Suzie

It depends on your definition of apostasy. From the dictionary: So based on this definition, if a person doesn't believe in what the Church teaches they are apostatizing. However, the definition the Church uses could be different from this one. People tend to put others (specially those in authority) in pedestals and when they realize these people are just humans like anyone else, the disappointment is huge. Sometimes when I see members getting all hyper and rushing to shake the hands of a GA in a meeting, I wonder what is happening. Are we somewhat, somehow, sometimes indirectly seeing our leaders as Mormon celebrities (and with that, we imagine them to be in a certain way, etc without really knowing them personally?) I think that's one of the reasons we're asked not to take pictures with GA. Members tend to put them way on top and I know because one of my associates (member of the Church) dealt in businesses with a couple of them before they became GA and he is so upset that they can be GA and doing business he personally considers controversial or dishonest. Now, don't take me wrong....I think is good to look up to someone (who better than Christ?) however it doesn't have to become an obsession or have the unrealistic expectation that leaders don't commit mistakes. They do commit mistakes just like anyone else (I do notice though some members have a problem with some members saying this). It's strange to me. Stating that they are imperfect, doesn't change the fact of who they are or what they have been called to do. We have enough examples with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. We need to be careful that in our desire to respect and admire our leaders, we don't become somewhat worshipers of men. President Hinckley once said that adulation was something hard to deal with and his wife always kept him grounded, with the feet on the earth. Well, I am not a former Mormon. However, the mindset behind the statement (I don't believe it to be a criticism) is the wrong idea (that many members have) that every word that comes out from a church leader is inspired or doctrinal. This is false. Even the Church, when they made a press release about what is considered Church doctrine, they were sure to state that sometimes General Authorities give statements that represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. So yes, not every word or every time a leader speaks has to be inspired or a commandment for us to follow. This fact (the fact that leaders aren't necessarily inspired 24/7 or speak doctrine every time they talk) does not diminish their calling. Personally, because of my career background I believe in well-intentioned questioning. I think is healthy and I think is important for me to seek the answers for the things I may not understand or agree. I understand also that not everyone is the same. Most of all, I believe there is only one person who can never disappoint me and that's why He is the only one I put my trust to...and that's Christ, no men. The rest, I listen, respect, analyze...but Christ is who I look up to and try (in my very, very, very imperfect way) follow his footsteps.

I believe some members have a very narrow concept about what apostasy is and they see any questioning of a past or present leader's view on a particular topic and any disagreement with such view as "the person going towards the road of apostasy". To be honest, and this is just my opinion, it scares me when I see people reacting like that. It scares me because I believe that even though leaders may be inspired (not always, not every time, not at every minute, not everywhere) it is OUR responsibility to know if the things we are taught come from the Lord and they are His will. Hence, prayer is such an important tool to receive confirmation of these things and this step should never, ever be skipped. IMO.

Hmmm that's a primary emotion. Watch out slamjet because the secondary one coming....

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/feap/newsletters/understanding-anger.pdf "Anger is the second emotion – not the first. Anger usually results from feeling insulted, slighted, rejected, mistreated, disappointed, or hurt." When we say "I am angry" we are in fact saying "I am feeling insulted, rejected, sad, mistreated, etc".

Not for me. It is the parent's responsibility to discipline, not the grandparents. Personally I think if you discuss this with grandparents you may be sending the wrong signals to them and you may not like it in the end (they could discipline your child for something you don't agree with). It is better to separate roles and make sure they know those boundaries.

I don't think slamjet is saying anger is a false emotion as "it doesn't exist", what he is saying actually fits with psychology (in some aspects) and is called secondary emotion. A primary feeling is what we feel right before we feel angry. Maybe fear, threat, disrespect, feeling attacked, etc. If any of these feelings are strong enough, we think of the emotion as anger but is actually a secondary emotion, not a primary one. Anger is a feeling that covers up for something. Underneath this "anger" there are undetected emotions which are the real issues.

Theoretically yes, practically we don't know if he does that. Not every member of the Church sustain their local leaders (for whatever reason). Just a thought. I know we usually see all hands raised when a calling is extended but it doesn't always happen.

That's why it is so important for people to know exactly what they are doing when they decide to get married, you cannot (for the life of me) think about marrying someone if you have doubts or feel another person is your "soul mate" because then when you actually get married, half of the time you are wondering "what if..." scenarios in your mind, have emotional affairs and then when the thought is entertained a lot, leads now to the action by searching for the person on Facebook, etc and the rest is history. This talks more about the individual BEFORE they got married than AFTER they got married, IMO.

Who knows, she may get angry.

I was thinking...how justified we're in using controlled anger to make a point? Is it necessary? (since it is "controlled" it is something we're willingly choosing for a purpose).

I don't think there is such a thing as "righteous" anger, I believe there is something called controlled anger (which I think is the example of Christ overturning the tables). Also, I think the position of your wife of that "you cannot feel angry and be living according to the gospel principles" is a little bit extreme.

His behavior was unacceptable, shame on him! It's funny how he was fined for the gay slur but not for the F word (its so common these days, even acceptable) Anyhow, the Lakers were really LUCKY. They have a good team so I really don't know what is happening.

The guy from the show Bizarre foods was in the Philippines and they were eating ice-cream sandwiches! Now, THAT's bizarre.

What are some of the most bizarre foods you have eaten? During my travels I have tried (but didn't enjoy) horse, cow kidneys, intestines, heart, stomach and liver, pig tail, chicken feet, sweetbreads, duck...many more to come. Please share your list! And no, macaroni and cheese isn't allowed!

Is it really distracting from your work or you are just upset that she chooses over and over again to look after her children who are just probably using her? (it's quite hard to watch yet not able to do anything about it) I ask because I know some people cannot stand seeing these sort of things and they get very emotional about it. As long as the manager knows....

Because they are sinners themselves as well. Just like someone said on a blog, if we want people to stop thinking about ourselves as self-righteous, we need to stop being self righteous.

Volgadon I referred to pharisaic behavior to those who see/gossip/murmur about others who do NOT wear a white shirt or have a beard as "inferior" "rebels" or "lack spirituality". I know Jesus told the people to follow the things the Pharisees taught BUT NOT do as the Pharisees did (very interesting) But what Jesus said about them and how they perceived things? Those are pretty strong statements from the Savior. Number 26 is specifically interesting. For me the rule isn't the issue (neither was for Jesus since he told the people to actually follow what the Pharisees taught them but interestingly enough he also told them not to do it like they Pharisees did). Again, the issue is not really the rule or unwritten rule, the issue becomes one when people start gossiping, murmuring about those who don't wear a white shirt or choose to grow a beard and when people make their own interpretation of what is necessary to (as per example) to pass the sacrament. For the Pharisees wasn't enough to just keep the Sabbath Day Holy, they went much further than that. In our handbook of instructions the quote is clear when it says: We can all become pharisaic-like in our dealings with others, specially with those who look, think and appear different than we are. Jesus taught us to take care of our inner selves first and the "outside of the cup/platter" maybe clean also IF we do the first. Edit: Also it is pharisaic-like IMO, when we think that by wearing a white shirt and being clean shaven we're somewhat now more righteous, more obedient, more worthy than our brothers who don't. However... :) Beautiful.

Black tea and green tea come from the SAME plant (Camellia Senesis). The only difference is the fermentation process.

Your response is rude and obnoxious. Wingnut only asked you questions. It's funny how you say she is easily offended when in fact it is you who got easily offended (hence your reply). If you open a new thread, you are the one that has to provide the references. We aren't mind readers.

Wow..chicken pox as an adult? That must be so irritating!

Dr. T, I think the Lakers are in the worst possible shape right now. They haven't lost so many games in a row for years! However, the Spurs aren't doing much better but they recovered quickly and they're going to hit the Lakers badly tonight. Manu Ginobli is AWESOME!

David O. McKay was the only church president to have 4 counselors in the First Presidency at the same time.

Me too and I said it there too. lol

I think you are quite correct because when you talk with a lot of members you discover they come to Church for many reasons, most of them (in my personal experience) is because of social factors rather than doctrinal factors. Also in my experience, few people know Church history and those "controversial" issues from the past that tend to make people go less active or doubt. So it isn't that they don't leave because of doctrinal issues, most of the time perhaps don't know about them or perhaps they heard about it and they think is anti-Mormon claims (when in fact is part of our history). However, with the invention of the internet things are changing VERY quickly.

Well, Church history can get really interesting. However, how do you feel about his concerns?