bytebear

This just sparked an idea in my head.   A missionary is defined by his role, but also by his actions.  If a missionary decides to stop doing the work, stops wearing a suit an tie, abandons his companion and decides to just start living as a regular person, is he still a missionary? 

I have an unpopular belief, and that is that Fanny Alger was not a plural wife.  I believe she was accused of an affair with Smith, and that the rumor was false, and it ended up being elevated to the status of her being his first plural wife, but the timing is all wrong. One bride years before any others?  No, I think whatever went down with Alger, it had nothing to do with plural marriage.

I have an unpopular belief, and that is that Fanny Alger was not a plural wife.  I believe she was accused of an affair with Smith, and that the rumor was false, and it ended up being elevated to the status of her being his first plural wife, but the timing is all wrong. One bride years before any others?  No, I think whatever went down with Alger, it had nothing to do with plural marriage.

I understood the point is God still has free will.  He can sin, he can oppose his own plan, but that would make him not God.

I understood the point is God still has free will.  He can sin, he can oppose his own plan, but that would make him not God.

I should point out that Moroni's promise isn't restricted to the truth of the Gospel, or the Book of Mormon, but is something that can be used on any matter of truth.  Simply put, God does answer prayers. 

 
 

Do you really need to ask?
 
 

I almost cried when I saw Lando.  Sorry, but I am one of those old farts who saw the original trilogy in theaters at the perfect age (7, 9, 11) and have a nostalgic heart.  Also, nothing can be worse than Episode I.  Nothing.   And I actually enjoyed Episode VIII maybe even more than VII.  And they both are way better than Episode I.   I have no connection to the new characters.  I finally can remember their names (mostly).  Leia flying across space is still better than anything in Episode I.   I also enjoyed Solo quite a lot, and am disappointing that it didn't get more attention and praise.  The capes alone made it a worthy addition to the Star Wars canon.   Now I have no idea what will happen in the next movie.  I imagine it will have a lot of random, illogical, nostalgic touches.  Ewoks on Tatooine fighting Wompas.  Sure. why not?   But I suspect that we will find out that Ray and Kilo Ren are actually twins (or cousins) and were separated to protect them, and she trains with ghost Luke while reading up on those text books that Yoda said were useless.  I just hope the plot is passable, and at least slightly different than the standard Star Wars plot - Big death star threatens the galaxy.  One team to turn off the force field, another group awaits the attack and when it goes down does a miraculous shot to blow it up, while a lone hero confronts the villain.   

Whatever happens, I will enjoy the ride.  Did I mention that Episode I sucks?

Do you really need to ask?
 
 

Do you really need to ask?
 
 

Evacuate a Walmart, maybe? 

The part of the news release that stood out to me was this: “We want to reduce the hate and contention so common today.”  I was indifferent to the 2015 policy but I am all for reducing hate and contention.  This is a happy moment.

Do you want clinical studies?   There is no doubt it exists.  There is no reason to think that gay parents can't do as good a job or better a job at raising kids than a heterosexual couple.  Again, God did not make the law because of the temporal ramifications of the gender of parents.  There are some pretty horrible,awful, rotten straight parents.  Parents who made choices that have seriously detrimental ramifications to their children.   Divorce and abuse are not absent from people who are straight.   In an ideal world, every child will be raised by their biological parents, in a loving and eternal way.  But we don't live in a perfect world, and I would much rather have a child raised by loving adoptive gay parents than by biological abusive parents. 

Sorry, I am late to the game.  But how is this any different than a kid who's parents smoke, or drink, or who's parents work on Sunday, or who's parents have questionable taste in clothing or occupations that are not in line with the gospel?  I remember having a friend from the neighborhood who was in our scout troop.  Non-member single mom, at a time where that was rare.   We didn't care, and the church leaders wanted to make sure he was welcome in every way.  His mom didn't want him baptized, but she recognized the good that the church did. 

Now, whenever I see a church policy that lasts only a few years, I immediately think "separating the wheat from the chaff."  This policy really affected only a tiny fraction of families.  But it sure did reveal those who would cast off the church and not follow the prophet.  I am sure they won't be back, and frankly, I see it as a way for the church to clear out the dead brush.  Once the brush is cleared, the Lord restores fertile ground for those who remain (including gay members).

I agree that a long term relationship is different than clothing choice.  However, the notion that gay couples can't be loving parents is hogwash.  There are gay parents who are far better role models for parental love than some (many) heterosexual couples.  Being gay doesn't mean you are a bad parent, or an unloving person.   No more than a straight marriage automatically makes you a good candidate for raising kids.   The church isn't condemning gay marriage because of the social sciences of raising a child.  There are eternal ramifications.  But those same ramifications exist for single parents, or even parents who are restricted from temple sealings due to various sinful behavior, including things like alcohol use.  So, please don't think the church is condemning gay marriage because gay people are incapable of raising children successfully, even spiritually.  That's simply not true, and it's not the reason for the initial ban, for that matter.  The ban was so that children wouldn't have to choose the church over a parent.  The policy was siding with the parents.  And now that the new policy is in place, I think some members will have to learn to love gay parents who's children may be in their ward.  It may be a spiritual test they are unable to pass.

Sorry, I am late to the game.  But how is this any different than a kid who's parents smoke, or drink, or who's parents work on Sunday, or who's parents have questionable taste in clothing or occupations that are not in line with the gospel?  I remember having a friend from the neighborhood who was in our scout troop.  Non-member single mom, at a time where that was rare.   We didn't care, and the church leaders wanted to make sure he was welcome in every way.  His mom didn't want him baptized, but she recognized the good that the church did. 

Now, whenever I see a church policy that lasts only a few years, I immediately think "separating the wheat from the chaff."  This policy really affected only a tiny fraction of families.  But it sure did reveal those who would cast off the church and not follow the prophet.  I am sure they won't be back, and frankly, I see it as a way for the church to clear out the dead brush.  Once the brush is cleared, the Lord restores fertile ground for those who remain (including gay members).

Sorry, I am late to the game.  But how is this any different than a kid who's parents smoke, or drink, or who's parents work on Sunday, or who's parents have questionable taste in clothing or occupations that are not in line with the gospel?  I remember having a friend from the neighborhood who was in our scout troop.  Non-member single mom, at a time where that was rare.   We didn't care, and the church leaders wanted to make sure he was welcome in every way.  His mom didn't want him baptized, but she recognized the good that the church did. 

Now, whenever I see a church policy that lasts only a few years, I immediately think "separating the wheat from the chaff."  This policy really affected only a tiny fraction of families.  But it sure did reveal those who would cast off the church and not follow the prophet.  I am sure they won't be back, and frankly, I see it as a way for the church to clear out the dead brush.  Once the brush is cleared, the Lord restores fertile ground for those who remain (including gay members).

FYI, I grew up in Holladay and I still love it there.  But the prices are well above 400k on average.

Technically it's a 15 pin connector (male or female).  The other common one is 9 pin.  The particular style is a DE-15 (D being the connector, A,B,C,D, E being the size, and the number being the pins in the connector.   More commonly called a D-Sub for D-Subminiture.  Cute how they thought that connector was small, eh?  Yes they have standard uses for computers like VGA connectivity, but they can be used for anything.  PCs use the 9 pin as a serial port.  Atari video games used them for joysticks (among other things).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-subminiature

I have to laugh.  We had some issues with the Newport Beach temple.  The original design was too big and too white.  So they changed the style and made it more of a tan color.  The irony is that the area is a flood with mega churches (including Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life campus).   The temple is actually smaller than the LDS chapel next to it.

Here's a map to give you comparison.  And by the way, the Mariner church was kind enough to allow their parking lot be used during the open house. 
 

I was bothered that they quoted unofficial sources but implied they were associated directly with the church.

There is a shadow communist arm of the Democratic party which is running far left candidates against incumbent Democrats in order to force the party to the far extreme left.  The DNC needs to correct this, or they will be over taken.

Well, LDS claim to have the fullness of the Gospel, but not an exclusivity on truth.

The internet.
The church began emphasizing the church name over "Mormon" a decade ago, and their search hits fell dramatically.  People simply couldn't find official sources when they searched for Mormon stuff.  So, they did SEO techniques to get people to official information using the search term "Mormon"  I think they still do, but are now directing to Latter-day Saint sites, and hopefully they can correct misconceptions.  And I think the Sister Wives and the Warren Jeffs news really confused people on who were Mormons.  So the church is smart to just abandon the fringe Mormon news from official use by just not using Mormon any more.

The internet.
The church began emphasizing the church name over "Mormon" a decade ago, and their search hits fell dramatically.  People simply couldn't find official sources when they searched for Mormon stuff.  So, they did SEO techniques to get people to official information using the search term "Mormon"  I think they still do, but are now directing to Latter-day Saint sites, and hopefully they can correct misconceptions.  And I think the Sister Wives and the Warren Jeffs news really confused people on who were Mormons.  So the church is smart to just abandon the fringe Mormon news from official use by just not using Mormon any more.