MarginOfError

Taking this discussion to include a broader range of scripture, from the New Testament we have I've seen some instances within the Church where the debate about eating meat has gotten quite heated. My wife attended a seminar at Stake Women's Conference last year that bluntly stated that meat is against the Word of Wisdom. She even went so far as to say that even vegetarians don't strictly adhere to the Word of Wisdom, and that vegan is the way to go. I'm certain she can't say that doctrinally, and she seems to be a bit of an extremist to me, but I won't argue there is something to be said for abstaining from meat. From my personal observations and study, I've noticed that not all vegetarians are particularly healthy. I've even heard it said that if you want to see a really sick person, go to a health food store. The issue, as I see it, is that there are certain nutrients that we need that are conveniently found in meat, and less conveniently found in other sources. The bottom line for me is this: we need our bodies to be healthy, and that includes getting a good balance of vitamins, minerals, proteins, and fats. It is possible to get these solely from non-animal sources, but generally requires more study, effort, and dedication. If a person can and is willing to put forth the extra effort to maintain their health on non-animal sources, then they should do so, and I do not doubt they will receive great blessings for doing so. For others who lack the motivation, knowledge, or capacity to learn or abide by vegetarianism, eating meat as part of a properly balanced diet is an easy way to obtain the proteins and fats required for good health. I do not, under any circumstances, place one lifestyle above the other in righteousness.

I'm not sure I can buy into the collective Priesthood Power idea. I'm pretty sure that one worthy priesthood holder wields just as much authority and access to power as a billion of them. So for me, this wouldn't be a matter for consideration. Offending kin, on the other hand......

I felt very much the same way. I felt like we were just doing something in place of infant baptism because it was socially expected. I didn't like it much at all. But alas, the wife said I was going to do it whether I wanted to or not :) On the other hand, it does provide a convenient moment around which to bring in some family and close friends to celebrate the new arrival together. I just didn't feel comfortable asking my bishop if I could do it at home, especially since my biggest reason was, "I don't care enough about the members of this ward to share this with them." I didn't think that'd go over so well. I do, however, wish that leaders would give more counsel and advice before the blessing. Especially to new fathers. That thing about addressing Heavenly Father throughout the whole blessing makes so much sense. I knew something about the way we do children's blessings was odd, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Probably because the addressing the child is how I've heard it done my entire life. With the next one I'll be sure to do it this way. The thing that gets me, what is up with having twenty people in the circle. Is it really necessary to invite every sibling, cousin, brother-in-law, uncle, and high school friend to join in that ordinance? Is it really even necessary to have two for that ordinance? The instructions say "Melchizedek Priesthood holders..." while in other ordinances it states one does this and two do that. I've always assumed that because it says 'holders' we should have at least two, but the lack of specificity leaves room for doubt in my mind.

Just an FYI, not directed at anyone. But in case you're wondering what we're talking about I'm not entirely clear on the finer points of the administrative details of this just yet, but I should be finding out in the next couple of weeks. Others with experience in this may add further insight if you wish. Children born to members of the Church have the option of becoming "Children of Record," meaning a membership record is created for them even when they have not been baptized. This membership record is created when their blessing by an authorized Melchizedek Priesthood holder is recorded. If this ordinance is not performed--or if it is not recorded--then the child has no membership record. The child's name will still appear next to the parents' on Church rosters and reports. I am uncertain if a child without a membership record will appear on Primary rosters. I'd have to look at some to find out. When a Child of Record is baptized, his or her membership record is treated the same as any other membership record. However, if a Child of Record reaches age 18 without having been baptized, and expresses no desire to be baptized, the record is removed from the Church's database. I can not currently say if a child who has not been blessed can be given a membership record before baptism. I'm actually facing some of these issues right now and should find out soon, although I do not expect that there is a way. In the end, it doesn't really matter as it isn't a saving ordinance. But those are the administrative details of naming and blessing of children.

The whole ordinance of blessing a baby is confusing to me. It's an entirely unnecessary ordinance (with the exception of a few administrative technicalities). It bugged me that I had to get up in front of the entire ward to perform the ordinance when it could have just as well been done at home. In fact, it could have not been done at all with zero eternal consequences. I must confess though, and don't tell my wife this, but before blessing our daughter, I thought long and hard about how I could get through the technicalities of the blessing (stating authority and purpose of the blessing) with as few words as possible. I assure you that the words "the name by which this child shall be known on the records of the Church" will never cross my lips. The other thing I like to do when giving blessings is state that the blessing is given in the name of Jesus Christ at the beginning of the ordinance. Then, when I've said everything that I feel needs to be said, I simply say, Amen. It usually makes people jump.

Perhaps it's my bias as a statistician, but I firmly believe in random occurrences of events (what you might almost call chance). Sometimes things like deformities, disabilities, or multiple genitalia happen merely because it just so happened that all of the necessary components combined appropriately. I don't consider it God making a mistake, I consider it a side effect of mortality and imperfect bodies. I pass no judgment on anyone with these kinds of challenges and adversities. I do my best to offer them the chance to live a life with as much happiness and righteousness as they seek and am happy to let God account for the rest.

Everything being double paid is easy to fix...we just cut the price of everything in half. Or we could cut the products in half! Then you can create twice as much output with the same level of labor! Think of the expansion of wealth under this new system!

With a system like this, we could run 0% unemployment. In fact, we'd have to import half the population of China and India combined to staff an agency large enough to keep track of all the property.

The studies you cite appear to have missed one of the aspects of male thought. Men want to be good at everything they do. So they don't think about sports and sex. They think about being good at sports and being really good at sex. You see, sports and sex do us no good if we can't brag about them to our friends.

I understand what you're saying, and agree that it is technically and 'scripture-ally' correct. However, I still think it's dangerous advice to say 'When you're struggling with doctrine, it's the intellect that's the issue.' (by the way, I think this thread relates more to policy than it does to doctrine). Sometimes I find it helpful to read Doctrine and Covenants sections 8 and 9 in reverse order, causing advice such as So I study something out in my mind. I think and ponder over it. I pray about it. The Holy Ghost is supposed to well in my heart and speak to both my mind and my heart. Now I go through this process, I pray about it, and my mind and my heart disagree. How am I supposed to reconcile the difference? By your advice, I should conclude that Satan's "talking so loud it's hard to hear the pirit over him." While that may be true in some cases, I don't think it's universally true and object to it being offered as one-size-fits-all counsel. Satan doesn't have to speak at all and the Spirit still won't be heard if the Spirit isn't speaking.

I'll have to disagree with you here. I could perform a long diatribe about what 'heart' really means, but suffice it to say that the heart does not always desire what is right/best. Besides, if understanding what our heart was telling us was the only thing we needed, we wouldn't be given the counsel that we would be told in our minds and our hearts--the mind would be completely unnecessary. That's really the only issue I have with anything you've said. I think you give good advice and great personal insight. Thank you for sharing.

So what does that mean when your heart tells you you should be pro-gay marriage but your mind tells you you should be against it?

I think you missed something important, georgia2. Recall she also said, "no matter what approach i've taken, my head and my heart are still sending me two completely different directions." Essentially, if my understanding is correct, she knows she's supposed to follow the prophets, but on some teachings, she isn't getting the confirmation of truth that she expects (see D&C 8:2). She's doing everything the Church leaders have asked her to do to seek confirmation of their teachings, and the confirmation isn't coming. I have a hard time seeing how that is, "already knowing the answer."

I think you're probably closer than me, Carl...and I'm LDS!

(okay, I've breathed out...when do I get to breathe in again?)

Well, while the fire is blazing, and since hemi is offering some good hard wood, should we roast some marshmallows?

Dove, given that last post are you sure you chose the proper nickname? Let me go see if I can find an olive branch to replace the one that you apparently used as kindling for your fire.

I'm a little hesitant to give my answer because I've read some of your posts in the past and fear that what I have to say may be disagreeable to you. Please understand that I do not wish to pass judgment and very much respect you and your opinions as you have presented them on the boards. First off, I think the translation of our religious morals into the political arena is a factor that doesn't need to be considered in one's decision to join the Church. The only questions that needs to be answered in this decision are, "Is this Church the only place I can obtain all that is necessary for salvation?" and "Am I willing to live the Gospel as taught by this Church?" (okay, maybe not the only questions, but I hope you see what I'm getting at). Some might argue that your questions falls under the category of "Am I willing to live the Gospel as taught by this Church?" I both agree and disagree with them. We'll start with abortion. The Church teaches that abortion is wrong. I believe that members of the Church should strive to learn and understand why the Church believes it is wrong. Members of the Church should also do their best to bring their personal standards in line with this; that is, each member would strive to be persuaded that abortion is wrong. As bytor said, this may take time for people who come into the Church having learned the opposite. To not agree now is probably okay, but to say I'll never agree is getting into trouble. However, the suggestion that each member of the Church should strive to understand why abortion is wrong does not, in my opinion, automatically translate into a similar political position. More specifically, I think it is wrong to say that because you are LDS you must vote pro-life. Our votes and political motivations should represent the fairness with which we feel the pluralist society we live in should operate. Thus, if you personally feel so strongly about abortion that you want all people, regardless of their moral position, to live by your morals, then vote pro-life. If you feel uncomfortable with that, vote pro-choice. I don't think it really matters, so long as you make it clear to people that your morals dictate abortion is wrong. I tend to view same sex marriage in the same way. As a member of the Church, I strive to understand why it is wrong. I try very hard to keep my personal choices and morals in line with what has been revealed to us through the prophets. I live my life accordingly. But when it gets to the political stage, I'm torn. Because of my personal morals, I feel uncomfortable voting for same sex marriage, but at the same time, I feel uncomfortable voting against it. No matter how hard I try, in the political arena, I can't get my mind and my heart to agree on this issue. Right now, I'm in a place where I have to decide whether to follow my mind or my heart. What I am careful to do is make sure that it is clear that I believe homosexual relations are wrong, regardless of what political side wins the debate. I think that whether or not you are better off being baptized or not depends on your personal choices and morals, and how you apply them to yourselves. I don't think that how you choose to apply them to others in the political sphere is of much consequence to your eternal salvation.

Kissing someone that smokes isn't quite like licking an ashtray. The ashtray is much more gritty (grittier?), kind of like chewing coffee grinds. But on the pleasure scale, they're about the same.

I'm not disagreeing that same sex marriage is a bad idea. I only disagree that the consequences of same sex marriage are as earth shattering as advertised. In fact, I don't think the consequences of legalizing same sex marriage will be any different than if we keep it illegal. From what I can tell, we're going to suffer the consequences either way.

The Church losing authority to perform marriages isn't a very big deal. The Church lacks the authority to perform marriages in many countries. What happens there is the couple goes to the court house to get their civil wedding, and then goes to the temple within a few weeks to get sealed. If the US government, or any State, were to require all religious personnel performing marriages to also perform same sex marriages, the Church would simply have to give up the right to perform these marriages. This would not affect the sealing ordinance at all.

I apologize if any of my information on States' ratification is incorrect. Admittedly, it's a Wikipedia researched answer. The 42 states I quoted were those who eventually ratified it, even after ratification (or supposed ratification) was complete. I think the legality of the ratification makes for an interesting historical discussion, but at this point I think it'd be impossible to repeal the Amendment based on such history. For the record, I was not directing this at you, as you've stated that you recognize the government currently has the authority to levy these taxes, but would like that authority taken from them. My comments were directed to those who say that the Constitution does not grant the government such power.

There are many things pertaining to our health that aren't discussed in the Word of Wisdom. I find that one phrase, "with judgment and skill" to be applicable to those things and not just tobacco. I think it involves making informed and intelligent choices about what we consume and apply to our bodies. Some things dictated to us in the Word of Wisdom may not be inherently bad, but we still do not do them as a form of solidarity and fellowship with those among us who might be taken advantage of by conspiring men. (See Mosiah 18:8-10)

I apologize in advance, but my mind is just too tired to think coherently right now, so I might jump around a bit in my thoughts. First off, let me say that I can't recall very many incidents in my life that made me go, "Yeah, the Church must be true." However, I do know that the Church must be true. How can that be? I discovered how this could years after a talk I heard at a Stake Youth Activity. This particular talk was an odd sort of talk. The speak spoke about elephants, motorcycles, and fleas. That's about all I remember. I don't remember what the significance of elephants, motorcycles, or fleas was to the Gospel, but I do remember one principle that the speaker shared. He said, and this is paraphrased, "Some time in the future, you might remember this talk. More than likely, all that you'll remember is that it was about elephants, motorcycles, and fleas. But you will remember how you felt when you listened to it, and you'll remember that you felt the Spirit, and it will make you feel good. That's what makes up your testimony." Well, here it is, 12 years later and that's all I remember. Another anecdote: In a previous ward I attended, there was a pair of missionaries that asked me to write my testimony for them. It bothered me. Sure I could write I know the Gospel is true, I know Christ is my Savior, yadda yadda yadda. But it felt empty to me, and didn't really seem to carry the weight of my testimony. What I ended up writing was something of the effect of, "I like grapefruit. I really like grapefruit. Every time I cut open a grapefruit and eat it, I enjoy it. I don't know why exactly, but I just know--having eaten many grapefruits--that I like grapefruit. My testimony of the Gospel is the same way. I don't know why I know it's true. I can't tell you when I knew it was true. But every time I try it, I like it." I'm sure that seems really silly to most everyone, but it's heartfelt, and it honestly captures my testimony better than any expression I've ever attempted. You can decide if my silliness can help you or not. I agree, that if you're not convinced that serving a mission right now is the right thing to do, then you should wait. In fact, I served a mission when I was 19, and I think I probably wasted about a year of the Lord's time. I was in no way humble enough or prepared enough to be a missionary, and I am sure I would have been much more successful if I had waited a little while. Take some time to find answers to your questions, resolve your doubts. The rewards for serving a mission when you are prepared and committed far outweigh any social struggles resulting from people looking down on you for not serving promptly at turning 19.

Are you aware of what the physiological cause of cancers is? A broad cure for cancer is exceptionally unlikely. Prevention is the best bet we have. Early detection is the most effective part of recovery. 'Cures' only come to the lucky.