prisonchaplain

Okay, my perspective, as an outsider, probably is quite ignorant. However, I somehow got the impression that all three kingdoms were...well...heavenly realms. So, I imagine that the terrestrial kingdom is exponentially better than the telestial one, and that the celestial kingdom is exponentially better than the terrestrial one, but that even the telestial kingdom is better than our current state--perhaps, again, exponentially so. In other words, it's all good, all challenging, all Heavenly Father (through His Son or Spirit) allowing us to develop to our personal bests. It may well be that telestial living would seem pathetic to one accustomed to the higher realms. However, it is likely the most appropriate and balanced for those who will reside there. I doubt anyone will be bored--even in the outer darkness. [Now, let the faithful fill in the huge gaps I just left behind...]

I'm remembering the guy who participated in an organized LGBT messes with Chick Fil-A day. All LGBT and allies were encouraged to go through the drive-through at a Chick Fil-A and order water. This fellow decided to confront the 17-year-old minor, working the drive-through, berating her for working for such an evil, homophobic company. The worker remained professional throughout, repeatedly saying that she recognized that people had varying political views, but that she was happy to serve him water on this day, and hoped the rest of it would be pleasant. Apparently believing he had successfully educated the young lady, this guy posts a video of the encounter on YouTube--never realizing just how much of a jerk he came across as being. Turns out he was a VP in a pretty prestigious company. Was. Within a day he was fired. He didn't represent their values, you see. In the mean time, the minor got to appear on some pretty cool talk shows, and kept her professionalism--taught by Chick Fil-A--throughout them all. The private company's firing of the jerk was its exercise of free speech. We're never protected from embarrassing our employers.

My reaction to mobs tearing down religious icons? If I am not careful I can become angry enough to lose my sanctification! Then there are the liberal suits egging them on—thinking this will help them win in November. 😠

I'll give it a try--hopefully some time this week. It appears to be on YouTube.

For members I suppose the question is what benefit Heavenly Father has in mind by directing the prophets to take this course of action. As an outsider, I suppose I am non-plussed by it. Some "allies" are probably thrilled, and some Fundamentalists are probably alarmed, and feel vindicated in their antagonism. Personally, my greatest concern is not with any secular pride center, but with those Christians who are attempting to make their churches and denominations "inclusive." https://juicyecumenism.com/2020/02/14/dan-matlock/

Note just to @MormonGator: You do realize that @Vort can take this post and cut and paste to any future disagreements you might have, right???

Okay, I get this. The debate respecting Title IX is over whether allegations of sexual misconduct—especially on college campuses—should be treated as other offenses in which the accused has the presumption of innocence or, as the Obama administration instituted: whether accusers should get the presumption of being truthful while the accused is treated as already guilty, and given no opportunity to defend himself, lest the victim be re-traumatized. I was arguing for the accused to retain the presumption of innocence. It sounds like you agree. Yes?

@Jamie123 Is this an argument for erring on the side of prosecuting the falsely accused???

I suspect that it is worse to be raped than to be falsely accused. However, the question ought to be whether we would rather see some guilty go free or some innocents be punished. Our country has always erred on the side of letting the guilty go free: the presumption of innocence. The Obama administration reversed that in this specific case--and then required college administrators to be the litigators and adjudicators. The stories abound of women who discovered, often through sensitivity training, that a prior relationship from months ago doesn't feel right. Maybe that drunken encounter was at least somewhat planned (or anticipated) by the guy. Next thing you know the male international student is being sent home with his single-entry visa, labeled a sex-offender.

We were back in service for the first time this past week. Everyone had masks. Those on stage were allowed to take them off, since we had plexiglass partitions. Poor pastor wanted to come out into the audience so much---he always does--but refrained. We were model citizens and still able to worship. 😁

It's articles like this: https://dailytrojan.com/2020/05/20/usc-usg-respond-to-department-of-education-title-ix-changes/ that make me thankful I live in a country that is both democratic and one with a Constitution, laws, and certain unalienable rights. As my title suggests, it's easy to load a question so that the obvious answer...the 'woke' answer...gets chosen, even though our higher laws protect the alleged sexual villain. To put it simply, when a college student accuses another of molestation, abuse or rape the accused--the alleged perpetrator--is supposed to get the presumption of innocence. The accuser has the burden of proof. I learned this in high school debate. Ironically, the so-called liberals opposing the reversion of Title IX to this standard are embracing a lynch mob mentality. Then again, most of the accused are male . . .

Some embrace the best that POTUS offers and support him whole-heartedly. Others do so begrudgingly (all the way from he's all right--perhaps not the best to he's horrible, but the alternative is even worse. Still others do the same on the opposite side of the aisle. There was a time in American society, and in American churches, when we could make these differing choices and still respect one another as loyal Americans and God-fearing Christians. I choose to emulate that approach.

Non-liturgical churches have used pre-packed wafer & juice for years now. I would think this would be even easier with water as the liquid element.

I am hopeful that a lot of this will die down after the election. Cynical me believes Democrats want to keep stirring the pot, with the hopes that the younger set will transfer their anger into votes. Likewise, Republican leaders likely believe that older folks will be appalled, and vote for law and order. When one side wins the other will vent some, then this will calm down. If I'm wrong, anyone who wants can join me in the Rapture!

The Seattle City Council has two parties--Democrats and Democratic Socialists. Since at least the early 1980s there have been signs downtown calling for revolution--for the overthrow of the corrupt capitalist system. Seattle proper is roughly 25% atheist (compared with less than 3% nationally). Evergreen State College should already be bankrupt (a school built for 4000+ students with a current enrollment around 2400), yet it just keeps chugging along. So...no, this doesn't surprise me. Gov. Inslee may not be too popular outside of King-Pierce-Snohomish counties, but those 3 make up roughly 75% of the state. Perhaps CHAZ is what allows Amazon, Microsoft and Boeing to come across as benign and mildly conservative. They support big liberal government that regulates their competitors out of business, but get to look reasonable thanks to the long-in-development CHAZ/CHOP.

Oh...you mean you thought Seattle liberals need actual students to serve as props, when they want to virtue signal???

@Vort lives in the wealthier suburbs. :-) Down south, it is somehow easier to see Seattle. Perhaps the most precious insight is that the Seattle Public Schools superintendent has publicly stated that police and national guard are not welcome to stage on public school property. She fears that students, families and the community will not feel safe seeing law enforcement preparing on property dedicated to student learning and betterment.

I'll give you the win on this one. Critics appear to argue the pedophilia by saying Kimball was prepubescent at 14. They're in the weeds--deeply, at this point. Marriages to 14-year-olds are bizarre and abusive to our modern thinking. Right or wrong, they were relatively common back then. FAIR and CARM can argue the nuances...

What I meant is that these groups do not accuse Joseph Smith of marry girls who have not reached puberty. I wouldn't surprise me if many opponents of your church misuse the word pedophile by applying it to teens.

This is the accurate definition. Everything else is inflammatory. I encounter men who struggle with this awful attraction. It's a horrific cross to bear. The dating/marrying of younger teenagers is odd to us, but was relatively common throughout the 19th century. I'm certainly no expert on LDS history--not even a member. However, I'm not aware that even the strongest critics of the church argue that Joseph Smith had relations with prepubescent children.

@Jonah, ask and ye shall receive: https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-insurrection-act-how-trump-could-use-against-protests-2020-6

I recall efforts, back in the 1990s, at racial reconciliation. One powerful service had the leadership of predominantly white fellowships and denominations washing the feet of leaders from predominantly African-American ones. It was appropriate and seemed Spirit-driven. There was one African-American minister who said something to the effect of, "Very good. Now when will you walk with us to support Affirmative Action, increased welfare, etc.?" So, here we are 25 years later. Black Lives Matters Inc. was founded upon the notion that African-Americans are targeted by racist law enforcement for aggressive encounters, including shoot-to-kills. 25 years ago I wondered if I could be seen as an ally of African-Americans, since I did not support Affirmative Action quotas. Today I wonder the same, since I do not believe law enforcement is systemically racist.

Many people think racially. There are stereotypes, of course. There's also the current misinformation--that whites hate "the other," and that African-Americans can't possibly succeed because everyone else has created a system of oppression they are incapable of overcoming, etc. Racism is of a different character. Truth may expose the difference. However, some racial thinking may take more than one telling. We love our biases and often take overwhelming evidence to change. Racism refuses to be corrected. It assumes certain superiorities are indeed race-based. Sadly, sometimes individual souls are convinced of their own inferiority based on race, as well.

My understanding is that when people are asked whether they would prefer to have poor people of the same race or wealthier people of a different race as neighbors they almost always want the wealthier as neighbors. What is too often labeled as RACIST is most often RACIAL--and that is most often based on ignorance and media portrayals. I suspect that racist hatred is far less of a problem than we imagine. The solution being offered actually forces us into more racial-centric thinking though...which seems to make the problem worse.

If a new poster came here and started his/her intro with something like, "Mormons are known for X-bad-thing, but hey, let's have an honest conversation about religion. You guys are open-minded aren't you?" Chances are the individual would not last long. Frankly, who would put up with more than two or three posts? Yet, somehow, when it comes to race discussions, that 'new poster' would likely be a college professor, a virtue-signaling administrator, or worse, a politician trying to slurp up some votes. Nevertheless, we're all expected to shout AMEN! to this new orthodoxy. Then again, one of the best compliments I ever received was when my peer, a Korean professor (yes, in Korea) told me I was 4/3rds Korean.