justaname

Isnt the ideal government a theocracy? Is that what Christ will have upon his return?

I didnt really know what to title this thread. I dont want this to become a debate about same sex marriage or a bunch of legalese. Basically I want to know how members of the LDS church feel about the issue and how they feel this affects our country and our future. By promoting the recent court decision, are you participating in the destruction of our nation and in the prophecies? Our church has asked us to support prop 8, and many members do not. Should we take this as counsel from a prophet of God or follow our own legal and social philosophies?

This is one topic Im not going to share my opinion on. Just wanting to get different views. Do you feel conflicted at all supporting same sex marriage legally though not morally? Do you feel that as the separation of church and state becomes more apparent, that we become a better nation? Why? In the Book of Mormon and in the Bible, church and state were often the same. Prophets were also kings. Which way is better and why? Is the legalization of same sex marriage a step closer to the prophesies concerning "the end"?

Im going to make this short and sweet. A couple of questions: 1. What reasons would an active LDS person have for promoting the strike of Prop. 8? 2. If you find yourself promoting same sex marriage, at what point do you become ineligible or a temple recommend because of this temple recommend question: "Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?"

This post is great. Let me translate your passive aggressive statement: "Let us take justaname for example. This here is the perfect example of a "good member" who justifies the counsel of an apostle. Justaname's wife ignored this counsel and therefore committed the sin of coveting. This "good member" sinned and therefore caused other people to sin. Let us not be like the justanames." You talk about sociological impacts of peoples choices relative to breast implants, but you ignore the sociological impacts of the high and mighty members judging us "worldly" members. Do you realize that your judging and pointing fingers at these women, and the men they are married to, is just as damaging to the spirit in a ward? Why is it sad that men are attracted to normal to large size breasts? Is it better to be attracted to smaller breasts? Physically, Im attracted to a fit woman with average to large breasts. Maybe this is because this is what Hollywood wants me to be attracted to. Maybe if I was born in Samoa Id be attracted to a large woman, but that would be because I was culturally inclined to be attracted to large women. Either way, Im sinning right? Matthew, do you really think a guy that drives a Porsche is not fit for Zion? The guy drives a Porsche which means he has money. According to your logic, that means he has money left over and should be giving it to the rest of the members. How do you know he is not doing that? It's called fast offerings and we are told the formula for how to calculate what we should give, but we have also been counseled to be generous with our offerings. Let me clue you in on something, unless you are the finance clerk in your ward, you really have no idea what this guy is donating to fast offerings. (I know this is a fictitious Porsche driver but bear with me.) There is a guy in my ward who drives a really, really nice car. So does his wife. He also happens to donate a significant amount of money to our ward mission fund. Each month he donates double the amount of my mortgage to fast offerings. I know Im going to sound arrogant here, but Im already a sinner so who cares, but my mortgage isnt cheap. Beyond his financial contributions to our ward and our missionaries, he is a spiritual giant. If I was half the man and priesthood holder he was, Id feel ready to meet my Maker. I could go on and on about this individual and the man he is, but Id rather keep a little anonymity for myself and for him. Im rambling, so Ill summarize: -God is our judge and he judges righteously. -Fellow members think they are judges and judge poorly. -God looketh upon the heart, not upon the breasts or the car. -Remember the beam.

Before I comment further, let me publicly state that I do take this issue personally so my views are likely slanted. My wife has implants. I have had plastic surgery myself. We are what the OP has referred to as "good" members. I dont know what that connotation means. Perhaps it is suggested that we are perceived as good because we come to church, pay our tithing, do our home/visiting teaching and maintain callings and have temple recommends. Or maybe we are considered "good" because she has had implants and I have had plastic surgery. The reference to "good" mormons/members makes me think that the OP is implying that we are putting on a show by going through be motions but because we have chosen to modify our bodies we are no longer good. Is that what is being said or am I misinterpreting? Either way, Ill choose not to be offended. I want to collaborate on what the OP has indicated may be happening when it comes to the social impact of having breast implants. She is indeed correct that there are social impacts. After having our first child, my wife considered getting implants. After finding out that one of her friends and co-leaders in the YW had them done, she decided she would do it. She considered it for a long time but feared she might lose her calling or people would think poorly of her. After seeing that someone else that had implants was still in YW and had a great reputation in the ward, she decided to do it. Since having that done, other women have asked her about it. Many of them have found comfort in the fact that a "good" member has done it and they have decided to do it too. So yes, in a small nutshell, people do validate their behavior based on other peoples actions. I guess what bothers me so much about this particular topic is the fact there is a notion that a woman who has breast implants or wants them is somehow less than a woman who chooses not to. With some, there is clearly an indication that these women have somehow sinned or have succumbed to the natural man and are hell bent on their appearance beyond all else. For any of you who think this, whether you admit it or not, shame on you. There is no stereotype of a woman who gets implants. Not all of them are seeking the attention of men or women, or seeking the cover of Cosmo. They are not all heading down to Golds in their new little sports bra's to show their new purchase. Some of them might be, but not all of them are. Some of you have said that this procedure is ok if its the result of cancer or other disfiguring issue. How is this situation any different than the routine implants? A woman who has lost her breasts to cancer is wanting nothing more than to look and feel like a woman. Having the implants after cancer is likely (I say likely because am no surgeon) not going to recreate the woman's ability to breast feed. So what is she having the implants for? Is it not to look like a woman and restore that same feeling she had before she lost her breasts? In the case of my wife, she didnt have much there to begin with. When she breastfed, she lost what little she had. So, like a cancer patient, she wanted a feeling of restoration. She wanted to look like a woman again. Yes, I said the word "look". It is about looking like a woman, which in turn makes her feel like a woman. It is not the ONLY think that makes her feel like a woman, but it is something. In both scenarios, the surgery is performed to enhance the body and is based on a view that women are supposed to have breasts. Yes there are some that decide to get stripper boobs. I wont speak for that. The very idea that someone who alters their appearance to satisfy the cultural view of beauty, is a "sinner" is utterly ridiculous. For anyone who disagrees with me, I beg you. . . go to church this week with your hair undone, your make-up off and put on your brown boots with your black skirt. Its all part of a show that every single one of us does every day to feel attractive and beautiful. Some obsess about it and others do not. Those who obsess probably should focus on something more righteous. Those who do not obsess about it still do something everyday to enhance their appearance. This doesnt make them a sinner. If a girl in the YW in our ward has decided to get a boob job because my wife did, so what. Let her get a boob job. No one has said the boob job is wrong. What is wrong is defining yourself by vanities and worldliness. If she lets her boobs define who she is, that's her fault and no one elses. If you want to think that someone who gets a boob job is less of a woman, thats your choice and you will answer for it. How will you answer for it? I dont know. Not my call.

This is simply not true. My wife has implants and breastfed all three of our children. The last two were post implants. There are several ways of performing the surgery, a couple of which still maintain a woman's ability to breastfeed.

Weightlifting is about the only sport/activity that I take them off for. On occasion I take my shirt off to mow the lawn and get yard work done. Probably not a good time since I take it off only to get a tan and cool off. Is there an issue with wearing one half w/o the other? Like if I do the yard work w/o the top, is there any reason not have the bottoms on?

Tarnished, you need to post something. Anything. Say hello, goodbye, share a joke, bear your testimony, or pretend you just won an Oscar. You have an unlucky # of posts. =)

Just a personal experience. . . I was called into the EQ presidency a while back while having a fairly long goatee. The SP member who extended the call asked me if I would shave it off. I told him Id think about it and ask my wife. (She likes it on me). Asking why I was hesitating about doing it, I told him that I felt it had no bearing on my ability to perform the calling and didnt prevent the EQ from submitting my name. He told me to go home and fast and pray about it. I did, and I spoke with my wife about it. I decided to trim it down, using a #1 clipper guard. When I showed up for church that day, the SP was there to set us all apart. When it was my turn, the SP member who extended the call leaned down to ask my full name, and said, "You look great, thanks for accepting the call. I know you will do great." I have since served in other callings where the clean shaven look is preferred, but I have kept my goatee, though I keep it closely trimmed and always maintained. No one has said anything since.

Where did you get this picture? Do you know this guy? I think I do. I met a guy on my mission that had the same tats on his back. He also has the 1st principles and ordinances of the gospel on his fingers and Adam-Ondi-Ahman (sp?) on his shoulder. He drove a VW bug that has mountains of church literature in the back seat. Interesting dude.

You are obviously more interested in picking apart my comments rather than understanding the spirit of what I am trying to say. I made my opinion clear and have no need to defend it. Thats the lovely thing about opinions, they are neither true nor false. Ill let you get back to reading the handbook and preparing for your bishopric calling. Good luck brother.

All we should do is aspire to be worthy of any call we might receive. Aspirations of worthiness and aspirations to positions are totally different. To be prepared for a calling is equal to being worthy for the calling. A worthy priesthood holder who has served in the nursery and in the activities committee is prepared for a leadership calling because he was called of the Lord to fill it. A man who has served as EQ president, clerk etc, etc, is not prepared because he has spent years reading the bishop's handbook, but because he was called of the Lord. I dont believe in planning for, preparing for, or speculating about specific callings. I worry about being worthy to hold what calling I am asked to fill and depending on the Lord for guidance as I strive to magnify it. I cant help but think of Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith. Sidney had all the right tools to lead a church. He was charismatic, a great speaker, knowledgeable about the scriptures, and already had experience leading a church. You all know Joseph was not those things. Yet Joseph was the one who was called to restore the church and perform this great work. When Joseph died, it was Rigdon and his followers who dissented because they thought Rigdon was more qualified and prepared. After all, he was in the 1st Presidency wasnt he? Did Rigdon speculate, plan for, use reason, and consider the fact that he may fill Joseph's role? Did Rigdon aspire to be the prophet? Yes, he did and it got him nowhere. It was Brigham Young, a carpenter and blacksmith, that was called to fulfill the role. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would hope for, aspire to, plan for, or speculate about any future calling they may receive. Just aspire to worthiness and you will be called to the position that will be best for you and the ward that you are serving in.

Yes, I do hate it. Its arrogant and presumptive. Spouting off your callings sounds like you are putting together a resume for a bishop's application. Its disgusting. Your patriarchal blessing is not a fortune telling. Those promises will be fulfilled only if you are worthy or humble enough to receive them. Never once have I heard a bishop stand up after receiving his calling state, "I have been groomed for this calling since I was 10. Everyone told me I would be a bishop. I have been planning on it for years, and I finally got it." Feel free to tell your congregation that when you achieve your goals. Im sure you will be well supported. Your post is seriously unbelievable. May the Lord steer me away from your ward boundaries.

Careful man, you havent reached 1,000 posts yet so your opinion doesnt count yet. Thanks for playing though! Its funny. . . I came here about a year ago wanting some help on a challenge I was facing. People were quick to give advice and it was so helpful. Then I disagreed with an elitist and got hammered by all the cronies. Im so glad that this elitism is limited to this forum and not the members that I interact with on a personal level.

MOE, I like your posts. You contribute some good stuff here. Its ok if you think Im wrong. Its ok if I think Im not. Id be turned off by what this bishop's wife said. I think its tacky and pretentious. I dont care if Im disagreed with.

Dang, I forgot you arent allowed to detract from a topic unless you are one of the forum elitists. This is hardly the first detracting post here, or even in this topic. I find it strange and tacky that anyone, regardless of their ward make-up would start "wondering" or "speculating" about a calling for themselves or their husband in the next 5 years. I hope everyone has high spiritual aspirations, and that we would aspire to be worthy of holding ANY calling. Anyone that is "wondering" or "speculating" about climbing the church ladder is in my opinion, unworthy of calling.

Looks like you have given the thought of your husband being in the bishopric a thorough analysis. Given the structure of my ward, and the calling I have had for the past two years, I wonder what calling Ill have in 5 years? Wait a minute, no I dont.

Im sure your husband is a great guy and is probably worthy of such a calling, but it strikes odd that you are assuming he will, or considering the fact that he might. Almost like you are aspiring to the calling in his behalf. Sorry if Im wrong, but this seems a little pretentious to me.

Its interesting hearing people talking about good speakers vs. bad speakers, and professional ministry vs. lay ministry. Lots of times I listen to speakers in sacrament meeting that many people would classify as a good or great speaker, and I find myself bored with their talk or completely turned off. Not because I think they are a bad speaker, but more because it appears they are up there loving the fact they get to hear their own voice over the pulpit and get to put in their own .02 about the gospel. When I hear most professional ministry, Im struck by this same impression that these individuals love to hear themselves talk. Sometimes though, you get a talented speaker who is humble about their gift and gives a great talk. On occasion, I get more out of the "bad" speakers than I do the "good" ones. Sure, they dont have a gift like others do, but I have listened to some who are so unassuming and so humble, that their message is conveyed in a way that a "good" speaker wouldnt be able to do. There is nothing quite like seeing the old farmers or blue collar guys get up and testify about simple truths that others miss.

Im kind of surprised that anyone here is even attempting to make the argument that overweight or obese persons can still be healthy. Its not healthy. Now, you can get into one's definition of overweight or obese but it really doesnt matter. If you are overweight or obese, you are not as "healthy" as you could be if you brought your weight down to proper proportions. If you are underweight, you are not healthy either. If you are within your normal weight range, there shouldnt be an assumption that you are healthy just because you are considered "normal". Its can just be easier to hide if you are in that normal range. But not being in that range, whether you are over or under, its a dead give away that you are not living the most healthy lifestyle that you could. Its a no brainer. I also think its pretty offensive to call someone shallow because they happened to be attracted to physically beautiful people. Im not attracted to overweight people. If I was single, I would not date someone who was obese. Why? Because Im not attracted to them. If I am going to be with someone for the rest of my life, I want to be physically attracted to them, and spiritually attracted to them. There is nothing wrong with having both. I married an insanely beautiful woman. It makes me wonder now if people see me coming into church with her and instantly thing. . . "boy, he sure is shallow". Is that really what some of you think? That if someone is with a beautiful companion then this person is shallow? Do you also think that because someone is physically beautiful then they have nothing inside that gives them additional value? If anyone ever suggested to my face that my wife only had her looks going for her and had nothing else to offer, I think Id come unglued.

You are right, I re-read and did take it out of context. I have deleted the remark. My apologies. Though I must say, I dont really agree with much you are saying. Your view on dating and relationships is far too analytical for my taste. You seem to be talking in circles, saying once to put on a show, then also saying that you cannot overcome the natural man. I dont really get what you are saying. Im not totally sure if you do either. What fruits have come from your labors in following your recommended practices or dating theory?

Just think, when this girl gets married someday, she is probably going to get to explain to her future husband about how she slept with some guy that really had no interest in her at all. He was just there for sex. Then this poor husband is going to envision a faceless man, YOU, that took something from this girl that was supposed to be his. He is probably going to be pretty hurt. He is going to wonder why he is feeling the weight of such a grievous sin that he didnt even commit. Then there is the fun part where you might get to explain to your future wife how you shared the most private, sacred, and intimate moments, that were supposed to be with her, with a 'lonely' girl whose only use to you was the fact that she was willing to put out because it made her feel like she was wanted and loved by someone. Only she wasnt, which probably makes her feel even worse than before. With every other time you guys mess around, this sacred act is being cheapened more and more. Both of you are selling something who's value is without measure at a flea market price. The only way its value will be returned is by forsaking your sins, repenting, and holding it sacred until you are married and get to share it with one who is truly deserving.

Of course they should be more decent, kinder, and gentlemanly. That isnt the same thing as being attracted to everyone. Like people have mentioned, for the most part, a first date is usually the result of some kind of physical attraction between two people. Then the REAL attraction takes place during courtship. When a man receives the priesthood and becomes kind, decent and more of a gentleman, he doesnt lose all of his original perception of what is physically attractive is to him. Answer this for me. . . lets say you have a single guy who is a worthy priesthood holder. He is attracted to slender, tall, large chested brunettes with dark eyes. He shows up to a YSA activity and meets a short, overweight, blond haired, blue eyed girl who seems really nice. Because he is kind, decent and in all ways a gentleman, does this mean he should ask her out on a date? To me the answer is no, but for some reason I think that it is being insinuated that because this man is LDS and a good priesthood holder, he should look past the fact that he is not attracted to her and ask her out because "he is better than that".

I dont mean to burst your bubble or disappoint the OP, but I dont understand why there is an implication here that LDS men are any worse than other men. Nor do I understand why one would think that being LDS would change the laws of attraction. Men are attracted to beautiful women, and women are attracted to handsome men. I dont really see how being LDS or not changes this. Maybe Im missing something, but can anyone (including the OP) explain why there would be an assumption that LDS men have different laws of attraction? Or is there just an assumption that LDS men are just supposed to be 'nicer'?