Vort

Here are a few ideas:
Live the commandments. This is a sine qua non of missionary preparation.
Be deeply involved in the Church and its activities. Don't merely attend Church; really serve in your callings, and really work to build fellowship with your fellow Saints. Read and pay attention to the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon but also the other scriptures. Nurture your own testimony. Take Alma 32 to heart. There is no shame in saying "I believe"; we all must start there. But don't be content just to believe. Nurture that belief until it becomes strong and bears fruit.

If you have desires to serve you are called to the work. But such desire, coupled with belief, are only a starting point. You must learn to cast out your doubts and fears. Faith and fear cannot exist in the same person at the same time for if we have fear we cannot exercise faith and if we have faith we will not have fear. The two are contradictory. This of course does not mean that you will be forever free from questions and doubts but you can be sure of your direction at certain times and moments in your life. 
 
Elder Anderson shared an important insight about faith. Once when he was giving a blessing he felt to speak words he had at that point never considered in such a way, he said, "The impression that came to me was: Faith is not only a feeling; it is a decision. He would need to choose faith" ("You Know Enough", Ensign, October 2008). You must do the same. 
 
Obtain the word of the Lord. By this I do not simply mean to study the BoM or the Bible, but to gain the spirit of the Lord and his word in your own heart. Come in humility before the Lord, ponder his word, and seek to find the truth. When He speaks to you of the truth and what you must do the voices of the world will drift into insignificance. Then you will know and will not need another person to tell you.

When I was running the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism, I was particularly interested in documenting the process by which a faithful member of the Church turns into an anti-Mormon apostate.  There are people who drift away from the Church because of depression, unworthiness, discouragement, worldliness, or because life's trials overwhelm them, just as Jesus described in the Parable of the Sower.
 
However, there is a peculiar process that I documented whereby many exMormons fall away and try to take others with them.  Like Prisonchaplain said, it begins in college for many of them.  A very typical case was a guy who joined the S.P.A.M. social network back around 2009 who went by the screen name "Ishmael."  Ishmael wrote on our site:
 
"Fast forward a few years. I'm home from my mission, I've graduated from BYU, I'm married with a couple of kids. I'm a little battle-worn, some of my illusions about the mission, BYU, and the Church itself have been shattered, but that's all part of growing up. My testimony is still strong. I probably don't need to tell you that it wasn't long before I was delving in the world of online Mormonism and anti-Mormonism."
 
Ishmael became a sort of case study because he evinced a pattern that showed up over and over.  He had some illusions about his faith that were challenged and didn't hold up.  Instead of praying and studying for further understanding and truth to correct his errors, he begins to let go of the iron rod.  He allows men to instruct him instead of the Holy Spirit.
 
You have to realize that, when S.P.A.M. was functioning, it became a target of anti-Mormons.  Many former members joined us with the intent of either trying to shake us in our faith or justifying their own apostasy.  Ishmael was one of them.  When you give these guys a chance to tell their story, they start "monologuing" and it always falls into this pattern.
 
1. Establish rapport
2. Establish credibility
3. Build sympathy
4. Tell of an "awakening"
5. Rationalize the loss of commitment, disobedience, etc.
6. Reveal the deception that snared them
7. Issue either a disclaimer that excuses them or a hateful rant that vindicates their choice to leave, blaming others.
 
Very often, these former members seek out those who are struggling and try to take them down with them.  You have to understand that there are people who are active "wolves" who are seeking to prey on the flock.  When an innocent person who might be struggling with some doubts encounters one of these apostates, they are unaware that there is a careful, manipulative process being worked against them.  
 
What amazed me is how consistent this pattern was.  I had to wonder if the consistency of it was because of the adversary's influence over them or whether it was rehearsed.  
 
If you want to read the whole article called, Ishmael's Monologue, check it out on the S.P.A.M. archives at:
 
http://spamldsarchive.blogspot.com/2010/05/ishmael-monologue.html
 
It's not my intent to "pimp" my old blog, but I think it's an important aspect of understanding "shaken faith syndrome."  There are over 800 anti-Mormon parachurches and ministries out there.  They publish web sites, videos, and distribute their products (often for a profit) through Christian bookstores and pastors of other denominations.  There are also atheists who are dedicated to undermining all faith and they seem to take a special interest in destroying the faith of people who claim belief in modern revelation.  When you realize that the opposition is active, it takes on a whole new dimension.

Well ragtime was first started off in red-light districts, so if someone was listening to ragtime it could be assumed they'd be traveling in interesting circles.
 
To the 2nd sentence, hogwash. I can name a plethora of evils that while they existed were not nearly as prevalent nor as accepted as they are today. Homosexual behavior, porn, etc.  Just look at the behavior of kids, they are more rowdy and less well behaved than 50 years ago, unless of course you're going to start calling good evil.
 
And while they may be a delight to teach, learning and going to school is at most 20 years of a 70+ year life (PhD level), don't mean much, it's what you do with that learning.  I've had the opportunity (if that is what one can call it) to look for a nanny and bare none all of the younger nannies expect little work and a lot of pay.  They expect work to be easy and they want to get paid a lot for it.  Only when I go to the older nannies do I get an understanding of what the value of work is, that yes it may not be the greatest job in the world, but it's a lot better than a significant number of jobs.  
 
Now maybe it is just experience and once they get experience it will change, and I don't like classifying people in groups (I really don't); but I think that over the past 20+ years of teaching kids that everyone is a star, you are exceptional, no one loses, etc. has really warped the expectations of a lot of younger people. Consequently, many are having an extremely hard time adjusting to the real world and living independently. One sees this in their commitments, how many threads here are about younger people who within a year of getting married already want a divorce b/c marriage is hard? If it gets hard, many of them quit.
 
But I don't necessarily think it is just a generational thing; I think society in general is becoming like that and that the younger generation is just the easiest to see those societal trends. 

Personally, I have always found it absurd to think that you can group people by their birth decade and then assign a bunch of personality characteristics to them on that basis. I always rejected the stupid "baby boomer" label for precisely this reason. Now it has become a sort of media pastime to make up new and ever stupider names for those born in succeeding decades.

Pretty sure drinking urine hastens dehydration. You'll die faster from drinking your urine than if you don't. Other than the dehydrating effect, though, it's perfectly safe and sterile as long as you don't have a bladder or kidney infection. Might not give you socially acceptable breath, though.

Straw man. Americans, even those on the political right, do not think that "taxes are theft".
 
Excessive taxation, and especially excessive taxation to fund programs that are not the government's place to fund, is a way to forcibly take money from people under the threat of seizing their property and sending them to jail. Such forcible extortion of money, when done by any other than a government entity, is very obviously a form of theft. So if the government is doing this in a situation where it has no business levying or collecting such a tax, then it's tantamount to theft.

I knew I got the wrong cat, I kept trying to think of the one that lives in S. America and couldn't, so I fired blindly. I guess being at a computer I could've searched real quick.

 
I am not being silly.You understand, of course, that these people do not have millions of tons of wheat stored? Nor concrete, steel or clean water? You understand they are most likely not engineers nor architects, welders nor farmers.
They are completely irrelevant to the problems at hand. They are a paper tiger whose 'wealth' is utterly beside the point to the problems at hand.
If you took 4% of their wealth, you would not solve the worlds problems. Could not, in fact, because 4% of their wealth is 4% of a balance sheet. Unless the worlds problems involve a lack of 0s in their life, they won't be resolved. If you look at Germany pre-World War II, they were given large chunks of money. There was a major influx of money in to the system and costs skyrocketed - Businesses simply changed prices in accordance with the available funds. People were bringing their paychecks home in wheelbarrows.
Due to the reparations forced on Germany, the government decided an influx of hard currency would be the way to resolve the issue. This resulted in massive hyperinflation.
And companies simply upped their prices. Parents who had saved their whole lives suddenly were watching their children starve on millions of Marks. That isn't to say that nobody made money off of the back of this hyperinflation, however. Some made fortunes.
If you simply take 4% of the wealthiest people's wealth, then you will simply change who is wealthy. That's it. It won't solve the problems you want. It will simply change power dynamics.
To enact meaningful change requires an awful lot more than juggling numbers in a ledger.
Do you understand what I mean when I say that I do not want to destroy the wealthy, but simply render them meaningless now? I don't care if someone owns a mansion in Beverly Hills. Good for them. That's not what I want, nor what I care for.
I was not being silly when I asked that. You kept repeating the 'Eat the rich' mantra, when 'The rich' are simply irrelevant to the problems of the world except insofar as we enslave ourselves to their whim.

I am willing, one time only, to treat this as a sincere question.
 
"Blind obedience" has almost no meaning. It is a lie, told by the devilish and those duped by them. If it has any real meaning, its meaning is this: To obey without making any effort to determine whether your obedience is warranted.
 
What are we to do with any gospel principle? We are to test it. How? By (1) obeying it and (2) praying about it. Both must be followed for the testimony to come to us.
 
But the foolish will insist that they will not obey until they already know the validity of the commandment. This is contrary to the meaning of both faith and testimony. As Elder Kimball pointed out in the title of another of his books, faith precedes the miracle.
 
Our leaders want us to follow. The "blindly" part is up to us. You need not follow blindly, if you don't want to. There are two ways not to follow blindly:
Don't follow Follow and, through searching while you follow, come to know that it's the Godly path If you choose the first, then you're wasting two perfectly good syllables by specifying "blindly." That seemed to be what you were saying. If I misunderstood you, feel free to clarify your meaning.

I just read your comments above and wondered if you spoke with your Bishop about your feelings and about the possibility of being re-taught. That way you can move at your pace and have time to read and pray and ponder the things they are teaching you.

You truly think that Benson did?
 
Benson does indeed suggest that prophetic counsel supersedes many, many things.  But one thing he does not suggest it trumps, is personal revelation.
 
 
WAIT A SECOND.
 
You think that because some of us choose not to question publicly, in a way that gives ammunition to our enemies, that we don't question at all?
 
I thought you progressives were supposed to be the "empathetic" ones . . . the ones who understood "nuance" . . . the ones who realize that there are no absolutes.
 
But here you are, saying that "a segment of our church" is just mindless drones.  That we've never had a hard time with anything.  That we haven't been pulled, twisted, torn, and ultimately gone to hell and back, trying to come to terms with some problem of theology, history, or current demand posed to us by our membership in the church?
 
You piously pontificate about how hard it is to be a questioner and subjected to the suspicion of The Orthodoxy™; and then in the same post you proclaim your own monopoly on rational thought and thereby betray your utter contempt for fellow Mormons who don't think as you do?
 
That's not OK.
 
 
The fact that we refuse to label "mistakes" the particular policies or actions that your twenty-first century western social dogma insists we should so label, does not mean that we believe the Church never makes any mistakes.  It just means that we don't think the Church as a whole makes major mistakes of the type that would--for example--deny, in contravention of the Lord's will, saving ordinances to a segment of the population who seeks them; or spiritually/physically harm individuals without serving a higher overall purpose; or deliberately induce people into behavior that the Lord holds sinful.
 
 
No good.  By that logic, Mountain Meadows is quite excusable.  I mean, what's a few dozen lives, two centuries later?

Westboro Baptist is hardly representative of Calvinists.  I looked around their website a few years ago.  The simple version of their theology is that God hates sinners.  He loves those who love and obey him, and hates all others.  That is the belief that drives them.

Don't sprain your ankle while backpeddling so furiously.

A very strange accusation, particularly for anyone who knows me. And I think you know me better than that. Which makes it fairly clear that your just being a...smart alec (oh how I wish I could use a different word here) to be contrary.
 
So...overall you agreed with....pretty much everything except #2.
 
Hmm.

I am willing, one time only, to treat this as a sincere question.
 
"Blind obedience" has almost no meaning. It is a lie, told by the devilish and those duped by them. If it has any real meaning, its meaning is this: To obey without making any effort to determine whether your obedience is warranted.
 
What are we to do with any gospel principle? We are to test it. How? By (1) obeying it and (2) praying about it. Both must be followed for the testimony to come to us.
 
But the foolish will insist that they will not obey until they already know the validity of the commandment. This is contrary to the meaning of both faith and testimony. As Elder Kimball pointed out in the title of another of his books, faith precedes the miracle.
 
Our leaders want us to follow. The "blindly" part is up to us. You need not follow blindly, if you don't want to. There are two ways not to follow blindly:
Don't follow Follow and, through searching while you follow, come to know that it's the Godly path If you choose the first, then you're wasting two perfectly good syllables by specifying "blindly." That seemed to be what you were saying. If I misunderstood you, feel free to clarify your meaning.

In a very real sense, the current prophet's words are more important than any other precisely because they are current.  This is what God would have us know here and now, tailored to our current circumstances and events.  For those who have prayed and received the witness of the Spirit that the current prophet is indeed the mouthpiece of God to His church, this is fairly straightforward and simple.
 
This is a nice talk:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/04/faith-obedience?lang=eng

It does kinda seem to be up to the guy holding the sword (the sword symbolizing power?) and which of the three people holds his greatest loyalty.  His actions can be influenced by money, patriotism/duty to his King/country or (assuming the righteous man is actually a priest or prophet that he believes in) faith/God in this particular scenario.  But that also doesn't preclude that there may be something beyond those three things that could hold even greater sway causing him to either kill all or none of them.
 
I suspect it's a rhetorical riddle (is there such a thing?), meant to get one thinking and make one look inward rather than having an actual answer.  Pretty interesting when you think of it symbolically.

Flesh. Flesh is stronger than steel.

Mine as well. I'm not killing two people on anyone's say so without something more compelling than just their claims. :)

This is a big one... and sadly a policy my mom doesn't agree with. I've heard the advice from a hundred different sources... so I decided to take it. Don't fight, lecture, admonish, nitpick in front of others.
I love my mom and she's a good woman, but it upsets her that she doesn't get to hear the play-out of arguments and discussions. She actually has said it is her business as mother.
No, Mom, it's not.

Vort, you give a perfect example of the point of our last few posts--that traditional Christians do not think in LDS terms.  We have no concept of premortal existence, and so whatever explanation we have for what the disciples meant is not going to include that idea.  Our answers are not defensive, or meant as a counter to the LDS teaching, because it's just nowhere on our radar screen.
 
It is a common belief throughout the world, in many cultures and religions, that sickness/disease/handicap are the result of sin, or karma.  Could the disciples have been wondering if the blind man was being punished for sins he would commit?  Could it be that they refer to his inherent sin nature (the one we all have--Romans 3:23)?  The Pharisees believed he was "born into sin," (see verse 34 of John 9).  Being traditionalists, we just look at the passage and see that it wasn't sin at all, it was so God could be glorified.  We continue to believe that disabilities are often a way that God can glorify himself in us.  The question you pose seems to us a curious cultural question, rather than one that would lead to the establishment of foundational doctrine.

It wasn't you. It was Jethro.

PC wins the "Understatement of the Week" award.

PC wins the "Understatement of the Week" award.