MsQwerty
-
Posts
107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MsQwerty
-
-
I don't want to derail this wonderful thread, however I feel I must make a few observations here:
If they are not Temply worthy then they are going under false pretenses and will get theirs at the eternal judgement bar, for God will not be mocked.
You have the right and obligation to raise your hand in opposition to a calling if you have information that someone is unworthy of a calling, and each year at Ward Conference you sustain the Stake President (and all other officers), so I have to ask the question, if this Stake President was not worthy, did you oppose his being sustained? if not, why not?
Because this man's wife, his sister-in-law and two of his kids had made complaints about him, and on a church level nothing more was done but counselling with the family. Eventually, after many years as a stake president he was released but the first thing they did was call him to the YM Stake Presidency. His kids are a mess, his wife has stayed with him but her testimony is all but gone.
So yes, he might be judged in the long term, but the damage he's wreaked on his family in this life has also affected their eternal progression.
He and I were actually taught and baptized by the same missionaries many years ago. We attended the temple together as part of a reunion with one of those returned missionaries who came back with his family to meet the people he helped convert. I have never revealed what I know to anyone or how it's affected me, except here on this forum. I would never have burst our RM's joy at seeing all his converts and their families together.
-
I guess it's a good thing that it's not up to you to decide anyone's worthiness but your own.
What I was referring to was discovering after the fact - that I've attended the temple regularly with people who were the whole time committing terrible acts against their families.
I've never pre-judged anyone's worthiness - that is none of my business.
-
All the general fluffiness that surrounds open houses is nice for the public, but in my opinion it does little to illuminate the reality of what happens during the ceremonies in the temple. It took me a very long time to find enjoyment in the temple (I took out my own endowments pre-1990). It was an experience I saved and struggled and spent two years preparing for, that left me feeling disturbed and nauseous to the point of vomiting for days after. It did get better for me post-1990 - marginally.
I like the atmosphere of the temple, the surroundings, the way people interact with each other, how everyone is dressed in white and all are equal in a spiritual sense - but the actual ceremonies/ordinances just don't do much for me, even when I'm doing work for direct ancestors I feel a real bond with.
Some of my feelings, I'm sure, are due to the fact I've known some pretty terrible human beings who are 'temple-worthy', even child molestors, who have attended the temple whilst committing the most unspeakable acts against their children and wives. I don't like being in the temple wondering 'who' might be one of those people. I have had a stake president who beat his wife (a friend of mine) and children and kept them living in poverty while he lavished expensive 'boy-toys' on himself - he attended the temple often and I simply could not attend when he was there.
-
I'm all for honesty, but I have to confess that the discussion forums here often discourage me. I'm not criticising anyone as this is purely my own reaction to the 'honesty' people present when they are anonymous online. I can't articulate my thoughts on this well, but I think it has something to do with wondering if most church members are, behind the Sunday masks, doubtful about their religion the majority of the time. Forums like this one influence my thinking when I look around at church and wonder if even my bishop has a testimony...and if we all doubt so much, then what on earth are we doing committing our lives to a church we have to continually convince ourselves we believe in?
Forums are where people can post their true thoughts anonymously...if so many of us behind the scenes are either doubting Thomases, adulterers, porn addicts, gossips and so on, then I just wonder what makes us a 'peculiar people' at all? We may as well be any group of people if the gospel isn't changing our lives and making us somehow 'different' to the world at large.
It's great for the public to see us 'human', but where do we draw the line?
How do we show that the gospel offers something 'more' and different to what the 'world' has to offer?
-
This is a tough situation, but personally I would be wary of taking away your husband's agency by forcing him into a situation with the bishop that he is clearly not ready for. When he's ready, his need for repentance will be stronger than his fear of humiliation, but he's not there yet.
Can you make the decision to go to the bishop and confess your own transgressions, leaving your husband out of it as much as possible?
-
I'm going in the Day Care business! Not! lol.
Actually, a friend of mine, a girl I've been going out with and talking with, is going thru some tough times financially. She has four little kids and can not afford baby sitters while she works. So her plan is to start up a day care service over the summer watching kids along with her kids in her house.
I told her I would ask around for some advice. So do any of you here have any experience on day care service? Any thing she should be aware of, besides the big hassle?
What about legal issues? Should she definitely ask the parents to sign a waiver or something protecting her form little mishaps like a child falling and bruising a knee or something worse like a broken leg?
She's going to put up adds in her local church and put an add on that cregslist site.
I would be grateful for any advice I can pass to her.
Not sure if I'm allowed to post a link here, but I looked into this many years ago and found a great site created by a woman who runs a daycare at her home. I just did a quick search and found out she still has her messageboard going, with various daycare providers exchanging ideas. I recall finding it really useful even though I decided not to go through with the idea (see Elphaba's comment...). The site is called "Punkys Child Care Chat" (yes, I do know how to use an apostrophe, this is how it's titled) and it can be found at http://forums.delphiforums.com/care. And no, it doesn't cost anything.
-
Hi Baver3 - wow, I am just so sorry for what you are going through right now. But if it helps at all, many of us have been through similar situations and survived very well. I have a couple of things to add it that's ok.
First of all, I can't tell you how disgusted I am that any man would leave his 7 month pregnant wife and young children - that speaks volumes about his lack of character. No matter what excuses he tells himself, it's utterly despicable and there is simply no way to justify it.
Now for some advice if you want it: Be sure to keep the children with you and in your custody - when some men realize how much they will be paying in child support, they will try and take the kids into their own custody to live with them and their new girlfriend. If you haven't done so already, get temporary custody orders drawn up so he can't legally take the children from you. This is vital. It's amazing how paternal even the worst fathers can suddenly become when they realise they're going to have to part with money and give it to their ex-spouse.
He will also get a big shock when this matter goes to court - because generally speaking you are entitled to at least half of all the assets acquired throughout the marriage. If he has property, cars, inheritances, superannuation, whatever - it is all half yours, no matter what kind of manipulative garbage he's said to make you feel that you haven't 'contributed' to the marriage. Make sure your lawyer knows about the property deed you mentioned earlier.
I know too that you are doing the inevitable post-mortem on the relationship, trying to figure out if he's really that horrible or if you somehow 'caused' the breakdown of the relationship. I will just say that this time next year, it will be easier. Divorce will be settled, you will be in a new home with your children and they will go to visit their dad from time to time. Then the next year it will be even easier... and before you know it you just won't care what he's doing or who he's doing it with. All you'll care about is getting on with YOUR life and making the best possible life for your children.
You will be surprised at how much happier you will be once you have put this relationship behind you. Imagine a daily life FREE of the stress and guilt you have been under with this man? Begin to see him as separate from you - your happiness is not dependent on him.
Begin to see him only as the father of your children and (unless there is abuse of course) do what it takes to nurture their relationship with him. What he does with that opportunity is up to him, but you have to know in fifteen or twenty years time that you did your absolute best to keep those channels of communication open. People do manage, even after the most acrimonious of divorces, to be at least civil to each other for the sake of the children.
From one who has been in a similar situation - keep your eyes focused towards the future. Tell yourself every day 'in one year from now...' and visualise where you will be. Then do what it takes to get your and your children there.
The stress you are under is enormous, so I hope you are getting some support to help you with the kids while you are pregnant from family, friends or the church. I think you mentioned you've spoken to your bishop - if you haven't, let him and the RS president know of your needs so the church can take at least a little of the burden from your shoulders at this time. Even if it's just in the form of meals or someone to talk to.
Bless you and your little ones - I'll keep you in my prayers too.
-
Have you been here?
There are some articles and essays under "Additional Support Resources" that may interest you, there is also a forum where you can discuss your issues with others who have been or are in the same boat as you.
From what I read they are only interesting in people who want to conform to their very watered down ideas of what it means to stay in the lds church. I know someone who posted some very real, serious issues with the church and his posts never saw the light of day because the moderators wouldn't put them on the forum. Not much of a place for encouraging people to 'stay lds' in my opinion.
-
there are no victims, only volunteers.
Tell that to all the highschool kids who commit suicide each year. Tell it to women who are raped. Tell it to children who are abused. There ARE victims - denying that reality is dangerous and cruel for those who suffer through no fault of their own.
-
If you were offended, I'm sorry. It was a joke.
Thank you. I should have taken it as a joke. My apologies for taking it the wrong way.
-
People who don't speak (or understand) sarcasm.
If that's a reference to my comment, I understand sarcasm just fine, thank you.
What's with all the personal attacks in this forum?
-
People who are rude in forums when they don't have to be.
-
The silly non-issues we Mormons get our knickers in a twist over
White Horse Prophecy - not endorsed by CURRENT church leaders. Doesn't matter who may or may not have alluded to it in the past (and it looks like no-one really has). As Elder Bruce R. McConkie said when after the 1978 Revelation that seemed to contradict many of his views on race - "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."
For those who lack understanding on this issue, this link has probably been posted before but please read: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/whitehorse.pdf
-
*People who talk, crunch loudly, slurp their drinks and put their feet up on the back of your chair in movies...arrghhh!
-
Good afternoon MsQwerty. It is a pleasure to meet you! :)
It would appear that I am one of those dumb donkeys that you are referring to.
Regards,
Finrock
Good evening Finrock, nice to meet you too!
I'm sorry for your lapse in judgement regarding the kangaroo - I'm sure you have many wonderful qualities otherwise :)
-
Hi, MsQwerty.
-----
P.S. I don't think I would be interested enough to see a kangaroo boxing event, anyway; so, even though I'm not morally opposed to it, they wouldn't be getting any support from me. That ought to make you happy. :)
P.P.S. I've seen redback spiders in a zoo before. We have black widows here (same genus, and just as dangerous). And, yeah, Australia's pretty famous for its bugs. At least, in my professional circles it is. :)
P.P.P.S. I was recently educated about the way to make a smiley with its tongue sticking out. Even though the smilies legend on the right says to use a capital 'P', you have to use a lower-case 'p' on this web-site. Like this:
PS.Yeah, I think anyone who would actually go out of their way to see a kangaroo boxing in a freak show is a dumb<insert posterier expletive here> but who am I to judge
PPS. If you ever visit Australia, the Queensland Museum has an excellent collection of bugs - I suspect you would like it very much. We also have awesomely huge cockroaches :)
PPPS: You might be interested, since you are a biologist, in the fact that a rare species of snail found in far North Queensland has just been named in honour of Stever Irwin - scientists have named it "Crikey stevirwinis", lol. Queensland Museum - Media Room - Rare species discovery honours wildlife campaigner Steve Irwin
PPPPS. Can't you just click on the smily you want? Mine is already there in picture format and I can just click on it
-
I'm mainly referring to all the contribution Steve Irwin has made to the research in the preservation, care, transport, etc. of crocodiles. His TV Show is jut a way to fund that and get the people educated on crocs, etc. Without the research facilities, equipment, expertise, etc. of the Australian Zoo, his research could not have gone as far as it did. Educating people cannot start unless somebody has done all the research necessary to know everything there is to know about crocs!
The thing about it is - it takes money to do all this research. It takes money to educate people. Setting up observation posts in the middle of the northeast pacific basin to research killer whales, for example, is cost prohibitive - more so than having a killer whale in a tank at Sea World where you can have a controlled environment. Sea World's main purpose is not the theme park. The theme park funds all the things that happen inside of Sea World and provides an education outlet. This guy who used to work with me, for example, houses bird rescues for Sea World in his backyard. Nobody gets to see those birds except those he invites to his home. He does it all for free. He incurs all the cost for housing, feeding, and caring. Sea World provides medical treatment costs and training.
The bulk of Sea World's work is behind-the-scenes. Advancements in the understanding of animal's genetics, habitats, behaviors, physiology, psychology, etc., etc., does not happen on the Shamu show. All this research serves but one purpose - to preserve Killer Whales and provide an environment of balance. If we think about that instead of just the poor Shamu stuck in a tank, we will learn to gain an appreciation for these methods. We can then sift through everything that is happening in animal care and be more knowledgeable when fighting against abuse so that we are fighting the "truly" bad guys.
Animal testing, for instance... I hear this all the time - oh, it is so cruel to test on animals. Okay, you have a product - say, a brand new medicine that is supposed to cure cancer. You know it can kill cancer cells but you don't know how a body would react to it. There is only so much you can do on the computer. You will have to put that product into a body to test it. What do you do - put the product in a human being without knowing what reaction you are going to get? Or put the product on a monkey that has a similar physiology as a human? Even though I am an animal activist, I do not blanketly condemn animal-testing, not when it's use has made a big contribution to the advancement of medicine.
Another one - backyard breeders. It's almost like saying the F-word in the animal activist circles. This is another one of those that need much thought before condemnation. There are puppy mills and there are backyard breeders - 2 totally different things. Breeding a dog in a certified backyard would be preferrable than commercially mass-breeding a dog, in my opinion. People who breed in their backyards are much more attuned to their pets and have the ability to provide the "pack" care more so than the big breeders. So, one might think - oh, but these people just care about the money... hah, maybe at first. But one will soon find out that unless you truly care about dogs, the effort and cost required to breed dogs (or any pet for that matter) is not worth the measley paycheck it makes. So, in this case, going through a certification process to get a license to breed pets in your backyard would be enough to discourage the quick-cash types.
On a personal note, yesterday, I was talking to a friend and we happened to start talking about snakes. I mentioned I have a ball python. And she said - Are you crazy? Snakes are "poisonous"! Oh, and those get so big they will end up eating your kids! They have it on the news all the time! Sigh.
Your friend probably has fresh memories like I do of this shocking death of a two year old toddler that was in the news last year: 911 Call: Python Kills Toddler - ABC News
Your former co-worker who rescues birds sounds like a great human being!
I understand that commercial enterprises like Seaworld and Australia Zoo have research going on behind the scenes, they make that pretty clear whenever you visit one of their establishments. I still don't think we 'need' to know certain information about animals that can't be collected from natural observations - large animals should not be in enclosures imo. As for animal experiments, I've been round and round on that one, and at this stage I'm probably a bit like you in that I can just barely tolerate the thought of animals being tested to cure disease, but see no justification for it in the beauty industry. If my mascara has to be tipped into the eye of a rabbit just to see if it's 'safe' then I don't want to wear it - there are plenty of alternatives out there. What do you think of cosmetics testing on animals?
-
You might also see what it says in DC 89:12-13 and DC 89:14-15 which is why I still think I should try harder to not eat meat, even if at all. I did enjoy reading your answer btw.:)
Oh, I totally agree with your interpretation of those verses. I feel quite conflicted about even the small amount of meat I do eat. As I said, philosophically I'm a vegetarian, but practially it's quite bad for my health. My former bishop had a similar health conflict with the WoW as he discovered he was gluten intolerant when Section 89 specifically states that wheat is for man.
On a bit of a tangent...I often wonder how church members reconcile terrible, wasteful and gluttonous eating habits with the principles and spirit of the WoW. Sure, as a people we don't drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or drink tea/coffee...but the prevalence of seriously overweight church members is an indication that we are not as health conscious as we could be. I personally think the over-consumption of meat, fast-food and the mormon drug of choice - cola - has a lot to do with it. Abstinence from liquor, tobacco and tea/coffee alone is not going to help our health and longevity much if we are eating ourselves into oblivion instead. <end tangent - sorry>
-
Because, since it started as a penal colony we suspect the majority of Aussies are the descendants of criminals;)
J/K
Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me...
(Thanks Vizzini...)
-
Hi, MsQwerty.
Calm down! You’re blowing this way out of proportion.
Alrighty then! Stop blowing and I will!
It certainly wasn’t my intention to accuse you of ignorance, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. I suppose it didn’t help my cause when I responded to a few of your peripheral comments with my irritable keystrokes. I’ve made a large number of such mistakes in a number of settings over the last couple of weeks, and I very sincerely wish I could redo the entire week, but alas, time only runs in one direction for me.
No worries. I also reacted less than patiently. Please forgive me too.
I added that last section about other cases you should spend your time on in the hope that you would realize that I’m not antagonistic to animal rights, and am not your enemy, but just somebody who disagrees with you on the importance of one minor case study. Since it obviously had the opposite effect from what I intended, I wish I could take it back and try a different approach, but it’s too late for that now.
That's a lot clearer than what you said before, thanks for the the clarification. We are not enemies. Check.
I am a biologist, by the way, and I have spent a lot of time studying animal behavior: I am kind of speaking from expertise here. Granted, my experience is mostly with spiders and insects, but I have experience with mammals and birds, too.
You would probably enjoy where I live at the moment. Spiders and insects galore. Currently we have Huntsman Spiders that crawl out of our drains so they can take up residence in our house. I've become quite expert at catching them with a bucket and broom and releasing them into the vacant bushland next to our fence. We also have Redback spiders living in the folds of the garage door and next to our outside taps (faucets?). I can show you a picture of a Redback we found on a pile of laundry in a washbasket I was folding from once...fortunately I saw it before I put my hand down or I'd have been in for a world of hurt.
A neurosis is a malfunction of the brain. Anything with a brain can have a neurosis. The signs of a neurosis are abnormal behaviors, which, for chickens, includes pulling out feathers, tics and twitches, over-alertness and excessive belligerence. (I’m not a chicken psychologist, but I did consider poultry science as a major in college).
I know what chicken neurosis is. Thank you.
If the kangaroo had gone on a rampage, attacking everybody in its reach, you could easily make the case that the kangaroo was suffering from a neurosis. But, since it only attacked one person, and was otherwise very calm and peaceable, it’s clear that this kangaroo’s behavior was not abnormal. This shows that the kangaroo has not really been adversely, lastingly affected by this boxing performance. The only thing going on here was a kangaroo learning to associate the trainer and his boxing outfit with the group of things that need to be attacked. This is not neurotic behavior: it’s just learning.
I disagree on more levels than I can express. But I see where you are coming from.
This is an appeal to emotions. Appealing to emotions is, by definition, not logical, MsQwerty. In logic, it is considered a type of red herring (irrelevancy) fallacy. I am somewhat trained in formal logic, too, by the way.
Indeed it is a red herring
My argument was not an appeal to emotions, but an appeal to you to recognize that you don’t really know the kangaroo psyche. It is folly for you to conclude that the kangaroo’s behavior is a tragic result of abuse. I didn’t make a value judgment about the kangaroo based on its emotional capacity (or lack thereof), and I don’t perceive animal cruelty to be a less noble cause than sweatshops in India because of difference in emotional or sentient capacity between sweatshop workers and kangaroos.
In fairness you don't really know the kangaroo psyche either, do you? I've been around kangaroos all my life, it's not at all folly. But you are entitled to your opinion.
I only attempted to make you understand that animal behavior is different from human behavior, and that anthropomorphization or emotional appeals are not the best methods for pursuing animal rights. Just because it bothers you doesn’t mean it’s unethical: the "shock factor" is not a meaningful analytical tool for diagnosing animal cruelty (or almost anything else, for that matter).
Of course emotional appeals and shock factors are fantastic for furthering animal rights - they are the best advertising techniques for garnering support for a cause. But that's not why I made the comments I did - I genuinely believe the kangaroo is being mistreated.
You don't believe this is the case. No problem. Its all hypothetical anyway.
Thanks for the response, I do appreciate your thoughts. And I'm happy to know the other side of your views that is reasonable and not at all patronising - and I'm sorry if that comes across like I'm a pompous git :)
-
Okay, I see where you are coming from now. Thank you for the explanation.
I'm different from you.
We attend the Barnum and Bailey circus every winter and I am a patron (through donation and service) of a zoo that cage and showcase animals.
We have 3 different morphs of ball pythons, 1 western hognose, 1 african gray bird, hamsters, african soft-furred rats, and several cichlids in addition to my dog at home.
I believe I am ethical.
I have 2 sons under 8 and they are both active in exhibits showing their snakes in school presentations, scouts presentations, impromptu neighborhood kid visits, etc. etc. all on their own with me and my husband doing nothing but transporting animals and help with crowd control. I will tell you that their efforts have saved snakes through education (neighborhood kids are less likely to whack the southern banded water-snake passing through the backyard with the shovel). One thing I noticed, most kids are not scared of snakes, especially when they see my younger son holding one. It is the adults that are phobic. It would be cool if even just half of these kids would grow up with respect instead of fear for snakes.
All this because I finally said Yes, they can have a snake in the house, or two, or three, or four...
With my African Gray, I have learned the benefits of not clipping bird wings in captivity and can advocate to friends and acquaintances the advantages of it. Free-flight is awesome although, I'm not expert on it.
I put Kangaroo boxing on the same level. It shows people a natural action of a Kangaroo (hey, to tell you the truth, I didn't know Kangaroos box! It's cool how Blue Jay gave us all this information.) that would eventually lead them to curiosity and education.
This is the same thing to me as Shamu in Sea World teaching me and my kids the natural instincts of a Killer Whale. Where it not for Sea World and their animals in captivity, we wouldn't have known that dolphins are a playful bunch and can make conscious art using bubbles. It gives us extra respect and appreciation for these wonderful creatures.
Where it not for the Australian Zoo and their animals in captivity, we wouldn't have half the stuff we know about crocodiles. My children were fans of Steve Irwin (it started with Stever Irwin's collaboration with the Wiggles when they were very very small) and when he died they became fans of Bindi. I love it when Bindi points to a komodo dragon and says, isn't he beautiful?
That's what kangaroo boxing is all about for me.
Granted, there are tons of those who abuse animals - lots of circus performers do, lots of pop-up side shows do, Michael Vick, heck, they have malnourished iguanas being sold on the side streets of Asia and 20-foot reticulated pythons stuck in a 12 foot chicken-wire-floored cage devoid of temperature gradient for show! Kangaroo boxing, though... not in the clip that I saw. Maybe the guy does abuse the Kangaroo. I don't know enough about him to make that kind of judgement.
Keeping exotic animals is not at all my thing, but it sounds like you take good care of the ones you have. I do dislike circuses that use animals because of the small areas and conditions they are kept in, and the training methods used. Having said that, I don't have an aversion to a zoo where natural habitats are duplicated, it's more like an animal sanctuary and animals are comfortable enough. The point you make about education is an important one. I don't believe large animals like killer whales and elephants should be kept in captivity though - we can be 'educated' plenty without seeing them in captivity. Same goes for dolphins, there's always been plenty of books, tv and documentaries about them - we don't need Seaworld for that, even though it might be fun for people to see a dolphin up close.
Australia Zoo has excellent facilities for its animals and does provide important educational services. However A. Zoo is not the reason we are more educated as a society about crocodiles and snakes, it's because we had Steve Irwin's tv series on our screens almost non-stop for so many years. Since he became hugely popular, people wanted to go to his zoo...without that it would just be one of the many 'animal sanctuaries' we have here where people like to go for a nice family outing and to be 'educated' about wildlife at the same time.
-
Hey, I asked first lol. If it was a matter of life or death (starvation), I would give thanks and kill the beast. This, I realize, means I should not eat meat. I blame this weakness on the way I was raised. I should work on this soon.
Hey, it's only fair that I'm not the only one answering questions here, lol. Meat eating is not a weakness. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that humans are naturally omnivorous, so our bodies are meant to have both meat and vegetable matter. This also makes sense in light of what the the Word of Wisdom has to say about meat eating, too.
Philosophically I would like to live a vegetarian lifestyle, but practically, going without meat makes me anaemic and sickly. So I eat some meat, mostly fish or chicken, a few times a week. I once read a book by David Suzuki where he made the point that if we are going to eat meat, we should do so with thanksgiving to the animal that has lost its life. If anyone makes the mistake of looking at slaughterhouse footage, it becomes abundantly clear that animals that are killed for meat live their final moments in fear. With that in mind, I think it's utterly selfish of us to mindlessly shovel meat (especially the fast food kind) into our mouths when a living animal suffered a fearful death so we could eat it.
Ethically, I try to be responsible when it comes to animal products. I buy only organic, free range eggs, beef and chicken. I'm also careful with the fish I purchase, since, for example, you can buy large, delicious fillets of Nile Perch quite cheaply. Unfortunately the Nile Perch comes from Lake Victoria in Africa where the people have sold their environment for a 'mess of pottage' to be frank. The Nile Perch is a huge predator fish that has eaten almost everything in what was once a thriving lake environment...the time will come when the local people can't farm the Nile Perch any longer and they'll be left with nothing but a devastated environment and dire poverty to show for a short-term economic boost. I also don't buy beauty or chemical products that are not labelled 'cruelty free' or 'not tested on animals'. Nevertheless I know there are probably many areas I can improve in this area.
Spiritually, I think the WoW makes it clear eating meat is ok as long as it's done sparingly and with thanksgiving. That's the approach that I take, but I know others interpret the same scriptures differently.
Did I answer the question? lol
-
What are your thoughts on killing animals for food?
What are yours?
-
MsQwerty, can you answer these questions for me too? Just for clarification.
Can you answer them for me, too. Thanks.
I do not support circuses that cage and showcase animals.
I do not support the keeping of exotic animals in a domestic environment.
I'm not as diligent as I could be, but I try to be ethical with the purchase of any animal products.
Sanitized Posting?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Doesn't say much for us as a people who represent the Lord's true church now does it?
I didn't define peculiar as perfect - I meant peculiar in the terms that the prophets use - to mean that we are a people who have higher moral standards and behaviour than the 'world' at large, that we can be a beacon and a light to others of what it means to live the principles of righteousness. What's there to admire and desire about the church if we (meaning church members) are just like anyone else? Isn't this part of the appeal of the missionaries, that they give the appearance of being morally upright, spiritual, righteous people who are living the gospel and obeying the Lord? As members, aren't we to do the same thing?:
"If we are to be that which the Lord would have us be, we must indeed become “a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that [we] should shew forth the praises of him who hath called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). Unless the world alters the course of its present trends (and that is not likely); and if, on the other hand, we continue to follow the teaching of the prophets, we shall increasingly become a peculiar and distinctive people of whom the world will take note."
Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, 1990
"The Apostle Peter described us in the second chapter of 1 Peter, the ninth verse: “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” How might you and I qualify ourselves to be worthy of that designation, “a royal priesthood”? One writer said that the door of history turns on small hinges, and so do people’s lives."
Thomas S. Monson, Ensign, 2007
"We should not allow our personal values to erode, even if others think we are peculiar. "
James E. Faust
If we will cling to our values, if we will build on our inheritance, if we will walk in obedience before the Lord, if we will simply live the gospel we will be blessed in a magnificent and wonderful way. We will be looked upon as a peculiar people who have found the key to a peculiar happiness."
Gordon B. Hinckley
Thanks for those numbers. I am not a statistician by any means. However, I have read various interpretations of what '13 million' means, when you take away almost half who are not active, and then take away the young children of record, and 25,000 here who are not active members (by that I assume you mean active members of the board?) If there are so many here alone who are having issues with serious sin, and if this is a reflection of other message boards, then we start to look like anyone else - nothing peculiar or special about how the gospel influences our lives at all.
I've been in the church long enough to have seen this in action many times. I do not rest my testimony on the behaviour of others and encourage new members to do the same. All I'm saying is the trend towards serious sin becoming a fairly common event, is a tad troublesome.