MrShorty

This is a good discussion. Starting from this statement, I feel like one of the problems I have with modesty discussions is that they so often feel circular to me. As an example, when I graduated from BYU (mid-'90s'ish), when I wandered too far from Provo, I found myself in a restaurant with a male server wearing a pony tail (which was the style at the time). Me, having been at BYU for many years, found the pony tail "distracting". Why? Was there something inherently immodest about men wearing ponytails, or was it because I had been told that men should not wear ponytails? I find myself with the same kind of thinking with other aspects of modesty. Do I find women wearing pants to church immodest because there is something inherently immodest about women wearing pants, or is it because I have been told that women should not wear pants to church? Am I bothered by someone wearing jeans and a t-shirt to church because it is inherently immodest, or because I have been told it is inappropriate? Do I find multiple ear piercings in some people (men or women) distracting because it is "wrong" or because I have been told that God doesn't want women or men to wear multiple piercings? Which isn't to say that there should be no dress and grooming standards anywhere in society. Such standards are perfectly appropriate. The challenge I find when I think of a "full and complete" lesson on modesty is trying to get past these circular arguments to the eternal truth "bedrock" underneath them.

You specifically asked my opinion. Here are a few thoughts rattling around in my head. The cynic in me has trouble see anything but "statistics" motivating the search for a new initiative. There's a bishop and/or stake president who is being asked in interviews with his priesthood leader about the "low" statistics, and he is uncomfortable being asked those questions, so he wants to find a way to raise the numbers to alleviate the pressure being put on him. My point being, look deep inside for what is motivating this kind of thing (in a time when temple attendance has been difficult or impossible or is only just barely available again). Before coming up with a new initiative, make sure that the real motivation is truly pastoral. If the motivation is administrative/statistical, work within yourselves as leadership until the motivation becomes purely pastoral. Along those lines, I sometimes wonder if one of the best things bishops and stake presidents could do is to learn how to "separate themselves" from their ward. Somehow be able to say to the priesthood leader, "these statistics represent real individuals, and each one has either chosen to have a TR or not, and I am not going to be responsible for each individual's choices (whether to take credit for them having a TR or feel guilty for them not having a TR)." I know it is more complicated than that, but it too often seems that the immediate motivation for something like this is making a report look better rather than true pastoral interest in individuals. I agree with @LDSGator that some of this is trying to identify why people aren't renewing recommends. Pardon the brief tangent, but one of the interesting things I got out of David Ostler's Bridges was the disconnect between leadership and members. Ostler asked leaders why people went through faith crises and also asked people self-identifying as experiencing a faith crisis, and the reasons differed -- substantially in some cases. I expect the same dynamic might be at play with TR renewals. Local leaders need to be able to approach their congregants and understand why they aren't renewing their TRs. Maybe (emphasis on maybe), that will inspire some kind of initiative that can help people renew their TR. Or maybe it will identify some other need (unrelated to TRs) that the ward/stake/branch needs, and put the TR statistic on hold. Somewhere in the search for reasons, be ready for some difficult reasons. Some like @Jane_Doe may have bad interview experiences from the past or real discomfort with some of the TR questions. Are leaders ready to sit with people in their discomfort and minister to them? I also agree with @Fether that having a current TR is not really the end goal here. The end goal is helping people have a good relationship with God and Christ and the Church. Having a current TR may be an easily measured numeric placeholder for that much more difficult to measure aspect. IMO, honestly focus pastorally on individuals' relationship to God, Christ, and the Church, and TR renewals will naturally follow. In the event the statistics don't, the focus is still on the right end goal. Those are my thoughts. Probably worth about what you paid for them.

Are they wrong to believe that? Assuming (as I do) that all of these ordinances will be performed for everyone (by proxy if not by the people themselves) before all is said and done, then it seems basically correct for them to believe that they will be together forever. They may be "seeing through a glass darkly" so that they cannot see or understand how our priesthood and temple ordinances are part of getting from where they are now to that together forever future, but the ordinance will be properly completed so that, when the do come to understand (and accept), they will be able to be together forever. From our lofty position, we may better understand how they will get from where they are to realizing that eternal relationship, but their belief still seems basically correct.

The problem with a drip irrigation system for agriculture is that the irrigation system really cannot be a permanent installation. So, it needs to be laid out every spring after planting, then gathered back up at harvest time (for something like alfalfa, that can be multiple times a year, for something like grain that would be once a year). One of the advantages of movable sprinkler systems that I am familiar with is that they easily move on and off the field when you need to be working in the field. Something like drip irrigation seems like it would be labor intensive to repeatedly install and remove. Which isn't to say that it cannot be done. If nothing else, we are a clever species with significant problem solving abilities. If drip irrigation can dramatically improve our use of water, I expect we can figure out how to do it.

Gratitude is a possibility. I expect that if I were in a situation where a random stranger had said something to my accusers that effectively avoided my execution (or postponed or "stayed" -- I want to say there is a technical legal term for when the court finds you guilty of the accused crime but the court also decides that it will not impose the allowed punishment). Maybe I'm just naturally awkward, but I could see myself delaying my departure as I muster the courage or find the words to try to thank this stranger for delaying/postponing the sentence. @CV75: I like the possibility that I stick around to see if this man who was clever enough (almost as good as Perry Mason) to "stay" my execution (if that is the right word) might also have greater wisdom for me -- maybe even some nuggets that could change my reprobate nature. I suppose it's probably a question of just how humble I am in the moment. Would I have the humility to wait and see if this man has more to offer than what a clever defense attorney would offer? @Just_A_Guy: The possibility I'm naked is an interesting twist. Perhaps you are correct and there is little to no real risk of being stoned. Even still, are there other social consequences that I'm aware of (think Scarlett A's)? Am I waiting around to see if he has more to offer in avoiding these other social consequences? Am I selfish enough to see it all as avoiding punishment for sin while overlooking or avoiding the hard path of real repentance?

Maybe I could have made the title more click-bait-y if I had tried ("Four reasons the woman in adultery stayed with Jesus -- the 3rd one will blow your mind"). At random today, I opened a chapter in the gospel of John to find myself reading the account of the woman taken in adultery (John chapter 8). I thought about the usual stuff, but one novel, unique thing stood out to me this time -- why was the woman still there when the Savior looked up from his doodling? Placing myself in the (somewhat socially awkward) situation, here I am, brought to a controversial teacher known for upsetting the establishment immediately after being caught committing a serious crime. I know I'm guilty and I know the penalty should be severe. This teacher, though, "shames" all of my accusers into leaving with the crime unpunished. After the last of my accusers leaves, what prevents me from leaving? why do I stay and wait for the teacher to acknowledge that my accusers have left? The scriptural account doesn't suggest that he barely caught me while I was on my way out (but it's not as if the scriptural account is given in that kind of detail). Is there some kind of patriarchal custom that keeps me there waiting for the last man in the area excuses me? Am I able to sense something about this man that keeps me there until he dismisses me? I don't know If I expect an answer from the group. I recognize that scripture does not always answer these questions. But something about this struck me. Why do I as a sinner stay in proximity to the Savior? I don't know that I expect any kind of "one true" answer, but I would not object to others' thoughts or reflections.

I don't know if the group will be interested, but I just saw this posted to Facebook https://www.utahfarmbureau.org/Article/Utah-Farm-Bureau-Calls-for-Day-of-Fasting-Prayer-for-Water call for people in the region to fast (on 16 May 2021) for relief from the drought that the western US has been in for some years. Without digging up sources, it seems like we have been mostly in a drought in the west for several years (with occasional good years thrown in). If anyone is interested in participating

When I asked my DL examiner, I, asked specifically about the scenario at a stop light.

Interesting.... I recall when I took my driving test (back when we stuck our feet through the floorboards for accelerator/brake functionality) specifically asking the examiner this question (because one of my friends had been dinged for one or the other of these practices (either using the shoulder as a right turn lane or not, I don't remember which). My examiner told me to move as far to the right as reasonably possible when making a right turn and included using the shoulder when no right turn lane was painted. If memory serves, he even mentioned that moving as far right as reasonably possible helps to prevent the scenario mentioned by @Fether where one driver stays in the main striped lane and another driver uses the shoulder and both want to turn right at the same time. One of those things where the official traffic code is not consistently (if at all) enforced and maybe even inconsistently taught so that most of us don't really know and just do what we've always done??

I'm seeing reports today that long time student of Church history D Michael Quinn has passed away. Sorry about the Trib link, but that is the only new outlet so far that seems to have published something. The link can be replaced with a link to some other news outlet if/when a more acceptable source can be found. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/04/22/historian-d-micheal-quinn/

A part of it is actually the opposite. If you watch pro bowlers, you will notice that they slide as they approach their release. Sneakers are designed to grip the floor, but bowling shoes are designed to provide just the right amount of slide as the bowler goes to release the ball. https://www.bowling.com/bowling-blog/coachs-corner/how-sliding-plays-a-factor-in-bowling/ Of course, most of us rank amateurs are just lucky to keep the ball out of the gutter. Whether our approach is a slide, hop, Fred Flintstone twinkle toes, or two hand between the legs, we are just happy to hit a few pins every third throw.

That kind of sounds like Calvinism's "limited atonement" (the "L" in "TULIP"). Perhaps it is just my bias against Calvinism, but I tend to shy away from explanations that sound too much like Calvinism. I don't have a good answer to the OP's question, but this description of the problem seems rooted in a "debtor model/analogy" of the atonement. I wonder if a different model/analogy for atonement would provide a different understanding of how atonement works that avoids this "double endemnity" problem.

@Carborendum Doesn't our "social trinitarian" view (as inferred by the 2 BoM and D&C verses cited by @Jonah) also rely fairly heavily on the "compound unity" thing so much maligned in your link? I guess I don't see how their arguments around the Hebrew "echad" support our view of the Godhead (something more social trinitarian) than the homoousian version of traditional Christianity. I can't tell exactly what they are arguing for. Are they arguing for a kind of modalist God -- where there really is only one God, but He expresses Himself in three modes/faces in scripture? Or are they arguing for a kind of subordinationist view of God where God the Father is the One True God, and Christ and the Holy Spirit occupy a lesser class -- something less than "God" but more than "man"? Modalism certainly doesn't describe our view of God. I see elements of subordinationism in our view of God, but we also talk about Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit being roughly equal in "godhood".

I find that this is such a difficult question. Perhaps it is just the mathematician in me that has a hard time understanding any of the 1=3 and 3=1 attempts to explain the Trinity. I think the answer to the OP is that there are many within Christianity that would like to make Nicean Trinitarianism a defining characteristic of Christianity. In terms of numbers, it seems that the vast majority of Christians accept the Nicene Creed (though, as Donnell and Connell explain in the Lutheran Satire video, I think there are frequent misunderstandings of what the Nicene Creed says about the nature of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit), and, based on numbers alone, can declare that alternative views of the Trinity/God/Godhead are heterodox/heretical merely because they are much less popular. As for understanding the LDS view of God, I struggle with trying to understand it as well (and I have been active in the Church my whole life). 3=1 and 1=3 don't make any more sense to me in the LDS view than the Nicene view. In my attempts to understand it, I have seen some call it a form of "social trinitarianism" (Wikipedia's article on Nontrinitarianism has a short blurb on the LDS view that uses this term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism A couple of Christmases ago, I became aware of the apocryphal story of St. Nicholas slapping/hitting Bishop Arius at the Council of Nicea over the disagreements between Homoousian and Arian proposals. A quick dive down the Arian rabbit hole found several concepts that seemed familiar to me as a Latter-day Saint (Wikipedia's article on Arianism notes that similarities between the LDS teachings and Arianism were noted as early as 1846: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints While I don't know what, if any, label to apply to the LDS view of God, I do see familiar concepts in social trinitarianism, Arianism, subordinationism (often considered a subset of Arianism), Nicene trinitarianism (our own @prisonchaplain once described the Trinity as 1 god in 3 distinct personalities that made sense to me), and Athanasius (the part about not confusing the persons though I would also agree with the not separating the substance part if we could get rid of the substance/ousia baggage because there is something about the Trinity/Godhead that is absolutely indivisible), as well as the overall sense that many Christians have that God is difficult to impossible for the mortal mind to truly comprehend. That probably does more to lay bare my own confusions rather than help anyone come to any concrete understandings, but, there it is anyway (and probably worth about what you paid for it).

I would say it is mostly culture and tradition (cue Tevye and the people of Anatevka). I find that we are somewhat uncomfortable conceding too much to personal preference, but I sometimes think personal preference ought to have more sway. Part of me would say that God's opinion ought to have the greatest impact on what we choose, but I sometimes find it difficult to really find God's will amidst the much louder voices of culture, tradition, and personal preference.

I find this an interesting question. The first time I really encountered this was while serving a mission. We encountered a woman who took an immediate interest in our message. She started reading the Book of Mormon and initially felt good about it. However, as we challenged her to really pray about it, she reported that she received the impression that God did not want her to continue reading the BoM and studying with the missionaries. Obviously, I have no way to verify her experience, but it was the first time I had to wrestle with the possibility that God would give someone an answer contrary to the answer we would expect as missionaries. I don't know that I have the final answer on the question. As I get older, I think there might be a bit more "It's between you and God" for a lot of things, and a lot less "you'd better pick right" than my orthodox self would have believed.

Not as good as @NeuroTypical got, but here's one I got through my telescope. Difficult to get a good, single frame shot. Either overexpose Jupiter or underexpose Saturn. Atmosphere was all wobbly and noisy, too. But, still, you don't get to see two gas giants in the same telescopic field of view very often.

Some here would probably consider it a progressive cesspool, but BCC hosted a discussion the "individual adaptation phrase" a year or two ago that still seems to me to be very interesting. Opinions and interpretations all over the map. Some of it probably could be categorized as "rationalizing sin", but it is not clear to me exactly how to judge individual cases. In the face of such variability and ambiguity, I agree with @Jane_Doe and @MarginofError -- let people be responsible for their own choices.

I also noted that the rankings seemed to be based on data for fatal accidents. So they looked at accidents where someone died, then looked at how frequently the specified factors (speed, failure to obey, etc.) were implicated in these accidents. So it wasn't just about how well drivers complied or not with traffic laws or "courtesy rules of the road" or minor accidents or all of the other things that we tend talk about when we talk about how good a state's/locality's drivers are. They seemed to focus in on fatal accidents and the driving patterns that seemed to contribute to those fatal accidents. I also noticed that they listed past years' results from the same study. One interesting observation quickly looking back over three years is that 2018 and 2020 worst state was Alaska, but, in 2019, Alaska was not even in the bottom 10. I doubt that Alaskans' driving habits (and drivers around the nation for that matter) really changed dramatically over three years. If a state can move a lot in these rankings with little to no change in driving habits, that suggests to me that either there is some flaw in the methodology or that drivers across the nation are almost equally good/bad. Some states (like New Mexico) seem to consistently make their bottom 10. If you want to really talk about rankings, a pattern of consistently appearing on a list like this might be more meaningful than a single year's snapshot.

One of the most interesting thought experiments around letter/spirit of the law for me was to wonder how the sinless Savior of the world would treat traffic laws. These laws do not really have moral significance, so there aren't really moral ramifications to obedience/disobedience. How does a perfect, sinless person treat things like speed limits? The letter of the law is kind of obvious. Never exceed the posted speed limit, and pay careful attention to the signs so he/she knows what the speed limit is. The spirit of the law is to move people and goods around the community safely and efficiently. I've heard some justify their speeding by saying that it is more dangerous to be traveling at a speed significantly slower than the rest of traffic. On a moderately busy freeway where everyone is going 10 over, is it ultimately safer and more efficient to blend into traffic even though traffic is going 10 over? Or is strict obedience the way to go and the other drivers will just have to deal with it? Spirit of the law or letter of the law? Vague, general obedience or strict, exact obedience? I really don't know.

This has often been said, but I recently came across some Pew data (https://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/24/a-portrait-of-mormons-in-the-us-religious-beliefs-and-practices/ ) that suggests that it mostly applies to Protestants. Compared to Catholics, we are similar in this respect (about half of those who leave become unaffiliated in both). I'm not sure what it is, but it doesn't seem unique to the LDS Church in this regard. Perhaps it is as @prisonchaplain mentioned. The Reformation has already set the precedent for "if you don't like your current church, it's okay to find/make a different one." so that Protestants don't have as much resistance to just finding a different Christian church. Something about our Church and the Catholic Church reduces people's desire/willingness to find a different church.

I like that, too, but it does raise the question of whether or not God wants everyone to be a member of this Church. I believe God wants me to be a member of the LDS Church, but does that mean that He wants -- let's say for sake of argument -- @prisonchaplain to also be a member of the LDS Church or does God lead him to be a member (and pastor) in the AoG?

To me, some of this question revolves around what we mean when a say "a church is true". As others ( @laronius, @prisonchaplain @estradling75) have suggested, maybe truth exists on a continuum where all churches have truth and some more than others. So, when you feel like you have learned all of the truth that Catholicism has to teach you, you split off into Protestantism. And move through various branches of Protestantism until you get all the truth from them, and so on, never truly committing to any one church. As Latter-day Saints, we like to say that we have more truth than all of the others and invite people to join us for the richest truth smorgasbord (when they are ready). I suppose that can work, but what do you do when, as @estradling75 pointed out, you reach the end of what the LDS church can teach (because there is even more truth beyond what it teaches to learn)? Does this fit into the OP's question? In some ways, it is interesting that this comes a day after our SS class discussed Moroni 6 and the reasons given for membership and participation in church -- nourished by the Word of God, keep them in the right way, relying on the merits of Christ, fast and pray, and so on (see Moroni 6). As I think about the OPs question, I find myself basically looking at my choices regarding these purposes. What are my best choices for being nourished by the word of God and encouraged in my desire to follow Christ? To stay in the LDS church? Find a different church (Protestant or Catholic or other)? Maybe I have reached a point of such high spiritual maturity that I don't need anyone else to provide these things for me -- I can do them all myself? For me, even if the Church is not as true as I want it to be, it still seems to me to be the best place for me to get the benefits of church mentioned by Moroni. Others may decide differently, and I don't know what to make of those decisions, but I trust God to be able to make the best of each person's situation and that Christ's atonement still will have power in their lives and eternity. (Sounds kind of universalistic, doesn't it?)

I don't know about indications, but, at some point I wonder about the implications to what it means to be a child of God created in His image. Based on what @askandanswer pointed out -- that some like Elder McConkie have taught that Christ's atonement here on this planet is sufficient for all of God's creations (children?) throughout the universe -- I assume that we would believe that other intelligent life is also created in God's image. If they are too different from us (both in physical form and in lifestyle), then I would wonder what that means to be created in God's image. If nothing else, and interesting thread to spark some challenges to these assumptions.

When it comes to the soft-serve machine dispensed stuff that you get in fast food joints, I strongly prefer vanilla over chocolate. When it comes to real ice cream -- probably a slight preference for vanilla over (plain) chocolate, but everything goes out the window when you start putting other stuff in there (rocky road or chocolate with fudge or cookie dough or... Another reason not to visit this forum -- it sends me off to indulge in one of my favorite vices. You couldn't have asked a safer question? Like "iceberg or romaine"?