MrShorty

It has been interesting to me how many scouters I come across who are looking forward to no more youth protection training when the Church separates from BSA. I expect that most of this excitement is that we will no longer need to deal with the "bureaucratic red tape" aspect of YPT (2 of the 3 times I took the BSA's YPT, my electronic certificate got lost somewhere and did not find its way to the local council). If the Church decides to implement something similar -- for all youth groups (YM, YW, Primary, SS, Activity Days), I expect it will be just as much of a "bureaucratic red tape" nightmare as the BSA's system (Call me an apostate, but it does not seem to me that the Church does bureaucracy or computer programming any better than other organizations). In spite of the bureaucratic downsides, I kind of hope the Church does something along these lines.

How does one find God? Whoever looks will find. One can look in the Torah, the New Testament, the Quran, and even the Book of Mormon, and find God promising He will reveal Himself to anyone who seeks Him. It is not so easy, though. We want, so very much, to make our own way—apart from any higher power. You hear this desire all the time. When one says, “God judges the heart,” s/he really means they want to be left to their own devices. Even in churches we hear, “The rules can’t save you—only the Rule Giver.” Well, sure. However, if the Rule Giver saves me will He not give me rules?


 
We fail to trust in God because we want so much to trust in ourselves. What folly! Mao and his communist party tried to create a new socialist man and saw 50 million Chinese starve. He considered these deaths acceptable collateral damage. Godless nobility gives death.  


 
Another dangerous road away from God is the search for the good within. China, the Soviet Union and North Korea, in their quest for godless goodness incarcerated people of faith. Stalin’s Russia even used psychiatric hospitals to try to cure Christians of their apparent mental disorders.


 
Inside the church, there are voices suggesting that doctrine—teaching—is not important.

A growing church in Los Angeles became famous for helping the poor and for being interracial in the 1970s. Even city government sought out its church leaders, due to their positive works. Yet, behind the church doors the pastor was engaging in fake healings, teaching that humans could be gods, and he was allowing church beatings in the name of discipline. The church was the People’s Temple, and the pastor was Jim Jones. By 1979 the church relocated to Guyana, and over 900 members lie dead, from mass suicide.


 
We must return to our faith in the one good God. In creation God sees his goodness repeatedly. After the great flood wipes out wickedness, God’s man, Noah, declares God’s goodness by building an altar to him. God’s nation, Israel, often declared en masse that he is good and loving. Jesus’ resurrection showed God’s goodness. Paul says that without resurrection we are pathetic, but with it we are most blessed! Finally, even the opponents of God will ultimately declare God’s goodness. The Bible says every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.


 
God is good—but all the time? Every week I join female prisoners in worship. They flock to Christian chapel. Statistics suggest that 90% of them have been sexually molested. Nevertheless, they come, declaring that life may be hard, but God will get them through. So many who faced bad times, but continued to declare God’s goodness!


 
Despite testimonies to God’s goodness, we gravitate towards our own efforts. Sadly, even when we find the right answers, we usually cannot carry them out. Consider that Unicor, also known as Federal Prison Industries, has a tremendous record for successfully rehabilitating prisoners, so they can return to society and get legal, productive jobs. Nevertheless, the program flounders because local factories want the jobs that Unicor does. So, we know a program that works well, but we do not have the political will to enact it on a large scale.


 
We cannot solve our own problems. Good intentions are not enough. What can we do? We must have right belief: That God is good; that God is one; that Jesus is our only way to the Father; that any good we do must be grounded in God; and that God is love. Is it really that simple? Sure! However, to know Jesus is to love Him. To love Jesus is to serve Him.

 

Will you give up your independent efforts at goodness? Will you trust God to lead you in His way of righteousness?


 
To see a video presentation of this message visit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx5S904diRI

 



 
 
 
 

Yes. When Elder Bednar (Apr. 2014) opines that Elder Talmage's claim that Apr 6 BC 1 is Christ's birth date known by revelation, I feel little obligation to agree with Elder Bednar that it is revelation. However, if the same assertion were to go through the process of canonization (joint, unanimous statement by the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve then submitted to the Church and sustained by the membership of the Church), I would feel more obligated to accept the assertion as revealed truth. It's only one example, that does not carry the same emotional baggage that many other examples carry.

Yes. When Elder Bednar (Apr. 2014) opines that Elder Talmage's claim that Apr 6 BC 1 is Christ's birth date known by revelation, I feel little obligation to agree with Elder Bednar that it is revelation. However, if the same assertion were to go through the process of canonization (joint, unanimous statement by the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve then submitted to the Church and sustained by the membership of the Church), I would feel more obligated to accept the assertion as revealed truth. It's only one example, that does not carry the same emotional baggage that many other examples carry.

In my opinion...
Actually...yes.
Difference...
for example....
Blacks not being allowed to hold the Priesthood = actually Talked as Doctrine in several Conference talks in Church History and by Proclamation in 1949...
Vs.
All worthy males are allowed to hold the Priesthood and perform the ordinances thereof = Official Declaration 2 = Found in the Doctrine & Covenants
Aka...Official Declaration 2 found in D&C trumps any proclamations made previously and absolutely trumps Conference Talks.

The first session will start with prayer and the last session will end with prayer.  Whether any other prayers will be said in between, I'm not going to guess.  There will be singing, talks, and some sustaining.  Something will be announced.  No fewer than 5 people will take notes with fountain pens.

So I just saw an argument by someone who is against vaccines.  It went something like this (paraphrased):
You're a hypocrite if you judge people who don't vaccinate, but then turn around and feed your kids the kind of garbage that puts them on a path to Diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.
And that struck me as a good point, because if you're okay with using Government to force people to vaccinate their kids on the grounds that it's protecting the children, then you have a very weak case against the Government also telling you how to feed your own.

Can I say "My ex wife?"
In seriousness, I agree with @mikbone.  The genius of Pacino's portrayal of Satan in Devil's Advocate is laid out when he points out that at every turn, he openly, verbally recommended the proper course of action to the protagonist while at the same time setting out lures to keep him following the desired path.  That way, in the end, he could say "Hey, I didn't force you to do anything."  And he is correct.  The protagonist was in full control of his own agency the entire time, and thus bears the responsibility for all the tragedy and heartache that ensued.  
I think that's spot on.  It's a fantastic example of the paving of the road to Hell.  We all have our Achilles' Heel when it comes to temptation, and all Satan has to do is toss out opportunities for temptation.  He doesn't do anything by force.  He can't, or even if he could it wouldn't be a win for him.  If he forces us to do bad things, then we don't bear the responsibility... we were forced.  That's not sin, that's being a victim.  In order for us to sin, in order for us to do what he'd want us to do, we have to choose it for ourselves.  Then we're being disobedient to God, because we used our agency to distance ourselves from him.

Who is my Satan?
<----------------------------- This guy.

I have been thinking in recent months that this might be one of the challenges we as members of the body of Christ are going to face in the near future -- how to make members with vastly different opinions feel "comfortable" so that they will stay engaged with the body. On another of Heather's recent essays, I commented and asked if we thought (as an example) if Joseph Fielding Smith and Stephen Peck could sit comfortably together in the same class discussing Genesis. I don't know. I'd like to think it is possible to share pews with those who disagree with me (and I know they disagree with me), but it is not always easy. It sometimes seems to me that the natural course would be for us to segregate. "Conservative Mormons -- Lo here" and "Liberal Mormons -- Lo there" and "Mormons who dislike green jello elsewhere" and so on.
Until we come to a unity of faith, I wonder if part of our challenge is how to keep the wheat and the tares together until the final harvest, because we still cannot tell which is which. How should we deal with all of our differences of opinions and beliefs and such so that we can all feel like a part of the body of Christ? What opinions and beliefs should legitimately make one feel outside of the body of Christ?

I'm enjoying the JAG-TFP exchange, and find myself agreeing with both. I hope that does not make me lukewarm and spew-out-of-God's-mouthable.

1.  That’s because at this point in our history Kimball is more of a cultural punchline than anything.  I recently finished a brief biography of Kimball, though; and his contemporaries in the Church seem to have found him very effective.  
2.  It’s interesting that you bring up the Pharisees; because as you well know, they sure has a problem with Jesus consorting with sinners and dining with gentiles.  The Pharisees considered Him to be altogether too “relatable” to a category of people they themselves had concluded (through hard experience, I daresay) were irredeemable. 
You speak of “sin”, but at what point do we cross over from “sinful” to merely “unwise” or “counterproductive”?  And how do we even define “counterproductive”?  The missions of Ammon & Co triggered a political crisis that led to the most severe war up to that time between the Nephite and Lamanites that in all likelihood killed, enslaved, and/or raped more people than were converted.  Yet God counted the missionaries’ actions for righteousness, because He knew their hearts.
If your argument is “I know anti-Mormonism when I see it, and Heather’s article is anti, ergo the forum she founded must have drifted into anti-Mormonism and I am morally bound to leave”—I respect that, and there’s not a lot I can do to counter it. But as for me, I’m not sure the theological or attitudinal Rubicon has been crossed just yet—though we’re certainly closer to the frontiers than I would like to be. 

For those of you who feel they may not belong here on these forums, please, please, be aware that you may be a tool in the Lord’s hand in helping those who come here with their questions. You are wonderful! I know you have helped people to come closer to Christ. Some may not be on the same spiritual rung of the ladder as you. There are those who are struggling. I appreciate every one of you who are so stalwart in defending the gospel. Thank you! Thank you!!! You are needed! You are appreciated!

We are suppose to follow the leaders because we have a spiritual witness that they are God's chosen.  Sadly too many neglect that witness.  If we follow because we like and agree with them then we will falter when they tell us things we do not like (which will happen).
We also recognize that God's chosen are also flawed humans like everyone else so we do not take every act and every word they utter as God breathed or expect God to be puppeting their every action.  Rather we consider what they say and do in their official capacity.  Even then we acknowledge that they are a flawed delivery system and therefore we should focus on what God is trying to tell us through them, rather then getting hung-up because they did not express themselves the way we would have wished.

FWIW:  the modern practice, of course, is to 1) confer the priesthood and 2) ordain to a particular priesthood office, but as I understand it this procedure came largely due to the influence of JFS I/JFS II/BRM.  The prevailing ordination practice through most of the 19th century did not include 1).
I’m not sure what significance that has in this context, but it seemed noteworthy.  

I did want to see what it felt like to be President Oaks and have your words over sensationalized. I think this happens to him more than probably any church leader, and I wish that it didn't. Even when he has a very progressive and inclusive message, like this one, he is taken completely out of context and hammered by the critics. I knew my words would not be popular with this group. I even called it out in the second paragraph. It wasn't worded for you. It was the thing I debated back and forth all day. I did not want to upset the faithful members of the Church, but I still wanted to reach those who are much further away. In the end, I landed with it's better to be raw and vulnerable and take the criticism in order to be real, in a hope that it would reach those who are struggling.

Despite the leadership constantly telling us that they are not perfect, that they do make mistakes, that they do not always speak for God, somehow the membership continues to insist that they are perfect. That their opinions are God's opinion. That when they speak, they say everything that God would have them say. We continually rob them of their humanity.  When the leaders tell me that they're human, I believe them. And so am I. When I open myself up, I will do so honestly. Despite statists showing that a larger percentage of the membership does not align on everything from the leadership, it's terrifying to hear someone admit that they don't always agree. Terrifying to some, and relatable to others. It's can be scary to realize that not even the Apostles agree with each other all the time. 

No, I do not have to be a fan of everything President Oaks says in order to sustain him. I can agree with things he says, and there have been sometimes I have a hard time with how he says it. That's on me to seek my own personal revelation. I don't like to see people hurting because they want to belong in the Church, but they feel that they are not welcome. Maybe that doesn't bother everyone, but it's a difficult thing for me. I struggle seeing the heartache people experience because their loved ones do not share their faith and beliefs, and how that can divide a family. And here Pres Oaks was fighting to heal that divide and most will never realize what his real message was. 

I've been thinking about it, and I really don't think pornography played much of a role.  
Yes, I know he said it did.  Bundy was also a serial liar.
No, I'm not defending pornography.  Just trying to keep a perspective.
Ted Bundy came up in a time when porn existed in the form of magazines and stag films.  The maximum amount of porn a person could consume in a month in the '60s is a tiny fraction of what one can get access too in a day, now, and it's more explicit, more graphic, more violent and more extreme than anything from back then.  If Ted Bundy was nudged toward serial murder by porn, then we're all in very serious trouble.
Bundy was not just a serial killer, he was a serial liar.  Know the easiest lies to tell?  The ones people already want to believe.  He sure wasn't going to admit to being evil.  Scapegoats are a fun way to minimize personal responsibility, and this is one people love to hear.

I’m not part of the President Oaks fan club. I have seen more than one social post over the years that is full of anger and hurt with a finger pointed at him. There have been things he has said that I don’t agree with. More than one quote from President Oaks has triggered the forgiving voice of Elder Uchtdorf to play in my mind, “They are also painfully imperfect. They make mistakes. From time to time they say things they shouldn’t. They do things they wish they hadn’t.” Despite my nature to hold these leaders to a perfect standard, Elder Holland humbly reminds me that there is only one “who has never been clumsy or inadequate but who loves all of us who are.” I understand this is not a popular opinion to have in the midst of faithful believers. Even including quotes by our leaders admitting their fallibility does not make the phrase “I don’t always agree,” any easier to swallow. I’m asking you to allow me...
View the full article

I understand that A&A asks this question at least partially tongue-in-cheek, but I assume there's a real question there, too. I think it's a great question, because it points up the difference between our limited mortal understanding of time and the duration and importance of events vs. an eternal perspective.
From a strictly time-bound POV, it's clear that any suffering over any finite period of time is insignificant in comparison with the infinite duration of eternity. In this view, any suffering for sin at all is ignorable, because hey, we live forever. Strange, then, that the scriptures warn us constantly of the wages of sin.
I think Section 19 is applicable in this discussion. Here, the Lord tells us that he uses descriptors that may be misunderstood by us, and that he does so "that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory." So "Endless punishment" is of finite duration; "Endless" is the Being inflicting the punishment, so that it serves as a description on the quality of the punishment, not the duration.
What we're missing here is any real notion of what constitutes the "quality" of a punishment or affliction. Alma the Wicked Younger told of his own excruciating punishment, the deathly wages of his own sins, which he himself called "eternal torment". That it ended after so brief a time—for what are three days in the course of eternity?—is not the point, and ultimately of no moment. It got the job done.
The punishment itself is not of endless duration, but I would argue that the consequences of that punishment might well be. As for the suffering-to-sin rate, I deeply believe that's a misguided way of thinking about things, even though it's how pretty much all of us consider it. Even if it were an appropriate way of approaching the issue, it's something that we can't answer. In the end, it isn't even relevant, because Christ "pays the price" that must be paid, and we get off scot free.

I feel to defend Rob -- at least a little bit. Considering how many mistakes that I think Joseph Fielding Smith made, I don't want to fault Rob for choosing to believe that Elder/President Smith made mistakes. I kind of see an irony -- since the things I think JFS got wrong (his young earth creationism) are things that Rob seems to think he got right. IMO, the hard part in this is not deciding if apostles and prophets can have made doctrinal mistakes. The hard part is deciding that they have made these kinds of doctrinal errors, but still retaining belief that they are prophets and apostles.

😫😩😖😢😡🤬🤯🥶😱

What you miss out on when you don’t live in a snow drift
https://sports.yahoo.com/hockey-game-breaks-massive-pileup-quebec-highway-025536297.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/us/casey-hathaway-bear-claims/index.html
https://www.distractify.com/trending/2019/01/31/Y29CMBFt_/snow-bear-belly-button?utm_source=dfy&utm_medium=fb
https://www.archynewsy.com/12-14-the-mystery-of-the-belly-of-the-bear-drawn-in-the-snow/
 
 

Just finished my nightly reading from The Lord of the Rings to my twelve-year-old. We started The Hobbit early last month, and today we read Chapter 8 of The Fellowship. It's the chapter where the hobbits are taken by the barrow wight and saved by Tom Bombadil.
When I first read these books back around 1980, I remember skimming over the Tom Bombadil stuff. Kind of boring, or so I thought. When I read them again much later, to my older sons when they were still young (maybe 15 or so years ago), I enjoyed Tom a lot more. But on this reading, I remember so little that it's almost like I haven't read these before at all. And I'm enjoying Tom Bombadil a great deal more than ever before.
Here's the thing: My twelve-year-old loved it. He got really excited when Tom came to cast out the barrow-wight, literally jumping up and down, smiling and laughing in excitement. When I finished, he said, "That's my favorite chapter!" High praise indeed.
In the Vort household, Tom Bombadil is officially Awesome.

Nibley suggested that Mulek was a wee baby and that Jeremiah led their group out of Jerusalem to Egypt.