family, how can you believe you will have faith equal to the fishes and loaves miracle? For those who smugly think that the Law of Consecration will protect them, allow me to point out certain principles associated with the doctrine. Under the Law of Consecration all things are deeded to the church. The agent bishop than returns a stewardship back to you based on your needs and circumstances. That stewardship becomes private property for the steward and his family. It is not communal property. If there is a surplus from that stewardship, it would then go to the bishop’s storehouse to care for the poor and needy. To be clear, under this law, a year supply of food for one family, is not a year supply for everyone else to tap into. If there was any surplus, it would be available through the bishop’s storehouse.

FTR, I think you completely misinterpreted TFP's tone. I don't believe he was aiming for condescension at all.

That quote was from Adams but Madison also made very similar comments. I don't think Adams was speaking of just any religion nor of any specific religious belief. Rather I think he had in mind a people who lived according to the Judeo-Christian values as taught in the Bible. A person could be an atheist or of most any religious persuasion and still practice this idea of morality. In another post you referenced slavery as being a very immoral stain on our country's past and you are exactly right, which makes my point. That serious departure from morality very nearly rent this country asunder and we paid a heavy price for it. A second point I would make is that much that is unconstitutional has crept into our government. I believe this comes as a direct result of the immorality of our society and that relationship will only grow stronger. And when I say immorality I'm specifically speaking sexually but of general right and wrong.

Semi-related idea: There's this running commentary in conservative circles that "politics is downstream of culture." (Andrew Breitbart) While that is true, I think it needs to be acknowledged that culture is also downstream of politics and the same toilet-bowl kind of way.

If we made the presupposition you suggest, then we must recognize mindset in which Madison made the statement. Recognizing gay marriage as a "moral ideal" would have been so far beyond the pale that he would think the morality and religion of the people were so corrupt that we were beyond hope of the Constitution pulling us back from such corruption.

Elsewhere on the interweb (fine, it was the cesspool Reddit) there was a discussion on being unable to afford to pay tithing and provide for oneself. While of course there were many comments on the blessings of tithing and faithfulness and even some practical financial advice, a few comments got me thinking. There were of the following paraphrased nature: Pay your tithing and ask the church to cover rent/mortgage, food, bills, etc. because that is what the church is there for. This was presented under the idea of the law of consecration and bringing everything to the storehouse and all. I don't know if I can fully fight against this argument despite my desire for self-reliant living, but again, it all got me thinking. Which side are we supposed to be leaning toward? Provident, self-reliant living, or giving to the church and relying upon it?

We need to remember the difference between the law of consecration and the united order. The united order is no longer practiced but we still covenant to live the law of consecration. And the law of consecration is all about being willing to offer to the Lord anything He asks, whether the Lord will provide for us temporally or not. Abinidi fully consecrated himself and the Lord gave him nothing back in return, temporally speaking. Of course the Lord has promised to provide for his saints. But to base our level of consecration on a perceived expectation to receive in return is not so much consecrating as it is working the system. It might keep your body alive but something far more important is withering away.

This is one of the points, rights within the Constitution I find very intriguing. In reality, the Constitution provides the opportunity for the Church to be fully guided by the Lord (direct revelation); however, when misguided, controlling, or even evil man are in power (Governor Boggs) they tread on the Constitution. One of those greys areas is that of some Muslim/Islam practices. On my mission I met an individual who converted to Christianity, as a result he could never go home. If he went home, professed his conversion to Christianity he would have been killed. If religious freedom was without contest, then this practice would be seen even in America. Fortunately, it isn't, because one of the most important rights is that of "speech," which entails our thoughts and actions.

Yeah there will always be some grey area between religious practice and the governments ability to govern. If, for example, a religion believes in getting married young, at what point does the government step in and say "no, that's too young" ?

You're always free to discuss matters with your bishop. In my experience, most bishops who have access to the means to help are quite generous, so it's not unlikely that the bishop will chip in for your rent. My objection is not to this path or the fact that it exists, but to the entitlement mentality that I infer in this situation.

The law of consecration does not mean that the Church pays for everything. That idea is false, plain and simple. Not sure it's even worth the effort to roll one's eyes. The idea of tithing is that we freely give to the Lord a tenth part of what he has given to us. We give it to the Lord by giving it to the Lord's kingdom, which today is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To expect remuneration for "giving back" to the Lord a fraction of what he has given us is ridiculous, absolutely opposite to the whole idea of tithing. As is true in so many cases, it's advisable to ignore the opinions expressed on Reddit about this matter.

And perhaps that is the balance. There may be something to be said about the widow's mite and giving of literally all your money, but at least in today's society, I think most bishop's would wonder why paying your tithing is putting you in the poor house. Do you need better job skills or a better job? General money management skills? And that certainly fits in the realm of the church helping others.

She was pretty much unbothered by it. It probably isn’t that surprising but when you grow up in New England way far away from LDS culture the only thing you know about the church is it’s past with polygamy, and even that the knowledge is very shallow. Both her and I had never even seen an LDS temple until we were in our 20’s driving past the DC one!

I think it’s more sad than anything else. The man clearly needs mental health counseling.

That guy was a legit martial artist. 😞

The problem we have is our definitions of slavery. Something that has bothered people for many years, especially in the past 50 is that slavery is NOT condemned in the Bible. The problem is HOW that slavery is conducted. The Bible includes BOTH forms in direct contrast to each other. The story of Joseph portrays the good and bad of slavery as well. Joseph was a slave in both good and bad conditions. In the portion where being a slave is good he is the second most powerful person in Egypt. He has more power and freedom than most that are not slaves. In this instance, being a slave is akin to being the representative of your master directly to the people. This type of slavery has been utilized in the past in various ways, sometimes good and other times bad. The Mamluks were a dominent force in North Africa and the Middle East but were slaves. They were the power that everyone feared. A bunch of slaves that were a military. Similarly, the Jannisaries were slaves to the Royal Ottomans. People would try to give their children into this slave military just so the children could have the power and privilege of it. These groups were brutal in their training, but they had far more power than many others...and were slaves. Slavery is used as an allegory in the Bible to each of us in some instances. This is seen directly by the descendants of Jacob. When the Children of Israel came to Egypt and submitted to Joseph, just like Joseph, they were slaves to Pharaoh. This was a path to great power for them and prestige. However, they were slaves and later were subjected to great evil as such. The new Pharaoh acted evilly and the slavery they practiced was wrong in many ways. Thus, they were under an evil master. They needed deliverance but in that needed to be freed by Pharaoh or another. Until the price for them was exacted (In Pharaoh's case he didn't wish to let them go until finally he lost his son, which is also a similitude to what the price to free us from our own slavery to sin is) they were not freed. They finally were freed and went on a journey (very long one) to the promised land (also allegorical to our own journeys in life). In a similar manner We each sell ourselves into slavery. When we sin we sell our souls. Just like a man could not free another master's slaves simply by stating it, we cannot be freed so easily from selling ourselves into slavery by sin. A slave must be bought from the other at the price demanded and become the slave of the one who bought them before they could be freed. In a like manner, we are bought by the Savior. It is only through him that we can be freed from the slavery we impose upon ourselves by our sins. HOWEVER...and this is something many do not think on as much, when we are bought we are then slaves to the savior. We are HIS bond-servants as one could put it. He will free the slaves, but he had to pay the price to buy them first. In this, he is ALSO the good master (as opposed to the bad master). Our modern morality equates slavery with evil. However, it is only certain types of slavery and HOW those who are the masters act towards their slaves that are really evil in regards to what the Bible considers wrong. Most of what we see in the South was the bad type of slavery. Historically though not all slavery was considered evil or wrong and in some cases was seen as the path to great power. This is NOT me condoning the slavery as we see in the Southern United States, but remarking that the idea that all slavery is wrong no matter what is a modern idea of our modern western society and based upon current relative morality rather than a Biblical morality. Part 2 - With that said, I agree that the Constitution incorporates many compromises and has far more flexibility which allows compromise and change over time. It is why it has stood so long thus far. There is a line of thought in Historical circles (as well as political science) that goes over the idea of virtue vs. self interest. (it's not the only line of thought in this area, but one which I think can pertain to this conversation). It has that the founders were well read and knew of the conflict between self interest and virtue. Virtue in this manner is one that seeks to help and further society and civilization with no thought of return to oneself. Self-Interest is one where one's only thought is how something will benefit them. In society there is both virtue and self-interest. Each must be addressed in order for a balanced government to operate. The constitution thus was written in relation to both issues, virtue and self-interest. This way a government composed of those who only were in it to benefit themselves but not for society as a whole could be balanced out with their self-interests interposing with each other to make a more balanced and fair government. In the same manner it also allows those who are virtuous to be involved and promote the welfare of society in the same government. This is wholly independent of religion and means that the ideals of the Constitution can still be flexible enough to continue operating when we have a nation composed of people from all types of faiths, morality, and walks of life represented within it's framework. We had many founders involved with the composition of the United States Constitution. They did not all share the same ideas or beliefs. It is the combination of their working together which brought the Constitution to life...not just the words or actions of one or two of those who were behind it's writing.

stunt nuts

@romans8 You've gotten some feedback, have you updated your understanding of Lehi's dream? What about after reading Nephi's guided tour?

The account of the first Christmas in the Book of Mormon helps us to learn and more fully understand that Jesus Christ is the “light which shineth in darkness” (see D&C 10:57–61). In every season of our lives, in all of the circumstances we may encounter, and in each challenge we may face, Jesus Christ is the light that dispels fear, provides assurance and direction, and engenders enduring peace and joy. David A. Bednar, The Light and the Life of the World Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God. Ether 12:4

Me too. An advantage of being a mod is the ability to instantly hide my own duplicates. 😎

Sorry, but no. I’m still highly skeptical.

...deleted... Ever since the site changed I keep accidentally quoting myself instead of editing myself. Grr.

I could get behind that. It's sort of a downward spiral. (Incidentally, I've always thought that the "pride cycle" could be better described as a "pride toilet bowl". But I digress . . .)

No problem, TFP. The joke isn't ruined. Still funny. Still an epic pwnij of Alyssa Milano.

This is awesome. My family has been doing a weekly Sunday night program during Advent for the past four years now (based on material drawn from Eric Huntsman’s “Good Tidings of Great Joy”), so last night was a discussion on “hope”. This will make a nice addition.

Take the crypto stuff with a healthy dose of skepticism. I’m not saying it’s not true-but I’m from Missouri until they…well, show me more proof. There are more lies out there about Disney than I’ve ever seen. People will believe anything if it fits their preconceived biases. I admit mine. Pro Disney, skeptical of the Disney haters. We’re now being told “insider information” about companies by people who two weeks ago wouldn’t be able to tell us where Disney’s corporate headquarters is located without Googling it.

Just because I agree with something someone once said does not mean I agree with everything they ever said or did. In this instance I agree because personal liberty puts the burden on us to exercise self control. Nowadays it seems that people equate legal with right and that is not always the case. A strong sense of personal morality is required to maintain freedom.

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace. Alexander Pope This is why as John Adams stated: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

If your brother in law is not practicing homosexuality then he is not gay. He likely has a same sex attraction that he controls and he lives his life like a saint if he is worthy to get a temple recommend.

To me one of the biggest problems with the LGBTQ community as a whole is they have tied their sexuality in with their identity, indeed for many it has become their identity. And so you can't show them respect them as individuals with respecting their decisions and lifestyle. To members of the Church this is wholly incompatible to our view of who we are. So unless an individual is willing to separate their sexuality from their identity you are going to have some very strained relationships because communication will largely be misinterpreted.

My first question, does Eve say "it was only through transgression"? I believe Eve says something a little different than "it was only through transgression..." I believe our Lord's perfection implies another state, otherwise he also would have been "lost and fallen" due to being the son of someone that was fallen. We could argue his Father allowed for the other state, but can a fallen person produce anything else besides being "fallen" -- in this regard (this verse)? I'm one that personally believes, transgression was not the only way to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of God's children.

That's what's known as baptism by fire.

Some humor.

Reveals? Or confirms?

Jason David Frank (the Green Power Ranger)