MrShorty

I don't think that's quite right. In her OP, Backroads said:
 
 
The specific example was a husband cheating on his post-partum wife, but the larger question was about chasity in marriage and whether those who practice chastity have "a strong sense of self-control". I think tMormonGator's comments fit nicely into the discussion.
 
I also happen to agree with him, having seen personally and up close the result of an abusive, unfaithful wife leaving her husband, then making vile and false accusations so that his access to his daughters is curtailed. All too often such discussion (even on this list) dies with a handwave and a comment amounting to "Yeah, maybe that happens sometimes, what a pity, but let's get back to the meat of the discussion and how awful those cheating, abusive men are."

Important scriptures, to be sure; but I think we need to be really, really careful about the implications of these sorts of arguments.  When you parse things carefully, WW2-era German speech codes were not in and of themselves an "unlawful assault and encroachment" or "caus[ing] others immediate danger"--but no one would argue that Helmuth Hubener's excommunication was appropriate due to Hubener's having actually flouted a lawful government decree.
 
I'm not necessarily saying Davis is right; but I'm wondering where the contours of this argument actually lie.  And, yeah; so far it strikes me that it ultimately boils down to whether one agrees with the government policy being protested.
 
Oaks' statement strikes me as the beginnings of an institutional tactical retreat in the name of weathering the coming storm; rather than an ultimate decree of right versus wrong.

Hmmm. I don't agree with this part. I think that, in general, sex is vastly underrated. It is one of the truly transcendent things we can participate in, yet people talk about it and treat it as if it were a mere bodily function, like eating or sleeping or pooping.

I don't think it's fair to say that there's something inherently problematic about same sex attracted males being given charge over boys. After all, I'm sure there are plenty of righteous LDS same sex attracted men who teach and care for younger males. Homosexuality and pedophilia aren't the same thing.

Actually, I believe 6'1.5" is the "perfect" height.

Modesty in speech is certainly another laudable goal, as long as it is approached correctly. Interestingly, your post, especially your final statement
reminded me of one my pet peeves from BYU. 
I recall many "non-Utah Mormon" students at BYU who really liked to put down "Utah Mormons", including the way we spoke. One of the dumbest practices they would decry is the habit of some of my fellow Utah Mormons to pronounce words differently -- such as those who pronounce "root" so that it rhymes with "foot" instead of "boot". Others would belittle those whose language and speech made them sound like "some Utah hick". I am all for using language correctly and properly, but I can also see how this sometimes gets used to belittle and put down our fellow man.

I don't really know if I notice anymore or not, or maybe it just doesn't bother me like it used to.
 
One thing I frequently notice in the modesty discussion is an emphasis on "her clothes make me think ....". Are we really so afraid of what we might be thinking? Do we believe that every sexual thought we have is the equivalent of "lust" as described by the Savior? I do not believe so, and, therefore, I do not fear any consequence for random thoughts brought on by whatever the women at church (or school or work or the mall or whereever) are wearing or not wearing.
 
I have found it interesting how other cultures, such as some tribes in tropical regions or nudist communities, can go topless or otherwise naked or nearly naked, and they are not bothered by it. They have become so "desensitized" to the nudity that it does not overly influence their thoughts or behavior. Since I really cannot control what women I encounter might be wearing, my own approach to other's immodesty is to try to become desensitized to it -- to not let it bother me. If a sexual thought is triggered, so be it, I will move on from it.
 
To paraphrase a somewhat well known (in many sci-fi circles) litany:
 
[sexual thoughts are] the mind-killer.
[sexual thoughts are] the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my [sexual thoughts].
I will permit [them] to pass over me and through me.
And when [they have] gone past I will turn the inner eye to see [their] path.
Where the [sexual thoughts have] gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
 
Paraphrased from Frank Herbert's Dune.

Modesty in speech is certainly another laudable goal, as long as it is approached correctly. Interestingly, your post, especially your final statement
reminded me of one my pet peeves from BYU. 
I recall many "non-Utah Mormon" students at BYU who really liked to put down "Utah Mormons", including the way we spoke. One of the dumbest practices they would decry is the habit of some of my fellow Utah Mormons to pronounce words differently -- such as those who pronounce "root" so that it rhymes with "foot" instead of "boot". Others would belittle those whose language and speech made them sound like "some Utah hick". I am all for using language correctly and properly, but I can also see how this sometimes gets used to belittle and put down our fellow man.

Sometimes I wonder if a "small group" kind of setting would be better suited. Maybe not quite as informal as "a bunch of roommates in the kitchen making dinner and someone asks, 'what did you think of question 5 on that list?'", though I sometimes wonder why that wouldn't work. Maybe like a YSA FHE lesson. Take one of those questions and discuss it. Then, on another FHE, tackle a different question. Of course, One wouldn't want FHE to become one-dimensional, but I could see a small setting like that become a place for occasional discussions like you are talking about.
 
I think one of the advantages of a smaller, more intimate group, especially if you know each other, is that you may know of some people's "triggers" (someone who is a sexual abuse survivor, for example) and can adapt the discussion to be sensitive to those triggers.

It wasn't my own kid, but my toddler sister. I don't recall the details. I was 12-13ish and I was sent to take my sister out into the foyer -- might have been assigned to change her diaper, cannot recall for certain. She "escaped" and started running around the halls of the church bottomless. I was just plain mortified. As I recall, she thought it was great fun.

This is one of the more interesting essays I have seen written on prophetic fallibility from a faithful LDS perspective: http://www.patheos.com/Mormon/Living-with-Fallibility-James-E-Faulconer-11-21-2014
 
As I have seen it, whichever side of the "LDS leaders are always right/wrong" dichotomy, in some ways, I feel that anyone who takes either extreme is failing to really undertake the challenge of discernment. As I see it, prophets speak:
 
1) Eternal gospel truth.
2) Wise counsel that may be rooted in eternal truths but is not eternal nor universal truth.
3) Error born from the inevitable error of human judgement.
 
and any categories you want to put in between. I believe that God wants us each to really exercise our own discernment and not simply accept another's prounouncements. Thus, to borrow a concept from King Mosiah, we become responsible for our own sins and iniquities and righteousness and goodness.
 
One of the challenges is to make sure that anything we choose to be in error does not poison our view so that we cannot see the truths and wisdom that come from the same source. I think this is how this idea becomes the first step towards apostasy. But, I also believe that such discernment, when done correctly, does not need to lead down that road to apostasy.

It wasn't my own kid, but my toddler sister. I don't recall the details. I was 12-13ish and I was sent to take my sister out into the foyer -- might have been assigned to change her diaper, cannot recall for certain. She "escaped" and started running around the halls of the church bottomless. I was just plain mortified. As I recall, she thought it was great fun.

It wasn't my own kid, but my toddler sister. I don't recall the details. I was 12-13ish and I was sent to take my sister out into the foyer -- might have been assigned to change her diaper, cannot recall for certain. She "escaped" and started running around the halls of the church bottomless. I was just plain mortified. As I recall, she thought it was great fun.

It wasn't my own kid, but my toddler sister. I don't recall the details. I was 12-13ish and I was sent to take my sister out into the foyer -- might have been assigned to change her diaper, cannot recall for certain. She "escaped" and started running around the halls of the church bottomless. I was just plain mortified. As I recall, she thought it was great fun.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine
 
 
Taylor confused the doctrine of polygamy (as expressed by his father) with the practice of polygamy (Wilford Woodruff).  The doctrine is still in effect, the only change is how it is practiced.  And it cannot be practiced unless the one who  holds the key (the President of the Church) permits it.
 
His excommunication was not over polygamy but over the issue of who holds the keys
 
 
1. Get your facts straight.
2. "I really don't know what I am talking about."  No you don't.  You are just repeating rumors and gossip.
 
++++++++++++++++
Just an observation -->>
You are walking down a path which may lead you to a place where you do not want to go.  My personal attitude to this issue is that there are some things I do not understand, and it is ok to ask questions.  In some cases it will take many years to understand what is going on, as I get more knowledge, insight,  and spiritual maturity.

Some LDS seem to see General Authorities as infallible rather then men ordained of God. Yes, they are the Lord's anointed but they retain human frailties. A brief look at Church history supplies ample evidence of this.
 
What happened to the 3 witnesses of the Book of Mormon?.

 
Cowdery, Whitmer and Harris were all excommunicated
 
What happened to the 3 of the members of the 8 witnesses of the Book of Mormon?
 
Jacob Whitmer – excommunicated
John Whitmer – excommunicated
Hiram Page – excommunicated
 
Have any other General Authorities been Excommunicated?
 
Apostles in the Quorum of the Twelve
 
Thomas B. Marsh (1835-1839) - excommunicated
 
Orson Hyde (1835-1839; 1839-1878) was removed from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles by vote of the church between May 4 and June 27, 1839. However, Hyde retained his apostleship during this time.
 
William E. McLellin (1835-1838) - excommunicated
 
Luke S. Johnson (1835-1838) - excommunicated
 
William Smith (1835-1839; 1839-1845) - excommunicated
 
Orson Pratt (1835-1842; 1843-1881) - excommunicated
 
John F. Boynton (1835-1837) - excommunicated
 
Lyman E. Johnson (1835-1838) - excommunicated
 
John E. Page (1838-1846) - excommunicated
 
Lyman Wight (1841-1848) - excommunicated
 
Amasa M. Lyman (1842-1843; 1844-1867) - excommunicated
 
Albert Carrington (1870-1885) - excommunicated
 
Moses Thatcher (1879-1896) - dropped from the Quorum of the Twelve
 
John W. Taylor (1884-1905) - excommunicated
 
Matthias F. Cowley (1897-1905) - excommunicated
 
Richard R. Lyman (1918-1943) - excommunicated 
 
Two examples from the First Quorum of the Seventy
 
George Patrick Lee was a member of the church's First Quorum of Seventy from 1975 to 1989, when he was excommunicated from the church.
 
Paul H Dunn - was a member of the church's First Quorum of Seventy. It is clear that Dunn was not excommunicated from the church, though it is not known whether or not he was placed under some other form of church discipline, such as disfellowshipment or probation.
 
So what to make of all this?
 
"A living prophet is more important than a dead one." John W. Taylor (apostle from 1884-1905) was excommunicated because of Polygamy expressing the viewpoint that his father, the prophet John Taylor who prophesied plural marriage would not end and John W. Taylor further expressed that Wilford Woodruff's move to end polygamy was politically motivated. Right or wrong, John W. Taylor was removed. 
 
"Follow the prophet" is a phrase that comes to mind. Let's ask this question, when Brigham Young put forth the Adam God theology most of the Quorum of the 12 tactility, if not outright, gave their support - except Orson Pratt. Was Mormonism, according to Pratt’s argument, to become a religion primarily bound to scripture or would it continue to find its fundamental strength in the living oracles who led the church, the position espoused by Brigham Young? 
 
Brigham Young "won" in his day but after his death the Church swiftly reversed direction. So who was really right, Orson or Brigham? This is a conundrum for the Church.
 
Do I sustain my church leaders, yes I do. However, I don't believe in infallibility. Let the stoning begin.

So the stupid moon went away and came back, and the stupid world is still here.
 
Worst. Apocalypse.  Ever.

SALT LAKE CITY — 
(September 26, 2015) In response to several news media inquiries, the Church recently issued the following statement:  
The Church encourages our members to be spiritually and physically prepared for life's ups and downs. For many decades, Church leaders have counseled members that, where possible, they should gradually build a supply of food, water and financial resources to ensure they are self-reliant during disasters and the normal hardships that are part of life, including illness, injury or unemployment.
This teaching to be self-reliant has been accompanied by the counsel of Church leaders to avoid being caught up in extreme efforts to anticipate catastrophic events. 
The writings and speculations of individual Church members, some of which have gained currency recently, should be considered as personal accounts or positions that do not reflect Church doctrine.
(my emphasis)
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-about-preparedness

The philosophical term "materialism" was coined to describe a set of beliefs within the larger Christian (read: Catholic) tradition. LDS beliefs fall well outside of this worldview, such that terms like this aren't useful. It's like asking if a Catholic is Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform.
 
Longer explanation of the above:
 
Joseph Smith taught that we are all spirit, the tabernacle of our intelligence, and that spirit and body together comprise a "soul". So we believe that spirit and body are separable entities, which would seem to argue against materialism. On the other hand, Joseph Smith taught that there is "no such thing as immaterial matter", and that spirit is composed of a type of matter that is "more fine or pure" than that of which our bodies are made. But it is "all matter". (See D&C 131:7-8) Ergo, materialism. But neither explanation really fits the traditional (Roman Catholic, or more precisely, neo-Platonic) idea of spirit as some sort of immaterial essence wholly separate from the filthy, polluted physical world. We do not think in such Hellenistic dichotomies. The term simply does not make sense as applied to the Mormon worldview.

There are many way to interpret scripture.  That there could have been soiled offspring and intermingling of genetics of decedents of Adam and Eve with other creatures is not an interpretation hardly considered much within the religious community.  The arguments against such interpretations appear to me to be mostly emotional. 
 
I personally am inclined to believe that despite modern revelation and ancient scripture - we really do not know very much.  And when empirical evidence seem to indicate how little we really know - many see truth as their enemy and not their long lost friend.

JS and Sister Bednar may have stewardship over young women.   The OP does not and it is NEVER up to somone else to avoid doing things that you find problematic.  It is soooo very easy for people to make everything someone else's problem when we have to accept that God didn't put us here to fail.  He expects us to be in charge of ourselves even if every beach in our country is a nude beach, and even if people wear clothes that make it harder for us to look into their eyes.   It is up to all of us to control ourselves.  Any conversation or discussion about others clothing or actions being responsible for our challenges is just plain wrong.
 
I hate what we do in the church when we speak to and about how young women and women dress.   It is so sexist and so uncalled for.  And, frankly, so none of anyone's business but them, their parents, and the Lord.

I figure that at the judgement bar I will be responsible for my own thoughts, actions, and deeds.  If I have impure thoughts after looking at the laurel class president because she is young, cute, and nubile then that is my issue...not hers.  Likewise, if I start lusting after the EQ president's wife then that is a problem I need to address.  It shouldn't matter if she attends her meetings in a bikini or in a burqa it doesn't make my thought process any more right or wrong, nor does it offer me any kind of an excuse.  
 
My thoughts and actions are my responsibility alone.  Hence, I tend to think that learning respect and to control ones thoughts is considerably more important than what one wears.  Since after all the Lord looks on the heart (and mind) and not the outward appearance.  But then a lot of people in our ward and stake seem to really like creating all kinds of rules, laws, and policies...you know kinda like a lot of people in the early church, so I am definitely in the minority :)

cdowis: If I had to guess, that sounds like something that Joseph Fielding Smith would have said. See if this sounds like the quote you are thinking of: http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1193318-seek-ye-earnestly
 
As I noted very early in this discussion, JFS and BRM and several others have offered, as their personal opinions and interpretations of scripture, that "first flesh" means something like you describe. As near as I can tell, since this is their personal opinion on how to interpret the scripture, we should not claim that it is the "only" valid interpretation of the scripture, but maybe should allow each of us to interpret the scripture in our own way, until "the Church" decides to officially declare the correct interpretation of the scripture.

When I was young (and arguably less mature in the Gospel), I would worry quite a bit. I think the worrying started to turn around after reading articles like Stephen Robinson's "Believing Christ" https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/04/believing-christ?lang=eng As I studied and better understood the atonement and grace and faith and repentance, I became less worried.
 
I do not think I will ever reach the point of "assurance of salvation" that I see and hear many Evangelical's talk about. I sometimes wonder if the more antinomian among them make it easier to interpret the "sola fide" theology as one where one can pray a sinner's prayer and never worry again. Since I do not believe in "sola fide" -- especially when it comes out as being very antinomian -- I find that there is always "some" worry. Such as, "what if I change my mind about this whole religion thing" in the future?" All I can do is my best in the here and now to demonstrate faith, practice repentance, exercise obedience, and continue learning and growing in the Gospel -- trying to immunize myself against future trials of my character.

Those of us who think calculus is great fun know our place in the hierarchy.