mordorbund

What bugged me in particular with Lehi's crying repentance is that there's a perfectly good script for him to recite in 1 Nephi 1:8-14. You just need to put it in first person and modernify the language. C'mon writers, (or even Lehi-actor) you don't even have to do any work for this background-monologue!
 
Of course the book could be a solid film. You have 4 brothers in a black-ops mission. Their relationship breaks down as plans A & B fail tremendously. Plan C is your classic "I'm making this up as I go along" by the hero. And that's just the first 10 pages!

Please tell me Lehi's sermon to the people of Jerusalem consists of more than "Repent! You must repent! You need to repent!"
 
UGH!

Has anyone noticed that the original poster made a single post and hasn't come back since?
Just puttin' that out there. Y'know. In case that was seen as relevant.

We like to laugh about how ragtime was considered (in Professor Harold Hill's words) "shameless music", listened to by "libertine men and scarlet women". But yjacket hits the nail squarely on the head when he brings up that it's all about association. This is true with so many things in our life.
 
Music is a particularly obvious case. Here on this list, the very oldest among us has lived most of his or her life with rock-based popular music, and virtually everyone who listens to popular music enjoys at least some rock-based tunes. Yet during the '50s and '60s, when rock was born and came of age, many people were scandalized by it. In retrospect, Elvis' swaying hips seem pretty tame, but that misses the point. "Rock and roll" was firmly associated (I might add, by design) with youthful rebellion against authority and societal restrictions.
 
The people were not wrong to make this association; it was obvious. And the music was not merely a symptom of the times, but an active agent in promoting many aspects of the "social revolution".
 
This is true of much more than music, of course. It's also true in the other direction -- some things just seem to mean love of God's kingdom and conformance to his law. For example, white shirts in sacrament meeting. Green jello and funeral potatoes at ward functions. Relief Society centerpieces. A firm (but not bone-crushing) handshake.
 
We laugh at these things, and sometimes whine about them or chafe at them, but they are important social and psychological touchstones in our lives. Remember the root of the word "religion" -- religio -- and see how such things tie us back to beautiful traditions of family and healthy society, and ultimately to God.

You may enjoy reading President Kimball's talk Tragedy or Destiny (included in the Church manual). He starts with a whole list of specific cases and asks why. He never answers the question for specific cases.
 
 
He then explores some general principles that may or may not be relevant for a given case.
 
In your professional practice, just because you can't preach doesn't mean you can't minister. I would encourage you to remember your covenants. When someone comes in mourning, mourn with her. When someone comes in needed comfort, comfort him.

Flesh. Flesh is stronger than steel.

It wasn't you. It was Jethro.

Yes, don't fight in public or down talk about your spouse to friends and or family. This is one thing I've always been good at. I have never uttered a negative word about my husband to anyone. Any gripes are handled between us privately. I have siblings that can't seem to keep their traps shut when things get heated between them and their spouse. It's all so dramatic, and guess what, everyone remembers the bad stuff even after the issue has been resolved!
 
Edit: Can't! Not can lol

My grand-kids - sure seem to have it together as well the young men and young women in my ward.  Two young ladies talked in sacrament meeting last week having just returned from missions.  One from Ukraine the other from Honduras - without question these ladies would be exceptional in any generation.  The two lady missionaries in our ward are wonderful examples and I cannot imagine that anything of value is slipping away in society because of them.  I have full confidence in our younger saints and expect that they will do greater things and contribute more than me an my generation. 
 
Without question the world is changing and with the changes many will be caught up in the great and spacious building.  But I see a very unusual group of youth holding fast to the iron rod and enjoying the fruits of the tree of life.  I see them in greater number that at any time in the entire history of the world.  Thank you -- THANK YOU ALL that dedicate your time and efforts to raising a generation in Zion unlike any other.  :clap:

I'm not sure anyone--certainly no one on this string--is promoting condemnation.  Further, even "being gay" is not a sin.  It is a state of constant temptation.  The sin is in breaking the Law of Chastity, whether by action or by willful lust.  The sad, sorry truth is that if you "lecture in love" any adult about such sinfulness, and they will not catch the nuance between that and condemnation.

I've managed to kill this thread, but I'll continue anyway. Jethro (Moses' father-in-law) is described as the "priest of Midian" (Exodus 3:1) before Aaron and company were ordained High Priest or Priest "after the order of Aaron". So here's another priest running around with a different authority from Aaron. Is there any reason to suppose Jethro was not a high priest? After all, Jesus was "made an high priest after the order of Melchisedec." And nowhere does it say the Melchizedek was a high priest, he was "a priest of the Most High God." So either we have a separate order of the priesthood that has priests (why aren't there any more) and only one high priest (Jesus); or we have a separate order of the priesthood that uses the terms 'priest' and 'high priest' interchangeably, in which case there have been multiple high priests (even with 2 acting high priests under different orders in the days of Aaron and Jethro).
 
Regardless, something seems to be missing in the "royal priesthood" (how is that NOT a Melchizedek order reference) that lacks priests after the Melchizedek order.

God doesn't want us to lie.  Are liars offended? 
God does not want us to commit adultery.  Are adulterers offended? 
God does not want us to steal.  Are thieves offended?
God does not want us to worship other gods.  Are idolaters offended?
God does not want us to sin.  Are all of us offended (Rom 3:23--all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God)/
 
Yes, we should not speak with condescension.  And, of course, we influence mostly by example, and then speak life into people mainly through invitation.  I'm not going up to strangers, banging Leviticus over their heads, telling them to turn straight or burn.
 
On the other hand, why do some sins cause us to be so very cautious, while others receive overt and blunt condemnation?  The LBGT is positioning itself as extremely wounded and offended at Christianity.  Our natural inclination is to mitigate that, and prove them wrong.  We're not mean, we're not intentionally ugly, etc.
 
So be a friend first.  Show love first.  However, when push comes to shove, and you know you can no longer avoid the issue, will we speak the truth, even if it costs us that friendship?  Good friends of mine used to be Wiccan (the guy was, the gal was just away from God).  When they converted to a rigorous Christian practice some of their Wiccan friends continued the relationship.  Others said that since they had become bigots (opposed to gay marriage) they could no longer associate with them.
 
What's instructive is that this couple were not going around preaching about how bad gay marriage was.  They got cornered, and more or less asked, "Now that you are Christians are you opposed to gay marriage?"
 
Love (charity)?  Kindness?  Gentleness?  Patience? -- OF COURSE!!!  These are fruits of the Holy Ghost.  Nevertheless, when the crucial moment comes, will we or will we not declare, "Thus saieth the Lord...?"

This is my opinion and it doesn't mean I am right or wrong...my biggest issue with members of our faith are .....I don't think we study enough to find out what we believe or why we believe it. I have always felt like if we know the doctrines it might help us understand or be comfortable talking about them. I don't mean talking in a contentious way.
It does seem like there are a number of members who stray away from talking about grace because you never heard much spoke about it years ago. Grace is a beautiful doctrine. When I say study....do we read each day ?? Do we read the lessons before attending on Sunday ??

But I'm already in a cult...why would I want to join another?

Hmmmmmm - insightfull!!!!  having both my parents passed - I find grief associated with their passing as mostly associated with personal selfishness.  Can you share more of your new insight?

I continue to believe that much of the loosening attitudes about sex (whether gay or straight) in our society over the past four decades has been calculated to bring as many new potential partners onto the sexual market as possible (under the new morality, a man can have intercourse with seven women in a week, not have to commit to or provide for any of them--and the women involved will all think it's just evidence of how much freedom and respect men are giving them these days. Harems? HAH! As a modern male, in a very real sense, the whole world can be my harem if that's the life I choose).
Unfortunately, now that 1/3 of Americans have an STD, the demand for fresh (undiseased) meat has only intensified. It doesn't matter how progressive you are in thought and even in word--if you aren't making your body available, you are betraying The Cause. (This university sexual assault and "yes means yes" brouhaha plays right into that; because when everything's rape--sooner or later--nothing is. I mean, isn't this whole "consent" thing getting kind of ridiculous? Society already agrees, in principle, with nonconsensual redistribution of the proceeds of the labor of one's body. Why not just take the next step and allow for nonconsensual redistribution of the body itself? I'm sure our best and brightest academics will be quite able to drum up a scientific explanation as to why such compulsion actually serves some essential economic, equitable, and/or public health interest . . .)
The scorn that the architects, acolytes, and useful idiots of this movement have for the celibate is not coincidental--it's part and parcel of the whole campaign.

Recently my son went in to get the flu vaccine. Everyone he trusted told him he would not need to get a shot, that it would be administered nasally. The nurse came in with a medical tray that included all your standard tray stuff (like bandages for instance) and started putting on her gloves. Everything about her behavior said she was giving him a shot (putting on gloves, prepping a tray, just looking medical). Even she tried to reassure him that she was not giving him a shot. His cognitive dissonance had the words of trusted individuals pitted against what he was observing.
 
I'm glad I didn't have him express his concerns on this forum. He would have been met with a stream of "don't worry about it, you're totally getting a shot. It's not that big a deal."
 
Why are we jumping to "yeah, Joseph did some stupid things. He's still totally a prophet though." I can get that with bankruptcy, poor business acumen, or just being too forgiving or trusting of people he should have second-guessed. I don't understand where you say a prophet is acting as prophet but it maybe is errant or fallen. We've canonized the revelation (D&C 132). It's something we have to own up to so long as it's in our scriptures. Throwing Joseph under the bus on this one requires questioning Brigham through Wilford in practice, and all the way to Kimball who continued to leave it in the 1981 edition of the scriptures.
 
By the way, it turns out my son trusted the right people because it was just a nasal spray - not a shot.

"Should I see the bishop after [engaging in some activity] and feeling enough distress about it that I'm seeking public anonymous counsel online?" is a different question from "should everyone who [engages in some activity] see the bishop?".

"Should I see the bishop after [engaging in some activity] and feeling enough distress about it that I'm seeking public anonymous counsel online?" is a different question from "should everyone who [engages in some activity] see the bishop?".

May I suggest that if this was your intent, then you've been asking the wrong questions. You may want to consider some of these:
 
What role does the LDS Church have in shaping and influencing communities and cultures ('none' is also an acceptable answer)? You'll learn a little about when the Church has gotten involved politically and when it has kept out. You might also hear about some local interfaith initiatives.
 
James says pure religion is caring for the poor and the need. How does the LDS Church and its members fulfill this initiative? You'll learn a little about the Church's humanitarian programs and the Church's welfare program.
 
And then of course there's the fundamentals that you've completely skipped over. Remember the primary purpose of a church is salvation. It assumes an afterlife and a God, which then goes to inform life's priorities. Remove God and the afterlife and you're dealing with a social club. With God in place, you then need to discover what the rules of this game are. Now that's a useful line of questioning.
 
What is the purpose of life?
Why does God allow so much inequity in this life? Do I have a moral (even spiritual) responsibility to address it?
What does it take to be saved? Is salvation as unfair as this life seems? I think you asked something similar and got to hear a little about the pre-mortal life, but I think the discussion was abandoned before you understood the implications.
What does it mean to be saved?
What do you recommend I do to learn if these models are indeed correct? For instance, a community of scientists would tell me about the scientific method and encourage me to duplicate their reproduceable results, and a community of philosophers would instruct me on the rules of logic and encourage me to rederive the same conclusions they have. What is the Mormon scientific method or rules of logic? 

May I suggest that if this was your intent, then you've been asking the wrong questions. You may want to consider some of these:
 
What role does the LDS Church have in shaping and influencing communities and cultures ('none' is also an acceptable answer)? You'll learn a little about when the Church has gotten involved politically and when it has kept out. You might also hear about some local interfaith initiatives.
 
James says pure religion is caring for the poor and the need. How does the LDS Church and its members fulfill this initiative? You'll learn a little about the Church's humanitarian programs and the Church's welfare program.
 
And then of course there's the fundamentals that you've completely skipped over. Remember the primary purpose of a church is salvation. It assumes an afterlife and a God, which then goes to inform life's priorities. Remove God and the afterlife and you're dealing with a social club. With God in place, you then need to discover what the rules of this game are. Now that's a useful line of questioning.
 
What is the purpose of life?
Why does God allow so much inequity in this life? Do I have a moral (even spiritual) responsibility to address it?
What does it take to be saved? Is salvation as unfair as this life seems? I think you asked something similar and got to hear a little about the pre-mortal life, but I think the discussion was abandoned before you understood the implications.
What does it mean to be saved?
What do you recommend I do to learn if these models are indeed correct? For instance, a community of scientists would tell me about the scientific method and encourage me to duplicate their reproduceable results, and a community of philosophers would instruct me on the rules of logic and encourage me to rederive the same conclusions they have. What is the Mormon scientific method or rules of logic? 

May I suggest that if this was your intent, then you've been asking the wrong questions. You may want to consider some of these:
 
What role does the LDS Church have in shaping and influencing communities and cultures ('none' is also an acceptable answer)? You'll learn a little about when the Church has gotten involved politically and when it has kept out. You might also hear about some local interfaith initiatives.
 
James says pure religion is caring for the poor and the need. How does the LDS Church and its members fulfill this initiative? You'll learn a little about the Church's humanitarian programs and the Church's welfare program.
 
And then of course there's the fundamentals that you've completely skipped over. Remember the primary purpose of a church is salvation. It assumes an afterlife and a God, which then goes to inform life's priorities. Remove God and the afterlife and you're dealing with a social club. With God in place, you then need to discover what the rules of this game are. Now that's a useful line of questioning.
 
What is the purpose of life?
Why does God allow so much inequity in this life? Do I have a moral (even spiritual) responsibility to address it?
What does it take to be saved? Is salvation as unfair as this life seems? I think you asked something similar and got to hear a little about the pre-mortal life, but I think the discussion was abandoned before you understood the implications.
What does it mean to be saved?
What do you recommend I do to learn if these models are indeed correct? For instance, a community of scientists would tell me about the scientific method and encourage me to duplicate their reproduceable results, and a community of philosophers would instruct me on the rules of logic and encourage me to rederive the same conclusions they have. What is the Mormon scientific method or rules of logic? 

May I suggest that if this was your intent, then you've been asking the wrong questions. You may want to consider some of these:
 
What role does the LDS Church have in shaping and influencing communities and cultures ('none' is also an acceptable answer)? You'll learn a little about when the Church has gotten involved politically and when it has kept out. You might also hear about some local interfaith initiatives.
 
James says pure religion is caring for the poor and the need. How does the LDS Church and its members fulfill this initiative? You'll learn a little about the Church's humanitarian programs and the Church's welfare program.
 
And then of course there's the fundamentals that you've completely skipped over. Remember the primary purpose of a church is salvation. It assumes an afterlife and a God, which then goes to inform life's priorities. Remove God and the afterlife and you're dealing with a social club. With God in place, you then need to discover what the rules of this game are. Now that's a useful line of questioning.
 
What is the purpose of life?
Why does God allow so much inequity in this life? Do I have a moral (even spiritual) responsibility to address it?
What does it take to be saved? Is salvation as unfair as this life seems? I think you asked something similar and got to hear a little about the pre-mortal life, but I think the discussion was abandoned before you understood the implications.
What does it mean to be saved?
What do you recommend I do to learn if these models are indeed correct? For instance, a community of scientists would tell me about the scientific method and encourage me to duplicate their reproduceable results, and a community of philosophers would instruct me on the rules of logic and encourage me to rederive the same conclusions they have. What is the Mormon scientific method or rules of logic? 

I got one....like I said before....when you pay me your dues....you will get one....:)

Recently my son went in to get the flu vaccine. Everyone he trusted told him he would not need to get a shot, that it would be administered nasally. The nurse came in with a medical tray that included all your standard tray stuff (like bandages for instance) and started putting on her gloves. Everything about her behavior said she was giving him a shot (putting on gloves, prepping a tray, just looking medical). Even she tried to reassure him that she was not giving him a shot. His cognitive dissonance had the words of trusted individuals pitted against what he was observing.
 
I'm glad I didn't have him express his concerns on this forum. He would have been met with a stream of "don't worry about it, you're totally getting a shot. It's not that big a deal."
 
Why are we jumping to "yeah, Joseph did some stupid things. He's still totally a prophet though." I can get that with bankruptcy, poor business acumen, or just being too forgiving or trusting of people he should have second-guessed. I don't understand where you say a prophet is acting as prophet but it maybe is errant or fallen. We've canonized the revelation (D&C 132). It's something we have to own up to so long as it's in our scriptures. Throwing Joseph under the bus on this one requires questioning Brigham through Wilford in practice, and all the way to Kimball who continued to leave it in the 1981 edition of the scriptures.
 
By the way, it turns out my son trusted the right people because it was just a nasal spray - not a shot.