skippy740

Last I checked, it's been a long time since there was a draft. Therefore, in order for the Army to hire a soldier, that person has to APPLY to join the Army. There is no force here. The CIA would not hire someone who has allegiances to another country. You are talking about contracts where there is a considerable and material conflict of interest against the employer. This does not apply. The contract that marriage is (regardless of hetero or same-sex) are for two people who wish to willingly enter into that contract. Who are we to interfere with such a contract?

Government is not a solution. The righteousness of individuals is the solution. Change must come from within... not from outside sources imposing their will on another person. If we want the change to come about in this nation... it's up to us to invite others to come unto Christ, repent, and live as He would have us live. Expecting an external source to force a mandate upon its citizens - no matter how righteous or good was intended, to "compel righteousness"... wouldn't that look a lot like Satan's plan? No, we cannot rely on Satan's methods to make other people good. They must have their own change of heart.

You missed my point. My point was to stop putting hope in GOVERNMENT to fix individual morality.

Just found this in someone's facebook post: Some Advice on Same Sex Marriage for us Church Leaders from a Canadian: http://careynieuwhof.com/2015/06/some-advice-on-same-sex-marriage-for-us-church-leaders-from-a-canadian/

It's not "suddenly" an issue of the federal government. A marriage, on its lowest terms, is a contract. Contracts are regulated by state and federal laws. There are issues with income taxation, estate planning, social security, retirement planning... and that's just the financial planning side of things. Either the Federal Government has to make up "separate but equal" laws and rights for same-sex couples, or expand the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Obviously one is easier than the other. But remember that there are some opponents to gender roles who would still not accept "separate but equal" rights. As far as getting the government out of the relationship business entirely... if they can do that without regulating these contracts, then I suppose it can work. I just doubt that's a reasonable course of action. Ed Slott CPA weighed in on 3 changes on retirement and tax planning due to the same-sex marriage ruling. I'm looking forward to learning more about these changes that will come about to make planning easier for these couples. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/same-sex-marriage-ruling-3-impacts-retirement-tax-planning-ed-slott?trk=hb_ntf_MEGAPHONE_ARTICLE_POST

Jerome1232, To use your "ridiculous example" as you put it - killing is a crime. It infringes on another person's right to life. Joel Skousen said that "A Fundamental Right is a right in which all people can simultaneously claim without forcing someone to serve their needs." Killing is a crime. Rape is a crime. Theft is a crime. Vandalism is a crime. The right to defend oneself is legal up to and including the death of the other person trying to take your life. A society must have laws that enforce a minimum code of acceptable behavior. But just as the Word of Wisdom has a lot of "do's" in it... we often focus on the "don'ts" and think we follow it. Is allowing two people the liberty to live as they choose and to share the rights of another 'traditional couple' a crime? No. Is preventing two people the same liberties to live as they choose the same rights of another 'traditional couple' a crime? I think it could be considered that way. (I'm not advocating... just understanding.) If there wasn't any difference in their rights and privileges between a marriage and a civil union, as well as numerous federal programs, tax advantages, and estate planning issues... then it would purely be an issue of semantics of what defines a marriage. So, I have come to the conclusion that we no longer can accept the laws of the Government as a moral guide on how to live - if we ever did. A moral code is a higher way of living than just being law abiding. The laws of our country used to be one that promoted a Judeo-Christian way of life... but no longer. I don't know if it should've been that way in the first place, but due to the internet and everyone having a voice, society is changing its views. As long as we don't change who we are and what we believe, I think we'll be okay.

I recently posted this on Facebook as a note: Okay people, let's add some rationality here. I'm going to look at this ruling on two levels: legal and moral. On a legal level, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed the same rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples? I cannot think of any good reason why they shouldn't, except if those reasons are rooted in someone's moral viewpoint. Now, let's look at morals. My Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, has a document called The Articles of Faith - a summary of our beliefs. The 11th states: "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." https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng Do we, as LDS, really believe that? On a moral/religious level, we can view same-sex relations as a form of idol worship, pleasing themselves rather than pleasing God... but that's really how WE may choose to look at it - on the outside looking in. (This was essentially what Neal A. Maxwell was saying back in 1978 when he talked about irreligion becoming the state religion. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng) We don't condone it, but who are we to tell others how to live... or even to make the Government enforce our belief on the ways we should live? What this ruling really caused... was the end of the Government and laws of the land being a source of moral living. Perhaps that's a good thing? I suppose that's a 'Libertarian' way to view the role of Government. Of course, even Joseph Smith Jr. said "We teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves." My concern at this point... is will the rights of churches to worship and practice as they see fit will be respected and upheld in court. As we know, anyone can sue anyone for any reason. Churches will be sued for discriminatory practices. (BTW, churches are all about discriminatory practices, as long as they are about worthiness and living according to one's own religious code of conduct.) However, in a court of law, will these courts side with churches to allow them to practice according to our own conscience? Or will our 1st amendment rights be infringed upon and penalized? I do believe in The Family: A Proclamation To The World. (https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng) As a faithful LDS member, we sought to defend the definition of what constitutes a family because of our beliefs of pre-mortal, purpose of mortal life, and the future destiny of the family in the here-after. According to our understanding, same-sex marriages don't fit into God's plan. So, for my believing friends - regardless of denomination - I remind you of what our job is. Our job is to be an example of the believers and simply invite others to come unto Christ. We love and respect others, yet we are to vote our conscious when we are called to do so. This is why I often talk about the "LGBT Political Movement" and not mention individuals or people specifically. I am concerned about the "LGBT Political Movement" as I see the next step being to attack churches that don't accept their chosen lifestyle (lifestyle, not necessarily orientation as everyone should be welcome in God's house). (http://www.mormonsandgays.org/) Voltare said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Is free speech really that different from choosing how we want to live? Do we want Government oppressing anyone from the liberty of choosing how they choose to live? For me, I don't want Government interference in how I choose to live my life. The higher the level of Government interference, the more that we are slaves to that Government, and then such liberty is truly lost for each of us to pursue our own definition of happiness. As LDS and Christians, we are concerned about the overall declining morals of the United States. However, we cannot turn to the Government to "make it better". We can vote for different leaders, but it's time that we stop depending on the Government to enforce morality. That's not Government's job, and I don't think it ever should be. That's our job as the Faithful... to invite others to repent and choose to follow Christ, to live as He would have us live. However, as far as I know, Christ has never FORCED anyone to follow Him and His ways. Let us follow that example.

All I can say is good luck to try to get all the 'sermons' from the LDS congregations. We have a lay clergy and our members give our talks! Aside from that, General Conference talks are published... and good luck trying to disagree with Elder Oaks!

The temple recommend interview question: 13 If you have previously received your temple endowment: Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple? Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple? I've always been taught that you are not to alter your wearing of the garment in any way to conform to your outer clothing choices, as the garment encourages modesty.

www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/temple-garments I never thought such a video would be "necessary"... but I think it must have a purpose for google searches. It is a well-produced video inspiring respect for all religious customs and ceremonies.

Of course that won't be a headline. That stuff doesn't sell newspapers (what are those anymore?), magazines, or even get others to clue into the news. You might see something on it here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/world-report But since that person is no longer here, maybe we can get back to the topic of Missionaries and iPads again?

I live in Riverside! Welcome to lds.net!

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-5-the-creation?lang=eng Jesus Created the EarthJesus Christ created this world and everything in it. He also created many other worlds. He did so through the power of the priesthood, under the direction of our Heavenly Father. God the Father said, “Worlds without number have I created; … and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten” (Moses 1:33). We have other testimonies of this truth. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon saw Jesus Christ in a vision. They testified “that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24). Carrying Out the Creation•What are the purposes of the Creation? The earth and everything on it were created spiritually before they were created physically (see Moses 3:5). In planning to create the physical earth, Christ said to those who were with Him, “We will go down, for there is space there, … and we will make an earth whereon these [the spirit children of our Father in Heaven] may dwell” (Abraham 3:24). Under the direction of the Father, Christ formed and organized the earth. He divided light from darkness to make day and night. He formed the sun, moon, and stars. He divided the waters from the dry land to make seas, rivers, and lakes. He made the earth beautiful and productive. He made grass, trees, flowers, and other plants of all kinds. These plants contained seeds from which new plants could grow. Then He created the animals—fish, cattle, insects, and birds of all kinds. These animals had the ability to reproduce their own kind.

I've had collectors call and really impersonate a legal process. The collection account is called a "docket"... they threaten to serve me with papers, etc. I just tell them to send everything to me in writing as I don't take these calls. Can't trust them as far as you can throw them. Having been a moderator on a credit discussion forum, I know there's a lot of shady stuff out there - even if the debt is a true debt, you don't have to be abused or duped by a firm impersonating something that they are not. I'm sure that quite a few are intimidated by such tactics and they pay up though.

I'm just curious as to how you posted this as of June 12th... and it's June 10th at 12:10am PDT?

I would hope that the process of having good scripture notes on a digital platform would start during Seminary. The process of transferring all those notes from paper scriptures, into their digital scriptures for ongoing reference, would be tedious. In addition, it is an additional expense for the missionary, but there will be ways to 'subsidize' the purchase if needed - just like bicycles. I just hope that the missionary can "unlock" the device after it was specifically programmed, so they can use it with the regular apps after they get home from their missionary service.

Just make up a few of these signs for your lesson:

We imprison you, take away your freedoms, liberties, put you to work, make your meals (I use that term loosely) for you, and be afraid for your own life as well as that of your family... and MAKE you lose weight? Even IF your comparison had any merit (it doesn't), it's also the "we're gonna force you to lose weight or else" plan.

I'm facebook friends with many in one "branch" of the Christofferson family. I've sent her a link to this forum and asked for her insight on how she was raised, and how she teaches her children. I look forward to her insights on this. The main thing that keeps popping up in my own mind, is that you just "do it". You love them, regardless of their decisions. If it's based on their decisions, then it is conditional love, not unconditional love. All are welcome at church. We feel saddened by choices, but we will leave that to our merciful and perfect judge, who is the Father. We will treat them as Christ would - welcome all unto Christ, His Church, and into our hearts. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it is who we need to be. And we need to be examples of Christ in word and in deed. As far as teaching our children about choices, we need to be sure that we truly understand the nature of the Lord's Church here on earth. It's not 'just' The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. That is simply the name that the Church is known upon the earth. It is the Church of the Firstborn. It is the Church were we covenant to our desire to live by a Celestial Law, so that through repentance and the ordinances, we can return to live with the Father. Those who cannot (will not) covenant to live by the Celestial Law, we still welcome them. But they cannot be baptized and be members if they cannot or will not covenant to live the way it is revealed for us to live. We do not believe as many other Christian churches who believe that there are only two places to go after this life: heaven and hell. We believe in many kingdoms. Those who live a good life, but did not choose to be baptized by those in authority of the Church of the Firstborn, will probably be in the Terrestrial Kingdom - good people, but did not choose to abide by the Celestial laws to live as the Savior wished for us to live. We feel saddened that we may not be an eternal family in the Celestial Kingdom, but we can all visit one another and we will live as the Savior would have us live and treat others. These are just my thoughts - but take them from someone who hasn't had to deal with same-sex attraction within his family.

Since you mentioned Tom Christofferson... here's his story: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57994467-180/christofferson-lds-family-gay.html.csp http://allarizona.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/What-Manner-ALL-2014.pdf I am quite impressed with Tom's Bishop. Tom is still not a baptized member of the church, but he has found a place within the community. (I doubt he was actually excommunicated as he states. Probably just requested his name to be removed. However, based on the time frame, it could've been an excommunication. Today, it would probably just be a request to remove records.) I don't see how those who are in same-sex relationships can also become or maintain membership within the church... but at least Tom's bishop found a way to help keep them in the community. This may not be appropriate for everyone, or even every ward, but I like the effort being shown. And I KNOW his extended family loves and appreciates him and his partner.

http://askgramps.org/25448/scriptures-god-says-men-can-ordained-priesthood http://askgramps.org/24053/women-ever-hold-priesthood

There are a few that I like that are serious and offer serious help... and the rest treat it like hanging out at a bar. I think I'm one of the serious ones, but there are a few that I razz on as well.

Welcome! Nice to have another life agent on the board. BTW, I'm the same DHK on the insurance forums where you introduced yourself about a month and a half ago. http://www.insurance-forums.net/forum/introductions/introducing-david-prisco-philadelphia-pa-life-insurance-representative-t65227.html

I put these article quotes to add to the discussion and they are not aimed at any particular poster. Just some additional thoughts to consider.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly. As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people. The honest in heart heed his words but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or fight him. When the prophet points out the sins of the world, the worldly either want to close the mouth of the prophet, or else act as if the prophet didn’t exist, rather than repent of their sins. Popularity is never a test of truth. Many a prophet has been killed or cast out. As we come closer to the Lord’s second coming you can expect that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will be less popular with them.