captain_nephi

Just wondering what everyone is thinking on this latest situation. So the conservative Republican party has selected a woman who is clearly in the midst of be a day-to-day mother. Is voting for the Republican party a vote against LDS family values? Can she be both a mother and serve as VP for the United States of America? Does this election year create an inherent situation where some members may simply not vote for a president? Just wondering what everyone was thinking?

Grammatically, that is not how the sentence reads. It reads more along the lines of God ordained meat for the use of man, sparingly, and not only in times of emergency, but anytime (implied).

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; 13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. What this is saying is not that you should eat meat sparingly -- in times of winter, etc.--but that people should eat meat sparingly at all times, and not just during the winter, cold or famine. Also, although the WOW does not touch on being overweight--not big-boned--or out of shape--not exercising regularly--is it generally excepted as such. If a member who has eaten himself into 300+ lbs sinning as much as someone who is smoking, drinking, etc.? What do you think?

For me, Faith is the result of exercising our belief in God and Jesus Christ--in the same way you can gain endurance by working out. So what are the types of "exercising" that builds faith? Prayer, scripture study, meditation, service, sacrifice, etc. Do amazing miracles happen today? All the time.

Ya, I have always thought that evolution is a divine law. The world was sort of baked using natural processes and when the time was right, Adam and Eve--and the Holy blood line--would be introduced to the earth.

This is kind of a related question... so did the children of Adam and Eve inter marry or were there other mortal beings on earth that they married? Just wondering what everyone's opinion is? Seems related.

Don't know if you were referring to my original post, but it is no joke. But a very sincere question. Everyone has the right to enjoy the fruits of the labors--clearly. But everyone also has stewardship of those fruits. So when is too much, too much? When should we as saints put millions into a scholarship fund for other people to enjoy, rather than build a ultra-luxurious vacation home. Is it okay to stockpile wealth to ensure a lavish retirement rather than help our fellow man? And how does this all play into coveting and possibly the whole idea around a united order?

Yes and no. Being asked to dress modestly is no some part due to the fact that dressing immodestly can affect those around us. Don't you think?

Totally agree. But, I am talking about our stewardship over all that we receive and how some a certain lifestyle can cause strife and coveting in others. Is there a responsibility to live a modest lifestyle? And what exactly is that?

Along those lines... Although, there truly is no limit to how much wealth a man may earn--as long as he does it fairly and with integrity--does that mean he has the right to spend it as he sees fit? Is not all that we have from God? Where much is given is not much expected? Is that why it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of an needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? Are rich men taking the blessing of heaven that could be used to help build Zion, but are instead used for a vacation home in the Hamptions? Also, consider the possibility that if it is appropriate for people to dress modestly to help those struggling with chastity--as one of many reasons to dress modest--would not a modest lifestyle--regardless of your income level--be a similar practice with regard to coveting. Also, what is a reasonable lifestyle? House, 2 cars, savings, health insurance, life insurance, 401 K, college savings, 2 vacations a year, club dues, etc. etc. A lot of it seems prudent, but in our quest to a guaranteed lifestyle, have we trampled upon our commitment to building up of Zion (time, talents, and means). When other parts of the world live on $2 a day--or are starving to death--are we too high on the economic food chain? just some thoughts.

Thou shalt not covet. Seems simple enough--but as I am learning it is a loaded commandment. I understand that developing envy of those that have what we don't have is not only unhealthy but leads to a lack of gratitude for what we do have. Having said that, we are also taught to look to the stars, and not the earth. To aspire to be all we could be. It could be said that if our forfathers did not covet the freedoms of others, we would still all be British subjects. So, where to draw the line. Also, is there a flip side to covet. So many commandments seem to have a lot of meaning wrapped around them. For example, Adultery has come to mean any inappropriate sexual contact and even unmodest dress and inpure thoughts. So does though shalt not covet have a similar depth? Is there an aspect of not living a life soooo extravagant that you can make others feel like they are forever falling short. In our society that is so hyper-focused on entertainment and sporting stars--who make rediculous piles of money--and others who have amassed fortunes and own multiple homes, cars, etc. etc. Is there a problem with that? Like to hear your feedback.

IMHO its: Direct Commandments from the Father, Jesus, Angels, etc. Prompting of the Spirit Laws and Commandments as giving by Prophets Laws of the Land Natural laws Sometimes these "laws" are harmonious--other times they are not. And when one of the lower "laws" conflict with a higher "laws" the higher law wins, every time. Obeying earthly laws is more of a means to end than the end itself. Any way. My 2 cents.

THAT is exactly where I was going with the initial post.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Joseph Smith receive the revelation sanctioning polygamy while the LDS Church was still in Illinios, even though the practice had already been officially against the law for 10 years prior in that state? Both the LDS Articles of Faith and Paul's letter to the Romans will tell you to obey State Law, because the ruling authority is put there by God with His authority. So why would God then tell the Church to do something contrary to the law of the land? I think there is a canon of laws--10 commandments, etc.--that are the general guidelines that we are to follow in the absence of something more direct and immediate. So regardless of what has been written previously, if the prophet, angel, talking donkey, or God himself directs otherwise, that's what you do first and formost. In such situations, it is easy for apparent contradiction to exist. When in fact, there is no contradiction.

I think the fluid nature of prophecy I think sometimes makes things hard to nail down. There are more temporal situations that are sometimes taken to be eternal; there are situations that draw near to eternal principles, but pale in comparison (and the pale version is adopted as The Law); and there are some principles that evolve as generations of leaders are able to add further light and understanding by having stood on the shoulders of the spiritual giants that have preceded them. I don't know if, as a church, we don't discuss it because we are embarrased of it or because we are afraid it offends a lot of people--in particular, the sisters.