Dror

Hi Marsha,No, that bishop was not a doctor (he works for a mobile phone company). He did want to show the medical records to a doctor in his ward, though--a doctor whose specialty was completely different and entirely irrelevant to the illness in question. That's better than not consulting with a doctor at all, but it was kind of like going to a neurologist when you have pancreatic cancer! In any case, the bishop's stated purpose, and I heard him say it, was to see which medications they could drop. This sister needed all of her medications, according to her doctors, and had she released her medical records, she could have been in danger of losing Medicaid benefits, because it would look to them like she was "doctor shopping." When a person applies for benefits, they usually turn you down the first time. However, when the doctors working for the government saw her, they took one look, so to speak, and knew she was completely disabled and unable to work, and granted her benefits right away. Guess that wasn't good enough for the know-it-all bishop, though... *grimace*

Thank you Winnie, You are quite right--bishops are not always "for us," but are apparently called for other reasons, unknown to us. In my ward there was a certain young woman who was physically disabled, so much so that she could not work and was receiving government assistance. However, she still needed some help from the Church and asked the bishop. He refused to believe that she actually was ill! He said it was all in her head, that if she changed her attitude she could do a lot more than she thought. He also kept demanding her medical records and a list of her medications so he could look over them himself and see which meds she really needed. At one point, he even told her that she didn't need toothpaste, because people in 3rd world countries don't always have toothpaste, and she could use baking soda (this was part of the bishop's effort to reduce her expenses to within her means)! Ok, true enough, but a bit bizarre. Why does the bishops' storehouse carry toothpaste then? And why does the Church send toothpaste in its care packages to 3rd world countries and disaster areas? Would it kill the bishop just to order some toothpaste for her from the bishops' storehouse? He also insisted she attend Church regularly even though she was pretty much bedridden. She tried it once, and collapsed on the floor. There was at least one other person in the ward in somewhat similar circumstances who the bishop insisted ought to attend church, and another brother who was not disabled, but saw the way the bishop treated disabled people, and became inactive because of it. A man in my parents' former ward was falsely accused of a crime, and the police dropped him as a suspect. However, various people in their ward including the bishop believed the accusation. They released the man from his callings and treated him and his family like outcasts. They complained to the stake president, but he sided with the bishop. It got to the point where my parents were among the few people in the ward who remained friends with this man and his family. My parents finally contacted Salt Lake and the higher-ups investigated. The entire bishopric was released and a man brought in from another ward to be the new bishop. Justice was done, but only after a lot of pain and anguish. The family decided, and easily got permission, to attend another ward, even after the reorganization. Though most bishops are ok, one will run across "bad apples" from time to time. With those, I just grit my teeth, avoid them as much as possible, and support them in their callings. The way I look at it, we are supposed to support our bishops in much the same way women are to obey their husbands--as they obey the Lord. And who decides if the husband is obeying the Lord? The wife has to be convinced of it. If our bishop is doing something wrong, therefore, I believe we are under no obligation to support him in that action. But when he is doing his calling right, we are supposed to support him, even if we don't like him. Dror

Sunday School answer: they live righteously and are called by God.Real Life answer: they live righteously, are called by God, and happen to be known and probably liked by higher-up Church leaders. Sunday School answer: The Bp is their priesthood leader and is entitled to revelation in their behalf.Real Life answer: It's easier than trying to advise them yourself! (And the Bp is their priesthood leader, etc.) Sunday School answer: They are entitled to revelation in behalf of members of their ward.Real Life answer: They can get revelation and can seek the advice and counsel of other people in their ward and stake who can help them advise you. No. In fact, my bishop gave me bad advice last Sunday, and I already regret having initially followed it. More knowledgeable about what? My bishop is a medical doctor, but he knows precious little about French literature. He does have a good basic understanding of the gospel as well as the above mentioned resources. People are not called to be bishops because they know more about the Church and the Gospel than everybody else; they are called because God chose them for the position, for whatever reasons He may have. One reason may be that the bishop in question is a good man and has something positive to contribute to the ward. The Lord may also give him the calling in order to teach him and help him grow as a person, or even to be taught by other people.Bishops are just people. They are not especially 'qualified' in the worldly sense. That is, they do not attend theology school, do not have to be in a particular occupation, and do not 'run for office.' They generally are good men who we need to sustain in their callings, support, and put our own talents, knowledge, and services at their disposal to use to build up the Church. Bishops and other Church leaders are not 'rulers' in the worldly sense of the word. Rather, they are servants, both of God and of their fellow ward members and other people. The particular way they serve is by helping to provide order in the Church, guiding and advising its members, and reaching out to help people in need. Dror

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-751477.html This kind of stuff must really confuse liberals. I mean, aren't white people the only people who are racist in the world? Fiannan, I think you are confused about liberals. I am liberal, and I call that racism. No, white people are not the only people who can be racist.Dror

It's kinda like my family. I complain about them, know their weaknesses and strengths, and can really get hurt or ticked off by them (or do it to them, for that matter). But I love them more than anybody else, and wouldn't trade them for anybody else. I like other people, too, and have friends and enjoy visiting them, but there's nothing I like better than hanging out with "The Fam." Same with my country.Dror

Los Angeles, California. Washington, D.C. Cardston, Alberta. Salt Lake City, Utah. Provo, Utah Jordan River, Utah Columbus, Ohio. Also... Multiple tours of the Kirtland, Ohio Temple and the open house of the Chicago, Illinois Temple.

THWAACK!! ((head rolling))

Michael Moore not only owns a gun, but he's a lifelong member of the NRA. In fact, in "Bowling for Columbine" he makes note of the fact the Canadians have a much lower per-capita violent crime rate than we do in the U.S., even though they have plenty of guns. Most of his movie seems to consist primarily of asking uncomfortable questions about the role of guns and violence in our society. The main conclusion he comes to is what PC said: the problem is fear.If some "youth" tried beating up a guy in Texas, I can't help wondering if they would end up having a shootout, with 10 people dead, instead of one.

The other day I was feeling exasperated with the whole "Are Mormons Christians" question, and fantasized about adopting a more in-your-face approach. Imagine, if you will, a t-shirt that reads on the front, "Are Mormons Christians?" and on the back "Of course. Duh!" Somehow I doubt the Church leaders would approve, though. :)

You're right, the attitude does seem to have changed, though there is still a goodly number of holdouts who maintain Coke is against the Word of Wisdom. I can't speak for other people, but my attitude started changing during my mission (!), when my companion told me they would not withhold a temple recommend for drinking Coke. After my mission, I did a little research trying to find an official statement by the Church, but couldn't find any. A family member told me it was in one of the Church magazines (I forget if it was the Ensign or the New Era), even giving me the exact month and year of the magazine. She said she read an article in that issue that said Coke was against the Word of Wisdom, so I went to the Institute library to look it up. Well, I combed the magazine from cover to cover, and couldn't find a thing about Coke. When I thought about it some more, I couldn't remember ever having heard it said over the pulpit, either at General Conference, or in local meetings. So, the only logical conclusion I can come to is that Coke is not actually against the Word of Wisdom. My parents told me not to drink Coke, etc. (except my mom would drink Pepsi when she had migraines), and it's quite possible they said something in Primary, Sunday School, or Aaronic Priesthood quorum meetings, but never over the pulpit as an official pronouncement. I used to have a bishop who would bring Dr. Pepper to ward potlucks. Don't know if he was trying to shock people, or what! Now, several years later, he's a bishop again. I do drink Coke from time to time , but don't drink much of any kind of pop. For one thing, it's a rip off. For another, it's unhealthy and doesn't satisfy. Fruit juice and milk are my favorite drinks, along with water (of course).

I had a friend at BYU who wore a t-shirt that read (in Russian) "Capitalism ######." The shirt itself was not terribly funny, but the resulting discussions could get entertaining!Edit: FYI, the word I used that got censored was not what most people would consider a swear word (if it were spelled a bit differently, it would be). Just telling you so you don't get the impression I'm in the habit of cussin'!

Harrumph!!

Steven, There have been times when I have felt like that, too. It is hard. Our local institute director says that the Gospel is all about relationships--it's about how we treat each other. I think this is one of the reasons the Church leaders stress fellowshipping and home teaching so much, because people need each other, and need to feel included. There could be any number of reasons why people don't invite you and your wife to do things with them. Maybe they see you as being so good they feel intimidated! (I'm not just kidding, either. I have often felt unworthy compared to the people in my ward. They just seem so righteous!) It could be they are having difficulties of their own. Maybe you have severe halitosis (just kidding! ). Sometimes I feel lonely and want others to reach out to me. Occasionally they do. Often they don't. I get to feeling sorry for myself, but it still is true that in order to have friends, one has to be a friend (hate to say it, but it is true). Invite someone to do something with you. Confide in someone you respect. Ask someone a small favor. I find that generally, Mormons are happy to help. By doing this, you can get their attention and maybe start a relationship. Just ideas--I'm no social butterfly. They're things I've tried, and they often work. I hope you make some good friends in your ward. If it doesn't work right away, don't give up going to Church. Your relationship with God is important, and you may also be able to help someone else. Anyway, you've got a friend here. :) Dror

Well, the Church leaders encourage us to refer them to the missionaries--and to be there with them when they see the missionaries. Some people may not want to meet with the missionaries, and in those cases, the Church member would continue talking with their friends as long as the friends are interested in knowing more. I think most members who have attended church for a number of years probably have a good enough understanding of the Church to teach nonmembers the basics, and then some. Hopefully, if they don't know the answer to someone's question, they would be humble to consult someone else for an answer rather than making something up! The leaders encourage us to invite friends to church activities, even if it's just homemaking meeting or basketball, or a dance, potluck, or whatever. Then the nonmember could become acquainted with other members, and thus have more sources of information. They have that saying, "Every member a missionary!", so I think they expect us all to share with others, but the more knowledge we get, the better (obviously).

That's a copout: "It's too complicated, we can't do anything about it." The thing I probably like the most about FDR was his pragmatism and willingness to experiment. Rather than giving up, he would try something. If it didn't work (which it frequently didn't), he would move on and try something else, until he found something that helped. The Depression was terribly complicated, but FDR had a "can do" attitude. Some of the things he brought about were good, and others were duds. Ultimately, it was WWII that brought the country out of the economic depression, but before that FDR made a good-faith effort to turn things around, and he gave the people hope. We need a leader like that today, not someone who relys on fear to get people's support. Maybe we should vote in leaders who are willing to come up with a solution. The potential for a solution to rally around is certainly there. Plenty of Americans are aware of, and personally affected by, the healthcare crisis, and should someone come up with a plan, surely people would be interested. It's a pretty safe bet. Once the life form begins to grow, we know how it comes out. Arguments for a later date--viability etc. are based on convenience. Most agree we ought to give life the benefit of the doubt. Well, that's a matter of opinion. If by "most agree we ought to give life the benefit of the doubt" you mean that most Americans are against abortion, I don't think you get out much. There's a reason why abortion is legal--people want the option. I find it frankly evil to arbitrarily save the life of a fetus while ignoring the mother's well-being. Why do women always get shorted? Many "pro-lifers" probably do agree that abortion should be allowed in certain cases. However, I've met too many who would not allow for it under any circumstances, claiming that abortion is murder, period. Your assertion that instances where the mother is actually in danger are incredibly rare seems to me like an assumption. Having said that, I do recognize that abortions of convenience are too common, and we should work to reduce them. However, I do not think a ban is the way to go about it. Rather, we need to eliminate the reasons people have abortions, and offer viable alternatives to abortion, including making adoption easier. I think that sometimes what we call "abortions of convenience" are acts of desperation, when a woman doesn't have the support she needs, feels unable to see the pregnancy and birth through to the end, feels incapable of taking care of the baby after it's born. While abortion may not be the best choice, I think compassion for women in difficult circumstances is in order, and help dealing with their problems, rather than condemnation and taking their choice away. That may even help reduce the abortion rate, if women feel they have an adequate support system. It seems to me that calling abortion the "execution of unborn children" would disallow any exceptions to a ban on abortion. Maybe you'd like to change your wording? That's what it always comes down to, isn't it?--life in exchange for money. I don't know that anti-pollution measures would cost jobs, anyway--it may even create jobs. I don't know where you've been, but the issue of mankind's contribution to global warming is pretty much settled. The only people I hear claiming otherwise are non-scientists who are driven primarily either by ideology instead of evidence, or by money. Classes and testing on gun safety certainly wouldn't hurt. Actually, when I was in middle school, we had an assembly during which they taught us some basic gun safety. (Never point it at people!) Minimizing. Also, it seems the easiest way to justify poor behavior is to demonize the enemy. Yes, the enemy does horrible things, much more frequently and generally much more serious stuff than our people do. But that's not an excuse. "They did that, so it's not so bad if we do a little of it, too." It's not about them--it's about us. We cannot control what they do, but can control our own actions. "Extraordinary measures," eh? Convenient euphemism. Hope it makes you feel better. Any war is extreme, and some are worth the price. BTW, are you suggesting the Founders employed torture? And that therefore it's ok? I am aware that the colonists did participate in some pretty barbaric acts. No matter how just the Revolution was (and I do believe it was just), that doesn't condone acting like savages. No matter how just the invasion of Iraq might have been (I believe it was NOT just), that doesn't condone acting like savages, either. Pressing them for information is one thing--torture is another. If McCain, who was a POW and himself suffered torture at the hands of others, is so vehemently against torturing our enemies, why can't the rest of us be against it? He could easily have turned bitter and had no problem torturing America's enemies, even just for revenge, but he is a man of principle, and I admire that. The ends do not justify the means.

You're right, trauma can cause people to do things outside their character. Unfortunately, I know that all too well, having personal experience with it. (Sorry, but I don't feel up to going into details.) Yeah, those good deeds are not perceived by many as 'sexy' or newsworthy. However, I am getting tired enough of the bad news, and depressed by it, that I am becoming more interested in stories like those you listed. Sometimes I get depressed by how bad the world seems, other times I'm amazed that it's doing as well as it is (at least where I live), and that so many people do so many kind things, all over the world.You seem like a genuine person, CaptainTux, and a good one. Dror

In some places cremation is required by law (like where they have a high water table). Right now, I'd be inclined to go with cremation--why spend all that money on a burial? Also, if burning/cremation is good enough for the US flag, it's good enough for me! But it's not a big issue for me.

It takes 12,560,869 Mormons to change a light bulb (the total Church membership according to the most recent Conference Report). One prophet to propose it in General Conference, and 12,560,867 to sustain the motion and accept it as Scripture and as God's Will, and one to actually change the light bulb. Fiannan, yours actually made me laugh out loud!

I think some form of "socialized" medicine is a realistic solution. (There, an American actually said it out loud! ) What many Americans don't seem to realize is that each country that has universal health care does it in its own way. They are not all clones of each other. One possible way to do it is to follow the Netherlands' example, which seems to work rather well. If a person can afford medical insurance, they get it themselves. If their company will pay for it, it will. Otherwise, people can get coverage from the government. People choose their doctor, and doctors see both people who pay for it themselves, and those who don't. In ways it is similar to Medicare/Medicaid, except it is extended to everyone who cannot afford their own coverage, and covers more medical procedures. France has socialized medicine, and manages at the same time to have one of the best medical establishments in the world. Other countries do it different ways, and some are not as successful as others. We need to stop dithering about fretting about how socialistic something looks and just solve the problem. Human life is worth it. Does human life begin at conception? Does the mother's life not matter at all? You're right, though, the solution is simple. Keep abortion safe and legal. And, as much as possible, keep it rare. The "prolifers" fail on the first, the "prochoicers" fail on the last. The answer, IMO, lies in the middle ground the LDS Church takes, not either of the extreme positions. What could possibly be unclear about the solution to pollution? Don't pollute! While it's true that putting the measures into place to reduce pollution will take money (that's what it's really all about!), it is quite possible. We have the know-how. What we need is the will to do it. Yes, government regulation of industry is part of the answer, and that may be the only way to get it done. This "voluntary basis" crap is a sham. It's just a way of saying, "It would be nice if you don't pollute, but if you do, we won't do anything to stop you." It doesn't mean anything--why say it at all? Just to make the politicians look "green" without actually having to put any teeth into it. One first step: honor the international treaties we've already signed, instead of letting Dubbie break them. Considering how many people kill each other with guns, I think this is a prolife issue. Dynamite is easier to use than cars, too. So is arsenic. Do you let your kids use them? Is it too much to ask for background checks at gun fairs? Why have background checks at stores, but not at fairs? Guess where the criminals will go to get their equipment! I have, and so have many (perhaps most) prolifers. You don't proclaim and protect life by killing! Some do, and some remain conspicuously silent. I'm glad you are one of the former! I hate to say it, but those are rather drab and unsatisfactory answers to serious problems. Do you think the victims would be reassured by them? Do you think those are the only times such things have happened? What about the secret facilities in Eastern Europe? If nothing else, those sorts of "scandals" undermine the "war on terror" by fueling the insurgency and possibly other terrorists, and alienating potential allies. But, if you want to try passing it off as "foolishness that got way out of hand"... I think not. Extremism is extremism, period. It's a danger to liberty, justice and yes, the American way. If we allow ourselves to start behaving like terrorists, the terrorists have won.

CaptainTux, Outshined and you are surely right about Africa--far ahead in death, and far behind in news coverage. They do have an ally in U2's Bono. Hey, I can like the man's music and his charitable work! My mother was in Europe during World War II, her parents hid Jews in their home, and my grandfather fought in the Resistance and ended up on the Nazis' blacklist--good thing they never caught him! Before the war, my grandparents were temporarily living in Germany. They attended one of Hitler's speeches, and he scared the socks off them! They immediately left Germany for their own country. It wasn't long before Hitler invaded their country, of course. If I ask her, my mother will still tell tales of bombs falling in her neighborhood, her aunt barely escaping with her life right before a bomb hit the building she had just left, and of being interrogated by German soldiers ("Where's your father?") playing the "good guy/bad guy" game. After the war she would play in bombed-out buildings, even though it was forbidden for safety reasons. One time, she climbed a set of stairs, opened a door--and there was nothing on the other side but a long drop! She also played on beaches where she was not supposed to play because of left over land mines. (She was not always a very obedient child, obviously--maybe she's lucky to be alive, too!) During the food shortages after the war, my grandparents ate tulip bulbs so the kids could have the soup from the soup lines, and the kids still ended up malnourished. My grandmother was pregnant with my youngest aunt at the time, and my aunt ended up with severe dental problems after her teeth came in because her mother had been malnourished during her pregnancy. War can make for some good stories, but the human cost is unimaginably high. I'm sorry you had to experience it firsthand, CaptainTux. Have you, by any chance, heard of EMDR therapy? They say it's been pretty successful at helping people deal with PTSD, including Vietnam vets. I know someone who is being treated, and says it works for them. Talk to you later! Dror

Let me ask you...ever hear on the radio about someone dead in a car accident? Ever have a relative buy it in a car wreck? Which one has a larger impact? Your mom or the stranger? The American is part of your family and of closer relation than the other. Right or wrong, it is what it is and we are human. To the person who never met your mom...it is another footnote in the day on the radio. To you, it is of great import. How true, Captain Tux. Thank you.I have great respect for the people who serve in the military. Of course, some don't have as good an attitude as you do--I know some seem overeager for battle, but those are probably the ones who haven't experienced it yet--yet I believe most are trying to do the right thing in difficult circumstances. You are right that one tends to mourn those closer to oneself more than others--that is, as you say, only human. I have a family member who died by being hit by a car, and her death still affects me strongly. (I use the word "have," that is, the present tense, because her spirit is still alive.) Visited her grave a week and a half ago. It is perfectly appropriate for us to mourn our American dead--and to feel the loss more deeply. However, it is wrong to almost completely ignore the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead as if they don't mean anything. In God's eyes, they are just as important as we are. Of course, we are all equally related to Him, so I guess that would explain why He would feel the loss so deeply. It may be even worse for Him because His children are killing each other. The really sad thing is that so many good people, whether American, Iraqi, British, etc., are suffering and/or dying, while a minority of insurgents continues to commit, and get away with, their crimes. Let's all pray that things will stabilize in Iraq, that the Iraqis will soon be able to take control of their own country, and that our people will be able to come home and be safe. Take care, CaptainTux--and thank you for putting your life on the line to serve your country. Dror

Hi, Ben! I've heard that, too. :) I does depend on how you define the terms, though. But all too frequently, in worldly governments, no matter where on the political spectrum, extremism tends to turn into dictatorship by a single person or a small group of persons (even if they say it's in the name of the majority).Talk to you later. Dror

Welcome! It's always good to "see" a new face. (I'm LDS, btw, to answer your question! :) )

Thank you for your thoughtful post, Traveler.I fail to understand why you insist that separation of church and state entails sacrificing the next generation. You are right that when Jesus comes again, He will be both our King and our God. If that means there should be no separation of church and state, does it also mean we should seek to make America a monarchy? Flawed logic. The difference when Christ comes is that when he does, it will be Him establishing the government, not merely a group of imperfect humans who claim to follow Him and understand His ways. He has perfect understanding--we do not. This is crucial to understanding the whole matter. Since He has perfect understanding, not only of government, but of the human heart and mind, and of all events and happenings--indeed, of all things--He can govern with complete justice, fairness, and mercy. We, being human, ought not to dare take such authority--that is, the authority of both state and church--unto ourselves, or we will, frankly, have too much power. People tend to misuse power (even majorities, though majority rule is better than minority rule (but without ignoring minority rights!)). It is true that people frequently use liberty as an excuse to do selfish things that hurt others. However, that is the whole point of our mortal probation--to be given the chance to use our free agency. If we don't have the opportunity to do the wrong thing, we don't have liberty. That same liberty enables us, on the other hand, to do the right thing. It's not up to the government to make our moral choices for us--that is Satan's plan. This is not say there should be no rules at all--as the Book of Mormon and the D&C point out, laws exist, essentially, to keep us from infringing too much upon the rights of others--such as stealing, murder, rape, etc. But it is not meet that we be commanded in all things, either. Without our liberty, we don't get the chance to grow. Good parents give their children rules, apply discipline, and teach them correct principles. As they get older, little by little, they give their children more freedom. By making their own choices, after having been properly instructed, they get the chance to learn from their own actions. Sometimes they will make good choices, others bad. They will reap the rewards of their good choices, and suffer the consequences of the bad. In this way they learn and become stronger. Always dictating to one's children doesn't allow them to grow and become strong, and therefore to be able to function as independent and responsible adults. The family can be seen as a microcosm of society at large, as well as its most basic unit. Those who function independently in society are adults who have already been through childhood and, hopefully, learned enough to participate responsibly in society. Therefore, they have more freedom than children do. It is only when they commit more serious crimes against others that government has a legitimate right to step in and correct them. Establishing a state religion and/or legislating all kinds of moral conduct has nothing to do with worldly government's legitimate role. When Christ comes again, He can do what He wants. I trust Him to do what's best for me and what's best for everybody else. I don't trust other mortals to anywhere near the same extent I trust Jesus. That's how I can eagerly look forward to the Millennium and desire to keep a secular government until then. Dror

I resemble several people, including Hillary Duff and Jack Kerouac!!