OtterPop

Palerider, I don't think you were responding to my post, because we posted at the same time, but I want to point out that Moroni 10 gives responsibilities and conditions that the seeker must meet -- but patience isn't one of them.

. . . and some of us have studied, pondered, prayed, have done everything we were asked and still did not gain a testimony. That's my point.

Is the promise in Moroni 10 real or not? If so, we are all entitled to a witness. If not, then it really doesn't matter.

prospectmom, I'm not sure whether you mean psychological physiological, but if you think sexual orientation -- which is not something you "believe" in or not; perhaps you don't understand the term -- is something people deliberately choose, you are ignorant of the complexities of human sexuality and gender.

prisonchaplain, I have no problem with gay people wanting to control their behaviors to fit with what they believe to be moral. Neither does the APA. Homosexuality is not a mental illness. One's sexual orientation is not a mental illness. I believe that what the APA objects to is the claim that it is, and that these organizations present themselves as being able to use psychological techniques to "cure" homosexuality. Although people can certainly choose their sexual behaviors, and psychological interventions can help them do so, this is not the same as changing one's sexual orientation. There is no well-designed, longitudinal study that shows that people can successfully change their sexual orientation. Yet some of these organizations claim to do exactly that.

Some things are better managed at the state level, but not everything. I'm assuming no one here is in favor of having slave states and free states?

Your neighbor may well believe that he/she was born at 22 weeks gestation in 1972, but it simply ain't so. Do an internet search. Perhaps the neighbor's parents hadn't -- ahem -- been married long enough and spun this tale.

The Republicans are not "losing ground"; the party is in a shambles because of kowtowing to party factions who are a couple of standard deviations to the right of even the conservative mean. You think McCain would have lost so badly if he had picked who he actually wanted as his running mate?

The Republicans aren't doing too well these days -- largely because of letting ultraconservatives run the party on social issues. Returning to these particular "roots" is killing the Republicans.

If you're hoping for a Mormon in the White House, I think Jon Huntsman, Jr., (Utah's current governor) has a better shot than Mitt. He's an up-and-comer on the national scene, hasn't been all over the political spectrum, and actually comes across as a human being on camera. I didn't vote for him in 2004, but he and Jim Matheson (the Democratic opponent) ran one of the cleanest races I've never seen. They committed to no negative campaigning and stuck to it. I usually vote straight Democrat, but I voted for Huntsman in 2008. He's been an excellent governor, and I wouldn't rule out voting for him for president, either.

1) Job Opportunities b) Women have slightly fewer job opportunities than men 2) Employment Wages b) Women receive slightly less pay than men do 3) Interest Opportunities c) Women are accepted in interest groups about as often as men are 4) Political Opportunities a) Women have significantly fewer political opportunities than men 5) Representation in Higher Education d) Women are slightly overrepresented in higher education 6) Educational Opportunities c) Women and men have about the same educational opportunities 7) Religious Authority Opportunities a) Women have significantly fewer opportunities to be a religious authority than men 8) Sexualization in Media e) Women are significantly more sexualized in the media than men 9) Health d) Women are slightly more healthy than men 10) Feminism a) Feminism is largely detrimental at guaranteeing equality for women b) Feminism is slightly detrimental at guaranteeing equality for women c) Feminism is unneccesary to guarantee equality for women d) Feminism is slightly affective at guaranteeing equality for women e) Feminism is largely affective at guaranteeing equality for women I can't pick any of these answers on this one. Feminism is essential to moving toward guaranteeing equality for women -- but we're not there yet. If everyone were truly a feminist, there would instantly be equality for women, but we're working against centuries of conditioning. Effective? Yes, if it were embraced. 11) Military Service a) Women are significantly less accepted in the military than men 12) Representation in Authority a) Women are significantly underrepresented in authority positions 13) What best represents the basis for your opinions on the position of women in American culture c) Scientific journals/polls What is your sex? Female Do you consider yourself a feminist? Yes

Selfish? Are you kidding? This situation is completely untenable. He needs to quit that job yesterday. It doesn't matter if he's making $11 or $1100 an hour. It doesn't matter that he loves it. It certainly doesn't matter that he gets to play golf for free. These are trivial things compared to a marriage. If he is not willing to give notice NOW and to have NO CONTACT with this woman under any circumstances, there is no marriage for the two of you to "work out." I'm much more a shades-of-gray thinker than a black-and-white thinker -- but there's no gray here. The right thing to do is clear.

Soul Searcher seems to be using spiritual and intellectual means to seek truth about the LDS church. What's wrong with that?

Back in 1972, my sister (16 years old and pregnant) was married in the chapel.

Faded, you should think twice before stating categorically that all practices, teachings, and policies of the LDS church and its prophets are the revealed will of God himself. Most Mormons are much more moderate in their view of church "policy" and of when the prophets are actually inspired. One small example: read a few of Brigham Young's statements on race. They are impossible to defend. He was a man of his time, and it shows. The LDS church does not teach that its prophets are infallible, but that's what you appear to be saying here. I remember reading somewhere (maybe on this board?) a comment that Mormons say their prophet is not infallible, but behave as if he is, while Catholics say the Pope is infallible but behave as if he isn't. I think there's a lot of truth in that.

Elphaba's right. I hadn't realized that it actually is legal. According to a quick internet search, it seems that attempting suicide is illegal in some states, but not all.

I don't think suicide is a "right," and I don't think it should be recognized as such. Suicide needs to remain illegal -- not because people should be prosecuted for attempting it, but because we need to be able to intervene. Citizens and law enforcement can't restrain adults from engaging in behavior that is legal.

interalia, I think the key is whether she wants to be a member of the LDS church or not. If she doesn't -- and she's as sure as possible that this will never change -- she should resign. Once she writes a letter of resignation and mails it, by law she is no longer a member, and she cannot be excommunicated. (Yes, there has actually been a court case that determined this.) I have no idea what the LDS church will do in their own records, but your friend doesn't have control of that regardless of what she does. In your opinion, being excommunicated isn't as "bad" as leaving the church, and I think most believing Mormons would agree with you. But it's what your friend believes that matters. If she believes the church is true, I agree she should attend the council. If she doesn't believe it is, she should strongly consider resigning.

Dravin, you are indeed not the one who said that few consider the ramifications of leaving. I was mistaken. But I did find your made-up dialog between a convert and Christ to be flippant: Christ, "Come, join my church and live these commandments." Person, "Okay, I covenant to do so." Person, "Wait, I change my mind, I'm not gonna do what you have commanded me and invited me and which I furthermore covenanted to do." Following Christ should be more thoughtful than this, and choosing to renounce those covenants should be more thoughtful than this, as well. I'm not confused; I just think your tone is disrespectful. Believe me, I have no interest in your imagined internal dialogs that may or may not go into someone leaving the LDS church. It's interesting to me that you characterize renouncing baptismal covenants as simply changing one's mind. I was baptized when I was 8. I understand the LDS concept of the age of accountability, and I did understand at age 8 that being baptized meant my sins were washed away, and that I to be clean before God I would need to identify and repent of any sins I committed from then on. But I did not understand what it meant to make an eternal covenant. I'm not complaining about that, because I don't think any 8-year-old can grasp that.

If one is following where God has led them -- in my case, out of the Mormon church -- where is the sin? The statements I was referring to were indeed in regard to that issue specifically. It takes humility to acknowledge that the belief system you have dedicated your heart and mind to is not the right one for you. It takes hubris to assume that you can accurately interpret others' spiritual experiences.

Dravin, I understand that the people who posted believe that it's Christ's church. I also know that for the vast majority of exMormons, it's not as simple as "I changed my mind." It's offensive for you to characterize one of the most important decisions I've made in my life (leaving the LDS church) as so thoughtless and casual. For some people, leaving the LDS church is casual; however, most of those people don't bother to have their name removed. I'm not flippant about my spiritual life or my relationship with God. Why should I allow your assumptions that I am to go unchallenged? You stated that "few" consider the ramifications of having their name removed. How do you know this? How many exMormons have you really listened to in this regard? For me, leaving the LDS church is the decision in my life that I considered more carefully than literally any other decision.

Islander, I'm wondering how you know that "few stop to consider" the ramifications of having their name removed? And to who commented in the last few posts, why do you assume that having one's name removed shows "rebellion"? It seems to me the stereotypes of exMormons have dropped in pretty quickly on this thread.

I'm glad you clarified. I honestly wasn't sure. As far as "extreme interrogation techniques," is there any evidence that they actually work to elicit useful information? John McCain said torture doesn't work.

Like I said, apparently you know 'em when you see 'em -- since you've concluded the M-16s are appropriate regardless of the outcome of the military tribunal. I truly don't mean this as tongue in cheek: Do you really think this is what Jesus would want us to do?

Does your scenario include a trial in there anywhere? Or do you just know 'em when you see 'em?