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.

It is just odd to me that he would "think" that it's not doctrinal. Because he is so adamant about "fundamentalists" not being Mormon, that I would expect him to say "it is not doctrinal" and not "I think it is not doctrinal". I don't. It was simply odd. But you are all probably right.

This quote was said during an interview with Larry King on the Larry King show. The entire transcript can be found at: CNN Transcript - Larry King Live: Gordon Hinckley: Distinguished Religious Leader of the Mormons This is just a clipping from the whole transcript: Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it? Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale. Larry King: You could have a certain amount of... Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us. Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right? Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists. Larry King: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah? Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is. Larry King: Should there be arrests? Gordon B. Hinckley: It's matter of civil procedure. The church can't do anything. We have no authority in this matter, none whatever. Larry King: Would you like to see the state to clamp down on it? Gordon B. Hinckley: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It's a civil offense. It's in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We're totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that's a responsibility of civil officers. Larry King: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense? Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It's outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church. Larry King: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying -- they told "The Salt Lake Tribune" -- that it's difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem? Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, it's secretive. There's a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty -- they say they do, in gathering evidence. Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you're forceful here tonight, but maybe -- they've been saying that it's rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute. Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know. We'll consider it. Larry King: I'm giving you an idea. Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. Larry King: Would you look better if you were... Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know that we would or not. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state. Larry King: You condemn it. Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. The quote I find interesting is President Hinckley's last, " I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal." I don't think he is referring to fundamentalists having a "doctrinal right" to practice polygamy. They certainly do not. Is he referring to the practice in general? So it has me a bit perplexed.

Please, do not leave. This is not a gay bash. This is exactly the point I am trying to make. People need to hear the pain and frustration. Not that they are going to change their minds. But because we need to understand that real people--friends, family, and loved ones--are gay. And are tortured by this whole situation. I am not sure how this make the situation any better. But I do believe that we have to bear some of the pain we are causing. We cannot become so calous that we simply say it is what it is and that's that. We need to be able to sincerely say I am sorry that it is what it is. IMHO

Just 40 or more years ago, some courtrooms looked the other way when men, women, and children were lynched for the color of their skin. Women were treated as second-class citizens. etc. etc. I would say anything is possible. And that is what concerns me most.

Taking a step back further. The ONLY natural law that exists are the laws of nature. Everything else is either divine in nature or man made. When you are dealing with divine law, God is the final arbiter of what is fair and right. When you are dealing with man-made laws, it is usually the majority, the reigning political power, or whomever has the biggest stick. From a religious standpoint, we can sit and judge and say which laws are good and bad because we have either a direct or indirect divine reference. Otherwise all bets are off. I mean if you are a despotic dictator and you constantly kill off your opponents, religious people would find that abbhorent--but non religious people may find it a problem or not. Depending on which side of the fence they find themselves. And that is the problem with men meddling with divine laws.

But truth is truth. And when it doubt, turn to the prophet, scriptures, and the Father in prayer. True science and the Gospel are never at odds.

We, and by we I mean all humanity, are a religious people. Dating all the back to whenever. How can we not be affected by morality. You show me a secular man who says it is scientifically beneficial to allow same-sex marriage and I will show you one who said it was scientifically beneficial to surpress free speech. The point being, that man's short-sightedness does not allow us to have the vision nor wisdom necessary to make far-reaching laws on our own. We must rely upon the divine to do so. So what two consenting adults do may be our problem--especially if God says it is for reason that we may not be able to understand at this time. And yes, there have already been times when being the minority means that you are going to suffer. And I have no doubts that those times are still here today and will be here tomorrow. That is why we have a prophet who can make sense of any situation today, when we need it most. The message wasn't a if-you-are-inclined-to-do-so type of message. It was an edict, a command. Now, I suppose not everyone does need to follow it. But if you don't, I am sure you will have to explain yourself before the Lord. And maybe you will be okay, maybe not. But for them to make such a public statement means there is a lot on the line. And obedience is of the essence.

I agree with you, bytor2112--previous post, not the one above. If God could, he could simply will the world to not allow same-sex marriages, and it would be done. But that is not how he operates. He is relying on his saints to do some of the heavy lifting. And we do that, in this case, by using our brains and the knowledge of PR, marketings, sales, politics, business, etc., etc., etc., to get the job done. And if we do our very best, He will bless our endeavors to further his cause. I say all this, because understanding why we need to oppose same-sex marriage is as important/more important than to blindly say we should. It's not just the use of the word, it is, as bytor2112 stated, the beachhead that will allow secular ideology to invade our communities, regardless of where your live and what you believe in. This fight is not just about same-sex marriage. It is about the invasion of secular beliefs that would kill God off all together. I have read the conversations that suggest religion is antiquated and that science is the new creed. God is not dead. We all need to be prepared to be valiant, for larger fights are coming I fear.

I think bytor2112 is getting more to the point. God doesn't necessarily speak English. So lets not get lost with symantics. The million dollar question is should we oppose any legally-binding agreement that allows same-sex couples--regardless of what it is called--to have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples who are married. Or are we only concerned with the use of the word "marriage". We need clarification on this. Because, same sex couples have been entering into civil union contracts for ever--which may not have the same benefits as a marriage, but can have very similar benefits. So are we opposed to those as well. I really want to understand how far we are suppose to take it, because misunderstanding what we are or are not suppose to do is a giant step in the direction of hypocrisy.

I am a staunch supporter of Marriage being between a man and woman. What I am trying grasp at, and that JHM-in-Bountiful, touched on is, is it using the word "marriage" that we are opposed to or the acceptance of a legal and temporal binding agreement that allows two people of the same sex to be recognized as a couple, with all the legal rights and privileges afford to heterosexual couples who are married. Secondly, as LDS, we should all be very sympathetic to anyone who finds themselves in the position of same sex attraction--without, of course, comprising our own principles. It is difficult to say the least. But imagine if some one told you, you couldn't love and marry your wife. If someone told that to me, it would be fight time. That is why I think it is so important that the Church understands the exact extent to which we are to be activists in either accepting or denying people in same sex relationships--and be willing to take a few bumps and bruises in the most humble and compassionate way possible. And leave the judging to those who have been called to do so.