M98Ranger

I really agree with your comment. Thanks.....

All true and good comments. I was just thinking about how parents often want to protect their children or shield their children from being hurt based on the claim that they don't "think that their children are "mature" enough to make the choices themselves". Hence to some parents in the church and out, the issue of how to tell whether one's child can be trusted to make the right decision is particularly poignant as it pertains to child rearing.

I am not sure, because I dont know politics hardly at all, but I would suspect that what Fox News was refering to is pressure exerted onto the republican party to not allow him to be their candidate. I don't know how that works, but I am pretty sure that is what they were refering to now that I think about it. I could very well be wrong though.

"And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." Ephesians 4:31-32 There is a lot of good information in the scriptures about how to be "mature." But how does one know when our children have become mature and more importantly how do we as parents help to get them to that point. I would love to hear you-alls opinion on it and especially if you can locate words of wisdom from other smart people before you to collaberate what you say I think it would be very beneficial. (Sources outside of the church are welcome as well obviously, as quotes from apostles and prophets...don't feel like you have to reasearch though. Some of us are busier at times then others. I just thought it would help us to widen the knowledge pool a bit find some sources outside our own minds.) To start us off, Elder Marvin J. Ashton once said, "Personal conduct is the only true measurement of maturity." I would say that I am not sure who in a family relationship has the authority to declare someone as mature or an adult. However, it wouldn't make sense to me that self-declaration is the key. Having a teenager or such claim independence or maturity by virtue of their age is in my opinion kind of laughable: (case and point, the age old "I am an adult now." phrase that is often cited as their ticket to being treated as an adult). But if the responsponsibility for claiming maturity doesn't rest with the indidivual then on whom does the responsibility lie? I think that the answer to the question lies in the constant looking and acknowledgement for positive choices made throughout the childs life. As the child is given the opportunity to make choices and then given encouragement for the positive that comes out of those choices, the self esteem of the child increases and the child is set on a path to make more positive choices. I think that to the individual "achieving maturity" is more of a level of "self-esteem" for ones ability to make adult choices then a "Title" given once you achieve a certain age. I could go on, but I am going to try to bite my tounge to give others a chance to get a word or two in.

AND IT WORKS!!!....Right on! I can testify that it works.

Yeah how do you get in to the "other" areas. Wahahahaha! I am a dork I know. But how do you get access?

actually I saw it on fox news. (I thought I said that in my first post). And the people on Fox news most definately mentioned that there was a large outcry by "mainstream christians" or some such saying that he should not be allowed to run". That is of course MY interpretation of Fox's interpretation. If you want to look for it, I would suggest looking first at fox's websight. News is subjective interpretation of events (no matter how objective they claim to be) so you have to take it for what it is worth....and that is my INTERPRETATION about statements of OPINION that people representing Fox news stated regarding others stance on Romney's running for President of the United States of America.

This is a bit off-topic, but I was always bothered by the fact that I was constantly bothering someone when I was attending LDS sacrament mtg. When my child (notably between 12 and 18 months) would start being loud, as most kids do at that age, I would take him out in the foyer. The times I didn't, I got horrible looks. However, my MIL and others would give me crap bc "He will learn that all he has to do is be loud and act up, and then he won't have to sit there. He can go out in the hall." I felt like I could never win. IMO, if you attend a church that doesn't have a nursery, you need to expect some moises and interruptions from children... it's just their nature. And do you really think Jesus would be annoyed by children making noise? No, I'm pretty sure he's look back at them and smile. I absolutely agree. And I don't beleive I am going against the science of child development/child psychology when I say that regardless of whether or not a child is able to be manipulative a child can develop behaviors based on the fact that a child finds out, "Hey, if I scream during Sacrement I get taken out and Mommy or Daddy plays with/entertains/takes care of me." You do need to work with your children at home to get them to react better and quicker in situations such as church meetings. However, children cry. Thats what they do. Often times people have to take responsibility for themselves to feel the spirit regardless of whether or not there is a crying child in the background. Its difficult to not get frustrated when things like that happen. But as for me, I look at the development of my child and if I think that in order to teach them that it is going to help them more to stay in sacrament then to take them out then I will stay regardless of whether or not people want to allow themselves to focus on the annoying child behind them. When President Spencer W. Kimball's Home teacher noticed that he didn't take the sacrament once, the president explained, [paraphrased of course] "My wife was at home sick and I was so worried about her I couldn't concentrate on Christ and his atonement for my sins. Consequently, I decided that it would be unworthy of me to take the sacrament and I declined." The president took responsibility for his own actions of not thinking about the sacrament, even though it was for a very innocent reason not of his making and out of his control. I think that often others would benefit from his example in this instance. I am not saying that I don't advocate taking a child out of Sacrament when they are exceptionally disruptive. HOwever, WHEN (I have children obviously) I do take my children out, they recieve a timeout and a remittance of some privelege or property (there is no good natural consequence for disrupting spiritual meetings when you are young, but you can certainly contrive some good ones ie. taking away a toy they like or some such for a period of time). So long as you let them know immediately what the consequence is, make sure the punishment fits the behavior and do not ever renegotiate on your "fitting punishment" the child will quickly (sometimes not so quickly) conform to the proper behaviors most of the time. My children consequently do not act out in sacrament but very rarely.

I just saw on Fox News That a "Governor Romney" of the LDS faith is going to be running for President. Expectedly (and in my opinion "laughably") there is a large out-cry to not allow him to run for president or some such thing from some of our friends in "other denominations". (I dont understand how they think that their outcries could possibly do anything, but they are apparently trying to stymie his right to run for president.) What do you all think about it. I need to research it, but I feel really excited about possibly voting for someone with the same religious beliefs and convictions that I have. To have an LDS president in my opinion would be absolutely awsome!

The reason I asked is because when I saw the apparent picture of PC, it reminded me a lot of the first counselor in Bridgeport Branch that I attended in Tacoma a few years back when I was single and in the Military. Oh well, its nice to see some fellow washingtonians. It's a good place.

PC, I really appreciate your answer. Actually, reading your thoughts I can see that actually LDS beliefs on faith and works are more mainstream then most would be able to admit at first glance. Perhaps when LDS members claim work as a necessity to salvation it is looked at as something totally separate and distinct from admitting a sin/admitting you are a sinner and accepting/beleiving in Jesus Christ. Perhaps if people realized that in the process of repenting, (or in other words changing your path) there are certain steps that must be taken. For instance if you lied to someone or took advantage of someone dishonestly, then one of the steps to forgiveness might be to let that person know what you did wrong and that you intend to make recompense for the injustice. This sort of action is probably a given for a lot of religions and so I could understand if often it is seen as un-noteworthy that you should try to right the wrong to the best of your ability. Maybe because we tend to focus on those sorts of things we allow people to misunderstand our beliefs. I really didn't notice anything particular that we don't agree with in general terms. PS PC...you are from seattle area eh? So do you have an LDS relative that lives near Tacoma? An Engineer brother who possibly does or did work for Boeing?

I have a strong feeling you won't accept my answer. You have preconceived notions that will not be changed (I think your notions are wrong obviously). But I will say that as a member of the LDS church I can say definatively that I believe in grace*100000000%*. It takes Christs atoning sacrifice to make us pure before GOD. But it does not make any sense to me when someone says that "True Grace" ie "100% grace" as you put it, takes away a persons free-agency to choose whether or not they will do whats right.....or do whats wrong. Freedom of Choice is a basic component of development for us here on this training ground of earth. God would not and has not taken Freedom of Choice from us, as you in otherwords are implying.A person CANNOT be in Heaven by virtue of the Grace of God AND AT THE SAME TIME, be a person that CHOOSES to DO unrighteousness. I remember a saying that goes like this, "WICKEDNESS NEVER WAS HAPPINESS"....I DON't know what better word for describing HEAVEN but HAPPINESS. Therefore if wickedness never was happiness, then it would serve to reason that you would have to CHOOSE to turn from your wicked ways BEFORE "true Repentence" and "GODS GRACE" ( which are synonomous so far as process is concerned) can take affect in ones life (be that life after death, or life here on earth). Not only that but I cannot help but think how such such sophistry (Grace without works) has vitiated the morals and actions of generations of God's children. I am not pointing my finger at you, but it is true that if I thought that what I did "did not matter" ....so long as I "proffessed" (whatever proffess means) my patronage to Christ, then it would be quite easy for me to take advantage of my brother. Indeed, why not in order to get gain, (lie a little, cheat a little, steal a little, murder a little)....heck we are all going to the same place no matter what, aren't we? Heck I am doing that woman a favor by killing her...she is too good for this earth anyway and I am sending her to heaven because she already accepted christ. No reason not to kill her....we can only gain from doing evil. To sum it all up in one convenient thought....The devil knows Christ intimately, if he thought he could get "ALL THE POWER" and "ALL THE GLORY" which he wanted by simply saying "I accept you Christ", then why didn't he do it? HE would not have been put in that hopeless position that he is in now. It would serve his purpose and he could do WHATEVER HE WANTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES if grace without works is true doctrine. It is obviously, therefore not a true doctrine. If you choose to comment on my post I would appreciate you dealing with the entire explanation, rather than attacking a convenient peice. Nice to meet you by the way. Traveler, ben and Ray....WOOOOHOOOO!...right on brothers! Sorry if I repeated what some of you said, but I just had to get my two cents in so I didn't read the whole thread. I look forward with trepidation to his response to everyone's thinking. I somehow doubt the ability of anyone to INTELLIGIBLY refute everyone's posts.

My point was that he could've in all likelihood escaped with the aid of his friends and the smuggled pistol. But he didn't escape. He stayed in jail, knowing he'd die. That's the "voluntary" part. The fact that he only used his pistol when his friends were threatened, to me, simply highlights his loyalty and courage. It's as if he said, "Kill me and I won't resist, but try to harm my friends whom I've promised I'll protect, and the pistol comes out." So if he hadn't promised his friends that he'd protect them from harm, when the mob tried to break down the door I honestly see Joseph standing and facing them without resistance as they gun him down. Interestingly enough, as it turns out, Joseph had means of escape (pistol), but didn't use it for his own protection...only for the protection of his friends. Thus, he voluntarily laid down his life...in the process trying to save his friends, not himself. Absolutely. He could have also run to avoid being put into jail when he knew he'd be killed there. He suffered for his beliefs and died for them; of course he was a martyr. Very good points Apostle Night and Mom of...Palerider and everyone else.. My thought is that he not only could have run, but he could have had the Nauvoo Militia protect him. If it was needed, but actually didn't Joseph travel to Carthage on his own on the basis that he was told that he would be put under armed guard awaiting a trial? I might be mixing up my facts, but the point is that he went to CARthage Jail via GOD's will ....that is he went WILLINGLY to Carthage instinctively knowing that he was, in his words..." walking as a lamb to the slaughter"(a SPUNKY lamb, but a lamb none-the-less). How could he be a man and just allow his friends to be killed, when he knew all along that it was part of the fulfillment of a prophesy given to him by heavenly messengers for him to be persecuted in that way?*RETORICAL QUESTION*....anyways, thanks for the comments all!

[Here is a thought by Hugh B. Nibley. In this excerpt he is of course refering to the wonderful miracle written about in Moses Chapter 1, where Moses see's and converses with God. Moses, tired with physical exhaustion after having conversed with the Lord gets accosted by none other then Satan himself. I believe that the information given in the following quote outlines the "power"...(or perhaps lack there-of) , and commanded, saying: I am the Only Begotten, worship me." (Moses 1: 19.) The whole scene is presented in dramatic form as a ritual combat, a stychomachia [I think he meant stychomythia... meaning basically "greek dialogue"], and true to the ancient pattern, the hero is momentarily bested, overcome by the powers of darkness, as he "began to fear," and "saw the bitterness of hell." But with his last ounce of strength he calls upon God from the depths and is delivered: he has won the fight, he has prevailed against the power of him who "sought to destroy the world, for he knew not the mind of God." I think it is interesting that Satan MOMENTARILY gets the best of Moses as he saw the bitterness of hell, but then God doesn't give trials to man that they do not have the way to overcome. Moses uses all of his might that is left to ask God for help. That was the lesson that Moses was taught, (perhaps other lessons were taught too, who am I to say definatively) that God delivers the righteous and their cause. All the righteous need do is fear Him and have faith that when called upon, Heavenly Father not only has the power to best Satan, but WILL best him if that is in keeping with His ultimate plan.

No unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God....hmmmmm, I wonder if you are allowed to have Obsessive Compulsive disorder in heaven, like me? Kind to think of it my wife kind of tempers my OCD so I should be alright after-all.