prisonchaplain

It suddenly dawns on me that the chocolate milk was spiked. Outside view here, but that's just wrong.

First, single people pay through the nose on taxes--more than married people. That's not the problem. Married people pay more than two people living together. Because single parents endure more hardships couples often find it advantageous, for tax reasons, not to marry. It's not uncommon to hear that a couple is choosing to live in sin because they cannot afford the added taxes they would incur if they married. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marriage-penalty.asp BTW, most people of faith agree with @JohnsonJones. Most also know that wanting a return to the morality of yesteryear is desirable but unlikely given today's cultural climate.

Vancouver, WA kind of covers Oregon too, since it's just north of Portland.

Technically the Vancouver, BC temple is actually in Langley (yes, I've been there--on public tour)

Ways to encourage two-parent families: 1. End the marriage penalty (quite making couples who marry pay more taxes than those who are shacking up) 2. End the death tax (why shouldn't parents be allowed to pass down to their children the fruits of their labors without government confiscating the lion's share of it?) 3. Expand the Earned Income Credit (this is actually a moderate-to-liberal idea, but one I like) 4. Raise the income rates at which child credits become less then phase out 5. Encourage school choice--especially through tuition tax credits 6. Generally promote a culture of life rather than a culture of death. Population control schemes tend to end badly. Besides, wealthier countries are already running the risk of depopulation.

So you ARE an SJW--and could easily be a moderate Republican (though moderate anything sounds just strange these days). 😉

Wait! Your' not a right-winger?

I'm not judging your friends. However, some who say they've accepted Jesus really haven't. There's a Christian song that has a great line: What about the change? What about the difference? No, we don't earn our salvation, but true salvation results in gratitude--and change. We become new creatures--ones that in word, thought, and deed are heaven-bound. Then there are those who've too eagerly embraced the "once saved always saved" heresy. They truly believe they've gotten "fire insurance" (Get Out of Hell free). Rather than debate a doctrine that I know LDS do not accept, I'll simply point out that even if that teaching were true, then there should be some evidence of true salvation. The notion that we can say a prayer while harboring full intention to keep right on sinning and still become right with God is wrong. God's not fooled. Sadly, some people are.

You're about 80 years out of date. Pentecostals were looked down upon by the mostly Calvinist Evangelicals in the early 1940s. However, the Assemblies of God was eventually accepted into the National Association of Evangelicals. Today it is one of the largest denominations in the group. So, yes, most Pentecostals are considered a subset of Evangelicals.

On the political side (and this issue is older than I am), we could do away with the marriage penalty.

Not exactly. However, we have two papers that cover most of the issues: one on sexuality (homosexuality, gender identity, purity, etc.) and another on domestic violence. You may be aware that most Evangelicals (including AoG) believe that in the life to come we will love all of our brothers and sisters more than we currently love our family members but that we will not marry or give in marriage.

Which is more difficult an Evangelical or someone who converts to a polygamous LDS off-shoot? 😉

I'm not sure which is worse, Halloween, or songs like It's Christmas at Denny's Again. Then again, Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer might be worse than either. 😉

I seem to recall a story about a Utah teacher who had open reading time in the classroom. One student pulled out his Book of Mormon and the teacher said no, not religious books. Seeing that I thought, "There's a lawsuit just waiting to be filed."

I toyed with starting this topic in current events but realized that family is a central gospel theme. LDS families are forever. Further, I recall as a young teenager, watching the film (just dated myself, didn't I?) series: Focus on the Family. Google the phrase "two parent privilege," and you will find that several articles pop up. Rather than admitting that our faith is right--that intact families provide the best upbringing, modern culture is framing this as privilege. The conservative backlash is that every child has a right to a two-parent home. It's not privilege--it's God's intended order. :::Sigh::: Here we are! How do we respond when society admits we're right and then wants to punish our children for us being so?

#1. They usually distinguish "religion" (organized existing practice, such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam) and "spiritual" (higher power, inclusive, accepting of all). #2. Their point is that they do not want to be called non-religious or atheist, but neither do they want to be labeled in a way that forces commitment to one religion over another. Whether that makes sense is an open question. I say that to respect all is to commit to none. The spirituality proponent might retort that love wins, love is love, and non-judgment is a higher spirituality. Perhaps related: When someone makes the mistake of saying they don't believe in "organized religion," I tell them, "Good. You'll love my church."

Well, hey, why wasn't there a flammable sign on the thing. How was my kid to know???!!! 🔥🧯🚒

It could be the feared Y2K bug. Ironically, computers used 99 rather than 1999 because memory was limited and expensive back in the day. The fear was that nuclear weapons computers, air traffic control, energy power grids etc. would all go haywire at midnight 1/1/00.

Aw, come on @Jamie123, are you telling me you don't like THIS Tattoo:

I agree that this probably comes down to Tim not believing he crossed the line (abuse of 'name' and relationship) and the Church believing he did. The message was communicated clearly though--don't even come close to abusing the church or its leaders for personal gain. No hint or whiff of that will be tolerated.

Sometimes outside views help. My impression is that self-promotion is deeply frowned upon in LDS circles. Worse would be to use church leadership for personal benefit. My sense, then, is that leadership took great offense at Ballard's name-dropping and use of LDS connections. They did so on behalf of the Church. I'm not sure any of this controversy speaks to other allegations against him or to whether or not his future political aspirations are plausible or commendable.

Granting that any real change to the scheduling and practices of the Church will come by the direction of the Holy Ghost, how has the shift from three to two hours of weekly ward time changed spiritual practice? Is more happening outside the ward? Has the streamlining meant most of the three hours of content get packed into the two hours? Is there less fluff and more meat? OR, should the Spirit lead, would you enjoy a return to three hours of weekly services on Sunday?

😁 I'm from the government. I'm here to help.

The impression I had from the Vice article was that President Ballard and the Church were upset that he had used them to promote himself and his organization. There did not seem to be any connection (as far as the Church or President Ballard's condemnation) to allegations of Tim's sexual improprieties.

The impression I got from reporting on the reporting (bias upon bias, I know) was that President Ballard, and the Church, were mostly displeased with Tim's use of the President's name/reputation/authority, as well as that of the Church, for apparent promotion of himself and his organizations.