Vort

Sure. I didn't go to medical school.

I can.

Frankly, it is kind of an icky topic. I also am of the opinion that the homosexual lobby wishes for people to keep talking about homosexuality -- pro, con, or otherwise -- to further the normalization process. So personally, I feel no dearth of homosexuality threads. On the other hand, if someone is having issues with it or wants information or opinions, many a thread has already been spun on the topic. So I guess you can always spin another.

That does not answer the question. Which accusation was that? I don't believe I ever suggested otherwise. Seriously? You don't know that "many of us" means? It means myself and many other people. Then what are you whining about? Why? I believe you just pointed out that disagreeing is not attacking. Your accusation is false. I have demonstrated your false accusation. Now you demonstrate mine. Oh, I see. By expressing my opinion, I am guilty of brainwashing. Do I have that right? I made no such implication. Do not confuse your inference with my implication. I have not engaged in ad hominem toward you in this thread. You cannot honestly make the same claim toward me. So instead of lecturing me, you would do better to heed your own advice. As far as I recall, I have not called anyone a hypocrite or disloyal on this thread. The ad hominems on this thread have not been coming from me. Do as you will.

Yes. All of us. I find it a little funny, and a little pathetic, how things like this are viewed. "Oh, I see. A man is worth a million dollars, but a wife is only worth twenty thousand!" How about this instead? "If a man dies, he sees to it that his family is taken care of. If a wife dies, well, I guess the man just has to work three times as hard while he's dealing with his grief, because we just couldn't afford to pay premiums on the woman." Somehow, it doesn't occur to people that LIFE INSURANCE IS FOR THE SURVIVORS, not for the "insured". For the record, I am insured for a lot, my wife not. If I die early, there will be enough to let her stay home with the kids for perhaps ten years, maybe longer if she's careful (which she always is). If she dies early, there is enough after expenses to go for perhaps a year or two. But of course, I could always decide to remarry, despite having promised my wife I never will. How hard can it be, finding a wife when you're fifty years old and have five kids and no significant financial cushion? I'm sure the women would be lining up. Probably really nice women who would treat me and my children well, too. Moral: Whatever the situation, make sure you spin it so that the man is always the bad guy.

Wow. And some people think I'm offensive. Thanks, FanOf31!

When in doubt, always feel guilty.

To be clear, I was not trying to suggest that medical school is okay until children come along. I was trying to say that as long as your desires are pure and you are true to them, you will be all right. You need to be willing, truly and deeply and honestly willing, to sacrifice your career in medicine (or whatever else) for the benefit of your husband and/or children. This willingness is required of all who are truly Saints. Most of us won't be called upon to put this willingness to the test -- but should we be, we should be faithful to our principles.

First: Welcome! Second: Good luck in med school, especially (from what I hear) with gross anatomy. Get ready for the joyful life that is being an M1! Third: Where are you going to school? Fourth: I appreciate your attitude toward your bishop. Keep it up. He is your Priesthood leader, and he does have authority to receive revelation on your behalf. But he isn't making your decisions for you; that's your job. If he gives you counsel, take that counsel seriously, take it to heart, and make it a matter of prayer and pondering. But don't allow yourself to feel bullied into doing something. That's not the point, and it is not appropriate. How do you feel about the following statement? A woman's place is in the home. Do you agree with it? Because it is true. The very highest calling a woman is given is to be the wife to a husband, and for them to be parents to children. Nothing is greater or more exalting than motherhood. Whatever work you ever accomplish in this life, even if you win the Nobel Prize in medicine, nothing will be of greater eternal significance than what you accomplish within the walls of your own home. Nothing. Do you believe this? If so, you will do fine. If not, you may need to readjust your priorities. If the Spirit whispered to you to leave medical school, would you? Would you give up the glory, riches, and honor of being a doctor just so that you could pursue the callings of wife and mother in a stay-at-home capacity? If you can honestly answer "yes", then I think you probably have no problems. If you can't honestly answer "yes", then to repeat myself, you may need to readjust your priorities. This may sound like a harsh thing, but it is not. It is the reality of happiness. Joy and happiness come in following God's commandments and counsels, and in no other way. If it makes you feel any better, all of the above applies equally to the statement: A man's place is in the home. The only difference is that we have been instructed that a woman's primary duty in the home is the nurture of children, and the man's is to provide protection and the necessities of life. In my opinion, this does not preclude you from becoming a medical doctor. But that is really between you and the Lord, with input and guidance from your Priesthood leaders (including your future husband). No one can or will make you do anything, so you don't need to worry about that. Just take care not to allow yourself to get bitter or hardened, or to decide that Bishop So-and-so is a chauvinist pig and therefore you need not listen to anything he says. Such a rebellious attitude will drive you further from your Father in heaven and make his voice very difficult to hear. Stay meek and humble, and the Lord will guide you. That's my advice, anyway. PS Don't let my avatar fool you. If my advice makes me sound like a 48-year-old father of five, it's because I am.

When you give her the Book of Mormon, my suggestion is to do just that -- give her the book. Don't turn it into a production. Just say that this is the book you have mentioned before and it means a lot to you, you wanted to give her a copy, and (if the Spirit moves you) bear a short testimony. Then let her do with it what she will, just as if you had given her a favorite novel to read. Yes, I realize it's different, but the attitude should be "I'm sharing with you something I value," rather than "It is vitally important that you read and accept this or you will be cast off, and I really really really really really don't want that!" Of course, if she starts asking questions, there's your chance to answer...

Can you share what "honestly think feel and believe" have to do with anything? For example, If I "honestly think feel and believe" that Thomas Monson is a liar and a fraud, how does it being my honest opinion change the fact that it is disloyal and hypocritical? Coincidentally, many of us feel that way about unsubstantiated and poorly reasoned attacks on Church doctrine or policy. How so? How is decrying disloyalty and hypocrisy equivalent to saying we should not think? Then perhaps "so many of our detractors" should pull their heads out of their nether regions and see things as they really are. So, your implication is that those who are not disloyal to the Church do not "think for themselves"?

Welcome, kolleen! What do you want to get started doing?

And the sad part is, I took about 18 months off. So that's an average of, what, about five posts per day? As they say in the South, how humidifyin'. Well, okay, maybe they don't really say that in the South. But they should.

I believe I have made my own worthless opinion on the topic pretty clear. It doesn't particularly bother me that someone holds a different opinion from me. It bothers me only slightly that someone doesn't back up their opinion with a reasoned argument, and perhaps slightly more that they will ignore a reasoned argument rebutting their opinion. (Yes, I know I used the "singular they" in reference to the nonspecific "someone". So did Jane Austen. Deal with it.) What really gets my goat is when people attack the Church, its leaders, or its members, individually or as a group, because of their beliefs (or the wrong perception of their beliefs). And when such attacks come from Latter-day Saints, the disloyalty and hypocrisy gall me.

Hmmm. No, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I feel quite confident that you can help it.

Masturbation is not "some random thing". It has been specifically addressed by our prophets.

There is only pressure if you pressure her. Giving her a book that you enjoyed is not pressure; it's sharing part of yourself. Whether she reads the book or not is up to her.

Just as it doesn't occur to some people that without telling kids they should feel shame for something, the kids would never feel shame for anything.

Nor did I say it did. Rather, I pointed out that rapists and child molesters are who some people are. If you believe God should accept us for who we are, then clearly God must also accept the rapists and child molesters for who they are. No. But it would be taking things to their logical conclusion to say that someone who insists that God "accept us for who we are" also must logically insist that God accept the rapists and child molesters among us for who they are. So you have a certain personal gloss of that scripture. That's fine; we all do such things. But that does not mean that your gloss actually reflects the scripture's meaning. So you felt that way, and therefore...what? You are now authorized to level false charges against the Church or other people? Oooh. Burn on me. You are the one making false assertions, Feathertail. Now you're all pissy at me because I actually point out the falsity of your claims. Maybe you should worry more about thinking through what you write and less about playing the part of the angry young bird. Who's the one making false claims about the other, Feathertail? I still await proof of your previous charge against me.

Does it even occur to you that maybe it was never there in the first place? You accused the Church of "removing" something, obviously indicating that the Church was somehow renouncing the teaching by quietly doing away with the evidence. I say you are wrong. I do not believe that the Church removed Elder Packer's talk. You claimed it did. Now substantiate your claim, or withdraw your false assertion. I don't know, does accusing me of supporting alcoholism on account of I think masturbating is healthy and natural count? No. Demonstrate your false claim, that I have railed on people over masturbating. I say your claim is a lie. You made the assertion; back it up.

Yo. Yo yourself. This demonstrates only that the talk is not found on LDS.org. It does not demonstrate your assertion, that it has been removed from the archives. Indeed, this is an important point, everyone. Feathertail has made yet another baseless and false charge. Feathertail, demonstrate where I have ever railed on anyone over masturbating.

So other than it being sinful, there is nothing wrong with it. How can you possibly demonstrate this assertion? Just because some are not addicted to masturbation does not mean others are not.

I think you are telling a falsehood. Please demonstrate that it has been removed from the archives. How so? Because it's not mentioned at every session of General Conference?

Not really. You are the one claiming that God must accept us for "who we are". I was simply taking that position to its logical conclusion. I see. So your cruelty and ill treatment of others is...the Church's fault. Right? You don't have a particularly active imagination, do you? Then why did you want to oppose him? Certainly. So whose fault was your "blind conformity"? You mean, stop taking your utterances to their logical conclusion? So let me understand this. You were LDS until the age of 27, yet you claim that the Book of Mormon teaches something that it does not teach, but you just can't seem to recall exactly where it says that? Who's putting words in someone's "beak" now, Feathertail? When the rescue boat comes but people refuse to get on board, whose fault is it? "That rescue boat is FALSE! It's too much work to have to cross over to it! What a bunch of hooey!" Okay, whatever.

Maybe something like, "Here's a Book of Mormon. It has helped me a lot. We have talked a lot about religion and our beliefs, and so I thought you might like to read it. It's about blah blah blah. Here are a couple of my favorite parts."