FunkyTown

Why is it important for our species to continue? What difference does it make if the minority has nothing left to take? Are you going to argue that it's important for our species to continue because it's a biological imperative? If so, you know that I am going to ask if you think that what is 'Moral' are biological imperatives. You know where that will end, I would assume. And if the majority keeps taking what belongs to the minority, whether or not they have nothing left to give is irrelevant. They can decide what is moral at that point.

"Total agreement, I could forgive. Disagreement? Never."

Can you point us to that study? I've heard that number. I'd like to know the methodology and the questions that the British study used. I'd also want to know if anyone else was able to reproduce those numbers and whether it was correct or not. If we assume that 95% of rapes go unreported, and in Detroit the reported rate was 1.15% of women, that would mean that 23% of women suffered that in one year alone. So, if you extrapolate that out over 5 years... You see where I'm going with this, Moe? If those numbers are correct, there should be rage. There should be angry mobs in the streets protecting our mothers, sisters and daughters. If those numbers are wrong, then bringing them up does nothing but victimize every woman who hears them and puts them in to a victimization mindset.

I understand what you're saying, MOE, but I have a question: Before I joined the church, I worked as a bar runner in a bar called the Howl at the Moon Saloon. I worked there for about a year, and usually at least once a month you would get groups of ladies out on hens nights who got a little handsy with the staff. Not because we were super-hot and they couldn't help themselves, but because we were safe, they were drunk and they were in a crowd. According to this website, 351912 people were employed in the industry in 2005: http://www.nciaa.com/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=160641&module_id=29898 The population of the US is 319 million. If we assume a roughly even split of men to women in the bar industry, that means about .1% of the male population faces exactly the same thing I faced. If we assume a very conservative estimate of 1 uninvited pinch or grope per person in the bar industry per month, then in the last 15 years each male was assaulted roughly 180 times. If we assume that no male whatsoever outside of the bar industry faces that sort of assault, that would mean that number of assaults on males-to-population would work out to be about 18% of the male population in the US face sexual assault in their life. Do you get nervous when you go on a bus alone at night? Would you if statistics like "18% of all males get assaulted sexually in their lives." were shouted at you day and night? Do you think I should talk about myself like I'm a survivor of assault? Of course not. Those people were jerks and I didn't like it and the rest of the staff didn't like it, but I wouldn't degrade somebody who actually faced a real assault by honestly comparing myself to them. The problem, MOE, is that if these statistics are accurate and are not designed specifically to scaremonger, there is an epidemic so terrible that we should do something today, right now. We should march through the streets and deal with an issue that clearly cannot be dealt with by the police. On the other hand, if these numbers are specifically created using leading questions and couched in scaremongering tactics, someone is making a living by making women feel unsafe and preyed upon. That is so scummy that it needs to stop. Either way, we need to get to the bottom of it.

It wasn't sarcasm. He genuinely needed to draw a line in the sand. The question is: "What now?"

The President in the last day showed a remarkable amount of fortitude. He did what few people would dare - He went to NATO country Estonia and reassured them that, if Russia invaded them, the United States would go to war with Russia. Russia responded by having one of the biggest nuclear and strategic readiness exercises in history. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/uk-ukraine-crisis-russia-exercises-idUKKBN0GY0H620140903 It needed to be said. The question now is going to be, "Does Russia think that Obama is bluffing?" This is what the rest of the world is holding their breath for. The problem we have is that if Putin thinks Obama is bluffing and invades, World War III begins.

And yet, in the second example, the benefits were clearly for the majority. You could draw out that to be 6 billion people taking from the remainder of the world rather than 3 taking from 1. Either way, the benefits are to the majority rather than the few. And when you get to the 'Mentality that drives their actions is inconsistent with the principles of a stable society', I would ask: "Why is a stable society the desired end?" After all, if everyone were dead or(Alternately) denied free will, that would be the ultimate stable society.

This is where we get to the meat of the issue! "Man constructs his moral code in his own best interest." What does that mean? Man the individual? The generic "man", which implies all of mankind? A single, powerful man who can enforce his own will on others? For instance: There is a war going on. A war against a group that, if left unchecked, will destroy the world several generations hence. Is this moral? If so, why? And on the flip side: There is a group of 4 people. 3 of them ambush the 4th and take everything he has, despite him working hard and honestly for his gain. They split it among themselves and improve their lot. Is this moral? If not, why?

President Hinckley once said that in order for a new convert to prosper, they need a calling, nourishment from the good word of God and a friend. Many don't have that friend and mentor, and many do fall by the wayside because they feel lost. However, I can tell you something: For most people who convert and fall away, it's not that they don't know the commitment. It's that they can't live it. I'm sure you've seen the fire of the newly converted. There is nothing quite so passionate as someone who is new to something. That fire and zeal is admirable and wonderful. And it does not last. When a new convert joins the church, they have a feeling like no other. I didn't stop smiling for days after my baptism. I'm certain you've seen it, too, PC - That surety that you could shout your convictions from the top of the highest mountain. You feel like you could overcome any challenge. But it isn't the challenges that hurt. It's the day to day. One day, you can't hang out with your friends. The next, you find yourself with a bunch of people that you only have one thing in common with. The next, you find out that someone at church isn't perfect - Maybe he insults you, or does something hypocritical. Something happens that challenges your faith in the institution. Then, you have to make a choice: Stay or go. For many, when the fire of the recent conversion wears off, they start to try to hold on to it like a man gripping tighter the fist full of sand he gathered at the beach. They wonder if they're the ones who are lacking. They're told, "Just pray more. Serve your fellow man. That'll fix it." And it doesn't. And they start thinking that maybe they made a wrong decision. After all, they're feeling a little lonely, lost. They don't have those feelings they used to have. What if they're wrong? We all face that in our faith. Even the saviour asked, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" At some point, we face a time alone. I wish there was an easy answer. Maybe the members could be more supportive. Maybe we could make it more obvious that trials will continue after you join the church. They'll probably intensify. Maybe there is a lot we could do, but I don't know what that is. I just wish I could tell the members facing their long, dark night of the soul that it will pass. That it's only temporary. That God loves them and they aren't alone.

The problem with Atheism is, aside from the fact that it's factually incorrect, it essentially has no basis for morality. To state that Atheism requires the reduction of disabled people is untrue. Atheism is simply the rejection of Theism. There is no commentary on morality one way or the other. Dawkins was simply starting a conversation on what the 'new morality' would be. As he rejects God as a source of good, there has to be some other way to have a basis for good. His morality simply seems to be "What is most comfortable for the majority." I think he's wrong. But he simply drew his moral imperative to the logical conclusion. That we know it's abhorrent doesn't change that these sorts of 'ideas' will become more and more commonplace as rejection of deity as a basis of morality becomes more commonplace.

*munches on popcorn* This is a series of trials and tribulations for you. It's clear that this is something you are struggling with intently, and a cursory glance can see how passionately you feel about this. Know that you cannot fake the repentence process. You really, really have to know how you feel, and that you cannot fake what you feel inside. However, you can basically ignore anything but the bolded stuff.

It sounds like there's a lot more to this story: Potatofour, who are you interested in? Are you interested in a specific person or is this more a generic 'Just in case I fall in love with a foreigner'. I happened to be the foreigner who got married to a wonderful girl. I can say that, even between England and Canada, there are enough cultural differences that we still laugh at things. Like, I can't walk up and talk about buying pants in a talk here.

There are difficulties. Living in England, there is very much a pub culture out here. At my last job, when the layoffs came, the bosses drinking buddies were the ones who weren't laid off. In university, it's the same thing. You are walled off - Separated - from things non-LDS people can take for granted. You wake up at 5 AM to take your kids to Seminary, Monday evenings you're at home with FHE. Sundays, you volunteer 3 hours at church and then stay in with your family. That's assuming you don't have meetings or a calling, which almost all members do. Then, there's youth nights, Priesthood outings, Ward Welfare, not to mention home teaching, Temple Nights, Family History. And for all this, you also give up 10% of your income. If we didn't believe it was true, we just wouldn't do it.

Wow! Thread necro. But thank you for the smile, badmomma. I had forgotten this thread. Basically, he had come on here and told us that his Branch President(Or stake president. I can't remember) had told him that it was okay to smoke marijuana to get closer to God. A lot of people jumped on him. I mentioned that, since it was obvious he was from a small town with a tiny branch, all I had to do was phone the branch president and ask why he thought it was okay to smoke marijuana to get closer to the Lord. Simple enough. I tried to phone, failed to get through and ElZorillo simply stopped posting after I said I was going to back him up and act as a second witness to show that his Branch President did, indeed, say that. I wonder why he stopped posting when I said I was going to back him up. I stopped trying to call when it was apparent he was never going to log back in again.

I read that. It said that about 100 people showed up, most to show support for those resigning. And the one example they gave was of someone who hadn't been to church in 10 years. This doesn't really seem like a flood of resignations. More like some people with an axe to grind with the church, who hadn't been in a long time, using this as an excuse to make official that which was already the case.

The plane wasn't supposed to be flying over Russia. There's speculation on why it was, but I want you to imagine that the US was on a state of high alert. Maybe just after September 11th. A plane goes off course and flies in to your airspace. Airspace that is right next to a warzone right now. What do you do? I don't blame Putin for this. Either the plane was hijacked or the pilots were painfully stupid. My bet is that the plane was hijacked by very stupid terrorists.

Hey PC, loved the comment. But can you tell me who you were quoting and the context in which it was said? 'Cause my natural instinct is to say that it's true that those who follow Him are the ones who get the blessings in the next life, but I think it's pretty clear from the book of Job that the rain falls on Sinner and Saint alike. But 'Multiple callings, up-to-date home visitations and church giving that far surpasses the tithe and standard offerings' sounds to me like looking beyond the mark. The rich man that Jesus loved, for instance, had to sell everything he owned to follow Christ. The Centurion who God opened the heavens for, on the other hand, just prayed a lot and gave to the poor while the poor woman gave only a tiny bit of her funds in humility and grace.The tax collector just begged for forgiveness. It seems to me that God wants what we can give him. No more and no less.

The best thing to do when something like that occurs is realize they're only trying to be kind. They thought you were in an abusive situation and sought to help you. Just laugh at their naivete, explain that this is your choice but you appreciate their concern and then go on your way.

This is the strangest post I have ever seen: "Did early members of the church engage in a practice that may or may not have existed." First of all: How would we know? Secondly - What?

All right. Point by point: 1) Murmuring against the prophet is a bad idea. Sure. But asking questions is not. You later go on to point this out. This isn't what you had said - You had said that questioning the prophet is a problem. What you had done prior to this was a red herring. Now you're engaging in moving the goal-posts which is another form of fallacy entirely. 2) There may have been some who thought this was about lifting up the Prophets above them and sought to get the Priesthood for worldly gain as per Numbers 16:3 Would you say that is the majority? Because I would suggest it's best to leave that decision to God. To put to you the same kind of argument you put to MOE, If you truly trust the leadership, you don't need to explain why they made the decision they did. You don't know that - Only their Priesthood leaders do, and that's the way it should be.You don't know their hearts, I don't know their hearts. It's a tragedy whenever anyone has to be excommunicated. The only thing we can do is state that they were wrong and that we love them.

That's a red herring, Folk. In the bible, MOST of the time the followers of God were stiff-necked. Asking the prophet to pray about something isn't wrong. People asked Joseph Smith all the time for everything from receiving the Priesthood(Which was granted) to Oliver Cowdery(Which was not quite so happy an occasion). There is nothing wrong with wanting the Priesthood. If asked in the right spirit, it's a righteous desire. Otherwise, Joseph Smith would never have been granted it.

Well, it's entirely possible that the leadership prayed about it and got no answer. This would require the leadership to either get in to an argument with members who said "Well, if he didn't say 'No', then you can change it". You'll note that they didn't say that they received inspiration saying that women couldn't be ordained. Only that they 'don't' get ordained. If they got no answer, simply saying, "We've had no inspiration to change it." would have made things worse. If that were the case, they stuck with the conservative decision. It might be a non-answer, but there might be a reason for the non-answer.

Yeesh? can you believe the Suarez thing? WHAT A BUNCH OF BOZOS.

Ah! Now you're arguing theology instead of law. A sealing is very different by law than a marriage.

What I'm not sure here is: Why log in to an LDS website to complain about a specific LDS person? Would you log in to a Catholic website if you felt a Catholic ripped you off, or an Atheist website if you felt an Atheist ripped you off? Or, for that matter, a young adult writer's website if a young adult writer ripped you off? I'm not sure what the purpose of posting these sorts of things on this website was supposed to do. There are tens of millions of LDS members in the world. We don't have some sort of Mormon Hotline for reporting people.