skippy740

Banned
  • Posts

    5396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by skippy740

  1. And every single parent household is also a problem in raising children too? After all, it's just a father OR a mother... or other relatives/guardians. Only through the lens of our faith do we see the 'right' of children to be raised by both a mother and a father. Life doesn't work that way and HASN'T worked that way. I'll say this - I'll defend that AS SOON AS every child in orphanages and foster care are adopted by healthy mothers and fathers. You go first. What is the "best environment"? Mothers and fathers who are emotionally stable and financially secure. Oh, you mean that not every family environment is a healthy, emotionally stable, and financially secure environment?? Oh, so perfection is a worthy goal, but impossible to achieve everywhere at all times. The Church got out of the adoption business because of the rising threat of LITIGATION to defend their right to place children that fit with the Church's views. It was a FINANCIALLY motivated decision and not a wise use of tithing funds should litigation be successful.
  2. It used to be. It used to be that if you were caught committing adultery, it was a crime. Now, nobody cares. Police have far more to worry about than if a man cheats on his wife (and vice versa). I don't understand how preventing gay marriage is about protection of children. Either someone is a pedophile, or they are not. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with that. Statistically and demographically speaking, I'm sure there are far more pedophiles that are 'straight' than with same-sex attraction... but pedophilia is also a perversion and a crime, so using the term 'straight' may be quite a stretch. Gay marriage MAY have more to do with religious liberties - making someone perform a ceremony against their beliefs, etc. Meaning it could be interpreted as a power-grab to force people to serve their needs. But to say that it's about protection of children... I don't see it. Not anymore. While there are stories of abuse designed to twist and manipulate people to think that the other side is truly evil, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
  3. Harry Reid is/was a prominent democratic senator. He is on the 'political left' in our bipartisan political world. It's a fact. There is nothing to defend and no accusation of wrong-doing was made. (We can talk about his conduct and accusations during the 2012 election... but I digress.)
  4. What you need to understand... is the definition of a fundamental right. "A fundamental right is a right which ALL people can simultaneously claim without forcing someone to serve their needs." - Joel Skousen In short - do what you want with your own life. Live the way you want... but don't force me to serve your needs or impede on my liberties. Murder, theft, rape... all impede on someone else. I never talked about any of that. I talked about the freedom to choose moral agency for ones self. If you want to look at porn, go ahead. If you want to be in a same-sex relationship with two consenting adults, go ahead. I won't say there won't be eternal consequences, but you have the freedom to choose - as long as you don't impose your will onto another person. You want to drink alcohol? Fine. Go ahead. But don't drink and drive, because that becomes a danger to society - both in terms of property and a danger to someone else's life. Do it in your own home or arrange a ride home. Or do you propose a distorted interpretation of the Articles of Faith? 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. ... unless I don't like how you lead your life. Then it's my job to force you through the laws of the land to live as I want you to live.
  5. I'm reminded of a recent article where church members were choosing to go to an "alternative" conference and they were deciding on commandments and things. For example - making the Word of Wisdom as counsel rather than as commandment. I can't find the article, but they are redefining many things to create their own "customized" faith. Who knows where they are. I may have some different views than some, but I'm not looking to lead anyone away from the Church. Only to think differently and consider an alternative view.
  6. No. When you slide the scale all the way over to God's ways, we have those who CHOOSE to follow those laws, rather than having that standard FORCED upon you. Remember: "In my Father's house, there are many mansions. I go prepare a place for you." No one is compelled to follow ANYTHING. You CHOOSE to be there. Compulsion is Satan's plan. Stop looking outward and relying on society to make one live righteously.
  7. Since this is a thread by and for an individual, I'll only state that we can only help the individual who is LOOKING for help and guidance. You can't teach a society, but we can work with individuals one-on-one, one-by-one.
  8. We don't need to. You have a computer. You have access to a MILLION TIMES the "porn shops" right at your fingertips and in the privacy of your own home. Please show me the latest "moral law" that has been passed. I would agree that there should be zoning restrictions for bars and strip clubs. They shouldn't be near schools - not because of temptation for children (not that it would be a good thing by any means - we restrict the access and sale of pornography for the same reason), but because of the kinds of people who could be leaving there and it could be a public danger. But if you make those places illegal, you restrict freedom of moral choice. Years ago, we were encouraged to vote against Indian Gaming in California. It passed anyway, but just because it passed doesn't mean that *I* have to walk in, right? You sound like "if you build it, you HAVE to go in." What happened to "stand ye in holy places"? Aren't we strong enough and good enough to teach our children? If you're not, the problem is INWARD, not a problem with the country and the FREEDOMS to live as anyone sees fit - within the laws of society to respect each other. The test is to see if we will follow what the Lord our God commands us. That's our test and that's our challenge. For those who don't KNOW that that's the test... we can teach one-on-one, one-by-one... but not at the ballot box. If you want to change society, you teach them. But if they won't let you in, you won't teach them by imposing your will for them. Again, Lord's intentions, but Satan's plan. You cannot force someone to be righteous.
  9. Not everyone has our beliefs, therefore when new laws of the land are proposed, those who are of other faiths OR atheist do not RECOGNIZE an eternal punishment for sin. The law of the land can do both to restrict behavior and propose punishment for behavior. You talked about Leftist values. The Left is trying (and generally has succeeded) in redefining marriage. And if you don't agree with it, they call you a bigot. I may not agree with it, but it's not MY place to tell people how they can live their lives. Remember that marriage has not only a MORAL value, but it has CONTRACT values in this country of ours. I may not like it, but I get it. THEY don't recognize an eternal nature of marriage. They only see and CARE about their life now. Unless you can actually teach and convert at the ballot box, I don't see how it's going to make a difference. You want to know what the "love" test is? Letting other people re-define "love" and we can keep true to our own faith and beliefs and teach our children the same.
  10. I'm going to challenge you on this a bit. After proposition 8 in California was overturned, I had to do some re-evaluating on some things. The war in heaven was fought over agency - the right to choose. Who are WE to impose our way of life as the law of the land? If the right to choose is restricted... then where is the test? If that test does not exist, then it's the Lord's plan with Satan's method. (Kind of like forcing your kids to go to church - right intention, wrong method.) Yes, there are leftist values seeking to twist traditional meanings behind things... but if it doesn't occur, where is the choice? Where is the test? None of these outcomes, if and when passed, affects an individual from choosing the right path. Changing secular laws, as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of religion and religious practices... won't interfere with anyone else living the life they choose to live. Making marijuana legal... same thing. Now it's just a LEGAL choice, not just a health choice. Might as well have it regulated and collect the tax revenue. Doesn't mean that people can't be arrested for being under the influence or fired from jobs for being unable to perform their duties.
  11. You've already received the encouragement, guidance, and counsel, so I won't go there. I cannot take away the hurt. In fact, I'm going to make it a bit deeper: You physically became what you were afraid of your husband doing to you emotionally, virtually, that could also lead to physically. Why? Because you let FEAR into your marriage. Sure, you can blame his habit, and I can blame the church for teaching paranoia about it, but you have to take responsibility for your own reaction. 2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. Personally, I think the women in the church are 'trained' to be 'parents' to their husbands, to withhold sex if he has a problem, to leave and abandon him when he could need her spirit the most, and to consider it grounds for DIVORCE. (What happened to 'in sickness and in health'? It's turned into "unless he has a pornography problem".) The women in the church who think this COULD be cowards and spineless about all this. This is why you think you're less attractive and he's less attractive to you - you changed into a PARENT instead of being his WIFE. You're EMASCULATING him while trying to heal yourself. How can that help anything? Yes, pornography is far worse than it was 50 years ago when it was just magazines under the bed. But the paranoia around it... I think is uncalled for. Consider this: there are healthy marriages where they both drink alcohol and smoke. As long as it is not abused, their marriage is okay. No, it's not a Celestial marriage, but it can be a fully functioning marriage with love in it. How do I know? I have non-member family and they smoke and drink... and they've been together for at least 35 years. It can be done. (Yes, he can get drunk, but he's still responsible about it and he's NEVER abused his kids or his wife.) Of course, as LDS with the WoW, we also say "why take the chance?" Can you have a loving marriage with pornography? I won't say yes or no, but I will say that I'm sure it can be done, if you love him for him... and not just his worthiness. Pornography will interfere with having a Celestial standard of marriage... with potential eternal consequences. But to have to leave? I think that's overkill. Don't ask me how I know all this. I just do.
  12. I'll tell YOU now. There was NO instance in any of these articles talking about homosexual behavior happening IN the church. He was a member, served a mission, and was once married in the temple. He knows the standards of conduct in the building and respected it. Your bigotry is astounding. You see a conspiracy where there is none. And I can tell you that the family would NOT appreciate being labeled as part of such an agenda. May the Lord so bless you that you never have to deal with such an issue of morality in your family. Perhaps you missed this part of the LDSLiving article:
  13. You don't know the family. And apparently, you can't see beyond doctrine to take a larger view. Such are the Pharisees in the gospel who cannot see the beauty of the gospel without dispelling the rules that the beauty seems to violate. You have completely missed the spirit and the message of the article and instead substituted it for your own brand of judgment. I sure hope you're not a Bishop or Stake President somewhere. I've dealt with that kind before. Now, I won't disagree that it's COMPLETELY possible (and plausible) that just his last name helped along the way in his ward, but I wanted to showcase the meaning behind the message. I'm sorry that you can't see that.
  14. Unless your definition of canonization is different from mine, the LDS Church DOES have an official process of accepting scripture: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng
  15. Church culture has led members to believe that prophets are perfect because of that quote. No, I do not believe that President Woodruff led the church astray as the manifesto quotes were about trying to reassure members of the consequences of not following and conforming to the new laws of the land. Remember that these members were willing to be imprisoned for their faith and their families. Yet, many left the faith as they couldn't reconcile how a current prophet can both be right and contradict/correct from a previous prophet. While we still believe the doctrine behind the New and Everlasting Covenant, it is not practiced today. That's how we can delineate between policy and doctrine. Doctrines are everlasting and constant, while policies can change. The same could be said for OD2 because it took revelation to correct/contradict from a previous prophet and each prophet since that time. As such, that's why I believe that this is the True and Living Church... I interpret 'True' to be a verb - that we are constantly trying to 'true' ourselves to the mind and will of the Lord. Only a Church with continuing revelation can do that. Will we see more changes? Maybe. I can't see where and how, unless there's some new revelation about the Plan of Salvation and how it could apply to same-sex couples (which would contradict what we currently know).
  16. Matters of church policy aren't necessarily matters of doctrine. 18-months vs 2 year missions... the principle behind them are the same, regardless of the length of service. (Although I find it curious that when the 18-year old missionary cut-off age was announced as a possibility, it has been interpreted as commandment.) The relationship between errors vs sins vs transgressions would seem to fit here. Official declaration 1 was about doctrine and how we practiced it, and how we interpret a prophet's words and the warnings behind those words. The manifesto was supplemental information to official declaration 1.
  17. One of the reasons for a low divorce rate... is due to shared faith. Let me share with you a scripture: 2 Nephi 5:23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. The footnote on "mixeth" is TG (Topical Guide) Marriage, Interfaith. Now, the "curse" is a separation from God. It's far easier to be closer to God as a family unit when you don't have potential conflicts of faith. If you're planning on marrying an LDS woman, you should consider making yourself more 'compatible' for the marriage that they would want - one in an LDS temple. If you don't, then you may have a shaky marriage due to the lack of temple attendance and other things that married LDS couples do to strengthen their faith, their marriages, and their families. Let me be very frank with you: Utah does sometimes (unfortunately) have some racist tendencies. I've heard too many reports of those of African descent who visited Utah, only to hear racial epithets and to be stared at like they're freaks or something. And one of these reports was a friend of mine and was called a n***** by a child with NO correction by their parent. That tells me that, for SOME, Utah has some room to grow in this area - especially if it's being taught to their children. Racism is a viscous attitude that is still in a SMALL MINORITY of members, but it's a vice that can be carried INTO the church AND the temple, almost without apology. (At least if members have other vices, they don't smoke at church or bring their pornography.) (I'm part of a member-oriented group that focuses on these issues, so we hear about these stories far more than just about any member otherwise would.) Obviously, Utah would not hire me to be an Ambassador for their state, but it's something that you may find interesting comparing Illinois to Utah. So while you're looking to become one with the "birds of a feather to flock together" to help keep your marriage together in a like-minded community, it's not all a "bed of roses" either. There are still some thorns. They may just be better at hiding them.
  18. I almost fully agree with this. However, I make a couple of delineations: The manifesto notes... was written by Wilford Woodruff. And the idea that "The Lord would remove me from my place if I were to lead this church astray" is contrary to the Lord's own words in D&C 1:24-28. 24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time. The Lord knows that His servants will make errors. The "excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the manifesto" helps to SUPPORT OD1, but I don't think they're scripture. My covenants are made with Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit... I'll stick to the Lord's voice in this instance. This is MY opinion on this and may not reflect the Church's official thoughts or anyone else. Also, chapter headings and footnotes are valuable study helps, but that's what they are - study helps. They are not doctrine in and of themselves. The Song of Solomon was noted in the JST version that "the JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.' Everything else... is good for edification and instruction, but it may not necessarily be doctrine. The notion that there is a Heavenly Mother is not official doctrine, but it has been talked about so much that it might as well be. (I do believe this, even if it's not "official doctrine".) There are other things that may or may not be true. But I wouldn't ask for an official proclamation over everything. We are blessed with intelligence. We are expected to use it.
  19. Let's talk about church culture: We take pride (yes, there's that word) in being a service church capable of doing great things for others. (I personally don't like service "being done for me" and perhaps we can blame the culture of doing good to others, but not wanting to be in a situation where we would also have to accept such service ourselves.... but I digress.) There is a "church path" for our youth: You go to primary (for the children). Young men get the priesthood at age 12. They go on missions at age 18. They return and attend BYU. Then they marry in the temple. This is "the path" for all those who have "followed the path". Deviation causes concern by those who observe the deviation and ask "what happened?" This is well-meaning, but it happens. Just ask the parent of any missionary who came home too soon from their mission, as it can be ASSUMED (we know what that word means) what reason it could take for a missionary to return home too soon. Back when I was 19, I was not ready to serve a mission (as was the traditional age at the time). And it seemed that EVERYONE "got involved" and pestered me and my parents about it. Why? Because I wasn't following "the path". I finally decided to serve at age 21. Your husband may feel some embarrassment to "have to explain" what happened. Yes, there's a bit of family honor at stake here and some personal embarrassment. Why? Because we have "the path" and we feel embarrassed when OUR family deviated from "the path". No, I don't have a solution, only a possible explanation.
  20. Lol - I just realized that the thread itself is 4 months old, but I hope someone finds this useful.
  21. Reaching out to another man - no matter how innocent or unintentional it was - is FANTASY. Marriage is reality and work. Everything stems back to the root of your whole post: She's been feeling depressed and unhappy. And now, she's looking for fulfillment ELSEWHERE because she doesn't have that fulfillment... WITH YOU. Do you want to know how to eliminate YOUR worry and help her relieve her of her depression? You invest that worry energy into HER. You will be fulfilled by fulfilling HER. The more you do this, your OWN anxieties will decrease because you're building a real relationship rather than just 'living together'. Watch this video and see if you can identify with this man and his situation, then listen to Tony as he gives him a recommendation and a plan.
  22. I wanted to add that it's NOT the fact that Tom came back into the membership of the Church that I find fascinating. That's a complete by-product of this whole thing. I also had no idea that Tom was rebaptized and returned to the Church until I read these articles. I wanted to learn from another family who successfully raised their children, and integrated their faith along with welcoming and loving their same-sex attracted son and his partner into their lives. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I'm "big enough" to do that, but learning from another family AND ward family of how and why they did it has been of interest to me. I would think it would be of interest for anyone who has ever served in a leadership capacity. I would imagine that some members of Tom's ward/stake probably went to their bishop to discuss "their" concerns, and that the Bishop would've had to counsel with them. It's the journey and the other people I find interesting, not the fact that Tom came back into the Church.
  23. This is a similar article, but different. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688689/Gay-brother-of-Mormon-apostle-shares-his-spiritual-journey.html I wanted to highlight this particular paragraph: This should be an interesting program to watch.