prisonchaplain

How about betting my retirement account on Obama becoming the '08 President, back in 2006 or so?  (It's not gambling, it's investing).  I'm liking this hindsight thing.    

Go ahead and sell the old house in 2008.  Just don't buy the bigger, better one.  Go ahead and rent for a couple of years.  Then, you'll get your dream house for the same mortgage as the old one.
 
(Gotta love hindsight!)

My 11-year old tells me her sixth-grade friends sometiems say, "Why should I care about the Bible?  It's so old!"  She responds that it being old is what makes her want to believe it.
 
It hit me this Sunday.  Our passage was Judges 5--the Song of Deborah.  The Israelites face a great battle, and the tribes are called upon to send soldiers.  The song details each tribe's response.  That of Reuben hit me as oh-so 2014:
 
15 And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah; even Issachar, and also Barak: he was sent on foot into the valley. For the divisions of Reuben there were great thoughts of heart.  (KJV)
 
The princes of Issachar were with Deborah;
    yes, Issachar was with Barak,
    sent under his command into the valley.
In the districts of Reuben
    there was much searching of heart. (NIV)
 
We say this all the time.  Can you help?  Oh, I have to search my heart on that.  Really, it is usually just so much psychobabble.  We don't want to do it, but want to appear to be giving it serious consideration.
 
3000 years ago--roughly 2800 years before the discipline of psychology even developed, here is the tribe of Reuben "searching their hearts."
 
Mind you--the song is taunting and mocking Reuben.  The battle is raging brothers, and you are pondering in your hearts what to do???  Really?
 
I find myself wanting to tell people that "50 shades of gray" is not a world view.  It's not philosophy.  It's soft porn!  Yet, when we face choices, and know what is right and wrong, we suddenly babble on about gray areas, asking, "Who's to judge?" 
 
To be a bit harsh, wasn't it Pilate who asked, "What is veritas (truth)?"
 
There is right and wrong, black and white, up and down, good and bad, God and Satan, heaven and hell.  The truly gray area is small and thin indeed.
 
And the Bible got it 3000 years ago!  Old indeed!  Well...give me that old time religion, amen.
 

Interesting Prison Chap.....most LDS congregations had this lesson this past Sunday or in the coming week. We had a nice discussion on how children turn away from the teachings of God and how good friends like Deborah can help us etc....

If these are the two options, I would say it is more likely to be a lack of awareness. Most estimates for the US say that about 20% of marriages are "sexless" (usually defined as 10 or fewer sexual encounters per year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexless_marriage). At that rate, an LDS bishop with stewardship over ~100 couples has probably got 15-20 sexless marriages within his ward. Acknowledging, as we have above, that a few of those are due to age, illness, and he probably has  at least 10 couples who are actually fighting, wishing, hoping, and otherwise struggling -- and most of them probably don't talk to the Bishop about it. Mark Regnerus (http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/22/new-study-mark-regnerus-suggests-religion-can-predict-sexual-behavior/) claims that he will present some data later this year that may break this down by religious affiliation, which will be interesting.

1.  Would Satan try to speak false guilt into our lives?  Would he trip up a young married with the thought that sex is dirty--no matter what--in direct contradiction to Paul's admonitions in 1 Corinthians 7?  Absolutely!
 
2.  Churches do not speak about sexless marriages.  They either do not know this is a serious issue or it really is not all that common.  However, my guess is that most pastors, counselors, and bishops would, at minimum, advise these couples to find their way to intimacy.  Personally, I'd do a slow-walk through Paul's counsel in 1 Cor 7.
 
3.  Prophets speak when told to speak by God.  Either it is not as wide-spread of a problem as some here imagine, or yes, the counsel may be taken as ammunition by abusive spouses to demand intimacy at-will.

PrisonChaplan:
I agree with this idea of changing from being a director to a coach and giving her more room to make her own decisions within acceptable boundaries. The consequences are getting watered down gradually. School is out and that allows for some modification.
 
Anatess: I agree completely with your message in bigger letters. The actual application of it is hard. How to teach her? I can say: what you did is wrong and she replies: no, it was not. Is that teaching? If teaching is a two way action, then the teacher dispensing the principles without the student hearing or internalizing them is not teaching.That is what I am trying to do. But I can't force her to learn. Part of the problemn is that I partially agree with her. I can see now that I do not want her having private interviews with the bishop. I don't agree with her responsen or I wouldnot be on this site. But I can't answer her observation that what she did accomplished what she intended it to do for her and for her friends. Like she said, I have already won.
 
Wingnut: "take care that you don't give the church a bad name, please"
I find this comment odd. First, that horse is already out of the barn. Her non-LDS friends already laughed at a digital recording of a LDS bishop extracting a contrived description of immoral acts from a young girl. In the end I feel like the good name of the strong and vibrant LDS church with 15 million members is not going to be determined by the acts of one belligerent teenage girl and her silly friends. I am more concerned about her at this point than in the social reputation of the LDS church in one obscure school with a handful of LDS students. Would I trade her well-being or her membership in the LDS church for 10 baptisms of her friends? Can't say that I would, and I don't see any of those baptisms actually happening or not happening because of the way I handle the current problems.
 
Suzie: We are researching for a non-LDS woman family therapist. I think you are right.
Apple Pansy: If the non-LDS therapist doesn't work out we may come back to the LDS option. At least we tried her way.
 
Quinn:
One of my attorney friends told me that my state does not require permission for both parties to be recorded. I don't think they will prosecute my daughter for this and I don't think the police are going to do much to the bishop. Nothing so far anyway. I do sympathize with your point. If my daughter recorded a man assaulting her or molesting her to the point of serious damage such as hospitalization for injuries or preganancy or death and that was thrown out of court because it was recorded. Well, the blood of men like Porter Rockwell flows in my veins and I don't know what I might do. As you know part of the reason for court trials is to punish the criminals but part of it is to create a reason for the families of the victims to not take revenge upon the accused and their families. When the system breaks down, it is only a a matter of time before the law of the jungle comes back into effect. Even though I would like to think I would prevail, I bet that statistics would show that the criminals win and the avengers of justice often lose in the jungle. Why we should support the rule of law.
 
YJacket:
I agree that it is the responsibility of the youth to solve their problems.From my dd's perspective she has solved the problem. She sees it as putting responsibility for the bishop's problem back on him. I am pretty certain that if I began to compromise her privacy and recorded her bedroom activities and used them to embarass her, that she would respond by recording the private activities between my wife and I and broadcast that to her sibling and friends.  Sometimes we have heated disagreements, usually behind closed doors away from the  children and there are the other unspoken activities. My hunch is that I would not win that battle.But your suggestion does help me figure out what I think is best to do and is therby valuable.
 
I am grateful to all of you for your help. I think without htis site it would take weeks to get similar advice from friends and ward members and probably not as thoughtful and useful.

Therapy may or may not be needed.  Perhaps adjusting the goals would be enough.  First, I'd suggest carrying out your proscribed consequences--with the "lightest" interpretation possible.  In other words, follow through with them so that it is clear that you meant what you said.  On the other hand, whenever a consequence can be made easier (especially for the rest of the family), go with that interpretation.  Why?  At this point, dd needs to know that you are the parent, and you will follow through with your promises.  That gives her consistency and stability.
 
BUT THEN, what to do with the strong-willed teen?  Perhaps it is time to begin the transition from director to coach?  She is smart, but inexperienced.  Ask her more questions, give her options, seek out her thoughts.  You still control the environment and over-all game plan, but let her have increasing say about the details.
 
Yours is a faith tradition that holds "agency" (what we call free will) in high regard.  It is obviously time for dd to start owning her own faith.  If that means not going to temple, it may be best for her not to do so for now.  If that means sometimes ask pointed, seemingly disrespectful questions, then help her explore, while guiding her towards more polite and intelligent approaches to her questions.
 
And console yourself.  In about 10 years, she'll wake up, look in the mirror, and ask, "How come dad was so smart about things????"  (Usually after dd has her own dd/s)

It would be so easy to start ranting.  This is so outrageous.  Those who take their religion seriously are barred from professional practice?  Really???  I've read two articles on this--both emphasizing that those participating in these decisions took the issue very seriously, spent a great amount of time, and took seriously the issues of equality vs. religion freedom.  In other words, this was no rash decision.
 
Paul tells us to pray for Caesar.  Pray we must!

As others have said, Jesus did obey the tenents of Judaism.  As a rabbi, and as the Son of God, He corrected some misinterpretations.  Nevertheless, he honored those who donated to the temple (the Widow's mite), and he even encouraged the paying of taxes (rendor to Caesar what is Caesar's).
 
Then there is this nugget:
 
Hebrews 10:25King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
 
 
So, you might not have to step into a church to accept Jesus into your heart.  Might not even be necessary to be in a church (or ward) to repent.  However, if you sincerely convert, then you must needs deliver yourself unto his house.

Okay, I'll pose this as a question.  Is the LBGT community--those pushing these kinds of decisions, anyway--engaging in payback for the centuries of Sodomy laws and our sexual teaching against that which they do?  In other words, is this really mostly about revenge?

First, there is no doubt but that some ex-LDS, and some aggressive Fundamentalists intentionally manipulate your doctrines to sound bizarre. There has been some deception from these corners.
It may be healthy to realize, though, that no matter how well-phrased, some LDS doctrines are going to be 'wierd, creepy or sci-fi' to evangelical ears. They are different to us. We believe God is eternally unique, and that He alone creates out of nothing--that He alone is eternal. Yes, we will achieve a kind of exaltation--but we do not expect to become what He is--to inherit a nature that is deity.
So, some LDS, including leaders, speculate about what exaltation will look like. They wonder aloud if it does mean that there might be infinite worlds, and that the most faithful may inherit one, in which they are the God.
That can't not be shocking to evangelical ears. Some will respond to this shock by asking questions and being open-hearted. Others will simply dismiss it, and politely withdraw. Finally, some will contend, argue, and seek to destroy the perceived heresy.
I confess that in some ways LDS beliefs about the future do seem "sci fi." There is even speculation that LDS authors gravitate towards the sci fi genre, in part, because of the unique worldview.
“Is It Something in the Water?†Why Mormons Write Science Fiction and Fantasy — Mormon Artist
IMHO, the best course is to own the uniqueness, explain it and glory in it. Down-playing your beliefs about the future betrays a sense of shame--one that probably isn't really there.
FWIW some Pentecostal churches are downplaying tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit, because they think those aspects will scare newcomers away. I find that shameful. We choose to own our beliefs, explain them, and glory in them. Most respect us for it, whether they agree or not.

I read most of the article, and it meshes well with the explanations posters give here. It was especially clarifying to hear that while LDS expect to "share in divinity," they will always worship the Father. This is why some LDS scholars accept the term "henotheism" to describe LDS theology--though others continue to insist that monotheism is accurate.
My question: Yes, the "inherit a planet" canard was caricature--but, does exaltation lead to being worshiped? That is, if I were to achieve exaltation, would the time come when I might do some creating, and that my creation might worship me (even as I continue to worship Heavenly Father)?

Soul and Traveler--humility and grace would be wonderful healers.  Sadly, persecution often breeds a chip on the shoulder, and the pride of victimhood.  I pray we do not sucuumb, but rather take hope in the saying, "This too shall pass."  Yes, it is prejudiced and biased to ban traditionalists in law because of alleged bias and prejudiced.  However, they think they are right, so they perceive their biases as self-evident truths.  Humility, humility, where art thou, or humility?

I expected that a good many in the LBGT community--even from "moderates,"  would respond, "See?  How does it feel now that YOU are on the receiving end?"  Power does corrupt.  On the bright side, Christians do well under persecution.  We become stronger, and more Christ-like.  We grow.  I'm told that China now has more Christians, in raw numbers, than the United States.  They've been forged by the fires of persecution.  It may be an irony that LBGT payback (is that not what "see how it feels?" amounts to?) revives Christianity.

If so, why ban lawyers from practicing because of their religious convictions?  Why force a CEO to resign because of his political donations from 6 years ago?  Why bankrupt a former employer because they do not wish to bake a cake for a gay wedding?  Why fine football players $10,000 and send them to re-education camp (i.e. sensitivity training) because they state publically that the new gay football player ought not be quite so in-our-faces with his public displays of affection on national TV?
 
"Live and let live" should not have to be quite so vindictive?

At the end of the day, its still humans, gay people are just people and can be as cruel and spiteful as straight people.
They're no better or worse most of the time.
Oh and I don't think most Canadians know we even have Mormons

I expected that a good many in the LBGT community--even from "moderates,"  would respond, "See?  How does it feel now that YOU are on the receiving end?"  Power does corrupt.  On the bright side, Christians do well under persecution.  We become stronger, and more Christ-like.  We grow.  I'm told that China now has more Christians, in raw numbers, than the United States.  They've been forged by the fires of persecution.  It may be an irony that LBGT payback (is that not what "see how it feels?" amounts to?) revives Christianity.

As others have said, Jesus did obey the tenents of Judaism.  As a rabbi, and as the Son of God, He corrected some misinterpretations.  Nevertheless, he honored those who donated to the temple (the Widow's mite), and he even encouraged the paying of taxes (rendor to Caesar what is Caesar's).
 
Then there is this nugget:
 
Hebrews 10:25King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
 
 
So, you might not have to step into a church to accept Jesus into your heart.  Might not even be necessary to be in a church (or ward) to repent.  However, if you sincerely convert, then you must needs deliver yourself unto his house.

As others have said, Jesus did obey the tenents of Judaism.  As a rabbi, and as the Son of God, He corrected some misinterpretations.  Nevertheless, he honored those who donated to the temple (the Widow's mite), and he even encouraged the paying of taxes (rendor to Caesar what is Caesar's).
 
Then there is this nugget:
 
Hebrews 10:25King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
 
 
So, you might not have to step into a church to accept Jesus into your heart.  Might not even be necessary to be in a church (or ward) to repent.  However, if you sincerely convert, then you must needs deliver yourself unto his house.

If so, why ban lawyers from practicing because of their religious convictions?  Why force a CEO to resign because of his political donations from 6 years ago?  Why bankrupt a former employer because they do not wish to bake a cake for a gay wedding?  Why fine football players $10,000 and send them to re-education camp (i.e. sensitivity training) because they state publically that the new gay football player ought not be quite so in-our-faces with his public displays of affection on national TV?
 
"Live and let live" should not have to be quite so vindictive?

It would be so easy to start ranting.  This is so outrageous.  Those who take their religion seriously are barred from professional practice?  Really???  I've read two articles on this--both emphasizing that those participating in these decisions took the issue very seriously, spent a great amount of time, and took seriously the issues of equality vs. religion freedom.  In other words, this was no rash decision.
 
Paul tells us to pray for Caesar.  Pray we must!

If so, why ban lawyers from practicing because of their religious convictions?  Why force a CEO to resign because of his political donations from 6 years ago?  Why bankrupt a former employer because they do not wish to bake a cake for a gay wedding?  Why fine football players $10,000 and send them to re-education camp (i.e. sensitivity training) because they state publically that the new gay football player ought not be quite so in-our-faces with his public displays of affection on national TV?
 
"Live and let live" should not have to be quite so vindictive?

If so, why ban lawyers from practicing because of their religious convictions?  Why force a CEO to resign because of his political donations from 6 years ago?  Why bankrupt a former employer because they do not wish to bake a cake for a gay wedding?  Why fine football players $10,000 and send them to re-education camp (i.e. sensitivity training) because they state publically that the new gay football player ought not be quite so in-our-faces with his public displays of affection on national TV?
 
"Live and let live" should not have to be quite so vindictive?

What's the difference between one who believes in no organized religion ruling over one who believes in organized religion vs. the other way around? Wherein is it fair or right for the one's influence to count and the others to not?