MarginOfError

I just got asked to compile a list for my bishop of all the members in our ward who pay no tithing. Let me tell you, it was the most awful thing I've ever done in the Church. I'm not sure why I hated doing it, but I did. But I feel reasonably confident that anyone who doesn't feel awful about knowing who is and isn't paying tithing probably isn't someone whose opinion you should care about. My advice to you, pay your tithing, go to your Bishop, explain that you don't have enough money to pay the bills and pay the tithing, and so you're paying your tithing and ask for help. He might have some Fast Offering funds or something to help you get by the hard times. When you are stable again and no longer require the assistance, make sure you pay a generous Fast Offering because someone else will be in your situation at some point.

I honestly don't know. Sorry.

Your definition of good requires that an object or action have an objective value of goodness. Is this an assumption you're willing to make? What about degrees of goodness? Can a part of something come from God while the remainder doesn't? -------------- Personally, I think the Wrath of God is great so long as it is directed at my enemies and not at me (or my friends).

I wasn't aware of some of those issues. I might spend some time rethinking my opinions a little. As for academic stress, that was in reference to teenagers. Also, come to think of it, the preschool programs I was reading about were promising to lay the foundation for kids to get into Ivy League schools. Probably not your standard preschool program. Thanks for setting me straight!

wow. that was really sudden? Was something said that shouldn't have been?

First, I'd like reference to President Benson saying we shouldn't send our children to daycare. If gambling hadn't been condemned by the Church, I would bet money that what he meant was daycare shouldn't be a substitute for parents raising their children. Next, you're right Gwen, education is screwed up. There's so much pressure put on them to succeed that a lot of middle class teenagers are developing social and psychological disorders because they're not meeting expectations. This is compounded by schools getting the bright idea to start school earlier and earlier, at 7.15 in some places I've lived. This is in spite of the fact that research has found that teenagers' circadian rhythms are out of whack and they don't tend to be fully alert until almost 9.00 AM. That's PHYSIOLOGICAL! This more and earlier attitude is a very bad thing. Kids should be the stewards of their own education.

I'm not sure that I would choose the word 'mysterious' to describe the temple ordinances. The ordinances performed for adult members of the Church in the temple are 1) Washings and Anointing 2) The Endowment 3) Sealing (Marriage for Time and Eternity) In each of these ordinances, members of the Church reaffirm the covenants they made at the time of baptism and commit themselves to a more devout adherence to these covenants. In return, they are promised the possibility of greater blessings, both temporally and eternally, than are available without the Temple Ordinances. The ordinances and teachings that go on in the Temple are drawn from a mixture of scripture and modern-day revelation. Because much of the teaching is done through symbolism, it has great potential for being misunderstood by those who have not studied the Gospel from the LDS perspective. Whereas these teachings and covenants are very special and sacred to us, we do not discuss them lightly so that they will not be mocked or belittled by those who do not understand. Now, to address your question about Garments: When we say Garments, we are talking about a set of undergarments, consisting of an undershirt and something like boxer briefs (although not quite). They are worn by both men and women who have been through the first two of the three ordinances mentioned earlier. Those who wear the garments may or may not wear other undergarments with them. Typically, men do not require additional garments, but women usually wear bras with Garments, and some form of undergarment during menstruation (Garments aren't made to support feminine hygiene products). The symbolism of the Garment has it's roots in the Old Testament. First, when God visited Adam and Eve after they had partaken of the fruit, "the Lord God [made] coats of skins, and clothed them" (Genesis 3:21). The Garments LDS members wear are representative of those coats of skin. One of their purpose is to clothe us, and encourage us to live modest and chaste lives. Further insight into the Garment is found in Exodus The 'holy garments' spoken of here, were a manifestation of Aaron's office, covenants, and responsibilities. The Garments LDS members wear are an individual reminder that we put on each day of the covenants and responsibilities we have before God. Since it would be rather awkward and embarrassing to wear a breastplate with 12 stones in it all the time, we simply wear a type of undergarment, to maintain discreteness and allow us to integrate with the world around us. A person commits him or herself to wear the Garment during the Washing and Anointing, following the pattern in Exodus, where Aaron and his sons were washed, anointed, and clothed, in preparation to coming before their God and committing themselves to serve Him.

Just some clean up on things said. Ordinations to the Aaronic Priesthood are not performed in the temple. Only Melchizedek Priesthood ordinations are performed, as the latter priesthood encompasses all of the former. The youth recommends (Limited Time Use Recommends) are usually only given for one use at a time, generally with a group trip. In some instances, where the Bishop feels that the youth is unlikely to need frequent interviewing, the Bishop may grant a recommend for a certain period of time. The length of this time is up to the Bishop, but usually not more than 6 months Thanks for the comments.

If the Aaronic Priesthood has been conferred upon your son, then he may get a recommend to stand proxy for Baptisms and Confirmations in the temple. He will be able to participate in the other temple ordinances after he has had the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred upon him and received his own temple recommend.

Meh, don't worry about it. Live your religion, love your husband, and don't worry about his religion. Everything will work out in the end (although we don't know how). But I do guarantee that if you're happy in this life, you'll be happy in the next.

Which temple is my favorite? hmmmm........ Can I say my wife's?

If I were to speculate, I would guess that the first few times we meet Christ we would be in awe and reverence, and rightly so. But as with all things, the shock starts to wear off. After the initial awe, is it unreasonable to think that we would develop enough comfort in His presence to greet and treat him like we do our friends?

Warning: In the following I'm going to use broad generalizations and stereotypes that do not extend universally to women. Still, some elements may shed light on what's happening. Deborah Tannen writes in her book You Just Don't Understand a chapter about gossip. She states that women use gossip as a way to negotiate both intimacy and status. She says that many women will trade secrets as an indirect way of saying, "I like you and want to be your friend." At the same time, the more secrets a woman knows, the more friends she must have, therefore, the more popular she must be (higher status). For me, I'd say it's the idea of status that plays into whether or not it is gossip. If X is telling you about Z for no other reason than to show that she knows something about Z, then it is gossip. However, if X is talking about Z in an attempt to make sense of her relationship with Z, then it's probably not gossip. Remember, people often don't understand the situations they are in until they articulate them. Tangent: My wife and I almost never listen to each other. When I'm trying to figure something out, she'll pretend like she's listening, and by the time I've reached the end of what I'm saying I've figured it out. She does the same thing. She gets mad at me though, when she's talking for intimacy and I forget to tune in.

I thought about reporting this thread, just for giggles. But I do appreciate the message.

Uncorked is one of my favorites. (It is also known as At Satchem Farm)

The fear of moving up a tax brackets is because of the following hypothetical, yet plausible situation. Say you earn $49,000 and owe $4,000 in taxes. You net $45,000. The next year you get a raise to $51,000, putting you in a higher tax bracket, and you now owe $7,000 in taxes. You now only net $44,000. I actually experienced this when I served tables in college a few times. If I worked 36 hours, I would get a paycheck each week of about $210. If I worked 38 hours, I hit the next tax bracket, and my weekly paycheck totaled about $125. I always found that kind of annoying.

You're right, we never will agree on this topic, simply because we will never agree on how involved government should be. But hey, I do appreciate your viewpoints. You have said some things I'll consider and that may even refine my opinions some. I don't for a second think I have all the answers...how could anyone? the problems are too complex, and it's entirely impossible to do what will provide the absolute best results for everyone. What I mean by a graduated tax was something to the effect of (and i'm pulling these numbers out of my ear) If you make less than $10,000 you pay no tax If you make $10,000 to $20,000 you pay 5% If you make $20,000 to $30,000 you pay 7% If you make $30,000 to $40,000 you pay 9% If you make $40,000 to $50,000 you pay 11% If you make $50,000 to $75,000 you pay 13% ... If you make over $3 billion you pay 40% Of you could even get creative, and have a linear function that specifies an exact ratio between income earned and tax paid. This makes it less painful to move from, say, $49,000 to $51,000.

The doors on the temple have a lot of symbolism. I don't have all of hte references at hand, and am too lazy to look them up right now, so I'll try to work from memory and welcome any and all corrections. They open East to welcome the Savior, who will come 'as the rising of the Sun.' They open to the East as a throwback to the Tabernacle of the Congregation. This last one I have no way of confirming. I heard it second hand from someone who claimed they'd heard an expert on Jewish culture say that the doors on the East were part of the symbolism of returning to God. According to the alleged expert: 1) Eden was created 2) The Garden was placed Eastward in Eden 3) When Adam and Eve transgressed, they were sent further East When the tabernacle was built, the door was on the East, and the Holy of Holies was on the most western side of the tabernacle. So Adam and Eve went from West to East, and as we go through the tabernacle, we return to God, going East to West. If such is true, then we lose some of the symbolism of the doors in the East because we tend to view it from the Greek point of view (bottom to top) rather than the Hebrew point of view (East to West). But it's a nice throwback. The doors on the East may be used by anyone, so long as they're unlocked, but I have heard some say that the Eastern doors will be the ones Christ uses upon his return. But I don't know of any reference to support that. Okay peanut gallery, eat me up.

And thus you run into the fundamental challenge of government: as a people, we know what has to be done, but as individuals, we rarely want to do it. This is what government exists to do, by the way; balance the communal interest against the individual interest. In a somewhat ludicrous argument, we can say that if government has no right to infringe on personal freedom, then it has no right to punish a man who kills another. Under that argument, the government should back of of NAMBLA too. But we as a society would never allow such things to happen because we inherently understand that such behaviors, in the long run, prove detrimental to society. We impose restrictions on personal liberties in order to ensure a better future for our society. Now, the big question is, will proper redistribution of wealth provide a better future for our society? I believe it will. I believe it would be worth while to tax more from the rich to fund better schools in low income areas, or something of that nature. Also, saying compromise is founded upon the ideas of the Adversary is just ridiculous. The point of compromise is to come to a common concensus, upon which people choose to give up certain liberties because they see the eventual benefit. Compromise is in no way coercion. Just for the record, more taxes on the rich under current tax codes seems absurd to me, and I don't think it would do much. I do think a kind of flat tax would be much better, where the more money you make, the higher the percentage gets, but you don't get to take nearly as many credits and exemptions. The best idea I've heard yet, though, is a national salary cap. Cap the salaries somewhere, and then let the businesses figure out how to spend the money saved. You'd likely see a lot of creative ways to pay CEO's more, but you'd also see a lot of additional investment into the company.

A receipt just appeared linking him to purchases of Human Growth Horomone. Which wouldn't be a problem but he said he had nothing to do with it while under oath the Congress. Essentially, it's strong evidence that he lied to Congress.

I wish it were that simple. I do agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure it applies. A 10% tithe makes sense for a religion that exists to improve a person's soul. But the improvement of one's soul can be accomplished regardless of economic circumstances, upbringing, demographics, etc. Prosperity in a temporal sense is much more difficult, and is heavily influenced by demographics, economies, and other things that an individual has no control over. The idea of taxing the rich is fueled by the vision of 'Social Responsibility,' meaning when one person has the resources to make him and his family capable of reaching their full potential, then he can give a little more to help those who don't have the resources. For instance, if someone earns $20 million in a year, is he really going to be that much happier with $14 million after taxes than he would be with $10 million? Conservatives would argue that ownership is more important, and Social Responsibility should be a choice, not a legislated cause. They're right. But the choice that is made is to keep the money, eventually causing greater separation between the rich and the poor. This process gave us things like the French Revolution. So why not strike a compromise somewhere. Oh, and by the way, the Church does ask more of the wealthy than 10%. But they do it quietly, as when a poor family can't afford to send their son or daughter on a mission, the Bishop will ask a wealthy member to contribute. Or sometimes, when a family can't pay a dentist bill, the Bishop may ask a wealthy member to cover the costs (either directly or through Fast Offering).

The next time I have to give a lesson about honesty, and want to show how one lie usually leads to another, I'm using Clemens as an example. What kind of his jerk throws his wife under the bus to take the fall for him.

Okay, I'm finished...and I'm a little confused. Hurry up and let's get this discussion going! :-)

I bought the whole thing from Deseret Book for $50. A pretty good deal considering the number of tomes. It's also nice to be able to carry it around for lessons.

Infidel!