Vort

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.

You are not a liar. She was way out of bounds making such a statement. Continue making your way in life, and don't worry about such people.
 
But try to have compassion on the weakness of women, who in general do not "get" the attraction of pornography and therefore (at least in the Church) tend to be condemnatory rather than compassionate toward this particular vice. They just don't understand what 99% of men understand very well, whether or not they have had "problems" with porn. Women have their own weaknesses that we men sometimes don't understand or have sufficient patience for, so it works both ways.

We open all our gifts on the evening before Christmas Day. Stockings get filled that night.

No, I don't think so. In that context, Jesus wept at the expressions of grief from his beloved friends, Lazarus's sisters. I believe that God mourns with us when we mourn.

Hello, I live in the UK, I'm LDS, I have been on here before, several years ago, At the time I was thinking about returning to the church, I had been away about ten years. I came back, but was wobbly, and drifted away again for a while. Things changed for me after watching the October 2013 general Conference.
I am female, in my mid forties with two grown children, I live on my own, I work full time as a carer.  
I'm looking forward participating on here again, :)
 

No, I don't think so. In that context, Jesus wept at the expressions of grief from his beloved friends, Lazarus's sisters. I believe that God mourns with us when we mourn.

No, I don't think so. In that context, Jesus wept at the expressions of grief from his beloved friends, Lazarus's sisters. I believe that God mourns with us when we mourn.

They are not mutually exclusive.  No doubt he wept because of their expressions but that being the case because, as humans, we have a hard time seeing the bigger picture, this is one of our shortcommings.
Like I said He wept because of our (their) shortcommings.  He grieved over their pain.  Their pain caused by their inability to really understand that he would rise again.  He also saw the result of what was about to happen, that because of this thing he could no longer walk openly amongst the jews.
 
Take into consideration the verse before; " 33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,"

The American political Left co-opted the term "liberal"  as a positive self-description. Indeed, in the classical sense of the word, who would not want to be considered "liberal"? But the Left's deception did not work long-term, as most Americans, having figured out that "liberal" simply meant "leftist", started using the word "liberal" as a term of disparagement.
 
So now the Left has switched to "progressive". Hey, who would not want to be seen as "progressive"? That's progress! Good stuff! But it's just a word game, trying to marry a positive adjective to the same old awful sociopolitical view. In another ten years, when "progressive" is used as a derogatory word much like "liberal" is used today, the Left will doubtless have seized onto some other adjective, like "perfect" or "awesome" or "totally sweet" or "what all the cool kids are doing" or the like.

Bini, this is an LDS list (pretty obvious, given the name), and almost all of us are active Latter-day Saints. We think of you as a friend, or at least an acquaintance we care about. You publicly announce you're leaving the Church. You can hardly think we're just going to say, "Cool, Bini! That's AWESOME! You go, girl! Good luck outside the Church! See you never!"
 
I'm trying to understand what you're asking for. You can easily find out the information you've asked from any number of sources. You know how to withdraw from the Church. We don't know what your beef is, and you seem not to want to tell us. So, whatever. Your private life is private, and we're not going to pry. You have your reasons plus all the information you need.
 
Honestly, if life outside the LDS Church is what you want, if you think the covenants are meaningless or just something you don't want, then fine. Go the way you think is best. That's your right. I wish you all the best; I'm pretty sure I speak for everyone here in that.
 
So what's with the drama? What's up with the big theatrical exit? What are you looking for from us? How are we supposed to guarantee that no bishop talks to you? What do you expect people here to do or say beyond the extensive help they have already offered you to help you terminate your membership?
 
For that matter, what is so awful about a bishop talking with you to make sure you really did write the letter requesting membership termination? What are you afraid of in talking with some guy about leaving the Church? You think they're going to beat you up? Do a guilt trip? Call your mother? You grew up in the Church. You know how things work. Whether you believe Church doctrine or not, you know full well that you're not going to get strong-armed by anyone. Why the fear? Why the insistence that no one ever contact you evar evar EVAR -- and to a group of people on the internet who can't do anything about it anyway?
 
Seriously, all the best to you. I sincerely hope your life is happy, and I expect I'm joined by everyone else in that wish. But something is very bizarre in this whole situation.

No, I don't think so. In that context, Jesus wept at the expressions of grief from his beloved friends, Lazarus's sisters. I believe that God mourns with us when we mourn.

Honestly, I find this wording to be an indication of someone who wants to shift all blame away from herself. Saying "the bishop FORCED me to allow my husband back in!" makes her the poor victim of bullies rather than an agent in her own decisions.

Sounds like you're doing it about right. They decide in small things when they're small, and as they get bigger they decide bigger things. Fwiw, I agree with you about bedtime. Little children cannot set their own schedules, and they get cranky and otherwise suffer bad effects if they stay up late or whatever.
 
We homeschool our children until they are 12, by which time they are excellent readers and have a broad background in basic thinking and performance skills, and are pretty much on par with or above their age group in academic skills. At 12, we let them call their own educational shots (within limits), so that e.g. they can choose to attend public school part- or full-time.
 
I think allowing children to make relevant and important choices in their lives is good for them. To use the popular lingo, it "gives them ownership" of their lives and lets them know that (1) they can make important decisions, (2) those decisions have real-world consequences, and (3) making a mistake is usually a correctable thing.

The American political Left co-opted the term "liberal"  as a positive self-description. Indeed, in the classical sense of the word, who would not want to be considered "liberal"? But the Left's deception did not work long-term, as most Americans, having figured out that "liberal" simply meant "leftist", started using the word "liberal" as a term of disparagement.
 
So now the Left has switched to "progressive". Hey, who would not want to be seen as "progressive"? That's progress! Good stuff! But it's just a word game, trying to marry a positive adjective to the same old awful sociopolitical view. In another ten years, when "progressive" is used as a derogatory word much like "liberal" is used today, the Left will doubtless have seized onto some other adjective, like "perfect" or "awesome" or "totally sweet" or "what all the cool kids are doing" or the like.

The OP referenced an article with an English politician talking about "the poor." In context, this obviously meant the English poor, not starving children in sub-Saharan Africa. It seemed reasonable to generalize this to the socioeconomically disadvantaged in Western democracies. Not sure why this is so absurdly provincial.
 
For that matter, since poverty is always a relative measure and not an absolute, I don't quite see what's so absurdly provincial in your example. If a family is too poor even to afford any gas to power their automobile -- not unable to power it a lot so they can drive all over the place, but unable to power it at all so they cannot use it to perform basic functions like procure food at the grocery store two miles away and thus not easily accessible in two feet of snow -- then compared with a typical middle-class American family, they are indeed quite poor.

2ndRateMind....  You really don't understand the history of the group you are talking to here (which Vort is a part)
 
This Zion Vort  talked about... We LDS have tried to establish it... repeatedly...  We failed..  Repeatedly...  That makes us some of the best experts on how one fails at establishing a "utopia."
 
You say that getting rid of selfish greed would be necessary.  I would agree...  Then I would ask how do you get rid of it in other people. People whom don't necessary agree with you or your ideas. You need a much more practical plan then simply wishing it so.

LOL, Vort, you remind me of my husband.  Only the term he uses is "mutt."

I have said before Taxes = Theft...  I have said it in very contextually sensitive matter.
 
The context being
 
Person A: "Oh noes we need Moar money to solve problem X.  Higher taxes"
Me: "Really?  What happened to the money that we gave you before that you said would be enough to solve the problem?"
Person A: " oh woes... see the suffering.  We need Moar money to solve problem X.  Tax the Rich!"
Me: "That does not answer my question... But ok how does more money solve it now when it did not before?'
Person A: "You are a cruel, heartless, and greedy person.  Withholding your money... when clearly all we need is Moar money to solve problem X."
Me: "I am not giving you a blank check to my wallet. If I think you have a decent plan. Then we can discuss the amount."
Person A: "I am going to protest, defame your character and repeat myself EVEN LOUDER until we get Moar money to solve problem X."
Me:  "Not from me you are not"

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sense a snarky sarcasm in your tone, and I don't understand it. In my experience, it is almost universally true that the poor do not know how to cook. They are dependent on prepackaged, precooked food. Anything past boiling water is outside their range of experience. I have been in the houses of many poor people, and with a few exceptions, they could not cook, often freely admitted they couldn't, and almost never seemed very concerned with learning how to cook. It's as if the skill of preparing food seemed irrelevant to them -- despite the fact that food they prepare themselves is FAR cheaper, more nutritious, and better tasting (once they learn how to cook it right).
 
"Starvation is the fault of the poor" is the obvious sarcasm in your post, but the fact that poor people almost never know how to cook hardly means that starvation is the fault of the poor. Furthermore, almost no one starves to death in the US. Many are malnourished, but in most cases they're obese, and malnourished because they choose badly in what they eat rather than because they can't get food. This gets right back to the fact that they can't cook.
 
Your final barb, that "the wealthy [hog] the resources the poor need to stay alive with", is false on its face. I'm astounded that any rational person believes such a thing. That is sheer nonsense, as if the fact that rich people have a lot of money causes poor people to die. You cannot seriously believe such a proposition -- can you?

Some things that creep up in religiously liberal Mormon conversation:
Don't pay your tithing if you don't feel like it/prefer the money spent a specific way.
Feel free to consider all scripture as mere myth.
Covenants aren't necessary.
Use your temple recommend as a bargaining chip.
Liberal Mormons seem to me as the "do what you want if it feels good and doesn't harm too many others" crowd that crop up in other churches.
I'm all for being a good person, but I disagree with the push to declare it as full superior to being a good person AND following law and covenants.

Honestly, I find this wording to be an indication of someone who wants to shift all blame away from herself. Saying "the bishop FORCED me to allow my husband back in!" makes her the poor victim of bullies rather than an agent in her own decisions.

You are not a liar. She was way out of bounds making such a statement. Continue making your way in life, and don't worry about such people.
 
But try to have compassion on the weakness of women, who in general do not "get" the attraction of pornography and therefore (at least in the Church) tend to be condemnatory rather than compassionate toward this particular vice. They just don't understand what 99% of men understand very well, whether or not they have had "problems" with porn. Women have their own weaknesses that we men sometimes don't understand or have sufficient patience for, so it works both ways.

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.

Utopia is not a "myth". It is a fiction, invented in the early 16th century by Thomas More.
 
There are no utopian societies, but according to LDS belief, there have been. They are called "Zion". They are inhabited by the pure in heart. They are the natural dwelling places of the people of God, those who have overcome the natural man. Thus, they are not "natural" places in the sense of human  nature, but of Godly nature.
 
Such a "utopia" is impossible to construct in our world (i.e. society). We Americans and other westerners live now in a society probably as close to this "utopia" as is possible, yet we are indeed far from it.

I've got a pretty anti-religion family. Even with it being Christmas, it won't make a difference (let's not even add in the fact that it's three hours of meetings). They are skipping a children's choir performance my cousin is playing piano/violin for on Christmas eve, even though the religious message will probably stop at the Christmas story and it should be short.
I am in the middle of building my testimony back up after being inactive for seven years, so skipping feels like it would be a step in the wrong direction for me.