Suzie

I like to debate but I like to keep it civil (no personal and/or emotional). When someone disagrees with me and challenges me to think outside the box or research, I'm thrilled!

Sometimes we have to do difficult things (no doubt) but your Bishop is there to help you and Heavenly Father is there to continue loving you. Hope everything works out for you.

Hi Backroads sorry to hear about your little ones. Hope they feel better!

I got the analogy. The example you provide with the Jews is interesting because you speak about baking sacramental bread for a Christ-worshipping ritual, a rite that renews covenants made at baptism for the LDS Church. We are talking about baking a cake here and the cake in question is not used as part of the rite itself. As a matter of fact, having the cake or not during a wedding does not change the rite or affects it in any way because it is not part of the rite. In the example you provide, the bread is a fundamental part of the rite and used as part of the ritual. Hence, the comparison in my view is nonsensical.

If I go to Olive Garden and the waiter tells me if I am aware of how many calories I am about to consume and starts giving me a speech about the unhealthiness of cheese and meat, and pasta sauce etc BUT she would put the order for me even though she doesn't agree with what *I* am about to consume, I would think he/she is nuts and needs help. I cannot see how baking/selling a cake for a gay couple equals supporting gay marriage! Nobody wants to know your (general "your") opinion about gay marriage when someone goes to purchase something from you, nobody cares. Just bake the darn cake and get over it. My goodness.

What I gathered is that Temple marriage bestows the Patriarchal Priesthood to the sealing couple (both man AND woman) and is the same Priesthood Adam and Eve were blessed with before and after the fall but such Priesthood authority can only be administered inside the walls of your own home, with your family members. About that talk, I think you are talking about Oaks.

Back in August, 1843 the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a sermon where he stated that there are three grand orders of priesthood (those are the words he used), one of them being the 2nd (according to Smith) known as the Patriarchal authority. Smith counseled the brethren to finish the temple first and then they will receive more knowledge with regards to this order in the Priesthood. James E. Talmage also spoke about it and said that it is a condition where women shares with men the blessings of this Priesthood and where husband and wife minister "seeing and understanding alike". It is also recorded that this Priesthood and its associated powers were introduced in Nauvoo in the same year of the sermon and was conferred to the First Presidency, the Apostles and their wives. Now, upon my limited research on the Patriarchal Priesthood I noticed that a few writers seem to want to make it part of the Melchizedek Priesthood? Anyone has information?

Girl, after eating that I doubt you would live a long life, let alone die happy.

Char713, if you still missing them and craving them...would it help if I tell you that eggs are the equivalent of a chicken period (yes, menstruation)

A few excerpts from the talk I was mentioned before by Elder Dallin H. Oaks. He makes the distinction between final and intermediate judgment: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging?lang=eng

Good Bishops and Church leaders all over the world do that. They show great love, concern, empathy and care for the people they have to judge. I agree that Jesus Christ is the only person who can love perfectly but I also believe it is possible for someone in authority to judge righteously and yet, show great love.

No, don't be sorry. :) The reason I overemphasize the point was because you said you agree "but it depends on so many things" which I agree with you, so I wanted to highlight the point because regardless of the other factors involved, if it is not within our stewardship (I believe to be the most important point) and we have all the adequate facts, and we are guided by the Holy Spirit, etc etc etc we are just merely passing judgment and not righteous judgment. And now I feel like I just repeated myself again, sorry :)

Never said you did.

Jay; but in the end as the apostle mentioned if it is not within our stewardship we are supposed to refrain from judgement. It seems like we struggle with this concept.

The problem with righteous judgment is that sometimes the label is used as an excuse to judge people unrighteously. Many years ago, one of the Apostles gave a great talk about what implies righteous judgment and he gave a step by step guide. 1. We should refrain from telling people they have no hope (you will burn in hell!) or quite the opposite that they are assured of their exaltation. 2. We should ensure our judgment is guided by the Holy Spirit and not by self-interest. 3. Perhaps, one of the most important points is that it must be within our stewardship. We should not presume or exercise it outside our own responsibilities. 4. Even if all the first three points are respected and followed, we should refrain from judging until we have all the facts. Now, how many of us judge a brother or a sister and we claim we are judging them righteously just because we saw them doing something wrong? That's not righteous judgement even if the person was doing something wrong. If it is not within our stewardship to judge, if we are not guided by the Holy Spirit, if we do not have adequate facts... we are just passing judgment and we are asked to refrain from doing it.

Thank you for sharing that talk, there are a few parts I would like to highlight: Sometimes we are too caught in trying to tell others they are wrong, etc and trying to show them what *we* perceive to be the right way, instead of listening to their point of view and showing true concern for their beliefs. Most importantly, when the conversation does not turn out the way we expected or when there is no possibility of consensus, what do we do? Do we turn bitter, pedant, irascible, truculent and personal or we gently agree to disagree and respectfully leave the conversation? This is a skill and I wonder how many of us are trying to develop it. This is one of the things I have been saying before. We can disagree without becoming contentious, we should never make others feel we are their enemy, we should strive for civil discussions where the other persons involved in the conversation know that we do not compromise certain beliefs and yet we are okay with discussing these issues and listening to their side in a calm, collected manner.. without trying to make others feel stupid or belittled. What is the purpose of that anyways? I believe we will gain greater respect this way instead of focusing on telling others how they ought to live or feel. My two cents for FWIW.

I suppose we are summarizing and understand her posts differently. What I got from her posts is that she is asking people to be more sensitive and also perhaps consideration for inclusion. I just do not understand some of the responses she got, and I am baffled at how some people just cannot see it. Perhaps my take is usually through a psychological perspective, trying to understand that people talks through their pain. Most of the time, they just need validation, kindness and consideration specially when they decided to share such personal issue online. I believe a few posts on this thread fell short of that.

This thread has 8 pages, could you please write the exact posts you are referring to?

Is there a problem with it? Hope not. You mean, you want me to tell Pam something that a few people confided in me? Why should I do that? No, I cannot. I agree to a certain extent. The point I was mentioning yesterday with a moderator is that sometimes the people in question are not breaking any site rules, it is the way they post, the kind of adjectives they choose to use that belittles people, insulting and yet not directly. And even though I am aware this can be open to "interpretation", when you have a few people on a thread taking "offense", it is something to think about. It does not happen to me (I only got once a psycho-threatening PM because of a thread. I did not reply to it and I reported it and yet the poster continued posting and continues posting like nothing ever happened) but seeing happening to others it bugs me a bit. Therefore, should we use the report button even though the poster in question technically did not break any site rules? Second, many times the moderators are in full participation on a particular thread which is good but sometimes they are too close to the discussion at hand and I have mentioned this in the past to another moderator so no, I am not here just "complaining", these are things I have discussed privately in the past. I understand. I know, we WILL offend...but we should try better. We shouldn't solve everything by "Yes, we can offend, deal with it, forgive and move on".

I am not arguing we shouldn't. We should all extend consideration to everyone. My point was about the assumption that Char bragged and that she deserved the jab she got. Unmerited and uncalled for, in my view. Unless we know Char or we were there, none of us can know if she was bragging therefore since we are all clueless about it, why not do as grandma used to say when we were kids "If you don't have anything nice to say...."

It is unmerited because you do not know her, therefore the assumption you are making could be completely erroneous. Why take the chance and post that she deserves it when you could be so wrong about her bragging? An unwise course of action in my view. Hmmm stereotyping much? Sounds very chauvinistic/sexist if you ask me.

Meaning that even though we cannot change people (people change themselves yada yada yada) does not mean we will become mere spectators if we see someone belittling another individual and reasoning: "Well, that's how he/she is and the person has to forgive them anyway". We can try to make the person understand that the way they are treating others is wrong and how can affect people, etc. Sometimes it doesn't work as expected but we still have to try. In sites such as this one, have the moderators observing closely how members interact. It is not news that quite a few posters left lds.net for a variety of reasons or they are not as active as before and one of the reasons of a few is the poor interaction/insults/belittling that sometimes occur, things that can be avoided and can be stopped.

Are you annoyed easily? I know what passing bragging is but thanks for taking the time to post the definition. Having said that, asking sisters to pray because your husband is up for a promotion( in my view) isn't bragging or passing bragging and in the end, is about intention. The fact that you told the poster that you think she probably deserves it (the jab/insult she got), means you assumed that kind of intention on her part when in reality and as far as I know (please, correct me if I am wrong), you do not know her personally (do you?) therefore assuming such a thing and reaching that sort of conclusion (and posting it) is unmerited.

Yes, that's why I mentioned self-analysis and change of behavior. We can't make someone to "play nice".

Please explain how exactly asking sisters in the Church to pray for your husband because he is up for a promotion at work is bragging or passive brag as you call it and I am more interested in finding out why you thinks she deserved it.