HEthePrimate

I'm going to be blunt. If you need psychological counseling, get professional help. Any ecclesiastical leader worth his salt would give the same advice. If you're paranoid about "worldly" influences and want to keep things in an LDS context, well that's why LDS Family Services exists. If, like me, you trust that not every non-LDS therapist in the world lacks professional integrity and is bound to "lead you astray," feel free to get professional services from a non-Mormon. It's up to you--at least the folks at LDS Family Services have more training than your average bishop. Mind you, I don't mean to put down bishops. Many of them are wise, good-hearted men. But my point is that while a wise man may be able to help and give good advice, he also knows his limitations and will direct you elsewhere should the need arise. The stuff about bishops being automatically qualified by virtue of their calling, and having the power of discernment, that's a load of hooey. I've seen too many bishops make too many mistakes--BIG mistakes--that I can't believe that anymore. Some bishops are good, and some may have discernment, but not all of them--they're humans like the rest of us. Many bishops and stake presidents don't have a clue about mental illness, for example, or how to deal with addiction, or any number of other problems. So use your common sense, assess the situation, and proceed accordingly.

Even if a person undergoes trial and is found guilty of an actual crime, that person still has certain rights, though obviously not the right to avoid consequences for their actions. For example, they have a right to not suffer "cruel or unusual punishment," so torture would be (should be) out of the question. Punishment, yes. Cruel punishment, no. If a person is suspected of a crime, and there is evidence he may be the guilty party, but he has not yet undergone trial, he still has rights. More rights than someone who has been found guilty by trial. For example, a right to legal counsel/representation, and a right not to be held without charges. If a person is suspected of a crime and there is no actual evidence (or very flimsy evidence), that person has even more rights. Like the right to not be held at all. As I understand it, this new power to detain people (which started during the G.W. Bush administration in the wake of 9/11) allows them to detain people indefinitely without charges, without evidence, without legal representation, without judicial review, without allowing prisoners to have contact with the outside world, and without even making known to the public who is being held. That's just wrong. Even if the government doesn't actually use the power, the fact that it could should scare the pants off any red-blooded American. IMHO. They justify it in the name of fighting terrorism. I want to fight terrorism as much as anybody else, but even in a terrorism investigation, if you're going to detain people, you should at least have evidence of wrongdoing such that you can level charges against them. And if you have evidence, you shouldn't be afraid of taking it to trial, or of allowing legal representation, etc. One of the things that sets free nations apart from dictatorships is the rule of law. Whether or not to detain people should not be a matter of whim or mere suspicion. There should be rules, and there should be actual evidence.

I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, by René Girard. It's not about Jesus, per se, but does talk about him, and puts forth great ideas about his role and the Atonement.

I'd be delighted if they put that display up in my town. Because it's interesting, something... different. Though I'm not a fan of the commercialism, I like Christmas. But I support freedom of speech. They went through proper channels--it was one of nine approved displays on the courthouse lawn--and it was wrong for some vigilante to tear it down.

That's pretty cool. :)

I haven't seen it, but know people who have. They say the Mormons actually come out looking pretty good in the story. Perhaps a bit naive, but good-hearted and amiable. It's also supposed to be very funny. I'm hoping that when the show goes on tour, it comes to the area where I live (I can't afford to travel to NYC right now).

What was that about "man's best friend?"

Well, I think a lot of LDS people are taught, from a very young age, to feel ashamed of their sexuality. Official LDS doctrine teaches that sex is positive, in the right context, but many individual members of the Church hang on to more repressive Puritan beliefs, teach them to their children, and that can be damaging. A large part of Western culture is still influenced by the Christian church, and you will find that LDS are not alone in promoting chastity. However, you are certainly right that many, many Westerners have a pretty casual attitude about sexuality.My own feelings on the matter are that various sex acts are not wrong per se, but that the Law of Chastity exists to help foster good relationships between people, and provide stable homes for children (well, for adults, too! ). In other words, chastity helps "grease the wheels" of society and helps things run smoothly. (The double entendre was not intended, but I'll take it!)

I agree with Jenamarie. It's not the clothing, or even the ordinances that save us, but Jesus Christ. However, the symbols and ordinances can be beautiful and useful for teaching us about the Savior and helping us draw closer to Him.Peace to you, my friend. :) HEP

Rameumptom, thanks for sharing that--it's interesting to know. I'm a widower, too, so I can understand what he was going through. Well, now he's in the same place she is.

Elder Ronald E. Poelman dies at 83 | Deseret News

RadioactiveWolfboy, Don't get discouraged if the medications don't work right away. Sometimes you have to try several combinations of meds to find one that works. It takes patience, but can pay off, so don't give up! The good news is that bipolar disorder is very treatable--medications do work and can help you live a better life. If necessary, ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) can also be very helpful. It sounds scary, but works (I know someone who gets it, and swears by it ). But only if necessary--try medications first. As a friend of mine says, "Better living through chemistry!" Good luck, my friend. HEP

Also, where do you get the idea that the poor "have time and labor in surplus?" Plenty of people work long hours, but don't get paid very much for their work. Just because someone doesn't have lots of money doesn't mean they lounge around all day.

There's nothing wrong with the first definition, but that doesn't deny the existence of the second definition. The fact that "good exploitation" exists is small comfort to the many people who are exploited by other people in the bad way.

Nonsense. Though $100 buys the same amount no matter who is doing the purchasing (in theory--wealthy buyers often get bigger discounts from vendors because the vendors want to encourage them to buy more), $100 represents a larger portion of a poor person's income than a rich person's. That $100 is therefore worth more to a poor person than to a rich person.For example, suppose a person who makes $20,000 a year rents an apartment for $400 per month. That represents 24% of her income, and she has to struggle to pay all the other bills. Suppose someone who makes $100,000 per year rents the same apartment for $400 per month. That represents only 4.8% of her income, and she has an easier time paying her other bills, and may have extra to spare. That $400 per month is worth a lot more to the first person than to the second person.

Agreed. Not agreed. I see no problem with asking more of those who have more. But then, I'm an unrepentant liberal! Agreed, but I would add that there are more ways of acquiring money than the three you mentioned. Some people inherit money, and others cheat or steal money. But yeah, you're right that some people earn money and are prudent, while others engage in exploitation. I don't believe in suffering for the sake of suffering, but I do agree that everybody should contribute as they are able. For me, the goal is not sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. My goal is to eliminate poverty and bring about a greater level of equality. For that to happen, a different redistribution of wealth is necessary. (The current redistribution scheme directs money disproportionately towards a certain small group of people.) No offense, but it's just silly to take more from those who already don't have enough. Perhaps you'd better rethink this.Peace, HEP

It depends. If they've left their cart unattended, I'll move it myself. If they're with their cart and I'm in a good mood, I'll just say "Excuse me, please," and they usually move it. If I'm in a bad mood, I might go down another aisle to get around them. Otherwise they might get an "Excuse me" and a dirty look! (But we try to avoid that!)

Many blessings, regardless of whether or not they're in your PB, are conditional and yes, you may "lose out" on them if you don't do what's necessary to receive them. However, I'm open to the possibility that God will give us another chance in the next life. +1I've known people who were promised things in their patriarchal blessings that never came to pass, through no fault of their own. I imagine God will grant them later. This life is only a tiny part of eternity.

cwald, I know what you mean. People can be pretty argumentative, disrespectful, and even vicious at times. On the Internet, under cover of anonymity, people often "let their hair down," so to speak, and spit out every thought that comes into their head that they wouldn't normally say to someone's face. Basically, they (actually 'we'--I do this, too) drop their filter. In a way this is good, so you can know what people are really thinking. In a way, though, it's scary to know that people actually think such things! But sometimes the first thing that comes into your head is not what you really think, if you give yourself enough time to ponder it and revise as necessary. So maybe it's a good thing for us to stop for a minute or two and think things through before we post, and maybe we can avoid some misunderstandings and hurt feelings. At church, on the other hand, people are going to be "on their best behavior," and I expect that your experience there would be rather different than what you see here. Shalom, my friend!

Ach, so much for that idea! A coworker asked if I could take her place at work tomorrow.Our city had its Veteran's Day parade this morning. I wasn't at the parade myself, but I was waiting to take the bus to work, and saw one of those Air Force refuelling planes fly overhead, following the city's main street. I assume it was on its way to fly over the parade. I'm fascinated by aircraft and enjoyed watching it fly over me. :)

Given the fact that we are human, and therefore continue to sin after baptism, the sacrament may be viewed as a way of remembering renewing our baptismal covenants with God. You sin again, you repent again, and during the sacrament you can promise to God that you will keep trying to do better at upholding your covenants. I like that what we call "the sacrament" is referred to as "communion" by people of other faiths. When we partake of the sacrament, we commune with Jesus by symbolically recreating the Last Supper, a communal meal during which we eat bread and drink water that represent Jesus' body and blood, metaphorically making him part of ourselves (and, conversely, ourselves part of him), thus becoming "at one" with him and fellow members of the Body of Christ (the Church).

Considering how humans behave sometimes, it's hard to blame someone for preferring the company of cats!

I hope I didn't embarrass you by asking! Guess I thought of that because I watched "Parenthood" last night, and Drew introduced his new girlfriend to the family, and his mother, Sarah, also introduced her new boyfriend to the family. So it's kinda on my mind.

PC, you're a good man! :)

Sister_in_Faith, the Church has made it abundantly clear that it's ok to refrain from fasting for medical reasons. The people here are merely individuals expressing their personal opinions. They are free to hold those opinions and express them, but they do not speak for the Church. If fasting will negatively impact your health, then YOU DO NOT NEED TO FEEL GUILTY for refraining.Best wishes and ((HUGS)) to you, my friend. :)