Leaderboard

I don't believe this. It was an honest message that they obviously sincerely meant couched in a modicum of humor so they had a "it's satire" escape route when they got the criticism they knew they'd get. But it was not satire. They said what they meant and they meant what they said. They want to convert everyone to their idea of what love and tolerance is. That's what the lyrics said. And they mean it.

My dad and my ex-husband are both retired Navy. I worked for the Navy (as a civilian) for 18 years. I worked in a Navy facility as the only civilian where they repaired helicopter and jet engines. I was the supply logistics manager. I ordered and received and kept inventory of parts needed to repair the engines. Plus I was Ombudsman for 3 Navy ships and on an Admiral's staff for family liaisons.

I think I would have been tempted to respond, "Maybe the Lord isn't interested in efficiency, but I am." At face value, the statement is silly. In what ways is the Lord uninterested in efficiency? He may not care about efficiency in doing this or that task, but I bet he cares a great deal about a father being efficient in his use of precious family time. It's probably worth noting that Paul thought time management was important enough to mention at least twice, in Ephesians 5:15-17 and Colossians 4:5.

Some of you will think I'm an idiot for not knowing this sooner. But... I was just reading a book about a famous sailor / captain with my daughter and came across an interesting discovery. The phrase is not "Anchors away!" (which I never really understood). It is "Anchors aweigh!" Very different meaning. Thought I'd share.

About 30 years ago I was on a business trip as a shoe salesman in a four-state territory (lots of travel). Anyway, I was getting hungry and stopped at a roadside fruit stand in Georgia. When I got out of the car the scent hit me like a ton of bricks. PEACHES! The stand was pretty busy and the owner was working with one misshapen peach at a time and a pocket knife. He would hand a slice of peach to a person in line and then they would hand over $20 and receive a brown paper bag with a dozen peaches. When it was my turn, I accepted the dripping slice and ate it with gusto. Apparently, I had never eaten a real peach previously... It exploded in my mouth and the flavor was so intense. I gladly handed over the Jackson and returned to my car. I ate 2 more peaches before starting my truck. And 30 minutes later I had eaten the whole bag. My hands were wet and sticky. The driving wheel was wet and stick. My white collared shirt was a disaster and I had to go thru the luggage in the bed of the pickup truck to get a new shirt and towel off with a baby wipe. It was glorious. I have been chasing that day ever since. I have never been back to Georgia. But occasionally I will go into a grocery store and look at a geometrically stacked display of peaches. The shapes are all perfect, the peach fuzz is pleasant to the touch, and the unblemished skin is that wonderful collage of sunset colors. Finally, when I get home I unpack and then try out the peach - it's never as good. And sometimes the fruit has a similar texture and taste of a baseball. It's ALWAYS a disappointment. But I do it over and over. Occasionally I will find a passable peach, about once every 4-5 years when a truckload of tree-ripened peaches hits a local store and you can smell them when you hit the door. Plenty of customers comment about the smell and are busy filling plastic bags. But 95 out of 100x times the peaches are garbage. Better for throwing at your enemies than eating. And no matter how long they rest on your counter or fridge they never ripen. Every single time this happens I feel cheated. Cheated that I fell for the same old trick. They look good on the outside, but they are not real. And not only did I fake myself out again with unrealistic expectations, I wasted my hard-earned money. Almost to the level of self-loathing. Will I ever figure this out?! This week I was thinking about peaches and comparing the experience to more important things in life like: True love and sex within the bounds of an eternal marriage vs. pornography Prayer, and scripture study vs. the philosophy man and social media Healthy lifestyle and diet vs. overeating, processed foods, fad diets, prescription medications, workout equipment, etc

I just landed my first job as a software developer! God get's all the credit, though. This job was made available to me in a way that could only come from Him. I was at Young Men's Camp with my oldest son a few weeks ago. While there, I had the opportunity to talk about my efforts to break into IT with a brother I was already moderately acquainted with through having served in the High Priest Group leadership with his father. He encouraged me to meet with the IT Director who is also self-taught and grew himself in the industry from the ground up. Fast forward to last Monday; we go to lunch together and hit it off pretty well and as we are about to leave he says to me, "Hey, I have an opening. . . you're not qualified for it, but if you're interested you can apply, and worst case we can get you some good feedback and point you in the right direction." I was exited to see what the interview would be like, and to get more advice, so I accepted. Wednesday, I get into the interview and I can tell it is a mixed bag performance. All the management type questions I am easily hammering out since I've been in management for many years now, but as far as the development questions go, I probably scored a 40% just from lack of familiarity with certain concepts, due to only working on hobby projects and never within an organization. Having developed two fully featured front-end applications and one full-stack application was much less valuable since they were all as the sole developer. At the end of the interview the IT Director repeated, "Just as a reminder, you're not qualified for this position, so we're going to talk about what if anything we could do, and worse case, we'll get you some good feedback and advice." Two days later he calls me and offers me a job! He laid out a plan with a specific path to get me get me the experience and qualifications to put me back in a leadership position over a team like I am now. I have the personal drive and God given talent to ultimately be successful, yet only in my dreams have I ever imagined someone would be willing to take a chance on me like this! The pay cut is only about 10% with the opportunity to be back at or above my current income within a year depending on my performance. This is a blessing that only God could have placed in my path. Without God softening the heart and granting vision to this IT Director with whom I have spent less than 3 hours time and have known only since last Monday, I can't imagine being given such an opportunity. I start next month and I am so excited about the continued learning and opportunities that lie ahead. I am so grateful to my Father in Heaven; I know and testify that He loves us individually and is intimately aware of the desires of our hearts, and our talents and capabilities. I pray that He will continue to bless me as He has thus far, and that I will never forget Him, that I may always be worthy of His Spirit and His outstretched hand! I will need it now more than ever, as this is only the beginning of this new road.

From David Eddings, Pawn of Prophecy. We took the family to Utah from California for an elder daughter's wedding. During the trip (8 people squished into the cab of a Ford F-150), we wanted to listen to an audiobook, so I picked this book (which I remember fondly enjoying in my youth). After we listened, I stopped the recording and we spoke about this passage at length. It was then that I realized that this single concept had left an indelible mark upon my life. I had read this book probably when I was 14 and remembered the passage clearly as if I had just read it. When we finally arrived in Utah, I saw my twin brother and spoke to him about the book as well. I commented about how much I respected the character Durnik. His first comment was... the piece that goes underneath, right? I was like, "YES! Why don't people get this?!"

Need might be a strong word. In this fallen world we are going to have diverse perspectives... because everyone has there own and we have to deal with it. The command to love and minster can some times be easier, and is generally more effective, when we understand the perspectives of those we are trying to reach.

Calling the prophets nasty names is prima facie evidence that I won't care about their opinion.

I don't mean to become a one-trick pony here, or to engage in too much of a threadjack. But Bennett is--if not bold-faced lying--at least sorely mistaken on several historical points; and we don't defend Mormonism effectively by perpetuating falsehoods about it. To respond to a few of Bennett's allegations: 1) This is a half-truth. We don't have a transcript of the revelation (e.g. D&C 76), or a roughly-contemporaneous announcement that a revelation had been received (e.g. OD-2). But Young himself openly and explicitly attributed the ban to revelation. 2) This is a bait-and-switch. Young was initially OK with early priesthood ordinations of black men (including one who was married to a white woman at the time Young interacted with him), indicating that the contemporaneous attitudes regarding black people and/or revulsion at the prospect of miscegination did not dictate Young's thinking in the matter. I believe historian Paul Reeve has laid out that Young's thought process was an outgrowth of his understanding about how the priesthood, the temple sealing, continuation of seed, and the patriarchal order were interconnected; resulting in Young's conclusion that Cain could not exceed Abel in "glory" or priesthood or righteous seed by having murdered Abel before Abel had a chance to have posterity. This may or may not have been a doctrinally sound rationale (I rather think that it wasn't), but the *only* degree to which the attitudes Bennett cites play into this, is to the extent that 19th century society viewed blacks as being literal descendants of Cain. 3) It's just plain untrue to suggest that no one in LDS leadership wrestled with, or even openly opposed, the ban. Orson Pratt had issues with it in Young's own lifetime; so did one of the Snows (offhand, I don't recall if it was Lorenzo or Erastus). Repeated Church statements on the issue in the early 20th century (which simultaneously affirmed the policy and rejected a number of folk explanations therefor) indicate that it had occurred to many, many people that there was something--if not "wrong", at least "troubling", about the policy. 4) What a filthy, filthy smear against McKay. Again: You can't effectively defend Mormonism by making up crap about it or about its leaders. (And, @MrShorty, I don't mean to suggest that you are originating or deliberately perpetuating these falsehoods; it's just that Bennett's stuff happened to be in your post.) Prince elsewhere talks about numerous instances where McKay clarified that the ban was a temporal policy rather than an immutable doctrine, that he insisted it would one day change, and that he interpreted it very narrowly so as to allow the ordination of other people of color including Fijans, Egyptians, and Australian aborigines; he also lamented the ban's existence as an impediment to the success of the Nigerian mission. To suggest that McKay wouldn't have been willing to lift the ban if he felt he had authorization, is frankly silly.

Sufficient and acceptable are pretty hazy terms. As an orthopedic surgeon I do work all the time that nobody but myself can appreciate. For example I routinely replace the proximal femur in patient that break their hip with a metal prosthesis. There is a huge difference between what is acceptable vs. my best. The hardware vendors and scrub techs try to convince me all the time to put in hardware that makes the case easier and quicker. I know that spending an extra 10 minutes to properly cement the prosthesis and perform a water tight layered closure will give the patient a better implant. And even if the patient has dementia or is minimally active I always do my best. My x-rays look good. And I appreciate that they look good, even if the patient and family cant even understand what I did. I could go on and on. And, for sure its not just you. The majority of people are satisfied with sufficient or even sub-standard work. I see it all day long…

In my experience (working in the RS pres), bishops can and do help with rent. However, what I'm familiar with is he'll often work to help with food/utilities so any income can be used for housing. I would encourage her to talk to the bishop, be honest with him about everything, and allow him to arrange help.

I could be wrong but I don't know of any prophecy that says "the Church" is going to relocate to Missouri. Build up a Zion City there? Yes. But that doesn't mean everyone has to move there. I think it will be a gathering point at some future time but only for certain people to accomplish certain responsibilities. Otherwise, the Lord needs us all over the world to do his work. Now concerning the drought it very well may be one of the many signs of the times. But if you think escaping to Missouri is to escape the less fun signs of the times I would think twice about that. I think that place is going to get "purified" like nothing we've seen before. To be the Lord's Zion it's got to be.

A retired co-worker caught Covid, was hospitalized, recovered and was released. Three weeks later he was back in the hospital with pneumonia and died. His death certificate listed Covid as the cause of death. A friend's uncle had Stage 4 lung cancer, caught Covid, then died. His death certificate listed Covid. Another co-worker had a family member with some cancer related issue that was fatal (I no longer remember what on this one), caught Covid and died. His death certificate listed Covd as the cause of death. I am far from the only person with these stories. The Covid death numbers are doctored.

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..

The problem is that what "it's okay to be gay" means in our world and in theirs is VERY different. As is on par for the course for the gay "activists". They coop language and then twist it. And conservatives acquiesce to the language usage and then wonder why they lose the culture again and again. (Language isn't the only weapon used...but it's a huge one.) This is more of the same. They're both twisting "we're coming for your children" from the negative implication that most people mean to a "positive" one for a laugh (which is SO creepy), and concurrently twist the meaning of "love and tolerance" to mean what they say it should in the same breath. Because, who, after all, is going to argue against the idea of love and tolerance?! So they win the war of words by twisting meanings. And it's part of the way that they do, indeed, come for the children. I mean the core catchphrase of the agenda is a lie of words. "Love is love". It's a lie. They're not talking about love. They're talking about sex. The phrase should be "Sex is sex". At least then it'd be honest.

Shucks, no 'gay agenda' after all. My bad. I thought they were after my conservative kids. Honestly, the fact they are trying to make light of what they are doing, doesn't negate what they are doing. Nothing to see here folks...

Building a shed on our mountain property.

I'm on a roll for personal stories today. After 6 years of inactivity, I had started coming back to church and working on trying to gain a testimony. I was declining the sacrament, out of respect for what it was, and how I couldn't legitimately promise to do those things. The Sunday after gaining my powerful and unmistakable spiritual answer, I was ready to take the sacrament for the first time in years. It was quite an event for the people who knew and cared about me. The deacon screwed up the blessing on the bread. Then he screwed up a 2nd time. After a hasty counsel from the bishop, he nailed it on the third time. Everyone there (including me) all agreed the difficulty only heightened the spiritual experience for me and those around me.

I think that's a bad idea too. I welcome the exposure to differing ideas. What I cannot accept is the forced indoctrination of a differing idea. When you get an adult in front of the class room saying "this is the way things are" and the kids are supposed to parrot that, there is no open discussion about anything. The public school system is set up in such a manner that the teachers have all the power. There is no open debate about 2+2 = 4. The teacher says. The student accepts. When it comes to more esoteric topics like philosophy, there isn't much difference. You're thinking in terms of replacing public school with a substitute public school model that isn't publicly funded. I'm talking about a completely different way to teach and learn. https://www.amazon.com/Carry-Mr-Bowditch-Jean-Latham/dp/0618250743/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Carry+On+Mr+Bowditch&qid=1625596833&sr=8-1 That is spoken like a person who has never had any experience with homeschool. There is a difference between opening up the Communist Manifesto and Antifa website for educational purposes vs telling them that Communism is superior -- and they had better agree or they'll flunk that class. The myth that people believe about homeschool is that ALL the education a child gets is from one (or possibly two) parent(s). The vast majority of parents don't do the teaching. They get books and curricula to allow the child to explore many topics on their own -- many of which the parents may not have ever learned themselves. That kind of opportunity would never be had in a public school (nor most private schools).

I see where you're coming from. But "singleness" is not a state one must actively avoid or repent of. In the sense that the optimal state, the state required of us to progress to our eventual exaltation, is one of marriage of a man to a woman, then anything other than that state is suboptimal. In this sense, your statement is true. But I would hesitate at making too much of a comparison between being unmarried and having homosexual proclivities. I think the comparison brings more confusion than clarity. Again, this is a matter of definition of terms. We are surely in agreement that diversity for diversity's sake is useless if not harmful. But God is vastly powerful and able. He can very literally do any meaningful thing. We are vastly impotent and handicapped. We cannot see the end from the beginning; indeed, we do well to see the next step. Next to God, we know almost nothing. We are as helpless as a newborn babe in his mother's arms. Yet God has given gifts and inspiration to us. Not all share the same gifts. If all are ears, where is the seeing? If all feet, where the hearing? If all vision, where the movement? In this sense—that God's gifts are innumerable, and that each of us has his own, perhaps unique, gifts—I would say yes, diversity is a very good thing indeed. I would in fact say that diversity is crucial to our progress and to the establishment of God's kingdom. Both are true simultaneously. If we must go by opinion on some matter, let us seek diligently to know God's "opinion" on that matter, and follow it. But I think it is usually not so straightforward and clear-cut as that. It makes sense for men and women to counsel together. This is the basis of the Church's operation by quorums, and in fact the basis of how the family operates, or should operate. We should be complementary to each other, as the woman complements the man and vice versa. I believe that in many cases, this is how the mind of God is revealed to us. See the above thoughts on diversity. I think it should be a great help, but when people focus on "diversity" as if it by its very nature is some virtue, then I think such attitudes prove a great hindrance to our progression. I do not believe the world is trying to convince us of this. The world scoffs at any idea of an "iron rod", except for whatever is popular today. Rather, and more insidiously, I think that too many who claim to be Saints are trying to convince us of this lie. Many of them actually believe the lie. It has always been thus, though I do believe the current rising generation has bought into such lies to a greater degree than many past generations. Maybe just different lies. I'm not sure.

(I'm roughly paraphrasing Oaks' April GC talk here, so sue me.) The US Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in force today. It contains the doctrine of moral agency. Meaning, folks should have the maximum freedom to act according to their individual choices. And also meaning that it is wrong for citizens to have no voice in the selection of our rulers or the making of our laws. It provided a framework that would allow it to grow and evolve. Amendments that abolished slavery, and gave women the right to vote, couldn't be included in the original, they had to come later. Five cool principles found in the US Constitution: - The source of government power is the people. Quite a revolutionary idea when it was signed - most folks figured sovereign power came from the 'divine right of kings' or military power. - Division of delegated power between the nation and it's states. Basically, all government powers rest in the hands of the states or the people, except for the powers specifically granted the national government. - Separation of powers. Not a new idea, but a very good one. Courts, the legislature, and the executive - they don't answer to each other - they only have stewardship over their own functions. Human nature seems to dictate that we want more and more power, consolodated in fewer and fewer places. Checks and balances helps us keep that from happening. - Specific vital guarantees of individual rights, and specific limits on govt authority. Useful against the always-renewing slew of idealistic worldchangers and problemfixers. Sorry friend, it doesn't matter how good your solution is, if it interferes with this or that right enshrined in the bill of rights, then you don't get to have it. - Coolest principle: We are to be governed by law, and not by individuals. We pledge allegiance to a symbol, not a person. Our oaths are sworn to protect and preserve the constitution, not this or that party or office holder. Everyone gets equal protection, and equal treatment, under the law. Imperfect, agenda-driven, biased, error-prone, fallible, sinful, fallen humans will always pick ways to rule each other. I'm glad the US picked the Constitution. Happy Independence Day weekend y'all!

I have to thank Justice Scalia for explaining why this particular structure ensures the freedoms promised in the Bill of Rights.

Both you guys @NeuroTypical and @NeedleinA make interesting points, but let’s not forget the big picture here. We as a church should he thankful and humbled that people give their hard earned money to us. How they give it, while interesting, is irrelevant.

Oh this one is easy - the Lord is absolutely interested in efficiency, but neither you nor the council person understand it. 😁 (Yes, I'm a finance clerk and yes, I'm opinionated on the subject, what gave it away?) The church is wise when they beat it into us that tithing should be gathered, counted, and deposited on the same day whenever possible. Any other option is to have fallible mortal humans , sometimes already worked hard in their callings, carrying around the Lord's funds in their coat pockets or glove boxes or scriptures. And that occasionally means lost or delayed or damaged (or even stolen) tithing. The funds really are sacred, and the general notion is we treat them with reverence. Like carrying around other people's temple clothing. So yes, you have two brethren staying after church week after week to handle little Timmy's dimes and pennies, because those funds are consecrated and sacred. In this case, efficient doesn't mean "the shortest amount of time and hassle possible".