Maxel

Thank you.My question is, then, do you feel this is a prevalent issue in America right now? I checked out your blog that you linked, and notice that this is the only entry dealing with social issues, as well as the only entry in almost a month. This is actually the first time I've heard of an incident of this kind this year (I think I heard a similar story last year) and I'm wondering if this is a social phenomenon ('the war on the "war on Christmas"') I've been missing.

I'd still like to know, Mike, how many people reacted in a non-offended way when you said "Happy Holidays", to get an idea of just how common this sort of offense-taking is.

It is in the entertaining of the thought that we commit the sin (IMO). It's no sin to be tempted, or to be attracted. I don't think that all physical attraction is sexually based, and even attraction that is based in sexuality isn't necessarily bad, so long as we act in accordance with the words of Christ.

This is a scriptural concept and sound doctrine (milk-before-meat). Are you saying you disagree with the doctrine in general, or only when applied to the history of the LDS Church (as I did)?

Fear-mongering propoganda. Yes, I see that all the time in real scientific debates and serious legislative conferences.

What's the ratio of people who reacted like this woman to people who merely returned the sentiment of 'Happy Holidays', or didn't give a noticeable reaction?

Depends on the facets of the story in question.For example, some people are not willing to literally accept the doctrine that "all spirit is matter", or that physical objects could affect a person's spiritual insight or could be a conduit of spiritual power. The vague idea of 'translating using a seer stone' doesn't intrude upon that ignorance, but studying the details can by bringing to light the reality of the event in a way hitherto unachieved. As Snow is fond of saying (and this is just a paraphrase), more elapsed time makes things more believable. Sadly, the feeling that 'God is no longer a God of miralces' is more prevalent than many of us realize- even among Mormons.

I definitely think that religious fervor will accompany the Anti-Christ's rise to power, but I do wonder about specifics.For example, despite being ostensibly anti-Religion, the French Revolution thrived on a religious zeal (a belief in the high, great qualities of Reason, Truth, et al). 20th-Century fascism was largely non-religious, but from reading descriptions of the regimes, I think calling fascism a political religion isn't out of line- just replace God with the State. This also seems to be the trend in communist regimes. So I wonder if it will be a 'religion' of anti-religion, or a conglomeration of major world religions, or something else?

It's a Wonderful Life, and White Christmas. Can't beat the classics, IMO. Oh, and Mr. Kruger's Christmas. That's a cute one (also starring Jimmy Stewart... Hmmm...).

I got scared by FunkyTown! I've also committed myself to exercising more regularly- all the heat created, extra food consumed, and CO2 emitted through strenuous breathing should help tremendously. Do I get a T-Shirt?

I'm sure the members of the Church will run into initial problems as the new emphasis is placed. However, I wonder if this new mission is not meant to promote actual service, and not just monetary aid? Considering the economy's horrible state, even the rich will have less money to give to the poor. What the economy doesn't affect, however, are the time and talents that members have been been given and cultivated. I'm wondering if this is a first step towards creating a more zionistic, United Order-esque mindset among the members?

Milk before meat. Unfortunately, in today's highly cynical society, most people (even the faithful) could be deeply shaken if they're presented with knowledge they're not ready for- even something as simple as "Joseph Smith used a hat to translate the Book of Mormon". Satan will immediately mount hs attack on the member, trying to persuade them that such an idea is so absurd that it can't be true (notice that he doesn't rely on logic or reason, but on an appeal to misguided emotional instability). In my experience, those who are actually ready for the knowledge will desire the knowledge and actively seek it. Plus, the mission of the Church doesn't encompass teaching the members small details in its history- that's up to members to find out, if they so desire.

Do you think the Anti-Christ will rally his people under a banner of religion, or under a banner of anti-religion (such as the French Revolution's callwords of "Reason" and "Enlightenment")?

Can we leave the political discourse out of this thread? I just want to be happy that the Church is expanding.

I was actually thinking that this reminded me of the special effects with the phonebooth in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

Well, if you don't know, then I won't tell you! *Walks away in a huff*Actually, I was wondering the same thing...

I have heard the theory (from my childhood friend) that dinosaurs were overgrown lizards from the Garden of Eden. The theory was that reptiles didn't stop growing in the Garden, so they eventually got to dinosaur-size, then after Adam ate the apple and the earth entered its fallen state, they died and left their bones.I don't subscribe to that theory, but thought it was interesting when my friend shared it in my Deacon's quorum.

Nah. I'm thinking not.

This then begs the question: who's role, if any, is it to pick up the pieces?Certainly not the government's. I would be interested for seeing the statistics for children 50-100 years ago, when the family was more widely recognized as the basic unit of society- and before moral relativism was far less pervasive. I'd hazard that this statistic varies widely depending on the importance placed on the family within any general society.Again, this goes back to the question: if the parents fail in their duty, is it really the role of the government (or the school) to pick up the pieces? So the health of the famliy unit has a far greater effect on a child's sexual activity than social sexual health instruction? Again, we have to ask ourselves if it's the proper role of the schools to offer this kind of education, and how we should measure 'success'.I feel that the offering of free contraception (particularly without notifying the parent) is the beginning of a pernicious cycle, and symptomatic of a deeper philosophical problem on the part of the government and whoever else is behind it. Agreed, but when the government steps in and tries to take over the parents' jobs, things get even worse. There will always be parents that fail in their jobs, and there will always be people just waiting to jump in and shout "look at this sad, horrible injustice! We as a community need to step in, intervene on this child's behalf, and fix this problem!".Some things are best handled on a family level. To an extent, I agree with this.However, I've never been a follower of the "treat your child as your friend" philosophy. I agree there needs to be an atmosphere that can promote mutual understanding, and that there needs to be a (rare) dialogue between parent and child, but I think if that understanding is based on an authoritative and loving parent-child relationship, the result will be far better than if it were based on a friend-to-friend model. I agree with this, and it's largely my belief that government should stay out of family life as much as possible that leads me to think that the availability of contraception through the public school system is a horrible idea- even if it does reduce pregnancy and the spread of STD's. I'll take a look; thank you for the suggestion.

Another bad analogy. Condoms have one function: to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's during sexual activity. Seat belts also have one function: to keep passengers in motorized vehicles safe.It's clear that sexual activity and driving in a car are two significantly different things. For one, the rules governing safe and responsible sexual activity are eternal and to be utilized only in the confines of marriage, and it aren't as integral to a child's life as transportation in a car. On the other hand, the rules governing safe and responsible driving are temporal and more vital for a child to know. I should clarify what I meant. My usage of "(properly utilized)" was meant to imply that the education came first and foremost from the parents, in the home. In hindsight, what I said was horribly misleading, and I apologize.I am aware of studies showing that school-based abstinence-only education doesn't work. That makes sense to me- schools aren't designed to instill basic moral values in children, that's the job of the home. If a child is reared in an unloving and undisciplined home, most of the time whatever morals are taught at school won't have a huge impact.

I will NEVER give up my million dollar home! It's mine I tell you, all mine!!And it's all in my head, so I can't give it away anyway...

That's wonderful! I like the subtitle of the blog: 'A Soft Answer: because the Ensign doesn’t have an Op/Ed page'.

I'm not going to wade into the discussion at hand, but I did want to point one thing out, Vanhin: I don't see Hemidakota stating anything authoritatively, or acting as if he had authority to teach these things.This might be my own idiosyncratic understanding of Hemidakota's words, but I don't ever think I've seen him state something in the format of "thus sayeth the Lord", nor do I think it's his intention to try to teach anyone as the Prophet Joseph did, and impose his understanding onto the minds of the members of the church. Anyway... Carry on...

Really? So his definition of not "stand[ing] idle" is taking 100 days to make a vital wartime decision, then sending in only 3/4 of the minimum troop recommendation made by the man he appointed to oversee the war- while publicly announcing a timeline for withdrawal?Obama talks a good game, but his actions show his real intentions.

Is that what you think will happen? The Spirit of God will beging ceasing to strive with humanity in the year 2012 (like with the Nephites)?(Not being contrary; trying to understand your position.)