LittleWyvern

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that there was a right answer to my last post, I just was trying to make the point that whether or not something is considered blind obedience depends mostly how one feels what the answer to my last post is. It's a matter of personal opinion, in other words. Besides, I think somebody can believe that God is at the head of the Church and not think that prophets are 100% infallible. Nobody's perfect. Sure, God is perfect, but a perfect driver needs a perfect car to drive perfectly (say that 5 times fast).

I suppose, then, it depends on whether somebody thinks the prophets are 100% infallible or not.

Heh. To me, the 2008 things are so over the top it's hilarious.

Because in many states, somebody has to be civil partners in order to have these rights. And since many states don't recognize civil unions... it turns out that gay people are prohibited these rights in most cases.

I'm not from Utah... I realize that we should protect marriage as an institution, but I don't see any doctrinal reasons why homosexual couples shouldn't also receive civil bonuses that come from purely civil marriage. Anti-discrimination laws should be applied universally. Saying that we can decide one group has less civil rights than another by a majority vote sets a dangerous precedent. Also: lol, SLCtrib comments.

These definitions, to me, are a little odd. They seem to say that if we try to learn about a commandment that we're iffy about or try to gain a testimony of it first, we aren't trusting the prophets or God. When I hear of a commandment that I'm unsure of, my first thought is to pray for a testimony of it. When and if I get it, I know that this leads to a deeper understanding of the law and I have a better chance of following it. I could just trust whomever gave this commandment without trying to gain a testimony of it first, but my own experience has shown that this leads to a very shallow understanding of this commandment, and I usually have a lot of trouble keeping it because I've never received a testimony of it. Yes, I know that I shouldn't have a problem with any of the prophet's commandments if I have a testimony of the prophet, but at least to me, I find it very beneficial if I gain a testimony of any commandment that I may be struggling with. Some people may interpret this as me not trusting the prophets, or thinking their commandments are not worthy of obedience (and therefore would discourage my efforts to gain a testimony of a commandment I'm struggling with), but this isn't the case at all. I just simply find it easier to obey a commandment I have a testimony of. This may be different for every person; so, this method is simply one that works for me. Your millage may vary. EDIT: Your OP puts us in an awkward spot. When you post Ensign articles and tell us "have at it," what are we supposed to say? Any contrary opinion will be labeled as against the doctrine of the church and squashed. All I'm trying to do with this post is share my personal experiences with this concept.

I think the opposite is also true as well. As we do good, we are given more light and knowledge, even healing wounds left by earlier sins (via repentance).

I think you knew what I meant.

You might be a Mormon if you need weekly naps, the same time each week, to function. (I really don't think this has been posted already, but if it has, feel free to fill a thread with "You might be Little Wyvern if you make duplicate posts" or something)

It was a very good devotional. :)

*runs off and starts a campaign for "meat equality"*

Again, appropriations does not equal pork. A certain amount of money could be set aside to help repair schools across the country, for example, and would be labeled an appropriation. You have to see what the appropriation is for first before judging it to be pork or not.

We have scripture that talks about physical health too:

Yes, but Nelson didn't produce the graph and has nothing to do with the graph. To say that a Nelson produced this graph, or that the graph reflects Nelson's views, or that the graph is a definitive source, is just making stuff up. Most of the ones that go political instead of just doing calculations. EDIT: if you'd like an example, try this one.

I was basing my judgment on the content of the blog, not the author of the graph. Besides, if you follow the link to the spreadsheet (warning, pdf) Nelson posted, the graph doesn't exist anywhere in there. Obviously the graph (and the whole appropriations = earmarks thing) was created by the blog poster, not Nelson.

Well, this: ...says to me that it's all equally ok to eat now.

Budgets aren't static.

I don't get how appropriation = pork. I thought appropriations were just money set aside for a particular purpose. I think I'd have to see what this purpose is to decide how much of these appropriations are pork or not. ...I really should just not be lazy and do my own analysis of this. EDIT: The other posts on this blog leads me to believe that the graph has a right spin. It casts a pall over the believability of the graph.

Or, if you have Martinelli's Apple Cider in your food storage!

You might be a Mormon if, at this party, somebody spiked the punch with Pepsi.

I'd imagine with some very strict entry requirements (as far as which people/kind of people can apply), this program could work well.

This is slightly inaccurate. My mom was a non-member when my dad started dating her. The advice here is not to never date nonmembers, but to not depend on whomever you're dating to convert to the church if you want a temple marriage.

I'm taking Biology 100 right now. Gotta give a thumbs up to this article. :)

...after the Second Coming, your first thought is to get Joseph Smith's autograph. (if this is true, I can just imagine the line formed... it would probably last all through the Millennium)