carlimac

That's very commendable; but what would happen if government said that no one could accrue a net value of more than $9,000? How do you incentivize a first-world worker to stay at his job once he has reached that threshold--and what happens to the economy if you can't do it?
 
How does putting a formerly-wealthy person in involuntary servitude create spiritual health?
Is communist China a spiritually healthy place?
Cuba?
Venezuela?
 
You know, two hundred years ago it was commonly argued that black slavery was actually a spiritual benefit to the individuals so subjugated--by the majority, at least.
 
As an American, I would reply that there are two facets to what you're saying: the domestic and international facets. Internationally: it doesn't matter how much of my income gets sent to, say, China or South Africa or the PLO, because it will wind up in the hands of those nations' corrupt political classes (which is why I said earlier that aid to such countries needs to be determined on a case-by-case scenario). And domestically: the social safety nets in this country are such that no one need starve to death IF they are aware of, and use, the resources that are already out there.
Beyond ensuring a subsistence level of food, clothing, and shelter, mere redistribution without regard to spiritual benefit of the parties concerned boils down to little more than state-sanctioned envy. And that isn't very Christian at all.

Discussions of this topic can be hard because so few people understand the concept of "zero sum."
 
If I go on a diet and lose 100 pounds, that doesn't force some unlucky woman on the other side of the world to gain 100 pounds.  And yet I know many people who would claim that any act of generating wealth, even something as simple as choosing to work overtime or selling lemonade, must necessarily cheat someone else out of money that they rightfully deserve.
 
This whole debate is poorly framed, in my opinion.  The question should be whether any act of generating wealth in a modern economy steals from others or makes it harder for others to generate wealth.  If not, we're going to have rich and poor people, just like we have fat and skinny people.  But I guess I shouldn't say this too loud, or else the liberal progressives will start thinking about new government fat-redistribution programs.

Do not presume you know my motives.
 
Best wishes, 2RM.

in such cases we call it the lessor of 2 evils.  The operative word is evil.  But we should never accept the argument that sexually abusing children is equal to all other possibilities that saves children from being eaten by crocodiles. We should be able to make preferences based on benefits and values. 
 
For these reason I do not mind so much that some may want a same sex marriage - my objection is the argument that such a marriage should be considered equal to a marriage between a man and a women.  Not so much because they ought to have equal rights - just that we have so devalued marriage and children so much that modern society can no longer see the benefit of lasting biological families.

So I pray for the winning lottery numbers, and I actively play the state lottery. Lets say I win. Did God answer my prayers? Or did I get lucky and chose the correct numbers?
 
What if I need a new job, and I pray for the Lords guidance and help in getting one. I dust off the resume and hit the streets. In a couple of weeks I get a job offer.
 
Were my prayers answered? Or did my hard work pay off?
 
When does "he" step in?

All change creates stress of some type. I would just trust in his judgement and timing, and not "lean unto thine own understanding" (hope I quoted it correctly).

If for some bizarre reason sexually abusing the children saves them from being eaten by the crocodiles you have yourself a disturbing dilemma don't you.

If we use the argument that something is okay because it is better than something else we can justify almost anything.  For example since sexually abusing children is better than feeding children to crocodiles there is nothing wrong with sexually abusing children?  Just because gay parents may teach and raise their children better than some biological parents does not mean children suddenly lose their rights to be associated with their biological parents.
 
If all things are equal - I see no reason for children to be removed from a heterosexual family.  Since children come from a heterosexual conditions - I believe those favoring changing that condition should and must be able to give reason - that  non heterosexual conditions are better both for the children and society. - not better than something we know is worse.  The preference must be and always should be for the benefit of the children and not so homosexual couples can feel or claim equality which in creating conditions for children to be - is a ridiculous fabrication and absolute nonsense.

I watched the first part of a documentary called "Half The Sky". Oh MY Goodness! It's so eye opening and humbling to watch. The book is just heart wrenching, too.   It's about girls being trafficked and abused. Also about the importance of education for girls in third world countries and how much some have to sacrifice to get basic education. Highly recommended for mature audiences. We are so insulated from all this.

Reminds of me "Just be careful what you wish for cause you might just get it".

Goodness.  Your experience with your troublesome prayer reminds me of a recent dilemma I had with Amazon.  I ordered something nice, but after it came I saw some drawbacks that made me think hard about sending it back. 
 
I don't think prayer follows the Amazon model, but I've certainly known people who treat prayer with all the solemnity of ordering a pizza.  I think FP has got it right.  Prayer changes us and makes us see things that can illuminate decisions.  In some cases, I think God does intervene in human affairs.  But answered prayers don't come with a bright "Returns are easy!" sticker.
 
If I were you, I'd pray for the wisdom and strength to move forward from your current location regardless of any buyer's remorse you're feeling now.

How much of this difficulty is because there is no real concensus in the secular literature on the topic (and how we sometimes tend to despise secular literature when we don't agree with its results). There's the Regnerus study that claims several measures of "worse" outcomes for homosexual parenting, but many others believe this study to be flawed. There's the Australian study that shows, if anything, homosexual parenting has slightly better outcomes than heterosexual parenting. And there are many others, and everyone who doesn't like a given study's results calls it flawed.
 
In the political marketplace, do we need a better foundation to stand on before we can make these kinds of claims? Can we afford to wait until we have a better foundation? If there is little discernible difference between homosexual parents and heterosexual parents, is this a battle worth fighting? How shall we measure "successful" outcomes and "failed" outcomes?

Being respectful is not how others perceive you. It is internal. If you are respectful but offend, that's on them.
 
Our General Authorities are a prime example. They are always respectful in the way they addresses these issues. But read what the antis say about them. They may as well be a bunch of HItlers. The most evil, hateful men that ever lived.
 
It is simple*. You speak the truth. Boldly. But you do so diplomatically, and with care in your wording. It's a skill -- one I don't have down yet, that's for sure. But when I have said something right and true and taken great care in how I say it, and I know I've taken great care, and then others come at me calling me arrogant, rude, inconsiderate, unkind, uncaring, and disrespectful, I know that they are in the wrong, not me. On the other hand, there are times (too many of them) when I have not taken great care about how I say things, and in those cases I am wrong too. But the solution is not to shut up. It is to take great care. The reality is that I see little difference in when I take great care and when I don't as to the amount of offense it causes when I stand up for truth. But I know the difference even if those offended don't.
 
* edit: this is one of those examples of me saying things badly. It's not simple at all. I wish it was. But the idea behind it is simple. Do what is right, let the consequence follow...etc.

Here's the other thing.  The goal of preventing homosexuals from adopting is because you believe that it is not particularly healthy to raise a child in that particular environment.  That argument has merit, but there are problems.  As has been pointed out, single people have been adopting.  That may or may not be worse, but also about 50% of the homosexual population are lesbians. For the most part, all they need is a donor and can have children.  They don't even have to go through the state to do it.
 
Now I'm not comfortable with homosexuals raising children (that is the crux of the issue, not adoption), but practical matters aside, to prevent it you would have to let the government decide who does and doesn't get to have children, and even the thought of giving the government that kind of power gives me the screaming willies.

It's not a situation of either/or a lot of times.  And I don't believe that gays and lesbians are really only adopting these hard case kids. It would be nice to believe that, but until someone shows me the numbers and it's overwhelmingly convincing, I'm not going to get sucked into this mindset. So much of the gay and lesbian lifestyle is whitewashed and sanitized.  I think this aspect of adoption is, too. Of course it happens, but I think the agenda is get us to believe it's ALL bleeding heart goodness and light. 

There are no families of gays around me. Frankly I think some of my nieces and nephews might be doing as much earthly and possibly eternal damage to their offspring with their criticism of church leaders and inactivity as gay parents do to theirs.
 
Kids are going to be influenced by what they see when they are young. 
 
I do know a woman from a past ward whose husband came out to her at an extremely awkward time. I can't divulge all the details because it's so unique it would be recognizable. Parents are divorced.The young  kids are split between the parents (which is difficult in and of itself) but the woman says the kids don't like spending time with their dad and his partner and that he's terrible with kids. (Apparently he was great with them till this happened.) 
 
Another personal experience was a good friend whose wife decided she was a lesbian and left him for a woman. Their two girls (according to grandma) have turned wild and are so confused and act out whenever they visit their dad. Mom has custody. He only has visitation. He is a mild mannered, sweet guy who doesn't deserve to have to deal with this.
 
 
My other gay friend is married but has no kids. Thankfully.  
 
 
I just don't know if  or when I discuss this with people that I can be objective when I can see with my own eyes the damage being done to these kids.  I can use my imagination that perhaps two women can be really nurturing with some children and everyone lives happily ever after in their little hovel.  But I also know that this is going to be the exception and that there are going to be some really screwed up kids that come out of these arrangements.
 
So according to Elder Oaks, we just sit back and be non-judgemental and do nothing to raise our voices against this? NOne of the scenarios are great but I'm especially referring to artificial conception- just so two lesbians can be mommies or adoption just so two gay men can play house together.  If the children were conceived naturally and still know both their bio parents, I'm not quite as irked.
 
These kids have no voice. I agree that having a loving home is good (depends on so many factors so I can't really say it's better) for kids abandoned by their parents or taken away from an abusive or neglect situation. But at the same time, it's also taking away the opportunity for them to be adopted by a mom and a dad where they can grow up with a healthier and more balanced life. 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865613844/Stay-lifted-on-adoptions-by-same-sex-parents-in-Utah.html
 
I know there are many thousands of children being raised by gays. I know there isn't much we can do about it. I know lots of these kids will come out of it OK. Probably a lot more liberal and "tolerant" and perhaps a bit confused about traditional gender roles than other kids, but otherwise alright. 
 
But still.  Someone help me to see the logic of this or anything that makes this reasonable. If we are to be non-contentious and Christlike in our responses to this different lifestyle, how can we do that with a straight face? What words do we use? None at all? Do we just stay silent?
 
I'm really bugged!!

Particularly from members like me who speak off the cuff and can't remember what they said five minutes later.
 
"I said what?!" 

I read a column at Patheos that made that point.  Yet another suggested that ministers across the country all send our sermons to the mayor.  Let her receive truckloads of them.  Of course, what rankles is that the demand feels very Soviet.  I came of age while the Wall still separated Berlin.  Government demanding sermons from clergy just feels totalitarian. 
 
So yeah...part of me says, "Here...have them...publish them."  Another part says, "Wait...the government wants my religious teachings, as part of a legal battle????"
 
 

Perhaps understanding why they changed the tune would help? The original version W. W. Phelps suggested was "Star in the East" then they changed to the tune of Scotland The Brave, not as a form of disrespect, but quite the contrary, as a form of honoring Phelp's Scottish heritage.
 
I had similar thoughts in the past shared here with regards to the lyrics of this hymn and being quite close to veneration/worship, but I've learned to understand and empathize with W.W.Phelps and how he probably felt when Smith was assassinated. Let's not forget that Phelps was excommunicated and became very bitter, calling himself an Anti-Mormon and even becoming a witness against Joseph Smith in the Richmond hearings.
 
I can only imagine how Smith must have felt seeing Phelps testifying against him and aiding to his incarceration. Just a couple of years later, Phelps wrote to Smith and asked for his forgiveness and called himself the "Prodigal Son". He was indeed very sorry for what he did to Joseph and our Prophet who was known to have a heart made of gold, did not doubt for a second and forgave him and called him a friend.
 
How many of us would be willing to do such a thing for one of our brethren? We are angry at our brother or sister many times for such small things or for an unkind remark here or there, well just imagine what it would be like if one of them testify against us and put us in jail!
 
I think we need to understand the lyrics of Praise To The Man connected to Phelps and his story and how he felt about Smith and his forgiveness for such awful betrayal. Phelps just wanted to ensure, proper respect was giving to the man who forgave something that most people wouldn't forgive.

Wuh?  We're talking about one particular man's activities. There is nothing wrong with saying 'praise to the man.' 'praise to the white man,' praise to the American.'  We are referencing one person, Joseph Smith. I am a black female and I find nothing offensive in the words and certainly don't take them as meaning only JS, or only white men, or only Americans can commune with Jehovah.
 
I love this hymn. Not just like, I love it. When I'm working at the computer, I play the MoTab version on YouTube loud and often. I was physically thrilled when one of the Nauvoo pageant actors shouted "Praise to the Man!" and everyone sang the song. It was just great.
 
Lemme tell you, you want to get riled up over something - try having to make your way past shouting narrow-minded bigots before you can get into the Nauvoo pageant. Those were real words. I didn't have to guess at  what they meant.. They were ugly words - directed at me and the family I was with.
 
So, I'm gonna sing Praise to the Man all the time. I like it.

I'm sorry. I don't see this as "spin". In fact, calling it "spin" is the distortion. I don't deny it's carefully worded. I don't think mentioning every wife and every age is necessary or else it's "spin". Frankly, the idea that it needs to is ridiculous. It's pretty straightforward. It's not negative. But it's not particularly positive either.
 
As I said, the "before her 15th birthday" thing doesn't really work for me as an effort to portray Joseph in a better light. Calling it spin implies it's somehow better to marry a 15 yr old than a 14 yr old. I'm not seeing it.
 
Calling it a spun projection seems to me more critical than fair.

How are any of those spin? Are you suggesting that many details are known that the church is hiding? Are you suggesting that all the later reminiscences are reliable? Are you suggesting that all the women left records?
 
How on earth do you read "spin" from "we don't know everything"?
 
Sheesh. At least RMGuy's one can legitimately be called spin.
 
I hate to tell you this, but there ARE big wide open holes in the complete story. They aren't leaving them. They exist. They're reality. Pretending like we have the complete story (as the anti crown like to do) is the spin. We don't.
 
Oh...no...now my reply has spin too!
 
Combing over an article with a fine toothed comb is called good editing, is good practice, and a genuine way to reliability. Of course it was combed over. Throwing any old willy-nilly garbage into it would be irresponsible.

How do you know what others have or have not endured?