unixknight

The trouble with reading Dawkins, and others of his ilk, is that their entire focus is on using a variety of arguments and philosophical constructs to convince you that they're smarter than 90% of the population of the planet and that you'd be well served to align with them. All for a paycheck. The danger in reading these books isn't that somehow they'll reveal a truth that's hidden from those of us who believe in God. The danger is that most people aren't that well equipped to really understand the arguments being presented and decide whether or not they're valid. For example, Dawkins' central argument is that the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically, and then goes on to demonstrate this. The reader's faith is shaken by Dawkins' arguments and seeks to hear more. $Cha-ching$. It's a form of philosphical sleight of hand. Ever notice how Dawkins himself sets the standard of proof and then shows how religious faith fails to meet it? Man, if I could do that I could win any argument, any time, against anyone. Watch this: Warhammer 40,000 is the greatest game ever devised by the mind of mortal man. I can even prove it! You see, a good game MUST include miniatures, which ideally are painted. Also, the game should include dice, to introduce a random element. There should be a tabletop and scenery for a game to be truly good, and lastly, the best game in the world should have great fluff behind it to add the feel of a storyline context to put it in. Now, since we now know what defines a really good game, I can prove that Warhammer 40,000 satisfies this standard. Warhammer 40,000 uses plastic or metal miniatures that are sold unassembled and unpainted, thus satisfying the first requirement. The game rules call for 6-sided dice to be thrown to determine the results of actions taken by the players. The game is played on a tabletop, with the Tournament regulation size being a 6' x 4' rectangle. Scenery like trees, buildings and hills are used to impact the strategy and actions of the players. Finally, there's a rich selection of novels and other materials providing a story context for the game. I have thus proven that Warhammer 40,000 is better than any other game, so put away your deck of cards and Monopoly board and get out there and play some Warhammer40k, yeah! See what I did there? I chose an arbitrary set of requirements that happen to be met by a particular subject, then used that to show how well my subject matched up with the definition. The only real challenge is getting you to accept that my definition of a great game is somehow definitive and reliable. That's why Dawkins uses so many words like "scientific" and "reason." He's not actually using science OR reason to make his points. He's feeding you a series of logical fallacies and calling it proof. At the same time, you're supposed to accept it because, hey, you're a reasoned person! It's been said that Dawkins comes across as an angry guy. Well I wouldn't say "angry" I'd say "derisive." People tend to accept the word of those who come across as being confident, and sneering at opponents is one way to appear confident without actually having to earn it. "What do you mean you don't enjoy Warhammer40k? Well you can like what you want but us logical and reasonable gamers will be playing a 40k game and you can feel free to go back to that same game of Checkers you've had since you were in diapers." So if a teacher advised you to avoid books like that I suspect it's motivated by more than just "Don't read that, it doesn't agree with my beliefs!" (Ironically, you can get that sort of mentality right from Dawkins. Ever heard him tell someone to read the Bible to check it out for themselves?) Didn't think so. If you have a burning desire to read that sort of drivel then by all means, there's no rule in the Church to stop you, but tread lightly and don't be too enthralled by Dawkins' motives. Dawkins gets royalties from people buying his books. The Book of Mormon is given for free.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. That's right, he doesn't, but the problem is that too many people feel like somehow their sins won't truly be forgiven unless the Bishop has gotten involved and "signed off" on it. True, there could be other factors, which is why I tried to make my comments as general as possible, since it's a broader issue than this single example.

I realize that some may disagree with what I'm about to say but I just feel the need to offer an alternative point of view. In my opinion, there's a little too much of the automatic idea that going to the Bishop is the only path. That smacks of the Confession system in Catholicism, where confessing to your priest is the *ONLY* way to be forgiven for a sin. I think sometimes people in our church get caught in the rut of thinking that's how it is with the Bishop. It's like somehow we can't ever recover from such mistakes unless the Bishop is informed and involved in some way. Why is that a bad thing? Well for one thing it's a way of giving up our free agency. It's an automatic kneejerk reaction. "Uh-oh I masturbated, better make an appointment to call the Bishop!" His appointment book would be filled for the next twenty years if everybody did that. For another, the dread and fear of that meeting can cloud someone's judgment and put them through unnecessary stress. Have your sleep habits changed? Your eating habits? Have your grades suffered? How are your friendships and family relationships? Can he just make that all go away by just talking to the Bishop? I guess so, but it's really not that simple, is it? There's a lot of pressure put on the young men (and women, for that matter) to uphold a certain standard (which in itself is a good thing) but more often than not we're taught what the standard is, but not how to cope when we don't meet it. Going to the Bishop essentially feels like not only have we stumbled but that on some level we're saying "I'm not the good person you thought I was." The result: People showing up to church wearing masks. Case in point: The young man who started this thread probably thinks he's the only one in his ward struggling with this issue. That's wrong, guys. That's a problem. That's exactly the sort of excessive guilt and feelings of self-loathing that shake faith and lead some to fall away. Masturbation is not a "dirty little secret." Don't start hating yourself for it and don't feel like you're the only guy in the world who has had to deal with it. I'm of the opinion that 99% of men have been there, with very few exceptions. Show me an adult male who claims never to have masturbated and my first reaction is to think he's probably lying. (No offense, guys. If you truly are an exception then kudos to you, but that makes you a member of a very, very small club.) I'm a man and the father of two teenage boys, so I know of what I speak. Now, masturbation can be an addictive behavior and if that turned out to be the case, then yes, some kind of help is needed as it would be with ANY addictive behavior. Some understanding of teh cycle of addiction would be useful here. Also, since masturbation is often associated with pornography that can lead to bigger spiritual ramifications. At the end of the day though, in terms of sin, the only one who grants forgiveness is the Lord. Don't let guilt and shame destroy you. We feel guilt and shame as a way for us to know when we've done wrong, but it isn't meant to eat us up to the point where we're stressed all the time and dreading going to church on Sunday. Those feelings are a tool, not a club.

One of the big barriers to reducing the pay rate of Government employees is unions. My mom had a government job until she retired and union membership where she worked was mandatory. As it is, unions push for ever better compensation while ignoring worker accountability. Think they're going to just smile and give in if the Government comes to them and says "Ok well to make budget we have to cut pay and benefits across the board." Good luck with that.

No there's no Federal sales tax (yet) I was lumping State and Federal together in that. Sorry for being vague. :)

I agree with everything you said except this last part. If you want to raise tax revenue, raising the tax rate may not be the best way. In the '80s, the tax rate was lowered yet IRS revenue went up. (I don't have the specifics in front of me.) How can this be? Because with lower taxes, more money circulated. That meant more consumer goods purchased (more sales tax collected) businesses expanded to hire more people (more employed people paying into the income tax system) Profits went up (profit tax revenues rose) etc etc etc. There's probably a graph somewhere laying out the tax rate vs. revenue taken in, and there's a sweet spot where revenues are maximized at a certain rate before it falls lower as the tax rate increases. I'm pretty sure we're beyond that point now. This is mostly my own theorizing so take it for what it's worth. I'm a software developer not a tax accountant, but this is what I've read.

Evolution, as a branch of science, has become a religion and Charles Darwin is its prophet. The trouble with Evolution, and the reason it's still classed as a theory and not a Law, is because Science, true Science, requires the following things: 1)It must be reproducible. You must be able to perform experiments and observe consistent results. Evolution cannot be reproducible by its very nature; it's a process that takes millions of years. (I know about the fruit flies. That proves diddly squat.) 2)It must be observable if it can't be reproduced in a lab. As with the problem above, it cannot be observed because it takes millions of years. At best, Evolution can be relegated as no more than a theory that happens to fit the known facts. (Although it doesn't even really do that.) I've seen Evolution apologists insist that Theory now carries the same weight as Scientific Law, so that they can claim Evolution is as absolutely indisputable as Thermodynamics and Gravity. This isn't so, but it won't prevent them from shouting down anyone who dares to disagree. (present company excepted, of course :) ) I've seen too many cases where Evolutionary data has turned out to have been falsified or distorted to be able to trust that theory now. If a theory is sound, then there should be no need to falsify or distort. What's worse is that a friend of mine, a high school science teacher, admits to these problems but says they still teach it because it's the best they've got. Well, I'm not sure exactly how something that's demonstrably false is better than nothing except that it allows one to avoid believing in the Creator, or at least, crediting Him with originating life on this world. "Anything but God" is what keeps Evolution alive. /rant :)

I once read a book called "Willpower is not Enough." The premise of the book was twofold: 1)When you mess up, forgive yourself. When we beat ourselves up over our failures we actually undermine our own ability to exercise self control. We convince ourselves that we don't deserve success. 2)Don't rely on willpower alone to keep you out of trouble. Willpower is like a guardrail on a mountain road. You don't drive your car by dragging against the guardrail the whole time, do you? No. You drive down the road and the guardrail is there to (hopefully) save you from going off a cliff in case you get careless. That's how willpower is. Nobody walks into a strip bar to exercise their willpower in not looking at the dancers. People who don't want to be temped just don't go to strip clubs. When my sons began to date I warned them not to rely on willpower alone to keep them from going too far with their girlfriends. I told them it's better just to avoid tempting situations altogether. I don't know what your specific willpower problem is but if you can adapt those ideas to it, you may find some success.

My son has been locked in an ongoing debate with a (member) friend over the issue of movie ratings. His friend *absolutely* will not watch R-rated movies. It doesn't matter the subject, the content or the reason for the rating. Meanwhile, one of his favorite movies is Austin Powers. Now, anyone who's watched Austin Powers knows that movie is about as morally bankrupt as you can get without tipping over into an R rating. My son loves the movie Saving Private Ryan. Now, whatever your position is on movie content I'm pretty sure that most members, if forced into one or the other, would rather have their kid see Saving Private Ryan over Austin Powers. The one film promotes courage, duty, compassion and patriotism. The other promotes hedonism, immorality and is utterly morally bankrupt. Now, I know the Church leadership has said "Avoid R rated movies" and this is one of those areas in which I do not align with my fellow members. Movies are rated by the MPAA which is a secular organization that may or may not value the things I do. Therefore, when choosing what movies I'd let my kids watch, I ignore the rating and I look at the content itself. This shocks many of my fellow wardmembers who regard the R rating thing as an absolute commandment.

This is true, although I do remember one of the events that triggered all this was a guy from my ward. I was his home teacher and had agreed to give him a ride one day to someplace he had to be. (He didn't have a car.) Well my radio was on when he got into my truck and he immediately reacted with surprise that the radio was playing *gasp* Magic Carpet Ride. "Brother, should you really be listening to Steppenwolf?" I'd love to meet that Bishop. :) Well if you're in my area you'd be welcome to join our AD&D group. Roger that.

I *am* my ward's quirk.

I have a few thoughts on this, if I may. So does abstinence, and marriage isn't required for monogamy. I remember about 20 years ago or so the prevailing "wisdom" we were hearing from the left was that marriage was obsolete and unnecessary. Now, suddenly, it's become the most important thing in the universe if you're gay. If I'm reading you right, this is saying that ANY social framework is preferable to an orphanage. Now, I didn't grow up in an orphanage or a foster home so I won't presume to be an expert on them, but I'd hesitate to draw the blanket conclusion that a gay couple would, in all cases, be a better option than any foster home. Agreed. The problem is that if someone takes on the stance of "people should be able to marry whomever they want" then you're opening the door for a lot of side effects. In our society we already have restrictions on who is available to marry based on a wide variety of factors. For example, I can't marry my sister, even if we're both consenting adults. I can't marry a woman who's already married to someone else unless she first gets divorced. I can't marry a man. I can't marry someone who's underage. I can't marry someone who's mentally unable to enter into a contract. The reasons for each of these varies but you see what I'm getting at. "I really love that person and want to spend my life with them" is not reason enough to force a societal change. Could you elaborate a bit on why you think so? Psychologically, children turn out emotionally more stable and successful when raised by a mother and a father, because each parent provides a different perspective. It also means the child will always have access to a parent who can guide them through things like puberty. I have 2 sons and 2 daughters. When my sons needed to learn to shave, how to pee standing up, how to take care of their personal hygiene, get advice with girls, etc they come to me. When my daughters need guidance with things like buying a bra or how to handle their period, they go to their mom. Conversely, when my sons need a more maternal source of emotional support or my daughters need a more paternal source, they have the parent available to fit those needs. A gay couple, by definition, can only supply half of that support without calling in outside help that may or may not be consistent and available. Further, in this rush to push gay marriage and gay adoption, nobody's actually stopped to do some research into the impact these things will have on our society and on the kids who grow up in gay households. We hear a lot of "Oh it'll be fine gay couples are very stable" but I have yet to hear about any scientific study to support that. In fact, I have heard of studies that found quite the opposite, but those findings tend not to see the light of day in the media. Good point, and in my humble opinion a sign that things have been pushed too far. When things start breaking like this, that's usually the point where you know things are out of hand. It's a little like the abortion laws in most places. A man who gets a woman pregnant has absolutely no say whatsoever over whether or not she aborts, yet his life can be irrevocably impacted by her decision. If she chooses to abort, he can't stop her even if he wanted to be a dad, and will have to live with that sadness. If he didn't want to be a dad and she choose to have the child, she can get child support from him even if he never anted to be a father. In some places a man can legally give up his parental rights and avoid child support at the cost of ever being involved in the child's life, but that's not universal. I like that you said "rights and RESPONSIBILITIES." We hear a lot about rights, rights, rights but rarely do people talk about the responsibilities that come with them. But now let me ask you, what responsibilities would you associate with a lesbian couple who wants to raise a child?

This is very true, and we see that in prettymuch all religions on some level. I've been told the Mormons around here (Washington, DC area) tend to be more in tune with the Church than most of those back in Utah because a greater proportion of us are converts and for us we're members of the Church as a result of a choice as opposed to being raised in it and "going with the flow."

Hence, the difference, morally, between necessary abortions and the "elective" kind. (By "elective" I mean abortion when used as a form of retroactive birth control.)

So am I. The hardest part to readjust for me was going from having to confess every single sin in order to receive absolution ("Forgive me, Father for I have sinned. I stole a pen from a co-worker and I've missed mass three times since my last confession.") to having the Bishop there not as an intercessor but someone to go to IF I need help overcoming sin or when things get out of control. Asking forgiveness for sins is a matter of private prayer and requires no intercession in LDS. IMHO a lot of LDS members have sort of the same problem even if they don't come from Catholicism. There's something pretty powerful in having someone sitting across from you and telling you you're okay. Catholic priests come out and say it "I absolve you of your sins in the name of..." but in LDS I think sometimes that's what people are looking for from the Bishop, even though that's not what he does. "Man, last night I was watching a movie and it turns out there was a nude love scene in it and I didn't turn away." "*GASP* You better go see the Bishop right away!"

Generally when stuff comes up in the pre-Baptism interview it isn't to look for reasons not to Baptize but, rather, to be sure that any problems like that are in the past and that the prospective new member understands what will be expected of him in the Baptismal Covenant. When I had my interview I had an issue in my past, which I told them about. All they needed from me was a commitment and assurance that it was in the past and all was well. So my guess is (and this is from someone who's never been a Mission Prez) is that they want to be sure that in a similar situation, history wouldn't repeat itself. As has been mentioned already, the Church finds elective abortion to be immoral and while individuals have wildly varying opinions on that, we are all united in a commitment not to be a part of it.

^This. I have a blog up on blogspot from before I had my own website and built-in blog.

Or maybe a temple visitor's center?

This is important. Not to get into an anti-gay marriage rant here, but one of the big points raised by supporters of gay marriage when it first hit the media bigtime is the assertion that "Noting will change about society, just gay people will have equal marriage status." The truth is there are a lot of changes. In Washington DC and in Boston Catholic adoption agencies, long partnered with city governments to place children in loving homes, are having to close down rather than be forced by the Government to place children in gay couples' homes in violation of their beliefs. Or what about the professional photographer in Arizona who was sued - successfully - for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding. She wasn't the only wedding photographer in town and yet she was targeted and financially destroyed for daring to adhere to her beliefs. Or what about Sweden, where a politician is trying to have preachers who don't perform gay marriages banned from performing weddings at all? How about the public school in Massachusetts that started introducing teaching materials into the classroom normalizing gay couples to children, not only refusing to inform parents of this but ignoring their objections when the truth came out? By opposing these things, the LDS Church (as well as the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations) are not trying to subjugate homosexuals or control them. They're essentially protecting themselves and their members from forced changes by a society that is trying to take the moral highground and override the freedom of religion. Personally, I don't care who people spend their nights with, but I refuse to take society's word for it over the Church, which I have a testimony of.

I don't have a whole lot to add to the wisdom already presented in this thread* except to say that whenever I hear someone expressing discomfort at the Church's policies/doctrines when they conflict with secular/popular standards is that essentially those people are disappointed that God's Church isn't conforming to the standards of the world. You see it happen in the Scriptures all the time; the common worldly view is one thing and God's people are set apart from it by their beliefs. If you receive a testimony from the Spirit that the Church is true, then that should be the source for one's moral standards. Would it be easier if the Church said "Ok well a lot of people really believe gay marriage should be allowed so we're just gonna back down on that?" Sure it'd be easier... But that would also be proof positive that the Church isn't truly of God, because Heavenly Father ALONE should guide Church doctrine, and not what fits the populist notions of right and wrong. Might God someday have the Church open itself to gay marriage? I suppose anything's possible, but as I said, only God can do that. It isn't the job of the Church to conform to the shifting tides of popular morality. As for masturbation... The way I've explained it to my sons is that indulging in it is like any other physical indulgence... like eating too much, eating or drinking things that are bad for you, etc. They aren't necessarily the kinds of things that are spirit crushing sins or anything, but every time we give in to carnal desires we make it harder to connect spiritually with God and with our fellow brothers and sisters. Would I advise someone to go running to the Bishop to beg for help if he occasionally pleasures himself in the shower? Well no, not necessarily. We are, after all, imperfect humans striving to do our best to be as close to perfection as we can, but we aren't going to get there. It's the effort and the journey that counts. Just do your best. And when you stumble try not to be discouraged. Get back up and recommit yourself. No biggie. Tea... well I've heard a lot of different points of view on that. Some abstain from tea altogether, some drink only herbal tea, some see certain types of tea as okay and some not. I am not an authority on the matter but since you're not really into tea that much I guess it's not that much of an issue for you. Basically when it comes to the Word of Wisdom and things like coffee and tea I don't know why they're forbidden to us, but in the 1830s and 1840s they didn't know why tobacco was forbidden either. (In fact, the medical community at that time believed that things like tobacco, opium and cocaine were of medical benefit!) It wasn't until years later that more was known. In the meantime, faith kept them away from those things. For now, who knows what tomorrow might bring when it comes to coffee and tea? I wish you the best in your decision. At the end of the day, prayer really is the best way to find the truth because only God can provide information to you in an unbiased, unfiltered way. None of us can do that. The media can't do that. Books can't do that. But if you want to know simply "will the Church accept you?" the simplest answer is "yes." *Sorry for the long post... Maybe I had more to add than I thought...

Elaborate, please?

The irony in that being that the author is LDS...

Hehe if you open up a White Dwarf form a couple years back, the big photo in the last section is one of a bunch of us at a Battle Bunker during an event one day. About half of our group (including my son) are LDS. (And they deal with the same issues I'm describing here.) This is my youngest, and this picture was taken a couple days ago. She was looking at my old Space Marines Codex (It's prettymuch hers now) and fell asleep with it: http://ldsknights.org/image/image_gallery?img_id=36920&t=1296745031997 (She likes all the different colors of Space Marine Power Armor.) I bet some of the folks in my ward would be shocked. Fellow Wardmember: "You let your daughter look at a rulebook for a game with such violent themes?" Me: "Of course. How else is she going to win at the Tournament when she gets older?" Fellow Wardmember: "..." That I'm used to. I learned to deal with it in a positive way when I was in school, at work, and so on. It's different at Church because there seems to be this idea that somehow being more Christ-like means being less like... well like me. As if since The Savior probably wouldn't play 40K then neither should anybody else, ideally. (But if He did I bet He'd totally play Grey Knights.... Just sayin') Maybe, but I think the area he's in is a big factor. Apparently it's much more rigid than it is around here.

Anytime! My specialty is web development using Java. I dunno wasn't that the MMO? My wife's about halfway through FFXIII now on our XBox360.

Thanks for the kind words, all. I think if you guys were in my ward I wouldn't have had these problems :)