LittleWyvern

Lacking any doctrinal pronouncements on the subject of women praying in General Conference, I don't think we argue right/wrong or righteous/sinful (it's not like we have fatwa or anything). In my opinion, it only makes sense to argue for good effect/bad effect, and who it would affect. No doctrine means there's really no "right" or "wrong" here, at least in a religious sense. So, sure, I think women praying in General Conference would be A Good Thing, but I don't think you're "wrong," just as much as I can't say I'm "right."

Uh... ok. When I learn how to mindread, I'll get back to you on that one. If anybody (pro or con) is throwing a tantrum or a fit over this, they're entirely missing the point. Yes, the actions of a small minority may warrant that description (and I've made it clear that I oppose these actions), but I don't think that merits pronouncing a judgement of pride or unrighteousness over the entire thing and all who think it might be A Good Thing. Um, And it shouldn't be. Note that I've stopped short of saying any definitives: just as nobody can say for sure this will have a positive effect on someone, I don't think we can then conclude that it will not make any difference for everybody.

You seem to be relying on the argument that a desire for women to pray in Conference is exclusive an unrighteous desire, or at least a desire that can develop only from a lack of faith, liberalism(?), or a shallow form of belief. I don't think that assumption and judgement is valid. I never said that women praying in Conference is a requirement for faith or a testimony: the two main points I was trying to say are these: Seeing women pray in Conference can have a positive effect on the testimony of certain people, andThat desiring that women be allowed to pray in Conference is not inherently sinful and doesn't necessarily imply a lack of faithYou can assume pride, sign seeking, and disbelief all you want, but saying that a desire for women to pray in Conference implies all these things is completely false. While I disagree with the way All Enlisted seeks change (and with some of the things they want to change), I can conclude nothing else but that this can only have a positive, however minor, effect on people.

Why must every reason for women praying in general conference be negative? Let's forget for a minute the whole All Enlisted thing. It's possible that hearing/seeing a fellow woman pray in General conference can strengthen someone's testimony of prayer, or help her feel like her prayers are important. Perhaps someone's testimony on the equal eternal relationship between men and women is weakened, and hearing a woman pray in General Conference would help solidify this concept. Maybe somebody who lives far away from SLC wonders if the LDS Church in America shares their views. It could even be possible that people other than the members of All Enlisted has been praying for this change for years. Is it up to us to decide whether this is a righteous or unrighteous desire?

Uh... cool! I'd hate to be the person speaking after this prayer, though: everybody will be too busy discussing the prayer to listen.

When I get into a situation where I need to vote between Satan and Jesus, I'll use this advice.

This is why my answer to this question is "only up to a point, and even then it's not very much." When we are held accountable for our actions, it usually implies we are free to choose exactly what we want to do. With politics (and perhaps especially with politics), there's only a very limited range of options, which subverts our free agency in that sphere and reduces, I think, how much we are held accountable for our choices. We also have to consider that there's hardly ever a sense of complete, black and white, right vs. wrong here. Free agency also depends on there being "right" and "wrong" choices. However, the Church has specifically said that there are principles compatible with the Gospel in most political parties. So... will we be held eternally accountable for our political decisions? Maybe, but only a small amount in some very limited situations. I don't think it's something we need to particularly worry about as long as we are at least thinking about our decisions. Yes, we may come up with different answers after thinking about an issue, but that's just fine with me.

That's funny, I just read an article about that very thing. I don't know about you, but I'm glad I didn't knock on this guy's door on my mission. That would be a dangerous situation.

To be fair to the quote, if somebody has genetic mutations that make the concept of physical gender confusing, their search for physical gender identity must involve at least a bit of introspection and decision making. Here, unfortunately, the issue delves into deep philosophical questions I don't feel qualified to try to answer, but certainly those whose genetics make physical gender identity less obvious have many personal questions to answer which are hopelessly vague (such as "who am I?") and may not have a correct answer at all.

Man, I hope nobody uses things I wrote in 1990 against me. I was just 1 year old and didn't know a whole lot. I think it's reasonable to not hold opinions from that long ago against me.

I don't think it wrong to believe that gender is an essential characteristic of our spirit, but bodily imperfections can make things much more complicated. DNA replication and chromosome formation is a very messy process, and replication and copying mistakes always happen (that's how random mutations work). I view it as a miracle that DNA works as well as it does. Thus, while gender is an essential characteristic of our spirit, translating that into our imperfect body may result in parts of this characteristic being lost in translation.

Unfortunately, this is a situation where an area's Mormon culture is found going against Mormon doctrine. As long as there is a strong cultural argument in some areas that believing in a certain set (or sets) of political opinions is grounds for an accusation of apostasy, even though such a claim is obviously doctrinally wrong, this issue will continue to pop up (and where did people get the idea that accusing others of apostasy was ever a good thing?). Perhaps the best remedy against this is to realize that we are a global church, and there are no doctrinal matters that only apply to the members of one particular area.

I believe that God's knowledge of all things transcends just one sequence of events. If someone were to ask God where I would be in 10 years, I think the proper answer would be entire set of possibilities (or even a superposition of possibilities), some more probable than others. God, being all-knowing, sees the results of all of our possible choices, but there is not one answer to "where I will be in 10 years" because I haven't decided what choices I am going to make. Limiting God to only knowing one possible timeline of events comes too close to Calvinism for my taste.

. It will all make sense.

"One of yours"? When did I say I ever agreed with the global warming claim? I was just distracted from the dig attempt by Bill Nye The Science Guy... Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill!

I've also found this picture showing that the asteroid and meteor were completely unrelated to each other:

Yeah, those dirty stupid libe-- wait, that's Bill Nye the Science Guy!

Here's a link to a website with a great collection of Youtube videos of the meteor strike. It's amazing this event was so well documented, and that there are so far no casualties: the very high injury count is mostly due to shattered windows.

*opened thread* *saw Hitler picture* *saw "LGBT" and "Chick-fil-a" in the post*

From a bit of searching, I think the only organized mission with an area of Arabic speakers is the Uganda Kampala mission, which includes Sudan and South Sudan. However, I'm unsure whether there is any missionary work going on there.

I agree with you, but too often a discussion in moral decline leads to a conclusion that America is doomed. I have seen only very few people argue for a complete moral decline of society without also pronouncing doom and gloom on the entire country. So, while the two don't equate, one winks at the other while mouthing "look over there!" It is my opinion that a person can be moral without being religious. Being religious helps (and in some cases provides an incredible amount of help), but is not a sufficient and necessary condition for being moral. In other words, I do not believe that one must be religious to be moral. What George Washington seems to be arguing is that the country cannot be moral if it excludes religion, i.e. prohibits religion from existing. With the key words there being "in exclusion of." If this is indeed what George Washington is trying to argue, that a country cannot be moral if it forbids any religion from having any effect on morals, then I'd generally agree with that.

To me, we've improved on some moral things and got worse on some moral things. That's just life. My view of how the USA has developed over the years is optimistic, and I think the USA is still a good country. Because of this, I don't buy the doomsday stuff like "America is doomed!/will crash and burn!/etc." Despite our challenges, I think our best days are still ahead of us.

The brief itself seems to make these three main arguments: Prop 8 reflects a rational choice among conflicting visions of marriage (and, thus, is not prejudice)The fact that Prop 8 was supported by religious voters is not sufficient grounds to consider it invalidProp 8 satisfies the equal protection clauseArgument 2 is the only one I'd instantly agree with. Argument 1 is... interesting (I can see the point but I don't understand what it has to do with the constitutionality of Prop 8), and regarding Argument 3 I think I'd have to study the equal protection clause more, because my understanding of it would lead me to conclude the opposite. In general, the argument seems to be "It's constitutional because it's rational."

A quick search turned up the SLT article, titled a particularly boring way: Mormon school in Mexico to become a Missionary Training Center Well, darn, I wanted to get all angry and wave around stereotypes and stuff. EDIT: ah ha! I think I found what john doe is looking for in the comments.

I find it helpful to remember that tea can have two different definitions: 1) Any liquid beverage made by steeping herbs, leaves, roots, etc. in hot water 2) A drink made by the process of 1) with the leaves of the Camellia sinensis plant According to how I understand the Word of Wisdom, anything in 1) is fine to drink as long as it is not also in 2).